The Flickr Geneticcopyingmistakes Image Generatr

Atheist myths debunked - Abiogenesis - the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter.

Abiogenesis - the atheist and evolutionist belief - that life can spontaneously generate itself from sterile matter, whenever environmental conditions are conducive .... And the belief that this actually happened in the early Earth.

Is it possible?

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO INFORMATION THEORY.
Three fundamentals are essential for the material universe to exist: matter - energy - information.

Obviously, all theories about how the universe operates, and its origins, must take account of all three. However, every evolutionary, origin of life hypothesis yet devised (primordial soup, hydrothermal vent, etc. etc.) concentrates on the chemistry/physics of life, i.e. the interaction of matter and energy.

Atheists and evolutionists have virtually ignored the essential role and origin of information. We should demand to know why? Especially as we are told (through the popular media and education system) that an evolutionary, origin of life scenario, should be regarded as irrefutable, scientific fact.

Atheists and evolutionists are well aware that the information required for life cannot just arise of its own accord in a primordial soup. So why do they usually omit this crucial fact from their origin of life story?

In order to store information, a storage code is required. Just as the alphabet and language is the code used to store information in the written word, life requires both the information itself, which controls the construction and operation of all living things, and the means of storing that information. DNA is the storage code for living things.

No evolutionary, origin of life hypothesis has ever explained either how the DNA storage system was formed, or how the information encoded within that DNA storage system originated. In fact, even to attempt to look for the origin of information in physical matter is to ignore the natural laws about information.

Information theory completely rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life.

Information theory tells us: ANY MODEL FOR THE ORIGIN OF LIFE BASED SOLELY ON PHYSICAL AND/OR CHEMICAL PROCESSES, IS INHERENTLY FALSE. And: THERE IS NO KNOWN LAW OF NATURE, NO KNOWN PROCESS AND NO KNOWN SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, WHICH CAN CAUSE INFORMATION TO ORIGINATE BY ITSELF IN MATTER… So information theory not only rules out all evolutionary hypotheses which cannot explain the origin of information in original life, it also rules out all evolutionary hypotheses which cannot explain the origin of the completely new, increasingly complex information which would be required to be added to a gene pool for progressive evolution to take place in existing life.

Because of their zealous and unshakable faith in Darwinian evolution, most evolutionists choose to ignore this. They simply refuse to face this most important question of all, where does the complex information essential for all life come from? The reason seems obvious, it is because there are only two answers which could be compatible with the evolution fable, both are unscientific nonsense which violate information theory. They are: 1. That information can just arise magically out of nowhere. OR 2. That the material universe is an intelligent entity, which can actually create information.
(See more on genetic information and the DNA code later on)

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS.
The Law of Biogenesis rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter under all known circumstances. All modern scientists now accept this well tested law as valid. In fact, the whole concept of medical sterilisation, hygiene & food preservation is totally dependent on this law.

No sensible scientist would dare to claim that spontaneous generation of life ever happens in the world today, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this Law (like every natural law) is not always valid, in all places and at all times, within the material universe.

Yet, amazingly, in order to support biological evolution, evolutionists are quite prepared to flout this well, established Law and to resurrect the ancient belief in abiogenesis (life arising from non-life). Like latter-day advocates of the ancient Greek belief (that the goddess Gea could make life arise spontaneously from stones), evolutionists and atheists routinely present to the public, the preposterous notion that, original life on earth (and even elsewhere in the universe) just spontaneously generated itself from inert matter. Apparently, all that was required to bypass this well established Law was a chance accumulation of chemicals in some alchemist’s type brew of ‘primordial soup’ combined with raw energy from the sun, lightning or geothermal forces. (Such is their faith in the creative powers of matter). They call this science? Incredible!

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS.
The second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-life as a chance event. Even if we ignore the above reasons why spontaneous generation of life is impossible, the formation and arrangement by chance of all the components required for living cells is also impossible. The arrangement of all the components within the simplest of living cells is extremelprecise; these components cannot just arrange themselves by chance.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, when left to themselves, things naturally become more disordered, rather than more ordered. Or in other words, things will naturally go to more probable arrangements and disorder is overwhelmingly more probable than order. Disorder actually increases with the passage of time and also with the application of raw (undirected) energy (for example, heat).

Yet we are repeatedly told the evolution fable, that the numerous components required to form a first, self-replicating, living cell just assembled themselves in precise order, by pure chance, over a vast period of time, aided by the random application of raw, undirected energy.

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.
A fundamental principle of science is the law of cause and effect. It is a primary law of science, and the very basis of the scientific method.

The law of cause and effect tells us that an effect cannot be greater than its cause/s.

Life is not an intrinsic property of matter/energy - so it is beyond the capabilities of matter/energy to produce a property (life) it doesn't possess.

The interaction of matter and energy cannot produce an effect with properties extra and superior to its own properties, that would violate the law of cause and effect.

Can chemistry create biology - which has entirely different properties to its own?
Of course it can't.

Biology includes such properties as genetic information, the DNA code, consciousness and intelligence. To believe that chemistry can create biology - means believing that something inanimate can create additional, new properties that it doesn't possess. To exceed the limitations of its own properties would violate the law of cause and effect.

For matter/energy to be able to produce life whenever environmental conditions permit, it would have to be inherently predisposed to produce life.

It would have to embody an inherent plan/blueprint/instructions for life, as one of its properties. The inevitable question then has to be - where does an inherent predisposition for life come from? It can only signify the existence of purpose in the universe and that is something atheists could never accept.

A purpose, order or plan can only come from a planner or intelligent entity. So it is a catch 22 situation for atheists ... the atheist/ evolutionist belief in abiogenesis either violates the law of cause and effect, OR is an admission of purpose in the universe. It can only be one or the other. Atheists cannot possibly accept the existence of purpose in the universe, because that would be the end of atheism. So the atheist belief in abiogenesis violates the law of cause and effect.

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible.

IMPOSSIBLE ACCORDING TO MATHEMATICS.
Even if we ignore the Law of Biogenesis, Information Theory and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (which all completely rule out the spontaneous generation of a living cell from non-living matter). Mathematical probability also rules out the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter.

The laws of probability are summed up in the Law of Chance. According to this Law, when odds against a chance event are 10 to the power of 15, the chance of that event happening are negligible on a terrestrial scale. At odds of 10 to the power of 50, there is virtually no chance, even on a cosmic scale. The most generous and favourable, mathematical odds against a single living cell appearing in this way by chance are a staggering 10 to the power of 40,000. A more likely calculation would put the odds at an even more awesome 10 to the power of 119,850. Remember odds of 10 to the power of 50 is sufficient to make an event virtually impossible (except, perhaps, by magic!!).

Verdict of science - abiogenesis is not possible

Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist 19 Nov 1981. p.526. On the origin of life in primeval soup.
“I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognise that the combinatorial arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the Earth. Astronomers will have a little difficulty at understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so. The biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The “others” are a group of persons who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles.”

“Since science does not have the faintest idea how life on earth originated, it would only be honest to confess this to other scientists, to grantors, and to the public at large. Prominent scientists speaking ex cathedra, should refrain from polarising the minds of students and young productive scientists with statements that are based solely on beliefs.” Bio-informaticist, Hubert P. Yockey. Journal of Theoretical Biology [Vol 91, 1981, p 13].

Conclusion: Abiogenesis is impossible - it is just another atheist myth debunked by science.

Evolutionists and atheists are quite entitled to abandon the scientific method and all common sense by choosing to believe that all the necessary information for life can just appear in matter, as if by magic. They can also choose to believe that: the Laws of; Biogenesis, Mathematical Probability, Cause and Effect and Second Law of Thermodynamics, were all somehow magically suspended to enable their purported evolution of life from sterile matter to take place. They can believe whatever they like. But they have no right to present such unscientific, flights of fancy through the media and our education system, as though they are supported by science.

More about DNA and the origin of life.
The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because atheists and evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.

It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.

Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.

Do atheists/evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?

Of course they don't, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.
However, a fact, it certainly isn't .... and good science it certainly isn't.

Even though atheists/evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

Evolutionists/atheists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.

That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists/atheists cynically exploit,

Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.

For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.

You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.

The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.

So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.

Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.

Next time you hear evolutionists/atheists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won't be able to do so.

Atheists often argue that the energy from the Sun can overcome the problem of entropy enabling an increase in comlexity that the origin of life requires - because the Earth is an open system, but that is clearly erroneous.
We can see entropy happening here and now, it happens everyday on Earth.
We are living in the OPEN system of the Earth, and yet we are well aware of entropy.
We see that the Sun does not halt or reverse entropy, in fact we see the opposite.
The raw energy and heat from the Sun, unless harnessed, does damage, things all around us obey the law - they deteriorate, rot, erode and decay, they do not naturally improve.
If you paint your house, the Sun, and the weather effects caused by the Sun, will eventually damage the paintwork, it will crack and peel after a few years. The hotter the Sun (the greater the energy input) the quicker it will happen.
Secondly, even if it were true that in an open system things can defy the law of entropy, natural laws are laws for the whole universe, and the universe, as a whole, is a closed system.

So what can we deduce from this?
Can the effects of entropy ever be reversed of halted? Obviously when you paint your house, you are reversing the bad effects of entropy for a short period, but you have to keep doing it, it is not permanent. Moreover, the energy you are using to repair and temporarily reverse the effects of entropy, is directed and guided by your skill and intelligence.
The atheist argument about the Earth being an open system is clearly not a valid one.

There are only 2 ways the effects of entropy can be temporarily decreased, halted or reversed by an input of energy. That is:
1. A directive means guiding the energy input.
OR,
2. A directive or conversion mechanism possessed by the recipient of the energy to utilise it in a constructive way.

For their argument to be valid atheists would have to
explain what it is that guides or directs the energy from the Sun to enable it to perform the task of creating order from disorder in the so-called primordial soup? And they are unable to do so.

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...


FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

There is a continuing debate among theoretical physicists about how the stuff (matter/energy) of the universe could have originated of its own accord, out of 'nothing' (the elusive, so-called ‘theory of everything’). However, the most important question in this debate: Where did information come from? Has been largely ignored, but this is absolutely CRUCIAL - because the universe, as we know it, could not exist without information. The laws of nature, are indicative of order, they govern and control the whole material universe, and extremely complex information is essential for all life.
Information is rightly called the third fundamental property of the universe.
So we have to wonder why the crucial question of the origin of information is excluded from the 'theory of everything' debate?

Isn't it ironic that atheists, rely almost entirely on non-physical means such as; mental processes, information and mathematical equations to formulate their so-called 'Theories' of 'Everything' which then completely exclude all non-physical entities?
They are 'Theories of Everything' that don't include an explanation of EVERYTHING, only physical entities. So they are NOT theories of everything at all, the whole description is a misnomer and completely misleading. It can only be construed as a device intended to deceive.

Without a credible explanation for the origin of information - any proposed theory of 'everything' would, in fact, be a theory of only some things, while excluding others ... and therefore absolutely useless.

Life requires information from the very outset, even the tiniest, most primitive cell is packed with complex information (coded in DNA), and the means of interpreting it.
Life could not exist without information. The first life on earth (regardless of how you believe it originated) needed complex information right from the very start, this is certain and beyond any dispute. The well established, law of biogenesis definitely rules out the idea that life can arise of its own accord from sterile matter, but atheists refuse to accept that law (which has never been refuted) and have perversely invented their own law of 'abiogenesis', which says the exact opposite.
However, even if we accept the ridiculous (unscientific) claim that the law of biogenesis is not valid, we are left with the major problem of how information arose in the alleged, first, living cell? Was the information for life just floating about in the ether waiting to alight on the right mixture of chemicals in some primordial soup? I think not! (but atheists have not yet been able to propose any better explanation).
Even if such an incredible thing were possible, the question would still remain as to how this information originated within the universe? Where did it come from, and why? Hence for any atheist (or evolutionist), the origin of DNA code itself, and the information it contains, is an impossible dilemma.
The unanswerable question for atheism is, which came first, information or matter?
Information cannot possibly create itself, but neither can matter. To suggest that either of them originated, of their own accord, from nothing, is self-evidently, utter nonsense and completely unscientific.
(Atheists will never be able to answer this question because the only logical option is - - a non-contingent first cause of all the material realm, which is eternally pre-existent, intelligent, non-material and therefore not subject to natural laws which govern all natural entities, i.e. a Supernatural Creator God).

Amazingly, we were told by ‘experts’ in 2004 that the discovery of the simple sugar glycoldehide in a gas cloud (known as Sagittarius B2 allegedly detected light years away in the middle of our galaxy) could explain the origin of DNA & life. (Daily Mirror newspaper, UK, 22/9/2004)
This is comparable to claiming that, if a component for making ink were to be discovered in outer space, it would explain how the complete works of Shakespeare could have originated spontaneously, of their own accord - and some people call that science - - incredible!

Make no mistake, atheism is just another religion.
Atheists are very fond of telling us what they don’t believe, but just what do they believe?

Because they reject an eternal, pre-existent, non-material first cause, every atheist is obliged to believe the preposterous notion that, the potential and information for life, as well as all the laws of nature, must have been an intrinsic property of the first matter/energy, when this matter/energy arose by its own power, and of its own volition, out of absolutely nothing, at the beginning of everything!!!! (albeit contrary to logic, common sense, and the laws of nature that govern all matter).
Surely this must be the ultimate miracle to outdo all other miracles.
Supporters of this bizarre, magical belief are very fond of describing atheism as “the only rational viewpoint,” - - -
They call such a belief rational? - - -
What do you think?

Atheists cannot accept that any information pre-existed the material. Therefore, matter not only had to create itself, but also its own governing laws & information, from nothing, and so the god of the atheist religion of naturalism is credited with even more creative powers than those usually attributed to an eternally pre-existing, Supernatural God.
In other words, ‘matter’ is automatically ascribed by atheist belief as a self-created, intelligent entity.
(This is completely contrary to logic, and to natural laws which describe the inherent properties and behaviour of matter and all natural occurrences, without exception).

“It’s just unbelievable what unbelievers are willing to believe, in order to be unbelievers” (Dr. Duane Gish)

Consider this ...
Long, long, long ago, in an eternal void of nothingness, a tiny cosmic egg arose of its own volition. Then, all of a sudden, the egg accidentally exploded and proceeded to expand until it became the whole universe and everything within it.
(This is the atheistic, ‘Big Bang’, fairy story of creation in a nutshell - - - or should that be eggshell?). But where could this cosmic egg have come from? - - - who knows? - - - perhaps a cosmic chicken laid it? - - - if so - - - where did the cosmic chicken come from? - - - don’t even ask! - - - because the only thing we are absolutely sure of is that we are still waiting for any ‘Big Bang’ supporter to propose a better solution. - - - Please don’t hold your breath!
The best they have come up with so far, is that the 'nothing' in which the cosmic egg emerged, wasn't really nothing, but 'something', i.e. SPACE. But, any fool can see that this is just a device to make a ridiculous belief sound plausible. It is obviously not plausible, because they then have to explain how space (which is not nothing, but just a part of the contingent, material realm) originated, which takes the whole ridiculous idea back to square one.

Since information is not a physical element (and as information is a fundamental constituent of the universe and an essential feature of all life) to assert that the universe is composed solely of matter and energy is clearly wrong.
The speculated ‘Big Bang’ explosion is an accidental, purposeless and destructive event, with no directing/organising, informational component whatsoever. As it is not possible for such a ‘Big Bang’ or any other undirected release of energy to create useful information (or any sort of order) it is patently obvious that this ‘Big Bang’ story of creation is erroneous.

Where has wisdom gone?
For all our modern knowledge and technology, ancient man had a wisdom in these matters which far surpasses modern ideas.
It is now more than 2 thousand years ago that Christ's Apostle John delivered the ultimate ‘theory of everything’. He understood (like many of his predecessors) that the most important factor in the question of origins is information: “In the beginning was the word” [(word: logos) = information]. John 1; 1. (the 'Word' is applied by John to Jesus Christ as true God and true man - meaning the universe was created by the Word (Jesus), by means of God's word - intelligent, constructive information).

All sensible people realise that information just had to come first, nothing constructive or creative can occur without information. Science tells us that, any input of raw energy alone, tends to increase entropy. Only organised or directed energy (energy with an informational component) can temporarily reverse or reduce the effects of entropy.
Without information, nothing material could exist in its present form.
Information derives only from an intelligent source, so only information from a pre-existing, supernatural, intelligent source could bring everything material into being, organise and control its construction and behaviour, and maintain its continued existence.
So the essential, single, first cause had to be both uncaused and intelligent.
There is no other logical option.

Belief in God did not just evolve (as some atheists keep telling us) as a means for ‘ignorant’, ‘primitive’, ‘superstitious’ humans to explain things they could not understand.
On the contrary, ancient man (from the time of Adam) fully understood (better than many of the so-called experts today) that the material universe does not contain within itself any possible means of creating itself and its essential, regulatory information, out of nothing.
A non-contingent, pre-existing, supernatural (non-material), eternal, infinite and omnipotent force had to be responsible for creating it. An essential element of that force is a supreme intelligence which has to be the original source of all information.

“ALL THINGS WERE MADE BY HIM; AND WITHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE. IN HIM WAS LIFE
AND THE LIFE WAS THE LIGHT OF MEN” John 1: 3-4.

In this computer age, people are again beginning to understand the particular relevance of information.
A computer (the hardware) processes and stores information (the software). Without any software programming, the hardware would be useless.
As Chuck Missler points out in his book ‘Cosmic Codes; “software has no mass. (its embodiment may have weight, but the software doesn’t. It simply codes information)”.
A computer disk loaded with a million bytes of software will weigh no more than a blank disk and the information it contains can be sent invisibly through the airwaves from one point to another.
To quote Chuck Missler again “if you and I were meeting face-to-face, I would still not be able to see the real you. I would only see the temporary residence you are occupying. The real you, your personality - - call it soul, spirit, whatever - - is not visible. It is software not hardware. The codes - - your history, your accumulated responses to the events of your life, your attitudes - - are all simply informational, not physical. It is software only and software has no mass”. According to Einstein, time is a physical property - - - “that which has no mass has no time. You are eternal, that is what the Bible has declared all along. You are eternal whether you like it or not” Chuck Missler, Cosmic Codes. 1999. Koinonia house.

The information for life ....
Atheists and evolutionists have no idea how the first, genetic information originated. They claim the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.

Atheists and evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code originated. However that is not the major problem. The impression is given to the public, that evolutionists only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes - and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved. That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit. It is far from the truth, as they very well know.
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information, storage medium was formed (the hardware), it tells us nothing about the origin of the information (the software) it expresses.

To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the 'hardware' created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA.
DNA is not information in itself. Just like the alphabet, it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient, storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries. Therefore, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before 'science' will be able to fill the 'gaps' in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the 'hardware' by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear atheists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don't be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don't believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any atheist or evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means?

ATHEISTS SHOOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT ....
It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?
In a PURPOSELESS universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.

Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.

Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect that the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.

This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (the atheist's so-called law of abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated - and also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.

For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So there has to be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

So atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they have to explain where that predisposition for life comes from?

It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.

Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.

Thus the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.

The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

So if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?

Atheists can take their choice?
Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.
To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.
To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.
Conclusion: atheism is wrong - period.

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Why God must exist.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15818838060

Is matter inherently predisposed to produce life, on Earth and elsewhere in the universe, whenever conditions permit it?
And if it is, where does that predisposition come from?

Atheists and most evolutionists believe life originated by entirely, natural processes. They believe, and present to the public as a scientific fact, the discredited notion of abiogenesis - which is life arising of its own volition (by natural, chemical processes) from sterile matter. This is similar to the ancient idea of the spontaneous generation of life, which was a fairly common belief before it was soundly refuted by scientists such as Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur.

Dedicated observational and experimental scientific research, over many centuries, resulted in the Law of Biogenesis. This law rules out the spontaneous generation of life (so-called abiogenesis) as impossible, it says that life only comes from existing life. This is now the reliable basis of medical and food hygiene, and is confirmed by other branches of science, such as Information Theory, the Law of Entropy (based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics), the Laws of Probability and Law of Cause and Effect. The Law of Biogenesis has never been falsified, in spite of numerous attempts to do so.

So is it possible that chemistry or physics (the physical interaction of matter and energy) can produce biology?
The properties of biology and life are completely different to those of chemistry and physics. Life embodies, not just natural laws, as in physics and chemistry, but also complex, constructive information - stored and expressed through the DNA code. Biology has its own unique properties, such as self-replication, which chemistry and physics don’t possess.
The behaviour of natural things is entirely dependent on their inherent properties. They cannot behave in ways that exceed the limits dictated by their own properties. That is the essence of natural laws which describe the scope and limits of the behaviour of natural entities according to their intrinsic properties. For natural laws to change, or not be valid, the intrinsic properties of natural entities, on which they are based, would have to change.

It is a major problem for atheists to explain where natural laws came from, or why they exist?
In a PURPOSELESS universe there should be no regulatory principles at all.
Firstly, we would not expect anything to exist, we would expect eternal nothingness.
Secondly, even if we overlook that impossible hurdle, and assume by some amazing fluke and contrary to logic, something was able to create itself from nothing ….. we would expect that the ‘something’ would have no ordered structure and no laws based on that ordered structure. We would expect it to behave randomly and chaotically.
This is an absolutely fundamental question to which atheists have no answer. The basic properties of matter/energy, and the universe, scream …. ‘purpose’.
Atheists say the exact opposite.

If we consider the atheist belief; that matter is naturally predisposed to produce life and the genetic information for life, whenever environmental conditions are conducive (so-called abiogenesis), the question arises of where does that predisposition for life come from, and why does such a property exist in a purposeless universe?

The idea that the origin of life is just an inevitable consequence of the right conditions – the right chemistry or interaction of matter and energy - is routinely presented by atheists and evolutionists as a scientific fact. They believe that is how life on Earth originated - and also that life is likely to exist elsewhere in the universe, for the very same reason.
For this to be true, matter/energy would have to be inherently predisposed for the potential production of life, whenever conditions are conducive and - therefore, some sort of natural law/plan/blueprint for the creation of life would have to be an intrinsic property of matter. A basic principle of science (and common sense) is that an effect can never be greater than that which causes it. In this case the effect - LIFE - could not be greater than that which atheists allege caused it, i.e. the random interaction of matter and raw energy and chemical processes. So there has to be a directive principle existing as an intrinsic property of matter that endows it with the ability to create life.

So atheists are left with an impossible dilemma – if life originates as a natural result of the inherent properties of matter, i.e. a natural predisposition for life, they have to explain where that predisposition for life comes from?
It would not be possible for matter to have such a property in a purposeless universe. Therefore, the atheist belief in a natural origin of life, denotes purpose in the universe which atheists deny. This then, is a classic catch 22 situation for atheists.
Atheists cannot have it both ways, if there is no purpose in the universe, matter cannot possibly have an inherent predisposition to produce life.
Thus the atheist belief in ‘no purpose’ also means there is no possibility of a natural origin of life.
The denial of purpose negates a natural origin of life.

So if atheists insist on claiming a natural origin of life, they are also obliged to admit to the existence of 'purpose' in the universe.

Therefore, either the idea of a purposeless universe is effectively debunked, or the idea of a natural origin of life is debunked - which is it?
Atheists can take their choice?
Either way, atheism is effectively debunked.
To believe in abiogenesis means that atheism is wrong.
To not believe in abiogenesis also means atheism is wrong.
Conclusion: atheism is wrong - period.

____________________________________________
"I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism"
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God"
Lord William Kelvin.
Noted for his theoretical work on thermodynamics, the concept of absolute zero and the Kelvin temperature scale.

The Law of Cause and Effect is a fundamental principle of the scientific method. Science literally means 'knowledge'. Knowledge about the natural world is gained through seeking adequate causes for every natural occurrence. An uncaused, natural ocurrence, is a completely, unscientific notion.
Concerning the Law of Cause and Effect, one of the world's greatest scientists, Dr. Albert Einstein wrote: “All natural science is based on the hypothesis of the complete causal connection of all events”
Albert Einstein. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Hebrew University and Princeton University Press p.183

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...

"Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution." Mao Tse-tung (1893 – 1976). Kampf um Mao's Erbe (1977)

On behalf of Britain, I ask the whole world to accept the sincere apologies of the British people, for the damage done to science and society by Charles Darwin.
Britain has a great scientific heritage, having produced some of the world's finest, and greatest scientists. However, Britain's enormous contribution to science has been seriously sullied by the false ideas popularised by Charles Darwin, which have led to a serious decline in scientific integrity, and spawned a whole catalogue of fakes, frauds and very dubious science.

Although it has been evident for some time that Darwinian, progressive evolution is not scientifically credible, and that there is a great deal of evidence against it, the idea has now developed a life of its own, and has become an essential lynch pin in an ideological agenda. As a consequence, there is no longer any normal, scientific objectivity permitted and Darwinism has become uniquely sacrosanct, even to the extent of it being given a protected status in science education by some national governments. This is very damaging to genuine, scientific endeavour, and has had the effect of creating a virtual straitjacket, for any field of research that is likely to have any adverse implications for Darwinism.

So what is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?

The fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

So what exactly was the erroneous idea that Darwin popularised?
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, body parts etc. (macro-evolution).

Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were strictly limited, as the science of selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are literally ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been correct all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the fanciful idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on the belief in a total progression from microbes to humans through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it should be regarded as unscientific nonsense. It defies logic, the laws of probability, the law of cause and effect and Information Theory.

People are often confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of progressive, macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating entirely new structures, body parts, organs etc. and that is a FACT.
It is no wonder that Professor W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... "the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity".

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story. The dogs remain dogs and will always remain dogs. Hundreds of years of experiment and observation through selective breeding confirms that.

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of billions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA), of every living thing that has ever lived, was created by a series built on previous mistakes ... mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc.

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, body parts, organs, biological systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed - in all living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes, all built on previous mistakes ... mistake upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of the accumulation of billions of genetic MISTAKES over many millions of years.

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been transformed from an original, single, living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

The formation of fossils.

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that any rock containing good, intact fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes under catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
You don't need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
But what does leading sedimentologist Dr Guy Berthault have to say:
www.sciencevsevolution.org/Berthault.htm

Rapid formation of strata - some recent field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
Drama in the rocks - the scientific evidence of rapid strata formation - confirmed by the scientific method of experiment and observation.
youtu.be/vnzHU9VsliQ

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

Living Fossils - when NO evidence IS evidence.
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658

The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution, and Nebraska Man (found 3 years before the trial) was resurrected and given increased media publicity leading up the trial in order to influence the outcome.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also promoted as 'scientific' evidence for evolution by evolutionists in the popular media leading up to the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.

Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic - NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.

You don't need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world's, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?

Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science -- like all origins are -- can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared -- at least its visibility is clouded from the public's viewpoint.

Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. 'Science but not Scientists' (2006) p.xi"


And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 - 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin's 'Origin', wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." 'Science and Common Sense' (1937) p.229

“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to
the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable.
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin's 'Origin of the Species'

"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments.

"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others.

"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince.

"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).

"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11

Evolution is a fairy tale.
www.trueorigin.org/

Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
___________________________________________
THE GREAT MISTAKE
www.flickr.com/photos/truth-in-science/15650423453

FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...

"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions

The truth about progressive evolution.
An incredible story of 'creative' MISTAKES.

Fish are alleged to be among the first vertebrates (having a flexible backbone or vertebrae) to evolve from invertebrates (having no backbone, or any other bones).

Neo Darwinists claim - that all the entirely new, genetic information required for the construction of bones and flexible backbones, with all the interlocking vertebrae etc. (see picture), was created (from no previously existing, genetic information for any type of bones) by means of a series of mutations (mutations are genetic, copying MISTAKES). And with each of the many, intermediate, mutational steps becoming preserved and dominant in the gene pool, by providing a significant survival or reproductive advantage (natural selection).

To clarify, in simple terms, exactly what is proposed by evolutionists for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information is - a genetic mistake (mutation) is preserved and becomes dominant in the gene pool - followed by another mistake being preserved and becoming dominant - followed by another mistake being preserved and becoming dominant - over and over and over again, an accumulative series of mistakes - with each new mistake built on previous mistakes .... A mistake of a mistake of a mistake, etc. We also have to bear in mind that, to produce a backbone from scratch, the numerous, random mutations or copying mistakes required would, by sheer chance, have to all be relevant to the genetic instructions for exactly the same part of the body, i.e. the spine. And even if the genetic information for some sort of proto-bone was created by random, genetic, copying mistakes, it could just as easily be destroyed by further, random, copying mistakes somewhere along the line.
So that is the evolutionary mechanism which allegedly created all the new, genetic information for bones and a flexible backbone!

In fact, it is the same mechanism proposed by evolutionists for the origin of every single scrap of genetic information for the construction of every body part, anatomical feature and biological system in every living thing, including humans. Which means that the whole human genome is the result of billions of random, genetic, copying mistakes (apart from the original, genetic information in the first living cell). That original, genetic information encoded in the DNA of the first living cell, apparently, just appeared by some unknown process in the so-called, primordial soup, and then proceeded to mutate (randomly make copying mistakes of itself), billions of times - eventually creating the whole human genome - and the genome of every living thing, over millions of years!

The theory of evolution - laid bare - is more aptly called - the theory of 'Creative Mistakes'.
Mutations are bad, we would expect mistakes to be harmful, and most of them are, they cause illness, deformities and cancer. They are not something desirable, in any sense. Some are neutral in effect, which means the adverse effects are not obviously harmful, or the damage they do is not significant to cause an immediate problem.
Anything that can be described as a beneficial mutation is extremely rare, and it is doubtful if a truly, beneficial mutation (without some adverse effects) exists at all, there are no good, observable examples of any. What is certain is that they do not add the sort of useful, constructive, genetic information, which would be required as a mechanism for creating entirely, new body parts, organs etc.

There is no fossil evidence whatsoever for this amazing transformation by means of genetic MISTAKES. There are no transitional or intermediate examples of a developing backbone.
Fish appear in the fossil record, fully formed and 100% functional, like the one in the picture. And they remain exactly the same today.

The fossil fish in the picture, claimed to have lived many millions of years ago, is just like any regular fish, you will see swimming around in seas, rivers and lakes today.
The fossil record shows that fish are no more advanced or evolved today, after umpteen millions of alleged years, than the specimen shown here.

Next time you have a whole fish for dinner, take a close look at its amazing, flexible backbone, and remember this - some people want you to believe that such a marvellous construction was created entirely by a long series of random mistakes - mistake upon mistake, upon mistake ... and they want you to believe that is 'science'.

An incredible story indeed!

Having survived relatively unchanged for millions of years, nautiluses represent the only living members of the subclass Nautiloidea, and are often considered "living fossils.
They are yet another creature for which there is no evidence of any evolution.

Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

See fossil of a crab, also unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

Progressive, macro evolution is based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. Macro evolution is based on a belief in a complete progression from microbes to man through millions of random, genetic copying MISTAKES. There is no evidence for it whatsoever, it is unscientific nonsense which defies logic.

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, constructive, genetic information, that is what is essential for macro evolution. Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all.

Macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of genetic copying mistakes. mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... etc. etc.

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell: every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - etc. etc.

If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Conclusion: progressive, microbes-to-man is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is a fairy tale.

Fossil of a cone of Lepidodendron (club moss), an extinct species of plant. Several much smaller varieties are still alive today.

Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/


Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

There is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution.

Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.

However, the changes possible through selective breeding were known by breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new structures and features (macro-evolution).

Darwin ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over millions of years.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.

That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin's ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated. But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.

Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct - and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history,

However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was 'mutations'. Mutations are ... genetic, copying MISTAKES.

The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment.

The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply 'evolved' and 'improved' in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.

This new, 'improved' Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.

So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?

Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution - as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro evolution based on a belief in a total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.

People are sometimes confused, because they know that 'micro'-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. However, evolutionists often cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin's finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin's Origin of the Species, that ... the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.

Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.

To explain further.... Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes..... mutations ... of mutations .... of mutations.... of mutations .... and so on - and on - and on.

In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a series ... of mistakes ... of mistakes .... of mistakes .... of mistakes etc. etc.

If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain where that original information came from?) - every additional scrap of genetic information for all - features, structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. .... have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes ... mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - upon mistake - over and over again, millions of times. That is ... every part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.

So what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that ... you will believe anything.

Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).

Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible - there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.

However, nothing has changed - those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?

What about the fossil record?

The formation of fossils.

Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don't realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.

The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don't get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don't just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist's, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
You don't even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.

Rapid formation of strata - latest evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/

All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called 'living fossils' inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.

The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.

See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...

Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/

What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?

The evolutionist 'scientific' method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:

Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape - Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.

Anyone can call anything 'science' ... it doesn't make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...

Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man were even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that 'science'?

The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.

Piltdown Man... it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..

Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. It was also used as 'scientific' evidence for evolution in the Scopes Trial. Such 'scientific' evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.

South West Colorado Man, another tooth .... of a horse this time... It was presented as evidence for human evolution.

Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.

Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.

Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.

Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ..... admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also 'forgotten' to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.

Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.

The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today - the Hyrax.

Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don't normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.

So much for the credibility of evolution, but what about atheism?
If there is no credible mechanism for progressive evolution, that has very serious implications for atheist beliefs, which depend heavily on microbes-to-man evolution being a fact. You don't have to be an atheist to accept evolution, but it is very difficult to be an atheist if you don't accept evolution as true. So the exposure of evolution as an unscientific, fairy story seriously undermines atheism. However, even if progressive evolution could be shown to be credible, atheism cannot.

Because.....
If people would only think for themselves - there would be no atheists.
Atheism is anti-logic and anti-science ......

Atheism is the rejection of one of the only 2 origins options.
The only two options are:
1. An uncaused, supernatural first cause.
2. An uncaused, natural first cause.
Atheists categorically reject option one, therefore they believe in option two - by default.
Option two (an uncaused, natural first cause) is impossible according to logic, natural laws and the scientific method.

Every natural event/effect/entity has to have an adequate cause.
All material/natural entities/events are contingent, they rely on preceding causes.
A natural first cause, cannot be a very FIRST cause because something (which didn't need a cause) must have caused it.
A natural first cause also cannot be the very first cause of the universe because it is woefully inadequate for the effect. An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
So atheism is a set of beliefs which violate the scientific method, ignore logic and defy natural laws.

Atheism is akin to a religion because it credits matter/energy with similar creative powers and attributes as those applied to a creator God, which is really just a more sophisticated version of pagan naturalism, which imbued natural entities such as Mother Nature, The Sun or Moon god etc. with creative and magical powers.

To explain further ....
If there are only 2 options and one is ruled out as 'impossible' by logic, natural law and the scientific method, then it is safe, indeed sensible, to deduce that the other option is the only possible, and likely one.

Anyone who believes in science should know - that the basis of the scientific method is looking for adequate causes for every natural event/effect.
An 'uncaused' natural event is an anathema to science, it cannot even contemplate such a prospect.
If someone was to propose a natural first cause of everything, science would have to ask - what caused it? You cannot claim it was uncaused - that defies the scientific method.
However, if it was caused - if it had a preceding cause, ... then it cannot be the FIRST cause. Because FIRST means FIRST, not second or third.
So the very first cause of everything must be UNCAUSED ... which means, according to science, it CANNOT be a NATURAL cause.
In other words ... it cannot be a contingent entity, it can only be an eternally self-existent, self-reliant, autonomous, infinite, omnipotent entity which is entirely independent of causes, and the limitations that causes impose.

Furthermore, the first cause also has to be completely adequate for the effect, the effect cannot be greater than the cause ... so the first cause has to have adequate powers, properties and potentiality to create the entirety of the universe, i.e. nothing in the universe can be superior in any respect to the first cause.
That means the first cause must embody, or be able to create, every property and quality that exists, which includes: natural laws, information, life, intelligence, consciousness, self-awareness, design, skill, moral values, sense of beauty, justice etc.
All proposed, natural first causes - Big Bang's, Singularities, quantum mechanics etc. are not only ruled out because, as contingent events, they cannot be uncaused, they are also grossly inferior to the effect, which definitively rules them all out as credible first causes.

To put it more simply ... all effects/events/entities are the result of a combination of numerous, preceding causes, but the very first cause is unique, inasmuch as it is a lone cause of everything.
Everything can be traced back to that single cause, it is responsible for every other cause, entity and effect that follows it. Unlike other lesser or subsequent causes it has to account for the totality of everything that exists. So it cannot be inferior in any respect to any particular property, entity, event, effect, or to the totality of them all.
If we have intelligence then, that which caused us cannot be non-intelligent.
Atheists assume that we are greater in that respect than that which caused us .... that is ridiculous and it defies logic and natural law.

What about infinite time?
Time is simply a chronology of natural events. Time began with the origin of the material realm. No natural events ...means - no time. All natural entities, events/effects are contingent, they cannot be self-existent, they rely on causes and the limitations that causes impose. they are not autonomous entities, to propose that is anti-science.

Atheists often say: you can’t fill gaps in knowledge with a supernatural first cause.

But we are not talking about filling gaps, we are talking about a fundamental issue ... the origin of everything in the material realm.
The first cause is not a gap, it is the beginning - and many of the greatest scientists in the history of science had no problem whatsoever with the logic that - a natural, first cause was impossible, and the only possible option was a supernatural creator.
Why do atheists have such a problem with it?

Atheists seem to think that to explain the origin of the universe without a God, simply involves explaining what triggered it, as though its formation from that point on, just happens automatically.
This has been compared by some as similar to lighting the blue touch paper of a firework. They think that if they can propose such a naturalistic trigger, then God is made redundant.
That may sound plausible to some members of the public, who take such pronouncements at face value, and are somewhat in awe of anything that is claimed to be 'scientific'.
But it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it, that a mere trigger is not necessarily an adequate cause.
A trigger presupposes that there is some sort of a mechanism/blueprint/plan already existing which is ready to spring into action if it is provided with an appropriate trigger. So a trigger is not a sole cause, or a first cause, it is merely one contributing cause.
Natural things do only what they are programmed to do, i.e. they obey natural laws and the demands of their own pre-ordered composition and structure. Lighting blue touch paper would do absolutely nothing, unless there is a carefully designed and manufactured firework already attached to it.

Atheists invent all sorts of bizarre myths to explain the origin of the universe and matter/energy.
Such as it arising from nothing of its own volition, for no reason.
Or even the utterly, ludicrous notion of the universe creating itself from nothing. Obviously for something to create itself, it would need to pre-exist its own creation, in order to do the creating!
Incredible!

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”
― G.K. Chesterton ..... SO TRUE!

www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existen...

Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
www.examiner.com/article/want-to-publish-science-paper-ju...