Jasmine71's Weblog

April 5, 2009

Back To The Basics- Saving Faith Part 2

This post is due to the fact that many people who visit wordpress and then my blog do not seem to understand God’s great plan of salvation. They still want to believe the spurious doctrine of legalism. Legalism means earning salvation by good works …that’s absolutely wrong. Many cults preach legalism; that in order to have salvation you are REQUIRED to be baptized, Keep the Sabbath, tithe, partake of sacraments, join a specific Church, or confess sins to a priest. A prime example of a legalistic religion/cult is Ronald Weinland ‘s Church of God- PKG . However, salvation is a FREE GIFT which absolutely cannot be merited in any way (Romans 5:15; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9). I explain this spiritual fact in my first post Saving Faith . Here is the link if you wish to look at it again. The post is in very plain language. https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2008/12/15/saving-faith/

That said , lets go back to the basics :

Jesus Christ is the Only Way to God the Father and Heaven

As stated above, there is no other name under Heaven by which man can be saved other than through the name of Jesus Christ! God the Father will not honor any other name, religion or faith!

Please note the extreme power and authority on the first four verses listed below. These first four verses specifically tell us, without any other possible interpretation, that Jesus Christ is the only way to be able to receive eternal salvation from God the Father.

  1. “Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
  2. “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all …” (1 Timothy 2:5)
  3. “There is one body and one Spirit

    one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” (Ephesians 4:4)

  4. Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6)
  5. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved, and will go in and find pasture … I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” (John 10:9)
  6. Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die.” (John 11:25)
  7. Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.” (John 8:12)
  8. And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.” (John 6:35)
  9. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51)
  10. “… whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (John 3:15-16)
  11. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” (John 3:36)
  12. “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24)
  13. “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” (John 5:24)
  14. “… And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life.” (1 John 5:11)
  15. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.” (1 John 4:14)

I do not see any other interpretation as to what these verses are trying to tell us other than Jesus Christ is the only way to God the Father and His dwelling place, heaven! I don’t think God the Father could have made things any more clearer than by the way He has worded all of the above Scripture verses!

Jesus Himself said in the New Testament

that He did not come to bring peace – but division! What He means by this is that He is drawing a major battle line in the sand. You either believe in Him and everything that He stands for – or you do not. There are no middle or neutral grounds on this issue.

If you choose not to believe in Jesus and His message of eternal salvation through His death on the cross, then you will die in your sins and go straight to hell when you die – no if, ands or buts about it! The life that we are living down here on this earth is serious business! The choices that we make in this life will determine our ultimate fate in the afterlife.

Choose Jesus and the blood that He has personally shed for you on the cross – and you will become saved and born again – and you will then enter into the most incredible place imaginable when you die – heaven itself!

Choose anyone or anything else, and you will cross over into the most horrible place imaginable when you die – hell itself, and then eventually into the Lake of Fire and Brimstone after the Millennium has taken place, where the Bible says that the smoke of your torment will ascend forever and ever!

We Are Saved by Grace Through Faith – Not Works

The gift of eternal salvation is a free gift given by God to all those who will believe on Jesus and what His death on the cross really means for all of us. These next 3 verses will specifically tell us that good works will not get us into heaven.Works are needed after salvation.The Bible says that faith without works is dead – but that is after you have received God’s gift of eternal salvation. After you get saved, God has a plan and a purpose for your life, and this is where you will go to work for God into whatever your calling is going to be in Him.

But to initially receive the gift of eternal salvation from God the Father is simply done through faith and belief in accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior. Here are the verses:

  1. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8)
  2. “… knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ … for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)
  3. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin … for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:20,23)

The Bible specifically tells us in that last verse that all men and all women have sinned and have fallen way short of the glory of our God. The Bible says that there are none that are righteous before the eyes of God the Father.

As a result, none of our fleshly works, no matter how good we think they may be, will ever be good enough to get us into heaven or back into the good graces of our Lord and Savior.

The Gift of Salvation Now Makes Us Righteous Before God the Father

Once you become saved and born again by accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, the Bible says that we are now made perfectly righteous before the eyes of God. The righteousness of Jesus has now been imputed to us. This means that we are now free to approach the throne of God for intimate prayer and communication, and when we die, we will all go straight to heaven.

Even though we will continue to commit sin from time to time, God will always forgive us as long as we properly confess each sin when it does happen. We will never become totally sinless or perfect. No one will ever become the fourth person of the Holy Trinity. Only God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are totally perfect in Their actual natures and in all of Their ways. Humans and angels are not!

The Bible says that all men have sinned and will continue to sin, and thus will fall way short of the glory of our God. That is why Jesus had to come and die for all of our sins – which will include all of the past sins that we have ever committed, all of the present sins we are now committing, and all of the future sins that we will ever commit.

As a result of Jesus dying on the cross for all of our sins, God the Father now sees us as righteous and justified before His very eyes – now and for all of eternity, even though we are all still sinners! Talk about an incredible pardon!

Here are two very powerful verses showing us that we have now all been made perfectly righteous and perfectly justified before God the Father as a result of Jesus dying on the cross for all of our sins.

  1. “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
  2. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Romans 5:8)

So not only do we get a full pardon and a full remission for all of our sins, but we now get to be made perfectly righteous before God the Father Himself. Righteousness and Redemption – what more could we ask for!

How to Become Saved and Receive the Gift of Eternal Salvation

The Bible makes it very clear as to how to receive the Gift of Eternal Salvation from God the Father:

  • Admit that we are sinners, be willing to confess our sins before God, and be willing to repent and turn from those sins.
  • Be willing to accept the fact that Jesus Christ came to our earth in the flesh to die on the cross for all of our sins, that He rose from the dead on the third day, and then be willing to formally accept Him as your personal Lord and Savior.

This acceptance of Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior must be confessed out loud before God the Father. It does not have to be done in a church. This can happen to anyone at anytime at any place. It can be done in the privacy of one’s own bedroom. Here are three specific verses showing all of the above points.

  1. “REPENT THEREFORE and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord.” (Acts 3:19)
  2. “IF WE CONFESS OUR SINS, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)
  3. “… if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.” (Romans 10:9)

Notice the last verse says to confess with your mouth, and with the mouth confession is made to receive salvation. This means just saying a good, basic salvation prayer out loud direct to God the Father from your heart.

Below is a good, basic salvation prayer to give to someone who wants to get saved by accepting Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. Some people call this the “Sinners Prayer.” Others call it a basic salvation prayer. Either title will work.

Basic Salvation Prayer

Say the following prayer out loud, believe it from your heart and you will be saved.

Dear Father,

I now believe that Jesus Christ is Your only begotten Son, that He came to our earth in the flesh and died on the cross to take away all of my sins and the sins of this world. I believe that Jesus Christ then rose from the dead on the third day to give all of us eternal life.

Lord Jesus,

I now confess to You all of the wrong and sinful things I have ever done in my life. I ask that You please forgive Me and wash away all of my sins by the blood that You have personally shed for me on the cross. I am now ready to accept You as my personal Lord and Savior. I now ask that You come into my life and live with Me for all of eternity.

Father, Jesus – I now believe that I am truly saved and born again.

Thank you Father. Thank you Jesus. —————————————————————–

Bottom line – God’s free gift of eternal salvation can only be received by accepting His Son Jesus Christ and the blood that He has personally shed for each and everyone of us on that day He died on the cross.

There is no other way into the kingdom of God! We either come through the blood and the cross – or we don’t come through at all!

I rest my case for my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.


Advertisements

March 13, 2009

The Terror Of The LORD

Christians : A great devotional from John Hagee-

  1. II Corinthians 5:11
    Summary: “Here is a verse in 2 Corinthians that I’m sure is not underlined in have many Bibles, and will not be found in many promise boxes. But it is the Word of God. Paul is writing to the Corinthians…He said: ‘Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men;…’

    The fear of the Lord is a deterrent to sin. There is no hidden meaning here.

    Exodus 20:20, Moses said: ‘God has come to prove you, house of Israel that His fear must be before your faces that you sin not.’

    There’s a growing attitude in America that God is our Father and that He is our friend and because He is our father and our friend, which is true, that somehow we are His equal. That is not true. We are not His equal. He is God. He is the Potter. We are clay. He is the shepherd. We are sheep. He commands, and we do. Don’t ever get those wires crossed.

    He shapes us according to His will. We don’t dictate to God what it is He wants us to be like. He makes us into a vessel of honor that He chooses and the end product of our life is what He sovereignly designs not what we sovereignly command. America’s church has lost the fear of the Lord. When John was on the isle of Patmos, he saw the Lord and fell at His feet as dead. And he was with the Lord for three and a half years. When he saw the angel of the Lord, he fell at his feet as dead. I often hear people say that they saw an angel and yada, yada, yada. And they had a conversation and so forth. And I said: did you have any fear? Oh, no, I didn’t at all. Then you didn’t see an angel. Because Mary saw an angel and was terrified. John saw an angel and was terrified. When you see something as powerful as the majesty as an angel of God, there’s the fear of the Lord. The church in America needs to recapture the fear of the Lord.

    If you don’t know about the terror of the Lord, read about the Great Tribulation. Read Luke 19, the story of hell. It’s a real place and real people are going there and they’re going to stay there for a long time, because of the terror of the Lord. It pays to serve the Lord. May the Lord add His blessing to the reading of the Word. – Pastor John C. Hagee

March 10, 2009

Atheists : Princes Of Fools

This (revised) repost is in response to an atheist named Bob who claims God is not obvious . His post is very foolish. He answers my comments with sheer nonsense . God will have the last say. I assure you folks. You can read his post by going to the following link: http://irrationalbob.wordpress.com/2009/0308/an-obvious-god/

Psalm 1:7—
“The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction”.

A popular online satellite map labels Israeli land as part of “Palestine”…A passport application, citing the birthplace of the applicant as “Jerusalem, Israel,” is refused because officials of a foreign country will not allow “Israel” to be associated with Jerusalem…These are just two recent examples of how people deny the existence of Israel. Unfortunately, since God mentions Israel over 2,500 times in His Word, when people deny the existence of Israel, they deny the existence of God, and the Bible clearly describes those who deny God as fools. What exactly is a fool? What should a fool consider in his denial? The Fool Denies God—King David paints the portrait of the prince of fools in one sentence: “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Psalm 14:1). The heart is the seat of reason and decision making, “for as he thinks in his heart, so is he” (Prov. 23:7). The word fool comes from the word nabal, which means “moral perversity.” The original text does not say, “Man is stupid.” We have gone to the moon, transplanted hearts, and harnessed atomic power—we are not stupid. David knew that, too, and picked the perfect word to talk about those who are “morally perverse.”
He is God Almighty— The word “God” in this text is not the normal word Jehovah but El Jehovah, which refers to the God of the covenant, the God who does something for us. El refers to the almighty God, the God of authority, the ruler, the judge, and the lawgiver. David’s choice of words shows that humans do not want to know a God who demands anything; they want to be free to participate unimpeded in their sinful behavior.
Hollywood labels God as someone up there who loves us. That’s true. However, He does demand that we present our bodies as living sacrifices, “holy and acceptable to God” (Rom 12:1). We are not our own. We have been bought with a price. Paul taught that if you do not endure chastening, you are illegitimate—not a child of God (Heb. 12:5-8).
Faithlessness is foolish—A man who claims to believe in nothing still believes in something. It requires faith to be an infidel. The atheist must believe that God is not, that prayer is a waste of time, that heaven is a myth, that death is eternal unconscious existence, and that hope for a better tomorrow is weakness. The agnostic has been duped by Satan to believe the wrong things. Look at our massive universe with its innate organization and structure that work together. The fool believes that this magnificent earth is the by-product of an ecological accident. Only a fool would believe that billions of years ago the sun shone on a pond and that life began wiggling in the water, and that this life form developed lungs and legs and walked out on the land. Finally it climbed a tree and hung by its tail. Only a fool would believe that.
History Attests God—The fool denies history. Daniel asked God to show him the parade of nations that would come upon the face of the earth. God gave him a vision of the nations in the exact order in which they would appear, the personality of their leaders, and the military methods of conquest (Dan 2:7). How was that known hundreds of years before it happened?
The Risen Christ is Coming—The fool detests the Resurrection. Jesus Christ’s tomb is empty. Why? Because He is seated at the right hand of God the Father. He is alive. He is real. He is coming again in power and great glory (Matt. 24:30). How do I know God is real? I know He’s real because I can feel Him in the depths of my soul. In the Garden of Gethsemane, in the valley of the shadow of death, when the storms of life are raging, when the burdens of life are unbearable, I know He is there.
Receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and confess Him with your mouth, for “whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting live. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved” (John 3:16).
Material from :
(John Hagee Prophecy Study Bible, pp.596-597)

March 8, 2009

Evolution- Full Of Gaps

Evolutionists say we have evolved from monkeys . The author at
http://migration.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/becoming-human/

says “Oh, and how do I know monkeys are following me? Human vestigiality for one.”
Really ?
However, there is no hard evidence to support such wild claims as we shall see below. The following material is from evolution-facts.org :

Why there is no evidence humans evolved from anything

This chapter is based on pp. 607-663 of Origin of Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 137 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

In the previous chapter (Fossils and Strata), we examined the supposed evidences for the past evolution of plants and animals. In this chapter, we will view the imagined ancestry of human beings.

Following an introduction, this chapter is divided into two main sections: Hominids and Early Man.

The section on Hominids will deal with what is called prehistoric man, or what we might call “the man of evolution.” In some respects it is an addition to the chapter on fossils, although it reads more like a sideshow as it tells about fakeries such as Piltdown Man, Java Man, Tuang Man, etc.

The concluding section, Early Man, will be about actual geologic or historical evidences of ancient peoples, and is about the “man of history.” It is somewhat paralleled by information near the end of chapter 4, Age of the Earth.

The concept that we are just animals, only slightly removed from apes, means that there are no moral standards, no laws worth obeying, no future, and no hope. The realization of this terrible truth even penetrated the gloom of *Darwin’s mind at times.

“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”—*Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. 1, p. 285.

1 – INTRODUCTION

HAVE SUCH BONES BEEN FOUND?—(*#1/28 Man’s Non-human Ancestry Unknown*) From grade school on up, children are taught about “cavemen,” and are gradually conditioned to the idea that we evolved from lower forms of life. They are also taught about the bones and skulls of our “ancestors.”

As adults, we frequently hear reports of fossil remains of ape-like humans that have been found. Each discovery has been hailed as a landmark proof of the theory of evolution. Scientists have given a name to these supposed half-man/half-ape remains; they call them hominids..

Is it really true that such skeletal remains have been found? Are we really related to apes? In this chapter, you will examine the evidence and find solid answers.

APES—(*#2/28 From Ape to Man*) Evolutionists teach two variant theories regarding man’s direct ancestor: (1) man and ape came from a common ancestor about 5-20 million years ago; (2) man descended from an ape.

Modern man is said to have evolved until about 100,000 years ago—and then he stopped evolving! It is claimed that, since that time, man has switched over from “physical evolution” to “cultural and social evolution.” This is an attempt to explain the fact that, in historical records, evolution has never been known among humans.

There is no evidence that evolution is now—or has ever—occurred among animals or plants either. Are they culturally evolving now also? In addition, it is strange that if man is essentially the same as he was a million years ago, then why did he only begin leaving writings, buildings, and artifacts during no more than the last few thousand years? Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years?

“The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more.”— *Sir Solly Zukerman, “Myth and Method in Anatomy,” in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114.

Did man descend from the apes? Our DNA is different from that of each of the apes, monkeys, and all the rest. The number of vertebrae in our backbone is different from that in the apes. Our cranial (brain) capacity is totally different from the great apes.

Orangutans . . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Chimpanzees . . . . . 275-500 cc.

Gorillas . . . . . . . . . 340 -752 cc.

Man . . . . . . . . . . . .1100 -1700 cc.

Cranial capacity is, by itself, an important test of whether a skull is from a man or an ape.

“Since there are variations in tissues and fluids, the cranial capacity is never exactly equal to brain size, but can give an approximation. A skull’s capacity is determined by pouring seeds or buckshot into the large hole at the base of the skull (foramen magnum), then emptying the pellets into a measuring jar. The volume is usually given in cubic centimeters (cc.). Living humans have a cranial capacity ranging from about 950cc. to 1,800cc., with the average about 1,400cc.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 98.

COMPARING GORILLA AND MAN—*Charles Darwin said man was descended from an ape. Shown below is a typical ape, a gorilla. Carefully notice is bony structure. Notice the skulls and neck bones. Both were carefully designed by a highly-intelligent Creator, but both are very different.

Gorilla and Man

EC522.jpg (243595 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

Evolution teaches that we descended from the great apes, and they, in turn, from the gibbons and other smaller apes.

Several differences between man and ape: (1) Birth weight as a percent of maternal weight is, in man, almost twice that of the great apes (5.5 vs. 2.4-4.1), but about the same or less than that found in monkeys (5-10) and in gibbons (7.5). (2) Order of eruption of teeth is the same in man and in the Old World monkeys, but it is different than that of the great apes. (3) Walking upright is quite different. Man and the gibbon walk habitually upright; the great apes do not. As with the other teachings of evolution, scientific facts are on the side of the creationists, and the evolutionists, and their incredulous theories are outside the domain of scientific fact, discovery, and law. (4) The neck hinge is at the back on man, but at the front on the ape.

The shape and arrangement of the teeth, for example, is quite different for apes and man:, for example, is quite different for apes and man:

“Many male primates have large canine teeth, which are used in fighting and defense. Where the upper canines meet, or occlude, with the lower jaw, there are spaces, or gaps, between the opposing teeth. Canine diastemas [spaces opposite large canines] are characteristic of the jaws of baboons, gorillas and monkeys. They are used as a diagnostic feature in studying fossils because they are absent in hominids [men or near-men]. A primate jaw with canine diastemas is considered probably related to apes or monkeys, not close to the human family.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69.

PRIMITIVE PEOPLES—Early civilizations were advanced; but, from time to time, groups would migrate to new areas and for a time live in “stone age cultures,” until they had opportunity to build cities, plant, and engage in animal husbandry (*Science Year: 1966, p. 256).

THE THEORETICAL ANCESTRY OF MAN—Shown below are side views of the skulls, bottom views of the upper teeth, and side views of the hands—of the supposed ancestral line of mankind (Galago to Guenon, to chimpanzee, to man).

A careful comparison reveals they are each quite different from the others.

The Theoretical Ancestry of Man

EC524.jpg (201584 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

In some localities, the climate and environment have been difficult enough that groups have continued down to the present time in stone-age conditions. Such racial groups can be found in New Guinea and certain other areas.

Some of these peoples have lost a knowledge of agriculture and the making of weapons, tools, or houses. They only have a few crude stone and bamboo tools, and no weapons. They live under the trees in the open, and the men spend each day gathering worms, leaves, and fruit for the family to eat.

Many anthropologists believe that those primitive “stone age” peoples are not evidence of earlier human life-forms, but rather tribes which have slipped back from the rest of us.

“Many of the so-called ‘primitive’ peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, Central India, South America, and the Western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but instead are the ‘wreckage’ of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life.”—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256.

CAVEMEN—The first introduction many children have to evolution are pictures of dinosaurs and cavemen. It is true that there have been groups that have lived in caves. They wandered from warm climates to colder ones and chose to live in caves for a time before building themselves homes in a new land. But the fact that some people lived in caves for awhile does not prove evolution from one species to another.

*Diodorus Siculus, writing about 60 B.C., told of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves. He describes many other barbarian tribes, some of them quite primitive. Thus we see that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time. We have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones..

Archaeologists tell us that in some places in Palestine, people resembling the Neanderthal race lived in caves, while not far away in Jericho people dwelt in well-built, beautifully decorated houses.

NEANDERTHALS—(*#3/7 Neanderthal Men*) Evolutionists call the cavemen, “Neanderthals.”

In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists, and for a number of years all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight.

In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections.

A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to ape-like creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis.

A most excellent, detailed analysis of how rickets and arthritis caused the features, peculiar to Neanderthals, was written by Ivanhoe in a 1970 issue of the scientific journal, Nature. The article is entitled, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?”

“Neanderthal man may have looked like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but because he had rickets, an article in the British publication Nature suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in Vitamin D.—*“Neanderthals had Rickets,” in Science Digest, February 1971, p. 35.

Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically.

*D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens.

The Neanderthals apparently lived at a time when there was not as much sunlight. We know that the ice age came as a result of worldwide volcanic dust pollution. The weather in Europe at that time was cold enough that they may have stayed so much in their caves that they did not obtain enough sunlight, especially due to the overcast sky conditions.

They may also have lived longer than men do today. Biblical records indicate that those living just after the Flood (on down to Abraham and even Moses) had somewhat longer life spans than we do today. In 1973, *H. Israel explained that certain living individuals today begin to develop Neanderthaloid features—the heavy eyebrow ridges, elongated cranial vault, and so on—with extreme age. There is definite evidence that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old.

For much more information, see the book, Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo (1998). In it, he clearly shows that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old. Facial bones keep growing throughout life. He also discovered that the evolutionists had mismatched the upper and lower jaw, in order to make the Neanderthals look like apes.

Here are two facts you will not find in the textbooks: (1) In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted (”Neanderthal in Armour,” in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). (2) A Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for the skeleton to be as much as a century old (”Living Neanderthal Man,” in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176).

A third interesting fact is that the Neanderthals had larger craniums than we do. They had larger brains! This indicates regression of our race from a former longer-lived, more intelligent, race rather than evolutionary progression. Brain capacity is an important indicator of whether a cranium (the part of the skull which encloses the brain) belongs to an ape or a person.

“The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater than that in modern man.”—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Changing Man,” in Science, January 27, 1967, p. 410.

“Normal human brain size is 1450-1500 ccs; Neanderthal’s is 1600 ccs. If his brow is low, his brain is larger than modern man’s.”—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 87.

“The [Neanderthal] brain case on the average was more than 13 percent larger than that of the average of modern man.”—Erich A. von Fange, “Time Upside Down,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1974, p. 23.

They also had well-developed culture, art, and religion. At the present time, most scientists agree that Neanderthals were just plain people that lived in caves for a time. Unfortunately, we are still waiting for this change in thinking to be seen in children’s textbooks.

Two Neanderthal-like skulls were found in Santa Barbara, California in 1923. Researchers recognized that they were just Indian skulls.

Neanderthals were just racial types similar to ourselves.

CRO-MAGNON MAN—(*#4/4 Cro-Magnon and Rhodesian Man*) In 1868 a cave was discovered at Les Eyzies, in the Dordogne area of France. In the local dialect, cro-magnon means “big hole.” A number of skeletons have been found there, and have been hailed as the great “missing link” between man and ape.

The Cro-Magnons were truly human, possibly of a noble bearing. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial volume somewhat larger than that of men today. This means they had more brains than men have today. Not only did they have some excellent artists among them, but they also kept astronomy records. The Cro-Magnons were normal people, not monkeys, and they provide no evidence of a transition from ape to man..

2 – HOMINIDS

BASIC QUESTIONS—We will now turn our attention to part of a lengthy line of fakes. As we view them, one by one, there are a few questions we should keep in mind:

(1) Why is it that, each time, only one specimen is found? Why not hundreds or thousands of them? If these are our ancestors, there should be millions of specimens. There are so many people alive today, there should have been large numbers of half-ape people alive during that “million years” that men are said to have lived on this planet. Indeed, evolution teaches uniformitarianism, the concept that past climates and living conditions were essentially like those we have now in the world.

(2) Why are only little pieces of bone found for each specimen—never a complete skeleton? Is this not reading a lot into almost no evidence? Or is it possible that the less found, the easier it is to try to make unfounded claims for it? (Later in this chapter we learn that if only parts of bones are found, their positions can be moved about to imitate half-ape skulls and jaws.)

(3) Although bones decay in a few years in damper regions, and in a few centuries in drier regions,—why is it that these special bones did not decay even though they are supposed to be “a million years old”? The very possibility, that these “million-year-old bones” are not supposed to have decayed, makes it all the more certain that there ought to be millions of other bones lying around belonging to our ancestors! There are millions living today, if people have lived on earth for a million years,—the earth should be filled with the bones of our ancestors!

(4) How could “million-year-old bones” possibly be found in damp earth (not encased within solid rock) in Indonesia, China, and England? Yet the evolutionists claim that such bones have been found, as we shall learn below.

In an article about the grand opening of the International Louis Leakey Memorial Institute for African Prehistory (TILLMIAP) in Nairobi, Kenya, *Lewin wrote this:

“Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are reputations to be made and public acclaim to be savoured for people who unearth ever older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents.”—*Roger Lewin, “A New Focus for African Prehistory,” in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793.

ONLY BONE PIECES—One problem, as indicated above, is all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. all that these experts work with is such things as jaw fragments, broken skull pieces, and parts of other bones. No complete or even half-complete skeleton, linking man with the rest of animals has ever been found. But, working with pieces collected here and there, imagination can produce most wonderful “discoveries.” In some instances, some of the pieces have been found at some distance from the rest of the fragments.

JAVA MAN—(*#5/5 Java Man*) In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. * Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java.

In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old.

Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age) he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find, for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape.

Excitedly, *Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as “Java Man,” and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones. But *Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the “half-human half-ape” bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).

British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two.

Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his “bone collection” nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals.

Java Man

EC532.jpg (184546 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

ARRANGING JAVA MAN—This sketch is an excellent illustration of how evolutionists prefer PIECES of bones, for they can fit them together in different ways to achieve their purposes.

About 15 years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than bones from a modern human,—*Dubois announced his conviction that the bones belonged to a gibbon!

School textbooks and popular books for the public continue to cite 500,000 years as the age of “Java Man,” which, admittedly, is quite an imaginary figure.

PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man*) In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine.

Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it, and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone.

In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to unravel that particular hoax. (Later in this chapter, the story is discussed in more detail.)

Piltdown Man

EC534.jpg (182547 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

THE PIECES OF PILTDOWN MAN—It took several years to fabricate Piltdown Man. *Dawson and his associates carefully worked on the bones, in order to only provide certain pieces, so a half-ape, half-human appearance could be produced. The dark portions represent the pieces of bone; the white portions are plaster “reconstructions.”

This illustration, like all in this book, are taken from the author’s three-volume Evolution Disproved Series.

“Careful examination of the bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap but an ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone.”—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221.

RHODESIAN MAN—In 1921, Rhodesian Man was discovered in a cave. Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape, half-human sort of creature. But then a competent anatomist had the opportunity to examine it, and found that this was just a normal human being.

Further analysis revealed dental caries which modern diets tend to produce, and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow. So Rhodesian Man was not so ancient after all.

TAUNG AFRICAN MAN—Taung African Man was found in 1924 by *Raymond Dart, when he came across the front face and lower jaw of an immature ape in a cave in the Taung limestone quarry of South Africa. He rushed to report it, accompanied by extravagant claims. A majority of scientists rejected this find, but the press loudly proclaimed it to be the “the missing link.” Today most experts dismiss it as the skull of a young ape.

“Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang ‘child,’ was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans.”—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178.

NEBRASKA MAN—(*#7/2 Nebraska Man*) Nebraska Man was found in 1922. Well, not exactly. A single molar tooth was found in 1922,—and called “Nebraska Man”! Based on that one tooth, an artist was told to make a picture. He did so and it went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to “an extinct pig”! In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing “Nebraska Man” was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find.

*Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist, ridiculed William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, declaring that the tooth was “the herald of anthropoid apes in America,” and that it “speaks volumes of truth” (*H.F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103).

At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after careful study, the tooth was definitely from a species closer to man than to the ape. (Science 55, May 5, 1927, p. 464).

PEKING MAN—Peking Man emerged on the international scene in the 1920s. The finances of *Davidson Black were just about running out, and he needed help, when in 1927 he found a tooth near Peking, China. The *Rockefeller Foundation stepped forward and gave him $80,000 to continue research on this colossal find. So *Black continued looking and came up with a skull, copies of which are displayed today in biology laboratories. *Black named it Sinanthropus pekinensis (”China man from Peking”), and received honors from all over the world for his discovery. After his death in 1934, the Jesuit that helped prepare Piltdown Man (*Teilhard de Chardin) took over the work at the site. Then *Franz Weidenreich led out until all work stopped in 1936, because of the Japanese invasion of China.

This turned out to be some kind of town garbage dump. Although thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, only a few human skulls were found, and there was no evidence that they had evolved from anything else—even though there was 150 feet of animal bones in the pit. These human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires.

These were human bones, but with a somewhat smaller brain capacity (1,000cc., which some people today have), and with the prominent brow ridges which we find in Neanderthals and Australopithecus.

There are races today with larger brow ridges, and some Philippine women have brow ridges,—which only men generally have. Patterns vary, but the species remains one.

“The heavy-boned [Peking] hominid skull featured prominent brow ridges and a somewhat smaller braincase (about 1,000 cc.) than modern humans (1,500 cc.).”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 359.

A braincase of 1,000cc. is not sub-human; people today vary between 1,000 and 2,000cc., with an occasional low of 750cc., and an average of 1,500-1 ,600cc.

All the skulls disappeared during World War II, so we cannot now examine them with modern methods to check their genuineness.

Australopithecus

EC538.jpg (191027 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

“Amidst the uncertainties of war-torn Beijing [earlier called Peking], it proved impossible to store them [Peking Man bones] safely with Chinese authorities, so Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man’s bones may now be resting on the ocean’s bottom.

“However, there have been sporadic reports that the crate never made it onto that ill-fated ship, but was left behind in a railway station, where it was confiscated by the Japanese, stolen by looters or simply lost in the confusion.”—*Ibid.

The evidence indicates that this may have been a dining area or garbage dump, and that both animals and people had been eaten.

“But just what had been excavated? A living site? A burial ground? A place of ritual cannibalism? . . Peking man was represented mainly by skulls—hardly any postcranial material. Not a pelvis or a rib. Just skulls. And the openings at their bases, the foramens magnums, had been widened and smashed, as if someone had wanted to scoop out the brains.”—*Ibid.

Twenty years later, in the 1950s, *Ernst Mayr came up with a new name, Homo erectus, and then put a variety of bone finds (Java Man, Peking Man, and several others) into it.

It is well to keep in mind that all that remains of Peking Man are plaster casts in the United States. But plaster casts cannot be considered reliable evidence.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES—(*#8/3 Ramapithecus*; #9/17 Australopithecus*) “Australopithecus” (”southern ape”) is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones carefully, anthropologists have gravely announced that they come from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 4 to 1 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopithecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties. But they are all apes.

One of the most famous was named “Lucy,” and will be mentioned later on.

Some experts believe that these apes, the Australopithecines, descended from another ape, the “Ramapithecines” (”Ramapithecus” is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago.

“No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis].”—W. Mehlert, “The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, *Louis Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He dated them at 1.8 million years ago and decided they belonged to the human family, therefore naming them Homo (people are classified as Homo Sapien. But many experts, including *Brace and *Metress have clearly shown that habilis was nothing more than a large-brained Australopithecus.

Brain sizes: Human beings have a brain size of about 1500 cc. (cubic centimeters). In contrast, habilis was 660 cc. Other brain sizes would be 800 cc. for Hadar, 900 cc. for Koobi Fora. Most other brain sizes are about 500 cc. The Taung and Sterkfontein skulls are around 430 cc. apiece, so an adult of their species would only be 550-600 cc. Thus on the score of size of brain case, these finds prove nothing.

An excellent and detailed article on this, which includes 13 charts and graphs, will be found in “Some Implications of Variant Cranial Capacities for the Best-preserved Australopithecine Skull Specimens,” by Gerald Duffert (Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 96-104). The article reveals that there was evidence of fraudulent measurements of those ancient African skulls. Repeatedly, when initially measured a high cubic centimeter volume was announced for the skull, but later remeasurements by other investigators disclosed much smaller measurements!

“Overall, the revisionary calculations of australopithecine skulls have led to reductions of their calculated volumes. The total percentage differences amount to—157.91.”—*Op. cit., p. 100.

“The hypothesis that brain enlargement marked the beginning of man was long popular, but went out of fashion with the discovery that the endocranial volumes of the australopithecine group were not larger than those of gorillas.”—*Elwin L. Simons, Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Man’s Place in Nature (1972), p. 278.

Speaking of the Australopithecines, *J.S. Weiner commented:

“The ape-like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man.”—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

In 1957, *Ashley Montagu, a leading U.S. anthropologist, wrote that these extremely apelike creatures could not possibly have anything to do with man (*A. Montegu, Man’s First Million Years).

After the most careful research, *Oxnard and *Zuckerman have come to the conclusion that Australopithecus is an ape, and not human, and not a transition between the two.

“Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been applied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as ‘Lucy.’ “—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

LUCY—Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that “Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man(*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was “embarrassingly un-Homo like” (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and “was surprisingly short legged” (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).

*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape.

In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are “unmistakable” (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).

*Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and “she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys” (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).

Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:

“To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints.”—*Peter Andrews, “The Descent of Man,” in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Richard Leakey’s highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape

So whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.

*Johanson’s theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:

“Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was ‘the same’ as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey’s find as the ‘type specimen’ for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson’s] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson’s ‘appropriating’ her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.

*Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.

“Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species.”—*Ibid.

Mehlert sums it up.

“The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing.”—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

NUTCRACKER MAN—Nutcracker Man was found in 1959 by *Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, and is one of the Australopithecines, discussed above.

SKULL 1470—In 1972, *Richard Leakey announced what he thought to be a human-like fossil skull, and gave it an astonishing date of 2.8 million years. The official name of this find is KNM-ER 1470, but it is commonly known as “Skull 1470.” If this is a human skull, then it would pre-date all the man/ape bones said to be its ancestors.

Both Leakey and other hominid experts think it looks essentially like a modern small-brained person. It was pieced together from several fragments.

“In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, of Richard Leakey’s ‘Hominid Gang,’ found a similar but much more complete skull at East Turkana. It is generally known as the ‘1470’ skull, from its accession number at the Kenya National Museum.

“The 1470 skull was pieced together by Richard Leakey’s wife Meave and several anatomists from dozens of fragments—a jig jaw puzzle that took six weeks to assemble. Dated at 1.89 million years old, with a cranial capacity of 750cc., Leakey believes it is the oldest fossil of a true human ancestor. In his view, the australopithecines and other hominid fossils were sidebranches

“Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 (along with the previous habiline fragments found at Olduvai) because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply ‘too modern-looking’ to be as ancient as he at first claimed.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.

Here was *Leakey’s original announcement in regard to this skull:

“Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”—*Richard E. Leakey, “Skull 1470,” National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

But it should be understood that modern, living, small-brained (750cc.) human beings have existed, so the finding of a 750cc. Skull 1470 is no reason to think it is an “ancestor” of mankind.

“Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed ‘Keith’s rubicon’ (dividing line) . . How did he arrive at the ‘magic’ number of 750cc.? It was the smallest functioning modern human brain anatomists had seen at the time [when *Sir Arthur Keith, one of those involved in the Piltdown hoax, was alive earlier in this century].”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 249.

Early comments on Skull 1470 included these:

“The finding of ‘Skull 1470,’ which Richard Leakey says is nearly three million years old and really human, will shatter the whole evolutionary story built upon so-called hominoids, if anthropologists accept Leakey’s pronouncements. An artist for the National Geographic Magazine obligingly painted a reconstruction which is very human indeed. The only thing peculiar is the overly flat nose—and the shape of the nose cannot be ascertained from a skull.”—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 131.

“The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man’s origins.”—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

After considering the implications of the situation, the skull was carefully redated, lest it be thought that human beings had lived 2.8 million years ago. The experts did not want it to predate its ancestors!

“The 1470 Skull discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972 was originally ‘dated’ at 2.6 million years. However, many anthropologists objected because then the more modern 1470 Skull would predate all its supposed ancestors. Thus 1470 was ‘redated’ until a more ‘acceptable’ estimate of 1.8 million years was adopted.”—John N. Moore, “Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 185.

This skull may have been that of a microcephalic human, a teenage human, or an ape..

It lacks the prominent eyebrow ridges common to Homo erectus (Java Man, etc.), many Neanderthals, and Australopithecus. Some fossil apes had brow ridges; others lacked them.

The brow ridge slopes back abruptly as does that of simians (apes), but it is somewhat more rounded.

The size of the braincase is equivalent to that of a teenager, or a microcephalic, and somewhat larger than an ape: 775 cc. A gorilla averages 500 cc., and an australopithecus only 422 to 530 cc. The average brain size for modern man is 1450 cc. But there are exceptions to this:

Microcephalics are human beings which have brains as small as 775 cc. This condition is a birth defect which, though unfortunate, occurs from time to time.

“Humans with microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns.”—Marvin Lubenow, “Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny,” in Bible-Science Newsletter, 14(1 1):1-4 (1976).

“None of these early hominids had brains approaching the size of modern human ones. The indices of encephalization show that australopithecines were only slightly above the great apes in relative brain size and even the largest cranium [Skull 1470] is about as close to apes as it is to humans.”—*Henry M. McHenry, “Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution,” in Science 190(4213):425-431.

It is significant that the lower jaw was not found. This would have told a lot. The face of the skull, below the eyes, protrudes forward in the manner of apes. The jaw and molars are somewhat larger than the average modern human’s, but not larger than those of some people. There appears to be a lack of bony support beneath the nostrils, such as is found in gorillas. Facial skeletons are relatively larger in apes than the braincase size. Skull 1470 is about midway in this category, and thus not like that of humans. It also has a long upper lip area, such as apes have.

Viewing three skulls from the rear (an adult human, Skull 1470, and Australopithecus) we find that Skull 1470 has similarities to that of Australopithecus.

John Cuozzo, in a 4-page report complete with two drawings and seven photographs (Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 173-176), provides intriguing evidence for his contention that Skull 1470 may have been that of an early teenage human being, and that damage to the skull after death caused the ape-like characteristics in the nasal opening, etc.

Frankly, there is not enough data available to say much more. There is no doubt that the special human qualities of speech, etc., would not reveal themselves in a skull.

It is also a fact that evolutionists eagerly desire evidence that man descended from an ape-like ancestor. Yet over a hundred years of searching has not disclosed this, even though, as we learned in the chapter on Fossils and Strata, millions of fossils have been dug out of the ground and examined. If mankind had indeed descended from another creature, there should be abundant fossil evidence. But it is not there.

BONE INVENTORY—(*#12 Major Hominid Discoveries*) Most all of these supposed ancestral bones of man have been catalogued in a *Time-Life book, The Missing Link, Volume 2 in the “Emergence of Man Series,” published in 1972. It has a complete listing of all the Australopithecine finds up to the end of 1971.

Although over 1400 specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. All that anthropologists have in their ancestral closet are bits and pieces.

“The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!”—*Science Digest 90, May 1982, p. 44.

As listed in the Ancient Man appendix on our website (*#12*), the number of bone pieces which have been found worldwide is incredibly small! You will want to turn to the appendix and look over the listing for yourself. There is little wonder that each new piece of bone receives so many newspaper stories!

“The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table . . The collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present.”—*John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

“I don’t want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments.”—*Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers’ Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

“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.”—*Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].

WHAT IT ALL MEANS—All the evidence from bones and fossils gives only one report: Mankind did not evolve from any lower form of life. Evolutionists have found no support anywhere for their theory that man came from apes, monkeys, mollusks, germs, or anything else.

Here are five special reasons why mankind did not descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters:

“1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinctness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought.”—John N. Moore, “Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

Anthropologists maintain that man descended from an unknown ancestor, and *Darwin said it was an ape. If we descended from an ape, why do we have a different number of vertebrae in our backbones than apes have? Why is our cranial capacity totally different? And, most important, why is our DNA distinctly different than apes, monkeys, and all species of wildlife?

They say that they have found the bones of our hominid ancestors. Why then have only a table-top full of bones been found? There ought to be millions of bones, if they lived for hundreds of thousands of years before us. And why do all those bones look only like ape bones or human bones—and never like both?

They say that modern evolutionary anthropology is based on the pioneering discoveries of six men: * Eugene Dubois and his Java Man, *Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man, the 1921 Rhodesian Man, the 1922 Nebraska Man, *Raymond *Dart’s Taung African Man, and *Davidson Black’s Peking Man. But the finds of *Dubois and *Dawson were later discovered to be outright fakes. Rhodesian and Taung Man were found to be apes. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig tooth, and Peking Man was just human bones.
And are not very old after all.

You have just completed

Chapter 13 Ancient Man Part 1

EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

March 6, 2009

Atheists And Their Big Talk Against God

Atheists can’t prove there isn’t a God to Theists. Atheism is a belief system that requires blind faith.

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to this site and even link to us with derogatory remarks which is fine–they know they need Jesus, that’s why they keep coming here. They know hell isn’t a fairy tale.Atheists say, “There is no god,” like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, “The FOOL hath said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” In actuality, there is no such thing as a “real atheist”. Here’s an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

  1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth–criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person’s social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn’t know every single fact.
  2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars–right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He’ll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, “So in other words you know practically nothing.” The answer must be yes.The breakdown:The following box represents all the knowledge of the universe.
    empty box12

    The dot in the box represents the atheist’s knowledge of everything in the universe (the dot should be even smaller but you get the point). All the black space is unknown to them.

    . empty box1

    The X represents God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE of their extremely limited knowledge.

    . empty bo X

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we’ve seen above. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, “There is no God,” he’d have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE–and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, “I’m agnostic” although this is not true either…
We are not here by random chance or an ecological accident . Moreover, this is not a God of the Gaps illustration; For more evidence against atheism go to:
https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/dna-and-protein/

I submit to you in accordance with the word of God (Romans chapter 1) that the big talkers and blasphemers know that God is real and they know that their day of judgment is coming. THAT is why they call themselves atheists–they are trying to convince themselves that that day of judgement will not come–the ostrich-head-in-the-sand syndrome. They would rather believe that a monkey is their daddy and a fly their cousin than give the reverence to God and Him alone. Plugging up your ears will not stay the wrath of God against you. When you get thrown in hell you will be without excuse and it will be too late to get it right with Jesus. It’s in this life you get it right or never. Turn or Burn. Repent or Perish [1].

Some man might say to me…

“Your God is a God of fear! A good God wouldn’t put His creatures in hell! If your God does that I don’t want Him!”

To that I say, “Oh so you want to continue in rebellion to your Maker? I see. And you got the nerve to think that you are automatically entitled to live in His home? Heaven is God’s home and it won’t be one evil, rebellious person living there. Either get washed in the blood of the Lamb or perish in the flames of hell.” An excerpt from a sermon by Charles H. Spurgeon entitled “Turn or Burn” will shed some nice light on the subject (the light maketh manifest)…

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

First, we cannot expect that the God of the Bible would allow sin to go unpunished. Some may imagine it; they may dream their intellects into a state intoxication, so as to fantasize a God apart from justice; but no man who has any common sense, can imagine a God without justice.

You cannot conceive of a good king or of a good government that could exist without Justice, much less of God, the Judge and King of all the earth, without justice in His heart. To imagine Him all love, and no justice, would be to make Him less than God. He would not be capable of ruling this world if He had not justice in His heart.

There is in man a natural perception of the fact, that if God exists, He must be just; and I can cannot imagine that you can believe in a God, without believing also in the punishment of sin. It would be difficult to imagine Him elevated high above His creatures, seeing all their disobedience, and yet looking with the same composure upon the good and upon the evil; you cannot imagine Him giving the same reward of praise to the wicked and to the righteous…

This world is not the dungeon where God punishes sin…judgment is reserved for the next world…

Your own consciences will tell you that God must punish sin. You may laugh at me, and say that you have no such “belief.” I did not say you had, but I said that your conscience tells you so, and conscience has more power over men than what they think to be their belief. As John Bunyan said, “Mr. Conscience had a very loud voice, and though Mr. Understanding shut himself up in a dark room where he could not see, yet he used to thunder out so loudly in the streets, that Mr. Understanding used to shake in his house through what Mr. Conscience said.” And it is true so often.

You say in your understanding, “I cannot believe God will punish sin;” but you know He will. You don’t want to confess your secret fears because to do so would be to give up what you have so often most bravely asserted. But because you assert it with such boasting and high-sounding words, I think you don’t really believe it, for if you did, you would not need to look so big while saying it… I know that when you are dying you will believe in a hell. Conscience makes cowards of us all, and makes us believe, even when we say we don’t, that God must punish sin.

Let me tell you a story; I have told it before, but it is a striking one, and sets out in a true light how easily men will be brought in times of danger to believe in a God, and a God of justice too, though they have denied Him before. In the backwoods of Canada there lived a good minister, who one evening went out to meditate, as Isaac did, in the fields. He soon found himself on the borders of a forest, which he entered, and walked along a path which had been walked on before him; meditating, and still meditating, until at last the shadows of twilight gathered around him, and he began to think how he might have to spend the night in the forest. He trembled at the idea of remaining there, with the poor shelter of a tree that he would be compelled to climb.

All of a sudden he saw a light in the distance, among the trees, and thinking that it might be from the window of some cottage where he would find a hospitable retreat, he hurried to it, and, to his surprise saw a space cleared, and trees laid down to make a platform, and upon it a speaker addressing a multitude. He thought to himself, “I have stumbled on a crowd of people, who in this dark forest have assembled to worship God, and some minister is preaching to them, at this late hour of the evening, concerning the kingdom of God, and His righteousness;” but to his surprise and horror, when he came nearer, he found a young [man] speaking loudly against God, daring the Almighty to do His worst upon him, speaking terrible things in anger against the justice of the Most High, and venturing most bold and awful assertions concerning his own disbelief in a future state.

It was altogether a[n] extraordinary scene; it was lighted up by a fire of pine- knots which cast a glare here and there, while the thick darkness in other places still reigned. The people were intent on listening to the speaker, and when he sat down thunders of applause were given to him; each one seeming to emulate the other in his praise. The minister thought to himself, “I must not let this pass; I must rise and speak; the honor of my God and His cause demands it.” But he was afraid to speak, for he did not know what to say, having come there suddenly; but he would have spoken anyway, had not something else occurred.

A man of middle age, robust and strong, rose, and leaning on his staff, he said: “My friends, I have a word to speak to you tonight. I am not about to refute any of the arguments of the speaker; I shall not criticize his style; I shall say nothing concerning what I believe to be the blasphemies he has uttered; but I shall simply relate to you a fact, and after I have done that you shall draw your own conclusions.”

“Yesterday I walked by the side of the river over there; I saw on its waters a young man in a boat. The boat was out of control; it was going fast toward the rapids; he could not use the oars, and I saw that he was not capable of bringing the boat to the shore. I saw that young man wring his hands in agony; in a little while he gave up the attempt to save his life, kneeled down and cried with a desperate sincerity, ‘O God! save my soul! If my body can’t be saved, save my soul.’ I heard him confess that he had been a blasphemer; I heard him vow that if his life were spared he would never be such again; I heard [him] implore the mercy of heaven for Jesus Christ’s sake, and earnestly plead that he might be washed in His blood. These arms saved that young man from the river, I dove in, brought the boat to shore, and saved his life. That same young man has just now addressed you, and cursed his Maker. What do you say, Sirs?”

The speaker sat down. You may guess what a shudder ran through the young man himself, and how the audience in one moment changed their mind, and saw that after all, while it was a fine thing to brag and boast against Almighty God on dry land, and when danger was distant, it was not quite so grand to think ill of Him when near the verge of the grave. We believe there is enough conscience in every man to convince him that God must punish him for his sin; therefore we think that our text will awaken an echo in every heart.–“If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.” (Psalms 7:12)

…O, sirs, you may think that the fire of hell is indeed a fiction, and that the flames of the pit that lies beneath the earth’s surface are but someone’s dreams; but if you are believers in the Bible you must believe that hell is real. Did not our Master say: “Where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched?” You say it is metaphorical fire. But what did He mean by this: “Be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Is it not written, that there is reserved for the devil and his angels dreadful torment? And do you not know that our Master said: “They will go away to eternal punishment;” “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels?”

There is not a man who has been born and educated in this land whose conscience does not know that the existence of hell is a reality. All I need to do is to press upon your anxious consideration this thought: Do you feel that you are a fit subject for heaven now? Do you feel that God has changed your heart and renewed your nature? If not, I beg you lay hold of the thought, that unless you are born again then all that can be dreadful in the torments of the future world must inevitably be yours. Dear listener, apply it to yourself, not to your fellow men, but to your own conscience, and may God Almighty make use of it to bring you to repentance.

Sinner! You are so desperately set on sin, that I have no hope that you will ever turn from it of yourself. But, listen! He who died on Calvary is exalted on high “to give repentance and forgiveness of sin.” Do you this morning feel that you are a sinner? If so, ask Christ to give you repentance, for He can work repentance in your heart by His Spirit, though you can’t work it there yourself. Is your heart like iron? He can put it into the furnace of his love and make it melt. Is your soul like a very hard rock? His grace is able to dissolve it, like the ice is melted before the sun. He can make you repent…

O! what would I give if one of my listener[s] should be blessed by God to go home, and repent! If I had worlds to buy one of your souls, I would readily give them, if I might but bring one of you to Christ. I shall never forget the hour when God’s mercy first looked on me. It was in a place very different from this, among a despised people, in an insignificant little chapel of a peculiar sect…

I went there bowed down with guilt, laden with sins. The minister walked up the pulpit stairs, opened his Bible, and read that precious text: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isaiah 45:22) and, as I thought, fixing his eyes on me, before he began to preach to others, he said: “Young man! Turn! Turn! Turn! You are one of the ends of the earth; you feel you are; you know your need of a Savior; you are trembling because you think He will never save you. He says this morning ‘Turn!'”

O how my soul was shaken within me then! What! I thought, does that man know me, and all about me? He seemed as if he did. And it made me “look!” Well, I thought, lost or saved, I will try; sink or swim, I will run the risk of it; and in that moment by His grace I turned to Jesus, and though desponding, downcast, and ready to despair, and feeling that I would rather die than live as I had lived, at that very moment it seemed as if a new heaven had had its birth within my conscience. I went home, no longer cast down; those who saw me, noticing the change, asked me why I was so glad, and I told them I had believed in Jesus, and that it was written,

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Romans 8:1-2)

O! if one such person like I was should be here this morning. Where are you, you chief of sinners, you vilest of the vile? My dear listener, you have never been in church perhaps these last twenty years; but here you are covered with your sins, the blackest and vilest of all! Hear God’s Word. “Come now, let us reason together, saith the Lord, though your sins be like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” And all this for Jesus’ sake; all this for His blood’s sake! “Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved;”…

Sinner, TURN from your sins or BURN for your sins!


[1] When we say perish, it does not mean that people will cease to exist. They will be forever tormented in hell and the lake of fire. To perish in our context is to be banished from the presence of God to everlasting punishment. John 3:16 tells us, “…that whosoever believeth in him [Jesus] should not PERISH but have everlasting life.” Those persons who find perdition their eternal home have perished and they will live forever in torment.

Written by Earnest Baxter on the Jesus-is-lord.com website


March 4, 2009

Atheism Debunked Again -Mutations

This is the third post in a series that shows the sheer folly of Evolution and therefore atheism; it is dedicated to an atheist blogger who demands proof. Please go to https://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/the-atheists-religon-debunked-again/ to see the second post. The following material comes from evolution-facts.org

Evolution Cruncher Chapter 10A

Mutations part 1


Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change

This chapter is based on pp. 393-459 of Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 134 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on this website.

A mutation is damage to a single DNA unit (a gene). If it occurs in a somatic (body) gene, it only injures the individual; but if to a gametic (reproductive) gene, it will be passed on to his descendants.

Mutations rank equally with fossils and natural selection as the three most important aspects of life evolution.

Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only means (mechanisms) by which it could occur.

In the chapter on Fossils and Strata, we will learn that there is simply no evidence that evolution of life-forms has ever occurred in the past. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we learned that the accidental gene reshuffling (which evolutionists call “natural selection”) can indeed produce changes within species—but are totally incapable of producing different species.

So that brings us to mutations. The study of mutations is crucial! It is all that the evolutionists have left! If mutations cannot produce evolution, then nothing can.

In this chapter you will learn that, far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,—they weaken or terminate the life process! The reason we all fear radiation is because they are a powerful means of producing mutations that irreparably damage our bodies.

THE LAST HOPEIt is well-known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today.

“It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon.”—*E. Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103.

“The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”—*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

Yet they have not been able to provide proof that mutations produce evolution.

“The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.”—*Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, pp. 183 and 205.

OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATIONMutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information.

Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficial—at least sometimes. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism.

NEO-DARWINISM—(*#1/25 What the Public is not Told*) When *Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he based evolutionary transitions on natural selection. In his book, he gave many examples of this, but all his examples were merely changes within the species.

Since then, scientists have diligently searched for examples—past or present—of natural selection changes beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For example, they cite several different horses—from miniatures to large workhorses to zebras,—but all are still horses.

Finding that so-called “natural selection” accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life-forms on Planet Earth.

“Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations.”—*M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.

Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive.

1 – FOUR SPECIAL PROBLEMS

In reality, mutations have four special qualities that are ruinous to the hopes of evolutionists:

(1) RARE EFFECTSMutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but an scientific fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.

“It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology,” in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life-form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth.

Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity.

“Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event.”—*F.J. Ayala, “Mechanism of Evolution,” Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

(2) RANDOM EFFECTSMutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations.

“It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next.”—*C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life (1962), p. 98.

*Eden declares that the factor of randomness in mutations ruins their usefulness as a means of evolution.

“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws.”—*Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific Theory,” in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (1967), p. 109.

Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures.

Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.

EC322.jpg (234919 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

(3) NOT HELPFULEvolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

“But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.”—*H.J. Muller, “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS—(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

As mentioned earlier, scientists turned to neo-Darwinism in the hope that it could do that which Darwinism could not do. The man more responsible than any other for getting scientists on the neo-Darwinian bandwagon was *Julian Huxley. But in his writings, even he knew he was on thin ice:

“A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear.”—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted this:

“One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism.”—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137.

So there you have it: four special facts about mutations that demolish any possibility that they could mutate even one species into another, much less produce all the species in the world.

Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the organism or its offspring.

MILLIONS OF MUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS—At this point, you might ask, “How can we be certain of such facts about mutations if they are so rare?” That is a good question.

The answer is this: Although mutations only occur with extreme infrequence in nature, in the laboratory researchers have learned how to produce mutations at will. The usual method is radiation, but certain chemicals can accomplish it also. A sufficient amount of X-rays applied to the genes of the germ cells of an organism will produce mutations in its offspring. As a result, research geneticists have had the opportunity to study the effects of hundreds of thousands of mutations, on millions of generations of certain creatures. More on this later in this chapter.

BASIS OF EVOLUTION—Modern evolutionary theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful changes in all living creatures. And this has been responsible for all the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants and animals.

Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life-form might greatly improve.

Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations that have provided us with the millions of beneficial features in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random, mutational changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life-forms will emerge.

Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt us to our environmental needs. *Carl Sagan, a leading scientist and science fiction writer, says that we have no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it is too bumpy!

“We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which wheeled organisms are abundant.”—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.

Sagan’s idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground is about as humorous as lava fields that are generally smooth and level.

We have already mentioned four facts about mutations: (1) They are extremely rare. (2) They are only random in what they do. (3) They are never really beneficial. (4) They are harmful or lethal. But now the situation gets worse.

2 – TWENTY-EIGHT REASONS

Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce species evolution:

1 – NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!

Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspring—then how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution?

“Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?”—*C.P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in American Scientist, p. 102.

2 – ONLY HARM—The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not outright kill are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.

This gradual buildup of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load.

“The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals.”—*Christopher Wills, “Genetic Load,” in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.

3 – USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out.

The result is a weeding-out process. Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates mutations by killing off the organism bearing them!

“After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.

“If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a dear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze.”—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174.

4 – MUTAGENSIt is a well-known fact that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and plants.

It is time that the evolutionists, who praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts. How can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and actions of life?

If scientists really believed in mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more, not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life! But they well-know that mutations are extremely dangerous. Who is that confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might wonderfully improve?

“The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations.”—*Christopher Wills, “Genetic Load,” in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.

5 – DANGEROUS ACCIDENTSHow often do accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident you have will make you feel better than you did before?

Because of their random nature and negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.

“An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]

Actually, a significant part of the grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a chance accident to the genes or chromosomes.

“We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.”—*J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.

Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bullock concludes:

“Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization.”—*Helen Bullock, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Mystery,” The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13.

6 – INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered. Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible!

Touch such a delicate system with mutations and you produce interlocking havoc.

7 – ONLY RANDOM EFFECTS—So far in this chapter, we have tended to ignore the factor of random results. What if mutations were plentiful and always with positive results, but still random as they now are? They would still be useless.

Even assuming mutations could produce those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on their stomachs, where they could not use them, or the wings would be upside down, without lightweight feathers, and under- or oversized.

Most animals would have no eyes, some would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them under their armpits or on the soles of their feet.

The random effects of mutations would annihilate any value they might otherwise provide.

8 – ALL AFFECTEDMutations tend to have a widespread effect on the genes.

“Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual . . Every character of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole.”—*Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].

Each mutation takes its toll on large numbers—even all the genes, directly or indirectly; and since 99 percent of the mutations are harmful and appear in totally random areas, they could not possibly bring about the incredible life-forms we find all about us.

Since each altered characteristic requires the combined effort of many genes, it is obvious that many genes would have to be mutated in a GOOD way to accomplish anything worthwhile. But almost no mutations are ever helpful.

More generations of fruit flies have been experimented on for mutational effects than mankind could have lived for millions of years! This is due to the fact that a fruit fly produces “a new generation” in a few short hours; whereas a human generation requires 18-40 years, and researchers in many locations have been breeding fruit flies for 80 years.

Thousands and thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated in the hope of producing worthwhile mutations. But only damage and death has resulted.

“Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs.”—*Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.

9 – LIKE THROWING ROCKS—Trying to accomplish evolution with random, accidental, harmful mutations is like trying to improve a television set by throwing rocks at it (although I will admit that may be one of the best ways to improve the benefit you receive from your television set).

*H.J. Muller won a Nobel prize for his work in genetics and mutations. In his time, he was considered a world leader in genetics research. Here is how he describes the problem:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad.”—*H.J. Muller, “How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution,” in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11(1955), p. 331.

10 – MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE—(*#3/9 Math on Mutations*) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.

Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism!

The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.

More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.

But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.

(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)

“The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism.”—*C.P. Martin, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.

Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility, and that’s it.

11 – TIME IS NO SOLUTION—But someone will say, “Well, it can be done—if given enough time.” Evolutionists offer us 5 billion years for mutations to do the job of producing all the wonders of nature that you see about you. But 5 billion years is, in seconds, only 1 with 17 zeros (1 X 1017) after it. And the whole universe only contains 1 X 1080 atomic particles. So there is no possible way that all the universe and all time past could produce such odds as would be needed for the task! *Julian Huxley, the leading evolutionary spokesman of mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with 3000 zeros after it! (*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46).

Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. And all those mutations would have to be non-random and intelligently planned! In no other way could they accomplish the needed task.

But, leaving the fairyland of evolutionary theory, to the real world, which only has rare, random, and harmful mutations, we must admit that mutations simply cannot do the job.

And there is no other way that life-forms could invent and reinvent themselves by means of that mythical process called “evolution.”

“A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.”—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1955), p. 73.

12 – GENE STABILITYIt is the very rarity of mutations that guarantees the stability of the genes. Because of that, the fossils of ancient plants and animals are able to look like those living today.

“Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more.” “Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years.”—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.

“Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation.”—*Edouard Kellenberger, “The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus,” in Scientific American, December 1966, p. 32.

13 – AGAINST ALL LAW—After spending years studying mutations, *Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter this way:

“If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms.

“The fact that systems [such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?”—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342.

14 – SYNTROPY—This principle was mentioned in the chapter on Natural Selection; it belongs here also. *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is a brilliant Hungarian scientist who has won two Nobel Prizes (1937 and 1955) for his research. In 1977, he developed a theory which he called syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi points out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it was already complete with all of its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. This principle rules out the possibility of evolution arising by the accidental effects of natural selection or the chance results of mutations. It is an important point.

“In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of ‘survival of the fittest’ would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ.”—Jerry Bergman, “Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s Theory of Syntropy,” in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337.

15 – MINOR CHANGES DAMAGE OFFSPRING THE MOST—With painstaking care, geneticists have studied mutations for decades. An interesting feature of these accidents in the genes, called mutations, deals a stunning blow to the hopes of neo-Darwinists. Here, in brief, is the problem:

(1) Most mutations have very small effects; some have larger ones. (2) Small mutations cannot accomplish the needed task, for they cannot produce evolutionary changes. Only major mutational changes, with wide-ranging effects in an organism, can possibly hope to effect the needed changes from one species to another.

And now for the new discovery: (3) It is only the minor mutational changes which harm one’s descendants. The major ones kill the organism outright or rather quickly annihilate its offspring!

“One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant, but this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as a major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes.”—*J.F. Crow, “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.

“The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect.”—*George Gaylord Simpson, “Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory,” Chapter 2; in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.

16 – WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN ONE GENERATION—Not even one major mutation, affecting a large number of organic factors, could accomplish the task of taking an organism across the species barrier. Hundreds of mutations—all positive ones,—and all working together would be needed to produce a new species. The reason: The formation of even one new species would have to be done all at once—in a single generation!

“Since Lamarck’s theory [acquired characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical interest. Darwin’s theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations . . deVries’ theory [large mutations, or hopeful monsters”] has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of offspring.”—*Mark A. Hall and *Milton S. Lesser, Review Text in Biology, (1966), p. 363.

17 – INCONSEQUENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS—A major problem here is that, on one hand, mutations are damaging and deadly; but on the other,—aside from the damage—they only directly change small features.

“Is it really certain, then, as the neo-Darwinists maintain, that the problem of evolution is a settled matter? I, personally, do not think so, and, along with a good many others, I must insist on raising some banal objections to the doctrine of neo-Darwinism . .

“The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the pre-existing organs. In any case, they never produce anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for a new organ or the priming for a new function.”—*Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution (1961), p. 79.

*Richard Goldschmidt was the geneticist who first proposed miraculous multimillion, beneficial mutations as the only possible cause of species crossover. (More on this later.) This is what he wrote about the inconsequential nature of individual mutations:

“Such an assumption [that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the subspecific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations.”—*Richard Goldschmidt, in American Scientist (1952), p. 94.

Later in this chapter, we will briefly discuss *Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monster” theory, since it is based on mutational changes.

18 – TRAITS ARE TOTALLY INTERCONNECTED—Experienced geneticists are well-aware of the fact that the traits contained within the genes are closely interlocked with one another. That which affects one trait will affect many others. They work together. Because of this, all the traits, in changed form, would have to all be there together—instantly,—in order for a new species to form!

Here is how two scientists describe the problem:

“Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.”—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.

“Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cogwheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cogwheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles. To get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again.”—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, “Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself,” Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977), [Winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].

19 – TOO MANY RELATED FACTORS—There are far too many factors associated with each trait for a single mutation—or even several to accomplish the needed task. Mathematical probabilities render mutational species changes impossible of attainment.

“Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 480 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

“Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence . . Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence; ‘random mutations,’ to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression.”—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

20 – REPRODUCTIVE CHANGES LOW—Here is an extremely IMPORTANT point: Mutational changes in the reproductive cells occur far more infrequently than in the cells throughout the rest of the body. Only mutational changes within the male or female reproductive cells could affect oncoming generations.

“The mutation rates for somatic cells are very much higher than the rates for gametic cells.”—*”Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process,” in Science, August 23, 1963, p. 694.

21 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES INCREASING COMPLEXITY—The theorists have decreed that evolution, by its very nature, must move upward into ever-increasing complexity, better structural organization, and completeness. Indeed, this is a cardinal dictum of evolutionists. Evolutionists maintain that evolution can only move upward toward more involved life-forms,—and that it can never move backward into previously evolved life-forms.

But, in reality, mutations, by their very nature, tear down, disorganize, crumble, confuse, and destroy.

Here is how one scientist explains the problem:

“One should remember that an increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies.

“Radiations from natural sources enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the state-of-the-art for cars.

“The question is, then, can random sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemicals, upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a new species?”—Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 51.

22 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW INFORMATIONIn order for a new organism to be formed by evolutionary change, new information banks must be emplaced. It is something like using a more advanced computer program; a “card” of more complicated procedural instructions must be put into the central processing unit of that computer. But the haphazard, random results of mutations could never provide this new, structured information.

“If evolution is to occur . . living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information.”—*George Gaylord Simpson, “The Non-prevalence of Humanoids,” in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.

23 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW ORGANSIt is not enough for mutations to produce changes;—they must produce new organs! Billions of mutational factors would be required for the invention of one new organ of a new species, and this mutations cannot do.

“A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale.”—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living Things (1958).

24 – EVOLUTION REQUIRES COMPLICATED NETWORKING—A relatively new field of scientific study is called “linkage,” “linkage interconnections,” or “networking.” This is an attempt to analyze the network of interrelated factors in the body. I say, “an attempt,” for there are millions of such linkages. Each structure or organ is related to another—and also to thousands of others. (A detailed study of this type of research will be found in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for March 1984, pp. 199-211. Ten diagrams and seven charts are included.)

Our concern here is that each mutation would damage a multi-link network. This is one of the reasons why mutations are always injurious to an organism.

The kidneys interconnect with the circulatory system, for they purify the blood. They also interconnect with the nervous system, the endocrine system, the digestive system, etc. But such are merely major systems. Far more is included. We are simply too fearfully and wonderfully made for random mutations to accomplish any good thing within our bodies.

25 – VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE MUTATIONS—”Visible mutations” are those genetic changes that are easily detectable, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. *Winchester explains: (1) For every visible mutation, there are 20 lethal ones which are invisible! (2) Even more frequent than the lethal mutations would be the ones that damage but do not kill.

“Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.”—*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356.

26 – NEVER HIGHER VITALITY THAN PARENT—Geneticists, who have spent a lifetime studying mutations, tell us that each mutation only weakens the organism. Never does the mutated offspring have more strength than the unmutated (or less mutated) parent.

“There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Synthetic Speciation) (1953), p. 1157 [italics his].

27 – MUTATIONS ARE NOT PRODUCING SPECIES CHANGE—Theory, theory, lots of theory, but it just isn’t happening!

“No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”—*Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.

“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations].”—*Richard B. Goldschmdt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, “American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

A “nascent organ” is one that is just coming into existence. None have ever been observed.

“Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ.”—*Michael Pitman Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68.

28 – GENE UNIQUENESS FORBIDS SPECIES CHANGEThe very fact that each species is so different than the others—forbids the possibility that random mutations could change them into new species. There are million of factors which make each species different than all the others. The DNA code barrier that would have to be crossed is simply too immense.

“If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations.”—*Frank B. Salisbury, “Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene,” Nature, October 25, 1969, p. 342.


You have just completed

Chapter 10 Mutations Part 1

Chapter 10 Mutations Part 2


EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.

– BOX 300 – ALTAMONT, TN. 37301

Material from evolution-facts.org

March 2, 2009

Famous Quotes About Atheism

FAMOUS QUOTES ABOUT ATHEISM

excerpted from Livingbyfaith Ministries website

And from Jesus-Is-Lord.com Website.

 


The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
They are corrupt, they have done abominable works,
there is none that doeth good.
Psalms 14:1

“Atheism is the death of hope, the suicide of the soul…..”
Anonymous

“Atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of man…..”
Sir Francis Bacon

“An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can’t see…..”
O.A. Battista :
Power to Influence People c.1959

“Atheism is a theoretical formulation of the discouraged life…..”
Harry Emerson Fosdick

“There are no atheist in foxholes…..”
William T.Cummings:
Sermons on Bataan, March 1942

“Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow’s ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys…..”
James M. Gillis

“Few men are so obstinate in their atheism, that a pressing danger will not compel them to acknowledgment of a divine power…..”
Plato

“Atheism is a disease of the soul before it becomes an error of understanding…..”
Plato

“No one ever dies an atheist…..”
Plato

“The religion of the atheist has a God-shaped blank at it’s heart…..”
H.G. Wells

“By night,an atheist half-believes in God…..”
Edward Young:
Night Thoughts

“The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly who, not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability…..”
Voltaire:
Philosophical Dictionary

“Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misaprehensions, like children who, when they fear to go in the dark,will sing or whistle to keep their courage….”
Alexander Pope

“An atheist’s most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something,but can’t think of anyone to thank for it….”
Mary Anne Vincent

1

 

March 1, 2009

The Truth About Wicca Or Witchcraft

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:3-4


Wicca is the name, and witchcraft is the game–and the Devil is laughing his head off. It’s time to examine some more paganistic mumbo-jumbo gumbo. Into darkness we go to discover the evil force that mascarades behind the name Wicca…

Wicca witchcraft calls itself “white witchcraft”. This supposedly denotes that Wiccans only do “good” witchcraft.

According to the Bible, there is no such thing as a good witch.

Hence, based on the Bible, ALL witches are wicked–including Wiccans. So Christian…if holly-wood and a bunch of confused Wiccans tell you that white witches are good, who are you going to believe? Them or the Bible? Just because

  • a Wiccan believes fairy stories and legends of the Grail don’t mean that a Wiccan is harmless or good.
  • Just because Wiccans gather herbs and dance naked in the moonlight don’t mean they are good.
  • Just because Wiccans worship the Great Mother and are into the earth don’t mean that they are good or harmless.

We define good or bad in relation to the Bible and the Bible ALONE.

In this article, we are going to examine some Wiccan beliefs and practices. Any objective person will find that Wicca is made up of fables, vain imagination, paganism, blasphemy, lies, tales, heresy, and a seemingly endless list of ceremonies, magick, sabbats, etc. According to former Wiccan High Priest, Bill Schnoebelen, the serious practitioner of Wicca will find himself going to deeper depths which lead further into the worship of Lucifer aka Satan.

I personally hear from Wiccans, pagans, Satanists, Buddhists, etc.–in other words, I get just about every ingredient in the Devil’s mumbo-jumbo gumbo. And each of these groups got something in common– Lucifer. And the remarkable thing is that many of these groups actually know him by “Lucifer” or some deriviative whether the horned god, Pan (the goat-foot god), Cernunnos, Dionysos, Osiris, Bacchus, etc. The horned god is a phallic (phallic refers to a man’s poo-poo) deity of fertility. Why would people worship the devil? Because he offers what they like! “Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law”.

wiccan rede (motto/creed): “An’ it harm none, Do what thou will. satanic creed: Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law”

It is the same thing. Do what you feel like doing.

Here is the pentagram for witchcraft:

Here is the pentagram for Satanism:

It is the same thing, just upside down. In Satanism,
they will draw the horned god in this pentagram. The top two points represent his horns.

When you don’t believe the word of God, King Jesus will give you over to strong delusion that you should believe a lie. People will get in Wicca and stay in it until it kills ’em. They would rather die than bow the knee to King Jesus. These people are born wicked (just like we all were. you don’t have to teach a child to lie and do wrong, it’s automatic) and want to stay that way. I was born wicked but one wonderful day I realized what an abomination I was fulfilling the lusts of the mind and of the flesh. I realized that God is holy and I was unholy. My sins were killing me. I’d chase my lusts, but I didn’t get satisfied, I just got worse. One fine day, I asked King Jesus TO FORGIVE ME FOR MY NASTY, UNLAWFUL DEEDS. I REPENTED AND GAVE MY LIFE TO HIM. “The horned god” had NO MORE POWER OVER ME. The blood of Jesus demolished his works in my life. But witches say, “we love the horned god”. Well, HE HATES YOU just like he hates me and everybody else. That’s why you’ll never be happy and you will sink in deeper and deeper debauchery and despair. You’ll want to get out of the pit and won’t be able to. The only way out is to bow the knee to King Jesus. You’ll either do it now or on your way to the lake of fire.

Those seeking the truth will come to Jesus and He will clean them up from their filthy deeds and make them beautiful and holy. Whereas the Devil says “Do what you feel like doing, my people!” And the people say “Yeah! Alright!” and go right on in death–fornication, whoredom, abortion, lasciviousness, licentiousness, drunken stupors, astral travel, incubus, magic, necromancy, familiar spirits, hugging trees, seeking hidden/occultic wisdom–anything but worshipping Jesus. All their deeds are earthy, sensual, DEVILISH. You got to read that good old King James 1611 in order to understand this dynamic.

THE DEVIL

Lucifer means “Light-bearer”. Lucifer is the Devil/Satan/that Old Serpent/the Dragon. Lucifer and Satan are not two different entitites. New Age people are always talking about light and spiritual guides. These deceived people are talking about the Devil and his devils! They are not talking with “Ascended Masters” they are talking with the Devil and his minions. People at the lower levels of these groups may not realize the role of Satan (they don’t want to), but the higher ups most certainly do.

“But” some Wiccan witch may protest, “how can I worship Satan if I don’t believe he exists?” If you are not serving Jesus, you serving the devil by default. The following link will take you to a page where your question will be further answered. Satan’s hoof prints are all over Wicca. Here you will find two chapters of Wicca: Satan’s Little White Lie.

The information on this treatise on Wicca is taken primarily from a book entitled, “Wicca: Satan’s Little White Lie” by Bill Schnoebelen. This book will give insight into the web of confusion, lies, fables, myths, and deceit found in Wicca. Mr. Schnoebelen was–

“initiate into the Alexandrian Wicca on Imbolc, February 2, 1973 and made a High Priest and Magus in September of the same year. That summer his lady and he were also promoted to the High Priestly rank in the Druidic Craft of the Wise. They also helped establish a Church of All Worlds “nest” in Milwaukee and studied under Gavin and Yvonne Frost and their Church and School of Wicca. They presided over one of the oldest and largest networks of covens in the Midwest.”

“Wicca: Satan’s Little White Lie” page 10

Bill Schnoebelen eventually went on to Satanism.


WICCANS SAY THAT WICCA IS OLDER THAN “CHRISTIANITY”

Wicca adherents will tell you over and over that Wicca is older than “Christianity” (not a Bible word). Witchcraft is not older than worship of the true God. It came up in OPPOSITION to the worship of the true God.

Nothing is older than the Kingdom of God. The eternal God is the Author and Finisher of His kingdom. Nothing predates Him. From the days of Adam through the present day, God has continuously built a spiritual house composed of living stones–men, women, boys and girls (see I Peter 2:5, Ephesians 2:20-22, 2 Corinthians 6:16, I Corinthians 3:16, 6:19). These are people who have believed in Him in every age, have exercised faith in Him, and have worshipped Him. God is a builder.

Ephesians 2:19-22 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the HOUSEHOLD of God; And are built upon the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the CHIEF CORNER STONE; In whom all the BUILDING fitly FRAMED together GROWETH unto an holy TEMPLE in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an HABITATION of God through the Spirit.

The earthly father of all these stones was Adam. The lineage of Jesus Christ is traced back to Adam in Luke 3:23-38. Before Adam, there was no man…so…no, witchcraft is not older than worship of the true God. It came up in OPPOSITION to the worship of the true God.

WICCANS SAY THAT WICCA IS THE “OLD RELIGION”

Wicca as a group is not old. Wiccans believe the lies that their leaders have taught them. This should be no surprise because their father, the devil, is the “father of lies” (John 8:44). And because they have not received the love of the truth, the Lord has given them over to strong delusion that they should believe, and defend, lies. According Mr. Schnoebelen on page 11 of his book on Wicca–

“Although much of the extant literature written by witches (and Dr. Margaret Murray’s work) would lead one to believe that Wicca is a survival of the ancient pagan fertility cults, especially of Northern Europe and the British Isles; there is not a shred of real historical proof for any connection between Bronze Age cults and modern witchcraft.””…it seemed that Wicca is, in fact, a manufactured religion not much older than this century. There did not seem to be evidence for any Book of Shadows (a combined “bible” and ritual book for Wiccans) much older than the 1910’s! [the BoS was probably the result of a collaboration between Gerald Gardner and the notorious Satanist Aleister Crowley, p. 22]”

Although Wicca is new, the forces behind Wicca aren’t new. Wicca is the same old wicked devil worship and rejection of God. It’s simply been warmed over and served to a spiritually devastated world. People would rather believe lies and do what they want to than believe the Lord and surrender to Him. Consequently they will have no peace. Jesus or hell are the only two choices.

BASICS OF WICCA

Cult name: Wicca.

Founder: Gerald B. Gardner (1884-1964). In 1949 Gardner wrote a book entitled, “High Magic’s Aid”. He wrote under his witchcraft name “Scire”. This novel set the tone for the myth of Wicca. Notice Wicca is based on a fictional book. According to Little White Lie

“Gardner claimed there were covens of witches in Britain practicing not an anti-Christian religion, but a “pre-Christian” religion. This, he claimed, was called Wicca…”This he asserted, was the “Old Religion,” an animistic worship of the principals of nature and reproduction; rather like a warmed-over rehash of Fraser’s anthropological chestnut, THE GOLDEN BOUGH. The gods of this Old Religion were a supreme Mother Goddess who ruled the earth, the moon, the sea, and things agricultural. Her secret name (in his coven anyway) was ARAYDA. There was also a Horned God who ruled the sun and hunting, who was variously called Herne, Cernunnos or Pan.

“Thus, Wicca was not an attack on Christianity, but was supposedly a much older religion whose gods were old when Yahweh of the Bible was in knee pants. According to Gardner, witches worshipped naked (or “skyclad” as he preferred to call it) and were matriarchal…”

Many higher level witches understand that Wicca is a compilation of myths; nevertheless, like Carl Jung they perceive that myths have a life of their own and even if they are not literally true they still have an archetypal power all their own. So a lie can be the truth. But the Bible says–

“no lie is of the truth.” I John 2:21

Lower level initiates believe everything they hear and read and will argue you all day long that Wicca is the “Old Religion”. Back to Wicca: Satan’s Little White Lie

“It is now a matter of common knowledge that much of Gardner’s story is fiction. Yet, most witches aren’t bothered by that. Since the seventies, many witches wanted to be totally creative and make up their religion out of their heads–without trying to make any pretentious claims about having “unbroken lines of power” back to medieval “Kings” of the witches. Most Neo-pagan groups fall into this category. They are based on myths, fantasy or even science-fiction stories.”

Christian, could you imagine basing your life on science-fiction? That is straight up vain imagination. My life based on fairy stories from unholy-wood? My life based on fairy stories and legends? Basing my life on fables? But you see the scriptures have come to pass–

And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. 2 Timothy 4:4

Wicca didn’t end with Gardner. Alex Sanders (aka “King of the Witches”) came up with his own brand of Wicca but,

“By the early 70’s there were dozens of traditions of Wicca; some splintered off Gardner or Sanders but most were totally original. There were ethnic witches like the Welsh Traditionalists (headed by a homosexual [sodomite], Ed Bucyzinksi), Georgian, Nordic, Sicilian Stregoi, Hispanic Brujeria and the Druidic Craft from Scotland, plus the contorverial but highly successful Church of Wicca of Gavin and Yvonne Frost. (p. 17)”There are many differences between these dozens of groups. Some worked nude, others robed. Some whipped, most didn’t. Some used ritual sex or even orgies, some abstained. A few common elements can be found, though, in all Wicca and Neo-Paganism:

  1. A polytheistic world-view; usually a god/goddess pair.
  2. A belief in “westernized” reincarnation (no moving backward to incarnate as animals, just moving forward to be reborn as humans)
  3. A shamanic world view similar to animism (the belief that all objects have life and souls) which includes strong ecological overtones and often an openness to some drugs.
  4. Most are militantly feminist and politically left-wing, even anarchistic; although there are exceptions.
  5. A “do your own thing” morality, as long as it doesn’t “hurt anybody.” This often included free sexual activity at least within the group.
  6. An “Aquarian” view of human destiny–the seed bed from which was grown much of the New Age movement–the notion that persons can evolve spiritually through their own efforts and ultimately attain either enlightenment or even godhood.

It is easy to see that with values like this, Wicca took off like a rocket among the “hippie” generation… (p. 18-19)

Overview of the group: Wicca claims to be “a back to nature” type religion that worships the sky and earth. It is goddess worship. Some of ’em proudly tote bumper stickers that say, “In Goddess We Trust”. Their chief deity is the Great Mother, “Holy Mother Earth”. According to Mr. Schnoebelen, there is a certain charm and nostalgic fantasy to Wicca. Wicca transports folks from the high-tech world of today to cultures past, to fantasy, to science FICTION. In other words, they are toted away from REALITY.

“Add to this intriguing stew, Satan added such notions as ecology, environmental awareness and feminism.” p. 19

WICCA TENETS

  • Wiccans say Jesus went through individuation, meaning He embraced His “dark side” (p. 34). Jesus ain’t go no dark side! He knew no sin (2 Corinthians 5:21)
  • Wicca has many denominations/sects/traditions. Some are large like the Alexandrian, Gardnerian, Druidic, Welsh Traditionalist, Georgian, Dianic, and Church of Wicca. Others are as small as a single coven of 13 or family tradition.
  • Satan is a Christian myth.
  • Wiccans say Wicca means “wise one”. Mr. Schnoebelen states that the Oxford English Dictionary defines Wicca as, “twisted, bent, or warped”. Wiccan writers admit this on some level (p. 12-13). To this writer, Wicca means “wicked”!
  • Satanism is just a perversion of Christianity whereas Wicca is an older, purer faith which stood on its own merits.
  • Neo-pagan writer Tim (“Otter”) Zell says it is an “old religion for a new age”. A generation that throws off the God of the Bible is deceived enough to embrace a lie that fits in with their lusts, earth worship, spiritual voids, love of science FICTION, romanticism, and adopted legends. In other words, anything that feeds their flesh and don’t mean nothing. Vain imagination is the name of the game for the duped.
  • Non-witches are “cowans”.
  • Many Wiccans start out refusing to do any magick which would influence people against their wills. This oftentimes don’t last long.
  • The Wiccan Rede, is “an it harm none, do what ye will“. It is perilously close to the Crowley’s (a Satanist) commandment, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

WICCA RITES

  • they think their rites benefit humanity and the earth. Performed to nature deities like Pan, Diana, Cernunnos.
  • performed rites of passage and initiation–Mr. Schnoebelen stood blindfolded, naked and bound at the edge of the Circle “which is placed between the worlds”. He was anointed as a Priest of the Goddess and learned her secret name. “She is supposedly the One ‘who was with me from the beginning, and who was attained at the end of desire.'”
  • For those who would progress further in Wicca they get into a relationship with the Lord of the Underworld, the Dark Lord of Death. This Dark Lord of Death is the darker aspect of Cernunnos or Lucifer, the Horned God of Wicca. Read “Wicca: Satan’s Little White Lie” for more information on the rite of “The Descent of the Goddess into the Underworld”. Learn about the necklace, eternal marrige, and reincarnation in Wicca.
  • As the Wiccan progresses, he is told to essentially embrace the dark side of his nature (the Bible calls it sin) just like the goddess went down to the Lord of Death. Miriam Starhawk, a leading thinker of the Wicca movement wrote,

    “The depths of our beings are not all sunlit; to see clearly we must be able to dive into the dark, inner abyss and Acknowledge the creatures we may find there. p. 31

    What kinda creatures are you going to find there Starhawk (always coming up with some silly names)? I’ll tell you what kind–DEVILS! She knows that, but she won’t call ’em by name, but I will. DEVILS!

  • Satan is a Biblical myth, and a slander on the true god of light, Lucifer p. 38
  • They totally disrespect the God of the Bible. p. 38-39 Sickos ?add scripture
  • With the institutionaliation of “Christianity” in the fourth century (Catholicism, I suppose) all the true secrets of Jesus (say He was a witch with a coven of 12 apostles–blasphemy) had been destroyed and that the true, older religion of Wicca had been driven underground.
  • Lucifer (often known as Bel, Lugh, Herne, Faunus, Pan or Cernunnos) was the true God and that Satan was a boogy-man manufactured by Christians.
  • In Wicca: Satan’s Little White Lie, read more about–
    • bathing in ice cold stream and celebrating the March equinox naked under the stars p.7
    • dancin’ around naked under the moon.
    • wild circle dances
    • burning frankincense
    • circle ceremonies
    • sabbats
    • ceremonial magick
    • qabalism
    • Gardner’s Wiccans–
    • dancing naked in a ring within a magick circle
    • ritual sex on solemn occasions
    • whip one another ceremonially to purify and raise the power.

Read “White Lie” for yourself and learn about the relationship between the leaders of Wicca (Gardener and Sanders) and Aleister Crowley this century’s most infamous SATANIST. Crowley proclaimed himself the wickedest man in the world and Mega Therion, the Great Beast. For the importance of the Grail legend to the deceived Wiccan, see p. 235 of Lucifer Dethroned also by William Schnoebelen.


Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
18:10 There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch.
18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer.
18:12 For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and BECAUSE OF these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.
18:14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

NO WITCHCRAFT! The choice is Jesus OR witchcraft. Never both.

Material written by Tracy at Jesus-Is-Lord.com


February 28, 2009

Evolution Is Religion , Not Science

Evolutionists often insist that evolution is a proved fact of
science, providing the very framework of scientific interpretation,
especially in the biological sciences. This, of course, is nothing but
wishful thinking. Evolution is not even a scientific hypothesis, since
there is no conceivable way in which it can be tested.

THE RELIGIOUS ESSENCE OF EVOLUTIONISM

As a matter of fact, many leading evolutionists have recognized the
essentially “religious” character of evolutionism. Even though they
themselves believe evolution to be true, they acknowledge the fact that
they _believe_ it! “Science”, however, is not supposed to be something
one “believes.” Science is knowledge — that which can be demonstrated
and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or even tested;
it can only be believed.

For example, two leading evolutionary biologists have described
modern neo-Darwinism as “part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most
of us as part of our training.”[1] A prominent British biologist, a
Fellow of the Royal Society, in the Introduction to the 1971 edition of
Darwin’s _Origin of Species_, said that “belief in the theory of
evolution” was “exactly parallel to belief in special creation,” with
evolution merely “a satisfactory faith on which to base our
interpretation of nature.”[2] G.W. Harper calls it a “metaphysical
belief.”[3]

Ernst Mayr, the outstanding Harvard evolutionary biologist, calls
evolution “man’s world view today.”[4] Sir Julian Huxley, probably the
outstanding evolutionist of the twentieth century saw “evolution as a
universal and all-pervading process”[5] and, in fact, nothing less than “the
whole of reality.”[6] A leading evolutionary geneticist of the present
day, writing an obituary for Theodosius Dobzhansky, who himself was
probably the nation’s leading evolutionist at the time of his death in
1975, says that Dobzhansky’s view of evolution followed that of the
notorious Jesuit priest, de Chardin:

The place of biological evolution in human thought was, according
to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted
from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: ‘(Evolution) is a general
postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must
henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be
thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all
facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.'[7]

The British physicist, H.S. Lipson, has reached the following
conclusion:

In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion;
almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to
‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.[8]

The man whom Dobzhansky called “France’s leading zoologist,” although
himself an evolutionist, said that scientists should “destroy the myth
of evolution” as a simple phenomenon which is “unfolding before us.”[9]
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, by any accounting one of the world’s top evolutionists
today, has recently called evolution “positively anti-knowledge,” saying
that “all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed
truth.”[10] In another address he called evolution “story telling.”[11]

All of the above-cited authorities are (or were) among the world’s
foremost authorities on evolutionism. Note again the terms which they
use in describing evolution:

Evolutionary dogma A scientific religion
A satisfactory faith The myth of evolution
Man’s world view Anti-knowledge
All-pervading process Revealed truth
The whole of reality An illuminating light
Metaphysical belief Story-telling

Charles Darwin himself called evolution “this grand view of life.”
Now such grandiloquent terms as these are not scientific terms! One
does not call the law of gravity, for example, “a satisfactory faith,”
nor speak of the laws of thermodynamics as “dogma.” Evolution is,
indeed, a grand world view, but it is _not_ science. Its very
comprehensiveness makes it impossible even to test scientifically. As
Ehrlich and Birch have said: “Every conceivable observation can be
fitted into it. –No one can think of ways in which to test it.”[12]

RELIGIONS BASED ON EVOLUTION

In view of the fundamentally religious nature of evolution, it is not
surprising to find that most world religions are themselves based
on evolution. It is certainly unfitting for educators to object to
teaching scientific creationism in public schools on the ground that it
supports Biblical Christianity when the existing pervasive teaching of
evolution is supporting a host of other religions and philosophies.

The concept of evolution did not originate with Charles Darwin. It
has been the essential ingredient of all pagan religions and
philosophies from time immemorial (e.g., atomism, pantheism, stoicism,
gnosticism and all other humanistic and polytheistic systems). All
beliefs which assume the ultimacy of the space/time/matter universe,
presupposing that the universe has existed from eternity, are
fundamentally evolutionary systems. The cosmos, with its innate laws and
forces, is the only ultimate reality. Depending on the sophistication of
the system, the forces of the universe may be personified as gods and
goddesses who organized the eternal chaotic cosmos into its present form
(as in ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religions), or else may
themselves be invested with organizing capabilities (as in modern
scientific evolutionism). In all such cases, these are merely different
varieties of the fundamental evolutionist world view, the essential
feature of which is the denial that there is one true God and Creator of
all things.

In this perspective, it becomes obvious that most of the great world
religions — Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, Hinduism, Animism, etc. —
are based on evolution. Creationism is the basis of only such systems
as Orthodox Judaism, Islam and Biblical Christianity. The liberal
varieties of Judaism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism, as well as
most modern pseudo-Christian cults, are all based on evolution.

All of this points up the absurdity of banning creationist teaching
from the schools on the basis that it is religious. The schools are
already saturated with the teaching of religion in the guise of
evolutionary “science.” In the modern school of course, this teaching
mostly takes the form of secular humanism, which its own proponents
claim to be a “non-theistic religion.” It should also be recalled that
such philosophies as communism, fascism, socialism, nazism, and
anarchism have been claimed by their founders and promoters to be based
on what they regard as scientific evolutionism. If creation is excluded
from the schools because it is compatible with Christian
“fundamentalism,” should not evolution also be banned since it is the
basis of communism and nazism?

THE SCIENTIFIC IRRELEVANCE OF EVOLUTION

Some people have deplored the questioning of evolution on the ground
that this is attacking science itself. In a recent debate, the
evolutionist whom the writer debated did not attempt to give any
scientific evidences for evolution, electing instead to spend his time
defending such scientific concepts as atomic theory, relativity,
gravity, quantum theory and science in general, stating that attacking
evolution was tantamount to attacking science!

The fact is, however, that the elimination of evolutionary
interpretations from science would hardly be noticed at all, in terms of
real scientific understanding and accomplishment. G.W. Harper comments
on this subject as follows:

It is frequently claimed that Darwinism is central to modern
biology. On the contrary, if all references to Darwinism suddenly
disappeared, biology would remain substantially unchanged. It
would merely have lost a little color. Grandiose doctrines in
science are like some occupants of high office; they sound very
important but have in fact been promoted to a position of
ineffectuality.[13]

The scientific irrelevance of evolutionism has been strikingly (but,
no doubt, inadvertently) illustrated in a recent issue of _Science
News_. This widely read and highly regarded weekly scientific journal
was commemorating its sixtieth anniversary, and this included a listing
of what it called the “scientific highlights” of the past sixty
years.[14]

Of the sixty important scientific discoveries and accomplishments
which were chosen, only six could be regarded as related in any way to
evolutionist thought. These six were as follows:

(1). 1927. Discovery that radiation increases mutation rates in
fruit flies.

(2). 1943. Demonstration that nucleic acids carry genetic
information

(3). 1948. Enunciation of the “big bang” cosmology.

(4). 1953. Discovery of the “double helix” structure of DNA.

(5). 1961. First step taken in cracking the genetic code.

(6). 1973. Development of procedures for producing recombinant
DNA molecules.

Four of these six “highlights” are related to the structure and
function of DNA. Even though evolutionists have supposed that these
concepts somehow correlate with evolution, the fact is that the
remarkable DNA molecule provides strong evidence of original creation
(since it is far too complex to have arisen by chance) and of
conservation of that creation (since the genetic code acts to guarantee
reproduction of the same kind, not evolution of new kinds). One of the
two other highlights showed how to increase mutations but, since all
known true mutations are harmful, this contributed nothing whatever to
the understanding of evolution. One (the “big bang” concept) was indeed
an evolutionary idea but it is still an idea which has never been proved
and today is increasingly being recognized as incompatible with basic
physical laws.

Consequently, it is fair to conclude that no truly significant
accomplishment of modern science either depends on evolution or supports
evolution! There would certainly be no detriment to real scientific
learning if creation were incorporated as an alternative to evolution in
school curricula. It would on the other hand, prove a detriment to the
pervasive religion of atheistic humanism which now controls our schools.

———————————————————————————————–

The table below shows some of the problems with the
theory of evolution. 

         EVOLUTION THEORY              SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life came from non-living matter     Never observed or duplicated in a
  (spontaneous generation)             laboratory
Random processes create life. The    Creating a simple 100 component non-
  existed for 30 billion years,        living organism would take 3 billion
  during which time all life           billion billion billion billion
  evolved by random processes          billion billion years. The simplest
                                       protein that can be termed "living"
                                       has 400 components
Sexual reproduction came about by    Two humans had to evolve at the same
  evolution.                           time and place, having complementary
                                       reproductive systems. If one system
                                       wasn't complete or compativle, the
                                       species would become extinct.
Species evolve from other species.   There are no fossils of transitional
                                       life forms. Organisms have never
                                       been found to cross the boundaries
                                       between species
Mutations are the primary way that   Greater than 99% of mutations are
  new genetic material is available    defects. No mutant has been observed
  for evolution.                       that has become a different species.

REFERENCES

1. Ehrlich, Paul and L.C. Birch. _Nature_, Apr. 22, 1967, p. 352.

2. Matthews, L. Harrison. “Introduction” to _Origin of Species_. London,
J.M. Dent and Sons, 1971, p. X.

3. Harper, G. W. “Alternatives to Evolutionism.” _School Science
Review_ 51, Sep. 1979, p. 16.

4. Mayr, Ernst. “Evolution.” _Scientific American_ 239, Sep. 1978, p.
47.

5. Huxley, Julian. “Evolution and Genetics.” Ch. 8 in _What is
Science?_. Edited by J.R. Newman. New York, Simon and Schuster,
1955, p. 272.

6. Ibid, p. 278.

7. Ayala, Francisco. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light
of Evolution: Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1900-1975.” _Journal of
Heredity_ 68, No. 3, 1977, p. 3.

8. Lipson, H.S. “A Physicist Looks at Evolution.” _Physics Bulletin_
31, n.d., 1980.

9. Grasse, Pierre P. _Evolution of Living Organisms_. New York, Academic
Press, 1977, p. 8.

10. Patterson, Colin. “Evolution and Creationism.” Transcript of Speech
at American Museum of Natural History, Nov. 5, 1981, p. 2.

11. Patterson, Colin. “Cladistics.” Interview on BBC Telecast, Peter
Franz, Interviewer, Mar. 4, 1982.

12. Ehrlich and Holm, op cit.

13. Harper, G.W. op cit., p. 26.

14. “Six Decades of Science Highlights.” _Science News_ 121, Mar. 13,
1982, p. 192.

Article written by Henry M. Morris , Ph.D.

February 25, 2009

The Atheist and his atheism

keywords: atheism, God, atheist, Jesus, agnostic, Christianity, religion, philosophy

Atheism is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary as, “1. the belief that there is no God, or denial that God or gods exist. 2. godlessness”. An atheist, therefore, is a person who believes that there is no God. But what does the Bible say?

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

PSALMS XIV:I

Atheism is a belief system that ardently denies the existence of God. God calls the atheist a FOOL. Many atheists spend much time and effort attempting to “disprove” that God exists. According to Romans chapter 1 they know that He exists, but they want to control their own lives and not submit to the Lord. They are actually rather tragic figures just like any other unsaved individual. It is hard to live out their atheism–if they did, they’d actually be considered crazy like O’Hair was.

The atheist’s RELIGION (which is simply a system of beliefs based on a philosophy) of atheism is simply a way to try to block out and override the truth–the ol’ ostrich-head-in-the-sand technique:

If you try to tell ’em the truth, they say “Shut up!”
stick their heads in the ground and shout– “There’s nobody there,
there’s nobody there,
there’s nobody there, I tell you!
See, I can’t see ’em!”

Well, atheist reader, Somebody is there and His truth has stood from the beginning of time and will continue for all eternity. God is not dependent on you in any way. Blasphemies, wars, famines, and political appointments come and go, but when the dust settles, there’s Jesus. And there is nothing you can do about it but breathe out hot air. You will humble yourself before the Lord Jesus or you will be ground to powder.

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. –Jesus Christ
Matthew 21:44

Most atheists have what I call the Don Quixote Syndrome. Let me explain. Cervantes wrote a book about Don Quixote a long time ago. Don Quixote would attack windmills as if they were his enemies. Of course a windmill is nobody’s enemy. If what the atheist believes is REALLY his belief, then he would leave people like me alone. After all, if God did not exist, He and His followers would be no enemy to the atheist. We’d just be deluded people. Therefore IF the atheist REALLY believes there is no God and the fool attacks a Christian, then he has the Don Quixote Syndrome because the Christian is not his enemy. Nevertheless, God is real and THAT is why atheists have all these organizations and debates to “prove” that God does not exist. Atheist reader, if you would just be true to what you purport to believe, then you wouldn’t have the Don Quixote Syndrome.

My old pastor once ministered to an old atheist who had been a card-carrying atheist for decades–but as he laid on his death bed, he wanted a pastor. I don’t know if he got saved or not. When it’s time to die, many atheists are understandably uneasy and those that aren’t should be terrified.

There is hope for the atheist. He can be saved. In fact, there are plenty of atheists that have come to Jesus Christ. I refuse to argue with them, but will answer honest questions. Unfortunately, many atheists ignorantly say hard things against the Lord Jesus Christ and His people. Don’t let fancy titles and big words shake your faith in the One who holds your eternal destiny.

Think about this: What does the atheist have to offer you? Eternal life? Spiritual comfort? Love? Kindness? Comfort in the midnight hour when no one is around? No, none of these. He has nothing to offer you but blasphemy, hell fire and the wrath of God. The atheist will tell you fabulous fairy tales like

you were spontaneously generated from a rock,
a monkey is your daddy,
a fish is your cousin,
you have no hope,
you should just live for today,
when you’re dead, you’re dead.

If you follow their ignorant advice and die without Christ, you WILL forever regret it and you will remember that someone told you the truth and you scoffed.

Atheists try their hardest to argue a fact that is firmly established–God is real. You cannot look on His creation and its ways and honestly deny it. I won’t argue that 2+2=4 and I won’t argue that God exists. An atheist once wrote and said, “2+2 is not necessarily 4”. Well, write any other number on your math test and see if you get it right.

The bottom line is that atheism is a false belief system composed of fools–it’s not new–the Bible told us about atheism thousands of years ago. Is there a real atheist? No. The closest thing to it is someone who has told themselves a lie so many times that they begin to believe it’s true.

Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.