Evolution - is it even possible?
No it isn't; it never happened and that's why you will
never find any evidence for it.
Let's define evolution before we go any further. I have
chosen a definition by a scientist who is highly regarded in his own field, that
of microbiology, where evidence for evolution (if it ever happened; which it
didn't) ought to be plentiful.
In his ground-breaking book "Darwin's Black Box" (The
Free Press 1996; ISBN 0-684-82754-9) he says...
"Evolution means a process whereby life arose from
non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. This is
the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning which it holds in the
For such evolution... there is no evidence... because it
But... what's all this "evidence" I am seeing on
the "Evolution" series on TV?
What you are seeing is propaganda on a level with Stalin or
Hitler (both of whom were evolutionists, incidentally!) or Karl Marx (who wanted
to dedicate his first book to Charles Darwin). All of them used the idea of "The
Survival of the Fittest".
Millions of people have died because of this fundamentally
stupid idea. I am constantly amazed that in an educated society so few
people can see that "if something survives; it must be the best" is complete
The truth is that if something survives; it survives.
Many of the world's greatest hopes were killed in the war.
Were they somehow "not as good as" those who survived?
"The survival of the fittest", is not true... a closer
truth would be, "the survival of the luckiest".
Who of us has not seen a brilliant young life snuffed out in
an accident or a genius unable to have children? Give me a break! The "survival
of the fittest" is a stupid idea that people should have seen through years
ago. It's a lie; let's admit we were wrong to believe it... and move on.
The idea of evolution is propaganda because evolution never
happened (it's scientifically impossible; there is no mechanism to increase
information on DNA) and because evolution never happened; any evidence
for it is either invented... or else it is evidence for something else which has
been presented as evidence for evolution.
Evolutionists are without excuse in these days of advanced
science. They are either uneducated as to the facts and their interpretation or
they are deliberately being dishonest for purposes of their own.
For example; Richard Dawkins, Professor of Public
Understanding of Science at Oxford University uses evolution as a means of
preaching his religion of atheism; many other atheists do the same... it IS a
religion (their "god" is "godlessness").
There are high priests (professors et al) priests (teachers)
acolytes (those learning the rituals) and the rituals themselves, which consist
of attacking Truth (they will try to tell you there is no such thing as "absolute
truth") and trying to confuse the general public with complicated science when
the issues are really very simple.
So, how has a religion been dressed up as "science" so
By programmes like "Evolution"!
Want to know how they do it?
They repeat the same old "evidence" that has been known
to be untrue since the 1920s (this is fundamentally dishonest; why mince
words?), they are:
Archaeopteryx (liskolintu)... they know that fossils
of real birds have been found in the Jurassic rocks where Archaeopteryx
has been found. No-one is asking their teachers the right question, "Excuse
me, Sir, how can I be my own grandfather?"
If birds are descended from archaeopteryx (and "they"
will tell you therefore "birds are descended from dinosaurs") then they
can't be in the same rocks; can they? If they're in the same rocks...
then they're the same age; aren't they?
What about the so-called "evolution" of the horse? Surely
that is true?
Er... no it isn't ! Let's look at that in some detail as
it is quoted so often. Firstly the so-called "oldest horse" isn't a horse
at all! Its original Latin name of "eohippus" (which means "dawn horse")
has had to be changed to "Hyracotherium" because it has living relatives
The living relative is well-known to residents of South
America; it's called a hyrax and is a kind of rock badger ....Oops! So the "oldest
horse" isn't a horse at all.
What about the others in the "evolutionary tree"? Well,
there are horses with three "toes", two toes and one toe (a hoof) like
farmyard horses today.
But there is a problem for so-called "evolution"...
there are horses with two and even three toes alive today. Nannipus, the
miniature horse we have today, is clearly the same animal as the "ancient
ancestor" Merychippus. Oops!
There are some other problems too. When evolutionists "sell"
their idea, they are dishonest, because they don't tell us the whole truth.
Want the facts?
They usually quote four "ancestors" of the modern horse
and these so-called ancestors can't be ancestors because of the bits of
the horse they don't tell you about!
We only read about the "toes".
Eohippus (hyracotherium; the badger) has 18 ribs .
Orohippus had 15 (!!)
Pliohippus had 19 ribs and Equus (the horse) has 18 ribs.
Oops! It looks like these animals aren't related at all!
They just have similar-looking skulls and some evolutionary propagandist has put
them into a sequence and decided one is "descended" from the other.
Actually it's quite easy to see how they put them in order;
they just said that the big animals were "more developed" than the smaller
There is another thing I should point out. The
palaeontologist, Joseph Taylor, has pointed out that he has excavated the
partial leg bones of Equus Scotii (Scott's Zebra, a modern horse) at a level below
the three-toed horses (Oops! "How can I be older than my grandfather",
So what about geology then? Surely the older something
is, the deeper it is found in the rocks? Evolutionists have been "economical
with the truth" for too long. It's time the public know the facts so that
they can decide for themselves if they are descended (surely that should read
Not exactly! If rocks are laid down slowly and from the top
down (as if they were in still water and sand fell on top of animals which had
sunk to the bottom) then the theory works... but there is a huge problem.
When you try to reproduce the theory of geology in a
laboratory; it doesn't work! Evolutionists will scream "what about the
millions of years? You can't do that in a laboratory" (and they'd
be right) but the method of deposition should work... and it doesn't.
What scientists have found is that fossils can be
formed in a laboratory.
Very quickly and with heat and pressure only...time
is irrelevant! Coal has been made in the lab in ten weeks and there is a project
in the USA to make waste organic material into coal commercially using
heat, clay, water and pressure. No need for millions of years.
But the millions of years are so important for the
evolutionist; without the millions of years, evolution doesn't have time to
Are there any other "classic examples of evolution" that
are used to bamboozle the public?
Yes... "Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are evidence for
evolution," they cry.
Poppycock, molluscs and bollards!
What are antibiotic-resistant bacteria evidence for?... Adaptation.
Not evolution at all... the people who claim that
these antibiotic-resistant bacteria are evidence for evolution are using an old
trick and it's time they were exposed.
They are guilty of sophistry ("using clever
arguments that sound convincing but are false", according to my dictionary)
and of equivocation which means using one word to mean two different
Well; every time someone tells you, "We have evidence for
evolution," ask yourself three questions and you will quickly catch out the
liar and the cheat (sophist and equivocator if you prefer the longer words)
- What WAS it ?...a bacterium
- What IS it ?... a bacterium
- What is it TURNING INTO?... a bacterium.
That's adaptation; not evolution... it hasn't turned
into anything else!
If you really want to annoy evilutionists (oops!) try
this exercise. Tell them that you have a theory that smaller, older models of
motor-car "evolve into" larger more modern ones.
Take 100 cars and line them up; old and small on the left and
new and large on the right, and then say, "there's my proof that they
Hopefully they'll laugh! (They possibly won't; they may
be too dim to spot the trick) But that is exactly what they do with
fossils. Did you know that?
Ask almost any child to line things up and they will be happy for ages
swapping them around and putting things into some kind of an order.
Paleontologists (that's a fancy name for "fossil experts")
spend ages arranging and rearranging fossils in different orders. (The fact that
it seems as though no two paleontologists can agree on what order is the right
one should tell you something.)
So they decide that a certain feature is "more primitive"
than another and shove that fossil back in time. "Oi Harry; this one's got a
haptathleon and the other one's got a sestathelon, six is smaller than seven
so it must be more primitive", is the kind of conversation one hears in fossil
But they have a problem... You and I know that the world
is only a few thousand years old, (we'll discuss the evidence for that
statement in a future article) and that everything was created "as is" in a
short period, and that things have been getting worse ever since (at least, that's
what the Bible says; it's what the Laws of Thermodynamics say, and I fear God
too much to disagree with His Word, and who would dare challenge one of
the basic Laws of Science without very good evidence?)
So, everything's pretty much the same age. If things look
similar it's probably because they are similar and they have the same
The millions of years that evolutionists need for their
crackpot theory to hold up... never happened! End of crackpot theory! Just
because lots of people believe it doesn't mean it's right.
Lots of people thought Adolf Hitler was a nice chap because
he liked dogs (he probably did; it was human beings he had a problem with) but
did that make the majority right? No!
If most people believe things; does that mean that they are
Most people believe the ozone hole over Finland in the winter
is "proof" of people releasing gases into the atmosphere. Pity no-one has
told them that sunlight plus atmosphere equals ozone production and over Finland
in winter there's no sunlight for several months... so there's no ozone!
Whoops! Looks like we've blown a hole in the ozone hole
theory as well.
What about global warming and the Antarctic ice masses
melting? What about it? Here's a question to ask your geography teacher or the
local TV pundit next time they waffle on about rising temperatures in the
"What is the average temperature in the Antarctic Continent
in the Antarctic summer (lots of ozone then; it's daylight for three
months, incidentally!) Well?
Answer "minus 20 and with the wind-chill factor it drops to
The average temperature of the globe may have risen by
as much as one degree in the last 100 years... Let's see now; minus 50
plus one degree equals minus 49; does ice melt at minus 49? "Not a lot."
Does ice melt at minus 20 plus one? "Not a lot." Is
someone pulling a fast one? Are we being taken for a ride ? Anyway... is
there any evidence that this rise in temperature isn't normal and cyclical?
After all; we aren't in the middle of an ice age; are we?
Yet there is evidence of there having been an ice age in the past few thousand
years; did the ice melt? Oooooooh! Perhaps the weather has been getting
warmer for a few thousand years? There are tropical plant fossils under the
Antarctic ice cap; perhaps it was warm there once?
What would make the Antarctic warm? A gigantic greenhouse
effect? What could cause that? A layer of water vapour around the Earth?
Does anyone have any idea where that idea might have come from?
Genesis?... surely that's all fables and prehistoric folk
memory grossly distorted over millions of years?
Perhaps NOT! If there was a "firmament to divide the waters
above from the waters beneath" it would cause a uniform temperature all
over the globe... wouldn't it? And if it were ionised and transparent you could
see the stars which were put there for "signs and seasons" couldn't
Yes you could!
But if there was a uniform temperature all over the globe
then there would be tropical plant and animal fossils all over the world wouldn't
there? Sure! We talked about the Antarctic just now but there are also tropical
plant fossils in Spitzbergen; the nearest land to the North Pole.
What about the elephants frozen in the middle of their lunch
in Siberia? I live in Finland and I've never seen an elephant in the wild
here! I see them when I'm working in India... but elephants like the warm so
does the rhinoceros... yet frozen rhinos are found in Siberia too.
So, the evidence points to a warm period followed by
an ice age followed by a warm period again. So why's everyone panicking? Of
course we should stop butchering our forests. Forests provide oxygen for people
and animals to breathe.
(Finns, incidentally, plant 1.12 trees for every tree they
cut down; at this rate there'll be no room for people here in 250,000 years
time!) God gave mankind a mandate to "husband" the land and to use it
wisely. Not to decimate it for profit.
What about "greenhouse gasses"? Yes; this may not be a
"con"; there are higher concentrations of CO2 and other
exhaust and industrial gasses in the atmosphere and they may be
contributing to small increases in temperature... Mind you, we've just had a
winter with minus 34 degree temperatures and global warming isn't having much
effect on our heating bills!
This has also been the driest winter on record in Finland;
which implies cold and not rising temperatures. When the temperature
rises; it snows!
But let's look at what we are not told as well. The
lack of forests to generate oxygen is certainly doing the planet no good... but
we have to remember that CO2 is absorbed by the sea and we
aren't chopping down the sea for firewood and furniture!
Atmospheric pollution is not a good thing and when you
look at satellite photos of big cities you can sometimes see the smog and filth
in the atmosphere. This is a problem as particles in the atmosphere absorb heat
from the sun and increase temperatures locally... but don't forget that
a piddling little volcano like Mount St-Helens which erupted in 1980 blanketed
three states with a cloud of ash and dust for weeks and yet all that ash
and dust eventually settled onto the earth and the atmosphere was clean after a
There have been massive eruptions in the past (like
Karakatoa which gave the world amazing sunsets for four years in the 1880s) but
that eventually settled out of the atmosphere too... This world apparently has a
built-in mechanism, or mechanisms, for cleaning itself up and starting again
(just as if it was designed to do so!) ... ever noticed the dire warnings
whenever there is an industrial spill or Saddam Hussein sets fire to oil wells
"end of the world soon; sun hidden for years, same as a nuclear winter".
Remember the dire warnings about oils spills from the Torrey
Canyon, Exxon Valdez and the recent "ecological disaster" off the coast of
Spain? Have a look at what happened after the oil spill in the Shetlands... two
years later "nature" had sorted it out. Kuwait's oil fields? When did you
last hear about them?
Doom, gloom and despondency seem to be popular these days,
but don't get caught up in it... ask yourself "what happened last time
something like this happened?"
We have to remember that the human being has been around for
only a few thousand years (not "once upon a time millions of years ago") and
that in that time mankind has adapted to all sorts of changes in the
environment. The Ice Age and tropical heat, damp and dry, he has lived the
country and in cities (Cain built a city! Not much "hunting and gathering"
there!) he has spread from Babel to Antarctica, The North Pole to the Nimbi
desert and from Mount Everest to Ethiopia; mankind is adaptable. There are
places he can't live for very long; but he has been all over the globe.
Mankind hasn't "evolved" from green pond-scum; he was
designed to live on this planet and remember what The Bible tells us in Isaiah 45:18:
"For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God
himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it
not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited; I am The Lord and there is
He made the earth to be inhabited. It doesn't say that
about any other place he created... He made the earth for you and for me
to live in.
The God who created you and me; who created this world
for mankind to live in; that God wants to know you personally. He
gave His one and only Son to die so that you don't need to suffer for
your sins (we've all sinned; right?)
He has done it; all you have to do is to reach out
and thank Him and get to know Him. To do so; click here, and it will
tell you what to do next.
God bless you!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.