Demolishing the claim that evolution is "scientific"

It can be guaranteed that whenever an evolutionist attacks creation, he will make a statement, trotting it out like a mantra; "Evolution is based on hard, provable scientific evidence; creation is based upon unprovable religious faith".
Let us examine this claim. The word "science" is a very powerful "trigger" word that conjures up pictures of white coated scientists making incredibly accurate measurements in an experiment to prove a new theory. They report these experiments in detail so that they can be carried out by other laboratories to check on their findings.
Let us call this "Real Science" because it can be repeated in any laboratory around the world. THE EXPERIMENT IS REPEATABLE.
On that definition, neither evolution nor creation can claim to be "scientific" in the true sense of that word, for each of them occurred only once in the past and is therefore UNREPEATABLE. The only way that each side can "prove" - in the broadest sense of that word - their own case and disprove the other is by interpreting the evidence that they can obtain from this present earth and universe. Therefore, surely it is clear that evolution is no more "scientific" than creation; they both start with a level playing field of the available evidence on which they place their own interpretation - one way or the other.
Therefore claims that evolution should be taught as a science subject but creation as a religious subject is totally unacceptable. If evolution is taught in science lessons, then so should creation on the same basis!
Could I suggest that whenever a creationist discusses with an evolutionist who uses this argument, they are promptly corrected. It should "take the wind out of their sails!"


The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory.


(A) The oldest rocks (Pre-Cambrian) have been searched for many years but no undisputed fossils have been found. The Cambrian rocks immediately above, however, contain numerous fully developed complex invertebrates. This sudden appearance of life in the strata has been a major problem for the evolutionists (Fig.1). geol column

Minute objects found in Precambrian strata are claimed to be primordial cells. Even if they are there is an enormous gap between such microscopic objects and the complex invertebrates such as the trilobites which suddenly appear perfectly formed in the Cambrian strata above.
(B) Despite searching the strata for over 100 years, fossils which would close the gaps between classes and even species have NOT been found, as many evolutionists are now prepared to admit. In proposing their new theory of "punctuated equilibrium", Drs. Gould and Eldredge accept that these gaps still exist.


When challenged to produce a series of fossils demonstrating the transition of one species into another, the 4-3-1 toe evolution of the horse is frequently presented as evidence. However,
(A) Over twenty different geneological 'trees' have been drawn up by various scientists. This is because there are 250 similar looking animals to chose from. Those which contradict the series are ignored.
(B) All the known species of birds and mammals appear and 'diversify' within the last 150 Million years according to the evolutionists geological time scale. At this rate, the 70 million years it has taken simply to modify a horse's hoof is far too large a proportion of the time since mammals first appeared. There is therefore something seriously wrong with the time scale.
(C) Some animals used in the sequence have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, indicating that various species have been used to compile the series, but this is ignored as this contradicts the theory. Most of these fossil animals have been found in America. Yet the first fossils of modern horses they are supposed to lead up to are found in Europe. (Present American horses are a recent introduction). Two evolutionists - Prof. George Gaylord Simpson said "It never happened in nature" and Charles Deperet called it "a deceitful illusion"


This bird is claimed to be the link between reptiles and birds. But it had perfectly formed feathers which are very complex in design. There can be over a million minute hooks on one feather. Nothing which is half way between a feather and a reptile's scale has ever been found. An animal with half developed wings could neither run nor fly properly and would be quickly eliminated. Finally, Archaeopteryx is irrelevant, as a fossil of a normal bird has been found in strata of same dating as Archeopteryx.


(A) Evolutionists cannot determine how birds evolved by studying existing species. Special types of skulls, feathers, hollow bones, etc., appear 'randomly' in existing species making classification impossible.
(B) Nesting habits of some birds cannot be learnt, e.g. the mud nest of the House Martin has to be right first time or the eggs will fall.


After breeding over one million fruit flies, they still obstinately remain fruit flies! There is a wide variety of dog BREEDS but they are still dogs. Species bred beyond limits develop serious deformities. Darwin bred pigeons and knew this fact but in his "Origins of Species" he glossed over what is an impassable barrier to the "evolution" of one species from another.


This is the theory that the development of a fertilised germ cell retraces the history of the species.(e.g. that gill 'slits' in the human embryo are relics of its fish ancestry). This theory, once hailed as the Biogenic LAW is now discredited even by evolutionists. However it is still implied in some books. Prof. Haeckel (a fiery supporter of Darwin) faked his drawings to support the theory but was convicted by a University court.


(A) Passing a spark through a mixture of gasses forms simple amino acids but -
(B) they are only the very simplest of 'building blocks' used in the formation of larger organic molecules.
(C) they must be caught in a cold trap to prevent the spark from destroying them
(D) a reducing (non oxygen) atmosphere is necessary.
(E) any amino acids forming would have been destroyed by the ultra-violet rays of the Sun. These conditions would not have occurred in nature.
(F) Even allowing millions of years, there has still been insufficient time or material in the whole universe for very complex organic molecules to have formed BY CHANCE.
Protiens can be strings of 2-3000 amino acids long. To get a very small protienoid of say only 100 amino acids long to correctly form in the right sequence by pure chance in the "Primordial Soup" of the 20 different amino acids that there are (ignoring the left and right version of each one), the odds against this is 10 to the power of 130. To give some idea of how colossal this number is, scientists reckon that there are 10 to the power of 78 atoms in the whole universe! And when it has formed what use would it be if there were no other proteins to react with!


There are two varieties - the light and the dark. Elimination of the light variety is NOT evolution. They are still Peppered Moths. It has now been admitted that Kettlewell faked his experiments to get the results he wanted.


Evolutionists are unable to explain how the whale, which is a mammal, went back into the sea without leaving any fossil evidence of intermediate forms.
The National Geographic Magazine has always promoted evolution. In the November 2001 issue they gave a picture (See first figure) of a land animal - Ambulocetus - said to be a stage in the evolution of the whale - but their artist falsified webs between its claws to make it look as if it were adapting to living in the sea. The rear legs were also positioned as though they were developing into fins. The article said the digits ended in small hooves, but later described it "lying submerged like a shaggy crocodile then leaping forth to snatch passing prey". This would be a little difficult with hooves! The drawing seems to show claws. It is obviously a perfectly normal land animal that has been pressed into use as an intermediary between mammals and whales. Evolutionists are truly desperate about the absence of this link.

ambulocetus - false webbed claws


This strange animal has:
(A) a soft, sensitive "bill" and lays eggs like a duck
(B) fur like an animal,
(C) webbed and clawed feet,
(D) pockets in its jaws to carry food,
(E) a spur on rear legs which is poisonous like a snake's fang.

A question for the evolutionist- what were its ancestors?


This method is used to give an age to rocks (and thereby the fossils they bear) but it rests upon several unprovable assumptions, e.g.
(A) Radioactive conditions are the same today as they were millions of years ago.
(B) The 'half life' of the elements is constant.
(C) No products of the radioactive decay were originally present nor have been added since the formation of the rock.
These are all very large suppositions that cannot be easily checked in the field for every sample.
When the same stratum is tested by different methods or even by the same method, it frequently gives an enormous range of ages. For example, one rock gave 14, 30, 95 and 750 million years by different methods. In another case, dating of the same rock for Leakey's 1470 'Man' gave 220 million years and 2.6 million years using the Potassium-Argon method. It is sometimes said that, despite discrepancies, radiometric dating shows that rocks are millions of years old, not thousands. One answer is that the 'daughter' elements found in some rocks are naturally occurring along with many other elements. To infer vast ages from the ratios of the elements found in rocks is unwarranted. The only reason why the results of Radiometric Dating tests are quoted is that they give ages in terms of millions of years. Other methods giving only thousands are completely ignored.
All these long ages are greatly reduced due to the speed of light being VERY much higher in the past. - SEE THE SECTION ON THE DECREASE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT ON PAGE 3 - EVIDENCE FOR GENESIS]

12. CARBON 14

Graph of rising c14 level This is a radioactive form of Carbon and all living organisms have a small amount of C14 within them. However, the level is not constant as the ground level activity is still rising. i.e. the amount of C14 is not yet in equilibrium. This makes the true age shorter than apparent age (Fig. 2). This method is quite unreliable for ages over 3,000 years despite datings up to 40,000 years being quoted.