Science Disproves Evolution

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 6
[/align]

Another study, which examined the inner ear bone of australopithecine, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (n). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (o). Claims were madeâ??based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)â??that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucyâ??s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (p) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (q). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (r).

n. â??Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.â?� Fred Spoor et al., â??Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,â?� Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

o. â??The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.â?� Bruce Bower, â??Evolutionâ??s Youth Movement,â?� Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

p. William L. Jungers, â??Lucyâ??s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,â?� Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676â??678.

Jeremy Cherfas, â??Trees Have Made Man Upright,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172â??178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, â??The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,â?� American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279â??317.

q. Adrienne Zihlman, â??Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,â?� New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39â??40.

r. â??At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.â?� Matt Cartmill et al., â??One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,â?� American Scientist, Vol. 74, Julyâ??August 1986, p. 417.

â??The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... â??One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,â?? says Berger.â?� James Shreeve, â??New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,â?� Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

â??There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the apeâ??so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.â?� Solly Zuckerman, â??Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,â?� Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

â??We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.â?� Ibid., pp. 348â??349.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

[align=center]
Ape-Men? 7
[/align]

For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (s). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (t). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artistsâ?? drawings of â??ape-men,â?� especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (u).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable.

s. Francis Ivanhoe, â??Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?â?� Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577â??578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, â??Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,â?� The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348â??363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, â??Oldest Bone Disease,â?� Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

t. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, â??Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,â?� The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33â??40.

u. Boyce Rensberger, â??Facing the Past,â?� Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 26. Ape-Men?

Poor, poor science. Neanderthals were a distinct species of Hominid. We are also a modern version of hominid. If you want the straight story on Neanderthal you need to read The Neanderthals - Changing the Image of Mankind by Erik Trinkhaus and Pat Shipman, the recognized authorities on Neanderthals. Not junk scientists. :thumbsup:

Anthropology 101 should set any rational person straight on the theory of evolution. We are in a long line of primates descended from the tree shrew. :D

[align=center]
Fossil Man
[/align]

Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull (a), the Castenedolo skeletons (b), Reckâ??s skeleton (c), and others (d). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (e). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. J. D. Whitney, â??The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California,â?� Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258â??288.

Bowden, pp. 76â??78.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Emsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50â??52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., â??Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,â?� American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, â??The Case for the Calaveras Skull,â?� Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248â??256.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262â??264, 266, 274â??276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294â??301.

George F. Becker, â??Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,â?� Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189â??200.

b. Bowden, pp. 78â??79.

Cousins, pp. 48â??50, 81.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

â??As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the â??Castenedoloâ?� find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.â?� Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

c. Bowden, pp. 183â??193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79â??88.

e. Fix, pp. 98â??105.

J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316â??318.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 27. Fossil Man

Christian pseudo science. No human ancestor bones or our relative hominds from which we derived are older then approximately 4.5 million years. Give or take a hundred thousand or so years. :thumbsup:

[align=center]
Chemical Elements of Life 1
[/align]

The chemical evolution of life is ridiculously improbable. What could improve the odds? One should begin with an earth having high concentrations of the key elements comprising life, such as carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen [a]. However, the closer one examines these elements, the more unlikely evolution appears.

Carbon. Rocks that supposedly preceded life have very little carbon [b]. One must imagine a toxic, carbon-rich atmosphere to supply the needed carbon if life evolved. For comparison, todayâ??s atmosphere holds only 1/80,000 of the carbon that has been on the earthâ??s surface since the first fossils formed.

Oxygen. No evolutionary theory has been able to explain why earthâ??s atmosphere has so much oxygen. Too many substances should have absorbed oxygen on an evolving earth [c]. Besides, if the early earth had oxygen in its atmosphere, compounds (called amino acids) needed for life to evolve would have been destroyed by oxidation [d]. But if there had been no oxygen, there would have been no ozone (a form of oxygen) in the upper atmosphere. Without ozone to shield the earth, the sunâ??s ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life [e]. The only known way for both ozone and life to be here is for both to come into existence simultaneouslyâ??in other words, by creation.

a. The four most abundant chemical elements, by weight, in the human body are oxygen (65%), carbon (18%), hydrogen (10%), and nitrogen (3%).

b. Carbon is only the 18th most abundant element, by weight, in the earthâ??s crust. Furthermore, almost all carbon is tied up in organic matter, such as coal and oil, or in sediments deposited after life began, such as limestone or dolomite.

c. â??The cause of the initial rise in oxygen concentration presents a serious and unresolved quantitative problem.â?� Leigh Van Valen, â??The History and Stability of Atmospheric Oxygen,â?� Science, Vol. 171, 5 February 1971, p. 442.

d. Since 1930, knowledgeable evolutionists have realized that life could not have evolved in the presence of oxygen. If no oxygen was in the atmosphere as life evolved, how did the atmosphere get its oxygen?

Cyanobacteria break down carbon dioxide and water and release oxygen. In 1987, William J. Schopf claimed that he and his graduate student had discovered fossils of 3.4-billion-year-old cyanobacteria. This, he said, is how the atmosphere gained its oxygen after these bacteriaâ??shielded by a shallow sea from ultraviolet radiationâ??evolved. Evolutionists eagerly accepted this long-awaited discovery as a key part of their theory of how life evolved.

Schopfâ??s former graduate student and other experts have now charged Schopf with withholding evidence that those fossils were not cyanobacteria. Most experts feel betrayed by Schopf, who now accepts that his â??specimens were not oxygen-producing cyanobacteria after all.â?� [See Rex Dalton, â??Squaring Up over Ancient Life,â?� Nature, Vol. 417, 20 June 2002, pp. 782â??784.] A foundational building block in the evolution storyâ??that had become academic orthodoxyâ??has crumbled.

e . Hitching, p. 65.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life

[align=center]
Chemical Elements of Life 2
[/align]

Nitrogen. Clays and various rocks absorb nitrogen. Had millions of years passed before life evolved, the sediments that preceded life should be filled with nitrogen. Searches have never found such sediments [f].

Basic chemistry does not support the evolution of life [g].

f. â??If there ever was a primitive soup [to provide the chemical compounds for evolving life] , then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. Indeed to the contrary, the very oldest of sediments ... are extremely short of nitrogen.â?� J. Brooks and G. Shaw, Origin and Development of Living Systems (New York: Academic Press, 1973), p. 359.

â??No evidence exists that such a soup ever existed.â?� Abel and Trevors, p. 3.

g. â??The acceptance of this theory [lifeâ??s evolution on earth] and its promulgation by many workers [scientists and researchers] who have certainly not always considered all the facts in great detail has in our opinion reached proportions which could be regarded as dangerous.â?� Ibid., p. 355.

Certainly, ignoring indisputable, basic evidence in most scientific fields is expensive and wasteful. Failure to explain the evidence to students betrays a trust and misleads future teachers and leaders.

Readers should consider why, despite the improbabilities and lack of proper chemistry, many educators and the media have taught for a century that life evolved on earth. Abandoning or questioning that belief leaves only one strong contenderâ??creation. Questioning evolution in some circles invites ostracism, much like stating that the proverbial emperor â??has no clothes.â?�

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 28. Chemical Elements of Life

14C doesn't have a half life of 5000 years either!!!!!!!!!! :bigsmoke:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gypski

14C doesn't have a half life of 5000 years either!!!!!!!!!! :bigsmoke:

---

LMFAO - YECFAIL

I wonder if Pahu has noticed yet that all these links are rel="nofollow" so no Google Juice for you my friend :D

Seems like the whole purpose of this thread (or spamfest) is to try and gain traffic from this site.

Pahu also posts this junk all over the web

Seems like he has a full time job of it? Paid for by the Creation institute or some crap I would guess.

[align=center]
Proteins 1
[/align]

Living matter is composed largely of proteins, which are long chains of amino acids. Since 1930, it has been known that amino acids cannot link up if oxygen is present. That is, proteins could not have evolved from chance chemical reactions if the atmosphere contained oxygen. However, the chemistry of the earthâ??s rocks, both on land and below ancient seas, shows the earth had oxygen before the earliest fossils formed [a]. Even earlier, solar radiation would have broken water vapor into oxygen and hydrogen. Some hydrogen, the lightest of all chemical elements, would then have escaped into outer space, leaving behind excess oxygen [b].

a. An authoritative study concluded that the early biosphere contained oxygen before the earliest fossils (bacteria) formed. Iron oxides were found that â??imply a source of oxygen enough to convert into insoluble ferric material the ferrous solutions that must have first formed the flat, continuous horizontal layers that can in some sites be traced over hundreds of kilometers.â?� Philip Morrison, â??Earthâ??s Earliest Biosphere,â?� Scientific American, Vol. 250, April 1984, pp. 30â??31.

To form proteins, amino acids must also be highly concentrated in an extremely pure liquid [c]. However, the early oceans or ponds would have been far from pure and would have diluted amino acids, so the required collisions between amino acids would rarely occur [d]. Besides, amino acids do not naturally link up to form proteins. Instead, proteins tend to break down into amino acids [e].
Charles F. Davidson, â??Geochemical Aspects of Atmospheric Evolution,â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 53, 15 June 1965, pp. 1194â??1205.

Steven A. Austin, â??Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?â?� ICR Impact, No. 109, July 1982.

â??In general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distributions of carbon, sulfur, uranium, or iron, that an oxygen-free atmosphere has existed at any time during the span of geological history recorded in well-preserved sedimentary rocks.â?� Erich Dimroth and Michael M. Kimberley, â??Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in the Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulfur, Uranium, and Iron,â?� Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1976, p. 1161.

â??What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.â?� Philip H. Abelson, â??Chemical Events on the Primitive Earth,â?� Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 55, June 1966, p. 1365.

b. R. T. Brinkmann, â??Dissociation of Water Vapor and Evolution of Oxygen in the Terrestrial Atmosphere,â?� Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 74, No. 23, 20 October 1969, pp. 5355â??5368.

c. â??It is difficult to imagine how a little pond with just these components, and no others [no contaminants], could have formed on the primitive earth. Nor is it easy to see exactly how the precursors would have arisen.â?� Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), p. 85.

d. â??But when multiple biopolymers must all converge at the same place at the same time to collectively interact in a controlled biochemical cooperative manner, faith in â??self-organizationâ?? becomes â??blind belief.â?? No empirical data or rational scientific basis exists for such a metaphysical leap.â?� Abel and Trevors, p. 9.

e. â??I believe this [the overwhelming tendency for chemical reactions to move in the direction opposite to that required for the evolution of life] to be the most stubborn problem that confronts usâ??the weakest link at present in our argument [for the origin of life].â?� George Wald, â??The Origin of Life,â?� p. 50.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 29. Proteins