Scientific Dissent from Darwinism

Darwinism Discredited By Real Scientists
Phyllis Spivey January 27, 2006 NewsWithViews.com

"All major scientists support evolution." This is the Darwinist's response of choice to anyone who dares question the notion that matter, time, and chance – not God – have brought all things into existence. Darwinists assert there is neither scientific support nor intellectual basis for the Biblical account of creation.

That Darwin diehards continue to promulgate this deception characterizes the dishonesty of their entire debate. Scott M. Huse exposes this and other evolutionary fallacies in his fine book, The Collapse of Evolution, in which he presents scientific evidence for biblical creationism and shows why the theory of evolution and the scriptures are irreconcilable. Written in plain language, documented with 39 pages of endnotes, appendices, and bibliography, the book is an invaluable resource for anyone seeking the truth – including Christians.

Too many Christians, when confronted with the argument that real scientists support Darwin's conclusions, throw in the towel for lack of knowledge. Huse's list of pioneering, Bible-believing scientists comes to their aid. It's comprehensive, historically reliable, and demands wide distribution.

Joseph Lister, Antiseptic Surgery
Louis Pasteur, Bacteriology
Sir Isaac Newton, Dynamics (discovered the laws of gravity, mathematics, co-discovered calculus)
Johann Kepler, Celestial Mechanics, Physical Astronomy
Robert Boyle, Chemistry
Georges Cuvier, Comparative Anatomy, Vertebrate Palentology
Charles Babbage, Computer Science
James Clerk Maxwell, Electrodynamics, Statistical Thermodynamics
Michael Faraday, Electromagnetics, Field Theory
Ambrose Fleming, Electronics
Lord William Kelvin, Energetics, Thermodynamics
Henri Fabre, Entomology
George Stokes, Fluid Mechanics
William Herschel, Galactic Astronomy
Robert Boyle, Gas Dynamics
Gregor Mendel, Genetics
Louis Agassiz, Glacial Geology, Ichthyology
James Simpson, Gynecology
Leonardo da Vinci, Hydraulics
Blaise Pascal, Hydrostatics
William Ramsay, Isotopic Chemistry
Matthew Maury, Oceanography
David Brewster, Optical Mineralogy
John Woodward, Paleontology
Rudolph Virchow, Pathology
James Joule, Reversible Thermodynamics
Sir Francis Bacon, Scientific Method
Nicholas Steno, Stratigraphy
Carolus Linnaeus, Systematic Biology
Humphrey Davy, Thermokinetics

These masters are not scientists Darwinists can dismiss. Many were contemporaries of Charles Darwin, their contributions made during Darwin's lifetime or later. As for modern scientists, Huse points out that today there are literally thousands of highly reputable scientists representing every scientific discipline who completely dismiss the concept of organic evolution in favor of biblical creationism.

Listing 100 creation-science organizations operating worldwide, 71 of which are in the United States, Huse provides impressive examples of scientists who have outspokenly rejected evolution, including John Grebe, director of basic and nuclear research for Dow Chemical Company, who offered $1,000 to anyone who could produce just one clear proof of evolution. Holder of over 100 patents, Dr. Grebe developed Styrofoam, synthetic rubber, and Saran Wrap.
Sir Ernest Chain, co-holder of the 1945 Nobel Prize for developing penicillin, stated bluntly:

"To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."

P. Lemoine, president of the Geological Society of France, editor of the Encyclopedie Francaise, and director of the Natural History Museum in Paris concluded:

"The theories of evolution, with which our studious youth have been deceived, constitute actually a dogma that all the world continues to teach: but each, in his specialty, the zoologist or the botanist, ascertains that none of the explanations furnished is adequate....It results from the summary, that the theory of evolution, is impossible."

Darwinists must be especially discomfited with the views expressed by Dr. Wernher von Braun, father of America's space program, in a September 14, 1972 letter to the California State Board of Education, part of which is printed here.

"In response to your inquiry about my personal views concerning the 'Case for DESIGN' as a viable scientific theory for the origin of the universe, life and man, I am pleased to make the following observations.

For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all. In the world around us, we can behold the obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design. We can see the will of the species to live and propagate. And we are humbled by the powerful forces at work on a galactic scale, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower. The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at the inherent design upon which it is based.
. . . Many men who are intelligent and of good faith say they cannot visualize a Designer. Well, can a physicist visualize an electron? The electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airlines through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive Him? I am afraid that, although they really do not understand the electron either, they are ready to accept it because they managed to produce a rather clumsy mechanical model of it borrowed from rather limited experience in other fields, but they would not know how to begin building a model of God......."

Decades later, with technological advances creating ever more dilemmas for Darwinists, they perch precariously on their evolutionary "chair," as described by Scott Huse.

"As I was sitting in my chair, I knew it had no bottom there, No legs, or back, but I just sat, Ignoring little things like that."

In a Darwinist's perfect world, opponents would shut up: Christians, creationists, and intelligent design advocates would cower in silence; schools would indoctrinate without objection, and scientists would speak with one voice. Evolutionary theory would not only reign, it would be preached without challenge.

Standing in the way of that "perfect world" are authors such as James Perloff who has compiled a wealth of creation facts and evolutionary fables in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, The Relentless Myth of Darwinism. Perloff's presentation of what the world's best known scientists have said and thought about the origins of man and earth makes clear that Christians needn't apologize for a lack of real scientists in their ranks.

The Missouri-based Creation Research Society, for example, has over 600 voting members with post-graduate science degrees. The entire faculty of California's Institute for Creation Research holds advanced scientific degrees and, in 1997, Dr. Raymond Damadian, inventor of the medical diagnostic device known as the MRI joined the Institute's Technical Advisory Board

Perloff observes that even Newsweek magazine in a 1998 cover story entitled "Science Finds God" noted:

"According to a study released last year, 40 percent of American scientists believe in a personal God – not merely an ineffable power and presence in the world, but a deity to whom they can pray."

Among the many modern-day scientists quoted by Perloff is rocket scientist Werner von Braun, who oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space and masterminded the moon landing. An active Christian who prayed for the safety of those on the missions he planned, Braun's declarations left no doubt about his beliefs.

In a letter to the California State Board of Education, von Braun stated:

"There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye? ...To be forced to believe one conclusion – that everything in the universe happened by chance – would violate the very objectivity of science itself."

Von Braun also observed:

"Manned space flight is an amazing achievement, but it has opened for mankind thus far only a tiny door for viewing the awesome reaches of space. An outlook through this peephole at the vast mysteries of the universe should only confirm our belief in the certainty of its Creator. "

In 1959, Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, was even more blunt:

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."

Louis Bounoure, director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, then director of research at the French National Center of Scientific Research, stated in 1984:

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless. "

Dr. Wolfgang Smith, science writer and teacher at MIT and UCLA, said in 1988:

"And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformation have ever occurred."

Charles Townes, who shared the 1964 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on laser principles said:

"As a religious person, I strongly sense . . . the presence and actions of a creative being far beyond myself and yet always personal and close by."

It has ever been so. Considered by many to be the greatest scientist who ever lived, Isaac Newton (1642-1727) discovered the law of gravity, formulated the three laws of motion, developed calculus, and constructed the first reflecting telescope. He wrote an estimated 1,400,000 words on religion, including papers refuting atheism and defending the Bible.

Newton believed in the Flood, a literal six-day creation and a young earth:

"I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily."

"All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer."

Sir John William Dawson, who pioneered Canadian geology and served as president of both Mc Gill University and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, stated in 1887:

"We thus see that evolution as an hypothesis has no basis in experience or in scientific fact, and that its imagined series of transmutations has breaks which cannot be filled."

Astronomer Sir William Herschel (1738-1822), who discovered Uranus and built the greatest reflecting telescopes of his day, said.

"The undevout astronomer must be mad, " he said.

John Frederick Herschel (son of Sir William) discovered more than 500 stars and nebulae, declaring:

"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings."

John Flamsteed (1646-1719) made the first great map of the stars, founded the famous Greenwich Observatory, was first Astronomer Royal of England – and a clergyman.

John Ray (1627-1705), first to suggest classifying organisms by species and considered the leading authority on zoology and botany in his day, also authored theological books, including The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of the Creation.

The verdict is in, just ignored. Scientists have ever deliberated the origins of life and the greatest among them, yesterday and today, have embraced biblical creationism. Yet the myth of Darwinism persists, embraced by atheists and agnostics, enabled by timid, apathetic, or misinformed Christians.

From 1859 -- when Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species was published -- to the present; from Marx, Nietzche, and Huxley to Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, Darwinism has been used to justify class struggle, racial purity, genocide, and the mass slaughter of innocents. Make no mistake. If today's evolutionists get their perfect world, evil will occupy the throne.

© 2006 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved

Anthropic Principle: The Design is in the Details

Extract from "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.

Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like a diamond studded Rolex, except the universe is even more precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth. A Planet with scores of improbable and inter-dependent life- supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe. The extent of the universe's fine-tuning makes the Anthropic Principle perhaps the most powerful argument for the existence of God.

These highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions (which are called "Anthropic Constants" make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle." "Anthropic" comes from the Greek word that means "human" or "man". The "Anthropic Principal" is just a fancy title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing that the universe is extremely fine-tuned (designed) to support human life here on earth.

It's not that there are just a few broadly defined constants that may have resulted by chance. No, there are more than 100 very narrowly defined constants that strongly point to an intelligent Designer.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (I.e., without Divine design). Assuming there are 10(22) planets in the universe (a very large number: 1 with 22 zeros following it), his answer is shocking; one chance in 10(138), that's one chance in one with 138 zeros after it. There are only about 10(70) atoms in the entire universe.

In effect, there zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent Designer behind it all.

Here are fifteen of them.

Anthropic Constant 1: Oxygen Level

On earth, oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. That precise figure is an Anthropic Constant that makes life on earth possible. If oxygen were 25% fires would erupt spontaneously, if it were 15%, human beings would suffocate.

Anthropic Constant 2: Atmospheric Transparency

If the atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth's surface. If it were more transparent we would be bombarded with far roo much solar radiation down here. (In addition to atmospheric transparency, the atmospheric composition of precise levels of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone are in themselves Anthropic constants).

Anthropic Constant 3: Moon-Earth Gravitational Interaction

If the interaction were greater than it currently is, tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe. If it were less, orbital changes would cause climatic instabilities. In either event, life on earth would be impossible.

Anthropic Constant 4: Carbon Dioxide level

If the CO2 level were higher than it is now, a runaway greenhouse effect would develop (we'd all burn up). If the level were lower than it is now, plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis (we'd all suffocate).

Anthropic Constant 5: Gravity

If the gravitational force were altered by 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, our sun would not exist, and, therefore neither would we. Talk about precision.

Anthropic Constant 6: Centrifugal Force

If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.

Anthropic Constant 7: Rate Of Expansion

If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did, expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster, then no galaxies would have formed.

Anthropic Constant 8: Speed Of Light

Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 299,792,458 meters per second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth.

Anthropic Constant 9: Water Vapor Levels

If water vapor levels in the atmosphere were greater than they are now, a runaway greenhouse effect would cause temperatures to rise too high for human life. If they were less, an insufficient greenhouse effect would make the earth to cold to support human life.

Anthropic Constant 10: Jupiter

If Jupiter were not in it's current orbit, the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that might otherwise strike earth.

Anthropic Constant 11: The Earth's Crust

If the thickness of the earth's crust were greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life impossible.

Anthropic Constant 12: The Earth's Rotation

If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period were shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be to great.

Anthropic Constant 13: Axis Tilt

The 23-degree axis tilt of the earth is just right. If the tilt were altered slightly, surface temperatures would be too extreme on earth.

Anthropic Constant 14: Atmospheric Discharge

If the atmospheric discharge (lightning) rate were greater, there would be too much fire destruction; if it were less there would be little nitrogen fixings in the soil.

Anthropic Constant 15: Seismic Activity

If there were more seismic activity, much more life would be lost; if there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. (yes, even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it).

Summary of Flood Geology

Liquefaction—associated with quicksand, earthquakes, and wave action—played a major role in rapidly sorting sediments, plants, and animals during the flood. Indeed, the worldwide presence of sorted fossils and sedimentary layers shows that a gigantic global flood occurred. Massive liquefaction also left other diagnostic features such as cross-bedded sandstone, plumes, and mounds.

Sedimentary rocks are distinguished by sharply-defined layers, called strata. Fossils almost always lie within such layers. Fossils and strata, seen globally, have many unusual characteristics. A little-known and poorly-understood phenomenon called liquefaction explains these characteristics. It also explains why we do not see fossils and strata forming on a large scale today.

We will first consider several common situations that cause liquefaction on a small scale. After understanding why liquefaction occurs, we will see that a global flood would produce liquefaction—and these vast, sharply defined layers—worldwide.The flooded earth had enormous, unimpeded waves—not just normal waves, but waves generated by undulating hydroplates.Also, the flooded earth had no coastlines, so friction did not destroy waves at the beach. Instead, waves traveled around the earth, often reinforcing other waves. When a liquefaction lens slowly collapsed for the last time, plants and small animals were trapped, flattened, and preserved between the lens' roof and floor. Even footprints, ripple marks, and worm burrows were preserved at the interface, if no further liquefaction occurred there. A particular lens might stay open through many wave cycles, long after the lens' floor last liquefied.Fossils, sandwiched between thin layers, were often spread over a wide surface which geologists call a horizon. Thousands of years later, these horizons gave some investigators the false impression those animals and plants died long after layers below were deposited and long before layers above were deposited. A layer with many fossils covering a vast area was misinterpreted as an extinction event or a boundary between geologic periods.

How can we compare and test the two conflicting explanations: liquefaction versus uniformitarianism and the principle of superposition over billions of years?

1. Many sedimentary layers span hundreds of thousands of square miles. (River deltas, where sediment buildups are greatest today, are only a tiny fraction of that area.) Liquefaction during a global flood would account for the vast expanse of these thick layers. Current processes and eons of time do not.

2. One thick, extensive sedimentary layer has remarkable purity. The St. Peter sandstone, spanning about 500,000 square miles in the central United States, is composed of almost pure quartz, similar to sand on a white beach. It is hard to imagine how any geologic process, other than global liquefaction, could achieve this degree of purity over such a wide area. Almost all other processes involve mixing, which destroys purity.

3. Today, sediments are usually deposited in and by rivers—along a narrow line. However, individual sedimentary rock layers are spread over large geographical areas, not along narrow, streamlike paths. Liquefaction during the flood acted on all sediments and sorted them over wide areas in weeks or months.

4. Sedimentary layers are usually sharply defined, parallel, and horizontal. They are often stacked vertically for thousands of feet. If layers had been laid down thousands of years apart, surface erosion would have destroyed this parallelism. Liquefaction, especially liquefaction lenses, explain this common observation.

5. Sometimes adjacent, parallel layers contain such different fossils that evolutionists conclude those layers were deposited millions of years apart, but the lack of erosion shows the layers were deposited rapidly. Liquefaction resolves this paradox.

6. Many communities around the world get their water from deep, permeable, water-filled, sedimentary layers called aquifers. When water drains from an aquifer, the layer collapses, unable to support the overlying rock layers. A collapsed aquifer cannot be replenished, so how were aquifers filled with water in the first place?

Almost all sorted sediments were deposited within water, so aquifers contained water when they first formed. Today, with aquifers steadily collapsing globally, one must question claims that they formed millions of year ago. As described in this chapter, liquefaction sorted sediments relatively recently.

7. Varves are extremely thin layers (typically 0.004 inch or 0.1 mm) which evolutionists claim are laid down annually in lakes. By counting varves, evolutionists believe time can be measured. The Green River Formation of Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, a classic varve region, contains billions of flattened, paper-thin, fossilized fish, hundreds fossilized in the act of swallowing other fish. Obviously, burial was sudden. Fish, lying on the bottom of a lake for years, would decay or disintegrate long before enough varves could bury them. (Besides, dead fish typically float, deteriorate, and then sink.) Most fish fossilized in varves show exquisite detail and are pressed to the thinness of a piece of paper, as if they had been compressed in a collapsing liquefaction lens.

Also, varves are too uniform, show almost no erosion, and are deposited over wider areas than where streams enter lakes—where most deposits occur in lakes. Liquefaction best explains these varves.

8. In almost all cases, dead animals and plants quickly decay, are eaten, or are destroyed by the elements. Preservation as fossils requires rapid burial in sediments thick enough to preserve bodily forms. This rarely happens today. When it does, as in an avalanche or a volcanic eruption, the blanketing layers are not uniform in thickness, do not span tens of thousands of square miles, and rarely are water-deposited. (Water is needed if cementing is to occur.) Liquefaction provides a mechanism for rapid, but gentle, burial and preservation of trillions of fossils in water-saturated sedimentary layers—including fossilized footprints, worm burrows, ripple marks, and jellyfish.

Thousands of fossilized jellyfish have been found in central Wisconsin, sorted to some degree by size into at least seven layers (spanning 10 vertical feet) of coarse-grained sediments.Evolutionists admit that a fossilized jellyfish is exceptionally rare, so finding thousands of them in what was coarse, abrasive sand is almost unbelievable. Claiming that it occurred during storms at the same location on seven different occasions, but over a million years, is ridiculous.

What happened? Multiple liquefaction lenses, vertically aligned during the last liquefaction cycle, trapped delicate animals such as jellyfish and gently preserved them as the roof of each water lens settled onto its floor.

9. Many fossilized fish are flattened between extremely thin sedimentary layers. This requires squeezing the fish to the thinness of a sheet of paper without damaging the thin sedimentary layers immediately above and below. How could this happen?
Because dead fish usually float, something must have pressed the fish onto the seafloor. Even if tons of sediments were dumped through the water and on top of the fish, thin layers would not lie above and below the fish. Besides, it would take many thin layers, not one, to complete the burial. Today's processes seem inadequate.

However, liquefaction would sort sediments into thousands of thin layers. During each wave cycle, liquefaction lenses would simultaneously form at various depths in the sedimentary column. If a fish floated up into a water lens, it would soon be flattened when the lens finally drained.

10. Sediments, such as sand and clay, are produced by eroding crystalline rock, such as granite or basalt. Sedimentary rocks are cemented sediments. On the continents, they average more than a mile in thickness. Today, two-thirds of continental surface rocks are sedimentary; one-third is crystalline.

Was crystalline rock, eroded at the earth's surface, the source of the original sediments? If it was, the first eroded sediments would blanket crystalline rock and prevent that rock from producing additional sediments. The more sediments produced, the fewer the sediments that could be produced. Eventually, there would not be enough exposed crystalline rock at the earth's surface to produce all the earth's sediments and sedimentary rock. Transporting those new sediments, often great distances, is another difficulty. Clearly, most sediments did not come from the earth's surface. They must have come from powerful subsurface erosion, as explained by the hydroplate theory, when high-velocity waters escaped from the subterranean chamber.

11. Some limestone layers are hundreds of feet thick. The standard geological explanation is that those regions were covered by incredibly limy (alkaline) water for millions of years—a toxic condition not found anywhere on earth today. Liquefaction, on the other hand, would have quickly sorted limestone particles into vast sheets.

12. Conventional geology claims that coal layers, sometimes more than a 100 feet thick, formed from 1,000-foot-thick layers of undecayed vegetation. Nowhere do we see that happening today. However, liquefaction would have quickly gathered vegetation buried during the early stages of the flood into thick layers, which would become coal after the confined, oxygen-free heating of the compression event.

13. Coal layers lie above and below a specific sequence of sedimentary layers, called cyclothems. Some cyclothems extend over 100,000 square miles. If coal accumulated in peat bogs over millions of years (the standard explanation), why don't we see such vast swamps today? Why would a peat bog form a coal layer that was later buried by layers of sandstone, shale, limestone, and clay (generally in that ascending order)? Why would this sequence be found worldwide and sometimes be repeated vertically 50 or more times? To deposit a different sedimentary layer would require a change in environment and/or elevation—and, of course, millions of years. Liquefaction provides a simple, complete explanation.

14. Fossils are sorted vertically to some degree. Evolutionists attribute this to macroevolution. No known mechanism will cause macroevolution, and many evidences refute macroevolution. Liquefaction, an understood mechanism, would tend to sort animals and plants. If liquefaction occurred, one would expect some exceptions to this sorting order, but if macroevolution happened, no exceptions to the evolutionary order should be found. Many exceptions exist.

15. Animals are directly or indirectly dependent on plants for food. However, geological formations frequently contain fossilized animals without fossilized plants.How could the animals have survived? Evidently, liquefaction sorted and separated these animals and plants before fossilization occurred.

16. Meteorites are rarely found in deep sedimentary rock. This is consistent only with rapidly deposited sediments.


Learn more about the flood and its implications at www.creationscience.com

It's run by Dr. Walt Brown.

Learn more about the succesion of the animals during the flood, which had to do with the mobility of the animal, the position, density, etc:

Dr. John Woodmorappe: http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossil.asp

Biblical History from Outside the Bible

Ancient Sources Outside the Bible

Here's ancient literature from outside the bible that comfirm the biblical account.

"When all men were of one language, some of them built a high tower, as if they would thereby ascend up to heaven; but the gods sent storms of wind and overthrew the tower, and gave everyone his peculiar language; and for this reason it was that the city was called Babylon....After this they were dispersed abroad, on account of their languages, and went out by colonies everywhere; and each colony took possession of that land which they lighted upon, and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and maritime countries. There were some also who passed over the sea in ships, and inhabited the islands; and some of these nations do still retain the names which were given to them by their first founders; but some also have lost them"

- The Sybil (Josephus. Antiq. i. 5.)

Sounds like The Tower of Babel account ey?

Here's the geneologies of different nations traced back to Noah

From Historia Brittonum--the History of the Britons, Nennius recorded this nations history. http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch3.html

The Descent of the Anglo-Saxon Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch6.html

The Descent of the Danish and Norwegian Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch7.html

The Descent of the Irish Celtic Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch8.html

The Genealogy of the early British Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/ch8.html

The Descent of the East Saxon Kings http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/contents.html

The Descent of the Miatsu people of China traced back to Adam!http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen12.html

Noah's sons seemed to be quite popular as well.

Shem = http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen1.html

Ham = http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen2.html

Japeth = http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen3.html

Over 250 flood legends exist and the numbers are climbing. Many of the sources are very similar to the Biblical account http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

If you would like to learn more about Flood Geology and how is stratified the layers in the earth, reshaped the entire world, and left evidence such as clams on mountains and petrified trees all over the world, check out this website.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html

2 Peter 3:5-6

"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished..."

Ignorance to the evidence of a worldwide flood and to the Biblical account is the dumbest thing anyone can do.
-ELIEM

Our First Death Threat!!

Well because so many people have asked to see the message in its complete context (which is very reasonable) we decided to dedicate a blog to it! So here you guys go, wording has not been changed in any way, but emphasis has been added by us to direct the reader's attention to the other person's remarks (Please read from bottom to top):

So I guess you have no evidence for your belief in evolution?

You've wish my death and called my stupid.. but done nothing to argue for evolution..

Good Job

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: ourhomeiswaiting
Date: 26 Apr 2007, 01:46 PM

see?
what you just said.
stupid.
and doesnt even apply to the conversation.
knock knock....anybody home?

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Exposing Lies In Evolution
Date: Apr 25, 2007 2:29 PM

You sound like an instigater. You did nothing but attack ME. Thats what we usually get since there's no evidence for evolution. I think some philosopher said, "If a man uses ad hominin arguments, its obvious that he's losing."

You really don't have to continue this conversation if you'd rather not. I really don't mind.

God Bless
-Joey

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: ourhomeiswaiting
Date: 25 Apr 2007, 10:34 AM

see....that's what im talking about. you're like a teenager trying to keep a straight face while performing some practical joke. this last email you sent me has you saying the most preposterous crap, yet you are being serious. there's no way whatsoever to discuss with you. you are beyond pluto, out there. what you say demonstrates a sad tragedy - the total disconnect from sense, a love affair with unfounded rhetoric, oxymoron concepts glued together. you have been trained, by yourself as well as your closed information loop, to actually defend yourself with ignorance, with nonsense that you actually believe....you have been paralyzed, you haven't the ability to discover how lost and dangerous you are, and, you also havent the ability, the skill, of even learning the skill, of develping the ability, from another or yourself. it's so complete and self-encapsulated.

and i know that ive even just wasted my time finding a way to explain this to you. i know you haven't the faintest idea what im talking about. i know that you will have a response that is so ridiculous, yet actually sways folks with it's unique rhetoric.

that's why you get hatred mixed with compassion from people like me. and it's worlds apart from religion inspired hatred, not even close to the same classification of phenomena.

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: Exposing Lies In Evolution
Date: Apr 24, 2007 5:22 PM

Secular adults? Hmmm...I wonder what our forefathers would've said to that. And i reallt hope your not looking at Stalin as an example.

In the face of REAL science, evolution can't stand a chance. Plenty of scientists REJECT the idea.

Show us some EMPIRICAL evidence for a SINGLE celled organism developing reproductive organs that FIT with another organism! You BELIEVE in miracles too man! Wow. There's plenty more miracles you believe in as well. See our blog on miracles. If you really want a challenge, buy the book, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST by Frank Turek.

-Joey

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: ourhomeiswaiting
Date: 24 Apr 2007, 01:35 PM

the problem with people like you is that you think this whole debate/issue is about interpretation, opinion, who's side you're on, etc.

it's not that kind of thing.

if i think watermelon tastes good, or have a favorite color, thats a matter of interpretation or opinion.

but 1+1=2, or water being wet, is not a matter of interpretation. it's not that kind of thing. period.

but, i know that it's done no good to tell you this. very simply, you are so horrible and wrong - that's not just my opinion, i don't feel that way just because you don't agree with me - that I hope you die, period, horribly, at the hands of the others on the other side of the religious fence, for being so irresponsible and unreachable and dangerous.....and leave the world to us secular adults. period.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Exposing Lies In Evolution
Date: Apr 18, 2007 5:40 PM

Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. James Allan, Geneticist
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist
Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist
Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
George T. Javor, Biochemistry
Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist
Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics
Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist
Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
Prof. Richard Porter
Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist
Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist
Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist
Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist
Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer/Geologist
Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor
Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist
Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy
Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy
Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor
John Wilkins (1614–1672)
Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians
Blaise Pascal (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer
Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics
Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics
John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history
Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics
Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy
Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology
Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy
Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany
Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician
John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder/Astronomy
William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology
Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician
John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician
John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology
William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology
John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology
Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology
Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system
Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology
Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy
William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth) James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)
John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law
John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
"The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists" by Dr. Terry Mortenson
Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator
William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist
Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer
Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist
John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry
Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy
Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist
John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry
Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp
Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)
Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist
Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)
David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (believed in an old-earth)
William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)
William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)
Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator
Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph
John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)
Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)
Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)
Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (believed in an old-earth*)
Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)
Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology
James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology
Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology
Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist
James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology
James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)
Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist
James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics
Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist
Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy
George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics
John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)
Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology
Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics
Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)
William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry
Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries
Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery
Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics
P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis
John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist
John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases
Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy
Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy
A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist
John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist
George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor
L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology, Paleontology
Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist
Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology
Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology
Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology
Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer
Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy
William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist
William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation
Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist
Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon
Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist
Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

Cave Men?

Fictitious 'Ape Men'
Author: James Perloff
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Time magazine's new ape-man
Publication's latest evolution contention less-than-believable

In 1999, following the controversial de-emphasis of evolution in Kansas schools, Time magazine struck in its August 23 issue with an editorial denouncing creationists and a huge cover story called "How Man Evolved." The latter displayed man's supposed oldest ancestor ..Ardipithecus ramidus .. while neglecting to tell readers that its fragments had been found scattered over an area of about one mile, and put together to form a "missing link."

Time's cover was of a reconstructed ape-man skull, yet well less than half the skull consisted of actual fossil fragments .. the rest was plaster, molded by imagination. The most recent issue of Time, dated July 23, takes no less liberty. On the cover is a painting of an ape-man called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba with the headline "How Apes Became Human." Inside, the article begins: "Meet your newfound ancestor." The painting is based on some fragmentary bones recently found in Ethiopia by a graduate student named Yohannes Haile-Selassie.

Time assures its readers that the creature walked upright. The evidence for this? A single toe bone. Time displays the bone with the unequivocal caption: "THIS TOE BONE PROVES THE CREATURE WALKED ON TWO LEGS." But not until the last page of the eight-page article do readers learn that the toe bone was actually found some ten miles from the other bones. What evidence exists that the toe bone belonged to Haile-Selassie's other specimens? None, other than speculation.

There is great danger in basing conclusions on a single bone. In 1922, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, an ardent evolutionist, was shown a single tooth found in Nebraska by geologist Harold Cook. After examining it, Osborn declared it belonged to an early ape-man, whom he named Hesperopithecus haroldcookii in Cook's honor. Popularly, it became known as "Nebraska Man." Osborn hailed the tooth as "the herald of anthropoid apes in America." At the American Museum of Natural History, William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, specialists in teeth, said after careful study that the tooth was from a species closer to man than ape. Harris Hawthorne Wilder, a zoology professor at Smith College, wrote: "Judging from the tooth alone the animal seems to have been about halfway between Pithecanthropus [Java Man] and the man of the present day, or perhaps better between Pithecanthropus and the man of the Neanderthal type. ..." In England, evolutionist Grafton Elliot Smith convinced the Illustrated London News to publish an artist's rendering of Nebraska Man. The picture, which appeared in a two-page spread and received wide distribution, showed two brutish, naked ape-persons, the male with a club, the female gathering roots. All this from one tooth. However, further excavations at Cook's site revealed that the tooth belonged neither to ape nor man, but to a Peccary, a close relative of the pig.

Or take the Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain's leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution's greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

Those who think such mistakes no longer occur need only consider the Archaeoraptor, promoted in a 10-page color spread in the November 1999 National Geographic as the "true missing link" between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil was displayed at National Geographic's Explorers Hall and viewed by over 100,000 people. However, it too turned out to be a fake .. someone had simply glued together fragments of bird and dinosaur fossils. Even if Time turns out to be correct, and Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba walked on two feet, would it prove he was our "newfound ancestor"?

This assertion is based on a long-standing evolutionary assumption, usually stated something like this: "Humans are the only creatures that have evolved to the point where they can walk on two feet; therefore, if we can find the fossil of an animal that could walk on two feet, such a creature was our ancestor." However, the assumption that two-footed mobility establishes human kinship is groundless. Gorillas occasionally walk bipedally; Tanzanian chimpanzees are seen standing on two legs when gathering fruit from small trees; Zaire's pygmy chimpanzee walks upright so often that it has been dubbed "a living link." Science News reports of the latter: "Like modern gorillas they tend to be knuckle-walkers on the ground, yet they seem to be natural bipeds, too, frequently walking upright both on the ground and in the trees." So even if a fossil creature did have some limited ability to stand on two feet, it doesn't make it man's ancestor any more than these modern apes.

And man is not the only bipedal creature. Birds are bipedal; so was the T.-rex. Therefore, are they human ancestors? Time refers to "fossil discoveries as far back as Java Man in the 1890s" as validating the relationship between man and ape. But Time does not relate much of what is known about those finds. The Java Man story began with Ernst Haeckel, the German zoologist who has become notorious for using fraudulent drawings of embryos to prove the theory of evolution (See the July issue of WorldNet Magazine). Haeckel was convinced that an ape-man must have existed, and he named it Pithecanthropus alalus: ape-man without speech.

One of Haeckel's students, Eugene Dubois, became determined to find Pithecanthropus. Haeckel believed men might have separated from apes somewhere in Southern Asia. So in 1887, Dubois signed up as a doctor with the Dutch medical corps in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), intending to hunt for fossils during all his spare time. Dubois, it should be noted, had no formal training in geology or paleontology at the time, and his "archaeological team" consisted of prison convicts with two army corporals as supervisors. Years of excavation produced little of significance. Then, in 1891, along Java's Solo River, the laborers dug up a skullcap that appeared rather apelike, with a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. Dubois initially considered it from a chimpanzee, even though there is no evidence that this ape ever lived in Asia. However, the following year, the diggers unearthed a thigh bone that was clearly human. Dubois, like Piltdown's discoverers, presumed that an apelike bone somewhere near a human bone meant the two belonged to the same creature, constituting Darwin's missing link. Haeckel, who had not even seen the bones, telegraphed Dubois: "From the inventor of Pithecanthropus to his happy discoverer!"

In 1895, Dubois returned to Europe and displayed his fossils. The response from experts was mixed, however. Rudolph Virchow, who had once been Haeckel's professor and is regarded as the father of modern pathology, said: "In my opinion, this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull." The circumstances of Dubois' find were unorthodox. He had apparently been absent when the convicts dug up his fossils. Maps and diagrams of the site were not made until after the excavation. Under such conditions, a modern dig would be disregarded. In 1907, an expedition of German scientists from various disciplines, led by Professor M. Lenore Selenka, traveled to Java seeking more clues to man's ancestry in the region of Dubois' discovery. However, no evidence for Pithecanthropus was found. In the stratum of Dubois' find, the scientists found hearths and flora and fauna that looked rather modern. The expedition's report also noted a nearby volcano that caused periodic flooding in the area. Java Man had been found in volcanic sediments. The report observed that the chemical nature of those sediments, not ancient age, probably caused the fossilization of Pithecanthropus. Nevertheless, the Selenka findings and various deficiencies of Dubois' work were largely ignored, and Java Man became one of evolution's undisputed "facts."

Then there was Peking Man, worked on and validated by a number of Piltdown alumni, including Davidson Black, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Smith. In seeing textbook portrayals of Peking Man, few students learned that the skulls had been found in scattered little fragments, and that the reconstructions were actually composites taken from various individuals. Where fragments were missing, plaster substituted, and the famous final images of Peking Man were the creations of a sculptress named Lucille Swann. Later, all of the Peking Man fossils mysteriously vanished, except for a couple of teeth, preventing Peking Man from being subjected to the kind of checking that doomed Piltdown Man.

Neanderthals were long portrayed as ape-men, stooped over. This misconception was largely the result of a faulty reconstruction by French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, who mistook the skeleton of a man with kyphosis (hunchback) for an ape-man in the process of becoming upright. Another snag: Neanderthal skulls are larger than those of modern humans. This flies in the face of evolutionary tradition, which says that man evolved progressively from creatures with smaller brains and skulls. In any event, Neanderthals are no longer classed as "ape-men," and some evolutionists have even discarded them as human ancestors. Which basically leaves us with australopithecines, currently in vogue as man's ancestor. However, australopithecine fossils show that they had long forearms and short hind legs, like today's apes. They also had long curved fingers and toes, like those apes use for tree-swinging. This may pose a problem for Time's thesis, since it claims the toe bone of Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba was over 5 million years old, yet relatively human-like .. implying that it was more evolved than the toes of australopithecines, who supposedly came 2 million years later. The main substance to the claim that australopithecines are our ancestors is some evidence suggesting that the famed "Lucy" and her peers may have walked upright. But as noted, limited bipedality does not prove human ancestry, and a number of scientists .. contrary to the impression created in Time .. have disagreed that australopithecines are man's relatives. Britain's Lord Solly Zuckerman, who was raised to peerage for his scientific achievements, was a leading authority on australopithecines, having subjected them to years of biometric testing. He stated:

For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman primates, that it remains unacceptable.

Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis. Stephen Jay Gould called him "our leading expert on the quantitative study of skeletons." Oxnard concluded:

[T]he australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism, possibly from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically) reconstructed.

The July 23 Time includes a graphic showing the evolution of man, starting with the supposed Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, with progressively more human figures culminating in man. However, it is very easy to arrange bones to demonstrate "evolutionary progress." In 1927, Osborn, along with other evolutionists, created a diagram of man's evolution. Skulls were displayed in progressive order. No. 1 in the sequence was the fraudulent Piltdown Man. No. 4 was a Neanderthal; No. 6 Cro-Magnon Man. No. 8 was labeled "Australian" (aborigine). No. 9? "Negro." No. 10? "Chinese." No. 11 (and last)? "Caucasian."

Because 99 percent of an organism's biology resides in its soft anatomy, it is very easy to invest a bone with imagination. For this reason .. despite the protests of Darwinists .. evolutionary anthropology is not a science like physics or chemistry. The laws of physics and chemistry can be demonstrated in a high school laboratory. Evolutionary anthropology, on the other hand, consists of speculations about unobserved events that supposedly occurred millions of years ago. Science cannot observe the past with the same authority as the present. As Lowenstein and Zihlman noted in New Scientist: "The subjective element in this approach to building evolutionary trees, which many paleontologists advocate with almost religious fervor, is demonstrated by the outcome: There is no single family tree on which they agree."

There was a wealth of evidence concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy: hundreds of eyewitnesses interviewed by the Warren Commission; the Zapruder movie that caught the actual slaying; the autopsy; fingerprint evidence; ballistics evidence. Nevertheless, controversy has never stopped raging about what actually took place. Scores of books challenged the evidence, offering widely differing explanations as to who killed Kennedy, from what angle(s) he was shot, etc. Even the autopsy results were challenged in a best-selling book.

Granted, the Kennedy assassination was a politically charged event. Nonetheless, if that much disagreement can occur over something that happened just 38 years ago, how can a paleontologist pick up a fragment of bone, supposedly 5 million years old, and declare its meaning with a high degree of certainty? Unlike the Kennedy assassination, there are no eyewitnesses who saw this creature, no Zapruder movie of it, no soft tissues to examine.

Other weaknesses permeate the Time article. It states that Haile-Selassie's bones are known to be 5.6-5.8 billion years old, because this "can be accurately gauged by a technique known as argon-argon dating." It says the result was "confirmed by a second dating method." However, argon-argon dating has been demonstrated in various studies to be unreliable, and Time doesn't mention what the second method was.

Time refers to the "astonishingly complete skeleton of Lucy".. but those words belie the fact that about 60 percent of Lucy's skeleton, including most of the skull, was missing.

In explaining why apes began to walk upright, Time quotes anthropologist C. Owen Lovejoy: "To walk upright you have to do so in synchrony. If the ligaments and muscles are out of synch, that leads to injuries. And then you'd be cheetah meat." But even fully coordinated, healthy human beings cannot outrun a cheetah! Time also neglects the fact that species vary widely within themselves. Darwinian anthropologists use cranial capacity (skull size) to judge the evolutionary status of our supposed ancestors, but even in modern humans, cranial capacity ranges from 700 to 2200 cubic centimeters, and has no bearing on intelligence.People's bone structure varies greatly, based on heredity, age, sex, health and climate. Some are big-boned, some small-boned. There are sumo wrestlers and pygmies. Doubtless, our ancient forebears were also diverse in their looks. How, then, can one assign a single fossil bone to a distinct place in human history? Apes vary widely, too; australopithecines may simply be a type that became extinct. Science journalist Roger Lewin, though an outspoken evolutionist, has noted:

It is an unfortunate truth that fossils do not emerge from the ground with labels already attached to them. And it is bad enough that much of the labeling was done in the name of egoism and a naive lack of appreciation of variation between individuals; each nuance in shape was taken to indicate a difference in type rather than natural variation within a population.

Another oddity surfaces in Time's diagram of the evolution of humans, chimps and gorillas. Human ancestors are shown going back almost 6 million years. But no chimpanzee or gorilla ancestors are depicted before a million years ago. If chimps and humans really diverged about 7 million years ago, as Time asserts, then where are all the fossils of chimpanzee and gorilla ancestors? Why does every bone fragment turn out to be a human ancestor? Perhaps that question was answered by Dr. Tim White, anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. Though quoted in Time, and noted as Haile-Selassie's thesis adviser, he has previously stated: "The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."

As creationist Marvin Lubenow notes, "No one will care if you discover the oldest fossil broccoli, but if you are fortunate enough to discover the oldest fossil human, the world will beat a path to your door."