Cryptozoology - C vs E - Dinosaurs
More Eager Evolutionists
With The Same Old Arguments
By Jonathan Sampson
©TrueAuthority.com


...while you read

 

While doing my daily surfing online, I came across a new website that I had never seen before – “Visual Evolution”. This seems to be yet another website that wishes to give the impression that evolution is a solidified scientific fact – against all odds. It starts out with “Seeing is believing…”, a rather interesting statement that apparently unfolds into the scope of their entire project, which is demonstrating visual evidence for the legitimacy of evolution. The author goes on to claim that our world is experiencing “serious social and planetary problems”, and that these “real problems” can only be fixed with “real science”. Moving along to claim, "Truth is the highest morality." (Original emphasis) Just what are some of the “real problems” that our world is experiencing? The author doesn’t really inform us.


Cryptozoology

Creation vs Evolution

Dinosaurs

I suspect that some of the biggest problems we face in today’s world would be school shootings, child molestation and abuse, addictions and other related issues. It’s interesting that the author feels that “Truth...” with a capital T “…is the highest morality”. Typically, evolutionists claim that morality and religion fit hand in glove, and that evolution and science have nothing to do with morality. They also claim that there is no absolute Truth. Some insist on accepting a “truth”, with a lower-case t, but denying an absolute Truth. I feel that many of the problems we face today are either directly, or indirectly influenced by the teachings of evolution and the idea that everything is relative – there are no absolutes.

The textbooks today tell students that they are nothing more than animals, and share a common heritage with earthworms. The textbooks teach that we are nothing fancier than random accumulations of molecules following a purposeless event of explosive proportions. “You see kids, 18 billion years ago there was a big bang. This event produced hydrogen and helium, and possibly a couple other elements as well. Over billions of years these evolved into stellar bodies such as the moon, the stars, and the earth, where we live. Then, after millions upon millions of years of random occurrences, life sprang from non-living material. After billions of years of evolution, you’re here.” Such a teaching will destroy a child’s reason for being.

Consistently, if you follow this logic, it’s actually best to eradicate the weaker, less-advantageous humans. Karen Hopkin explained it best in a recent issue of Scientific American:

"…there really is no need for any creature to live beyond its reproductive years. By the time an animal bears children, it has fulfilled its biological destiny to pass on its genes and is just taking up space and sponging off its kids."

Karen Hopkin, 2004, Scientific American
Vol. 14, Num. 3, pp. 14


"Kill off the weaker." I suppose such a solution would be classified as the "real science" answer. But science doesn’t determine the Truth in a situation as such, regardless what the author of "Visual Evolution" thinks. Evolution – if taken seriously – indicates that we need to clean out defects from the biosphere, as to let the most fit replenish the earth. The vast majority of "social and planetary problems" that invade the author’s concerns would be dramatically eradicated if America would return to its Biblical roots.


Human Tails Or Fairy Tales

The subject of human "tails" is an interesting one to say the least. Evolutionists really enjoy bagging this claim around as evidence for evolution. Educated evolutionists usually do not use such "evidence" as support for their theory of origins. This is made aware when Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education was asked about human tails on a 1999 radio debate with Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons To Believe. Her response follows:

"Actually, that’s [human "tails"] not an evolutionary issue at all ... It’s a matter of developmental biology; it’s a matter of what happens when that sperm fertilized that egg, and that egg grew into a baby, and that baby was born. I couldn’t give you the exact precise biochemical explanation but probably at some point where the genes instructing how many vertebrae to lay down in that vertebral column duplicated itself a couple extra times, by mistake. It was a faulty transmission of information, so to speak. And this particular individual just ended up getting a few extra vertebral segments. And this doesn’t happen very frequently, but, you know there are glitches in the genetic material that produce things like this, just as there are glitches in the genetic material that produce people with six fingers. But if somebody was born with six fingers, you don’t think 'Oh no! That takes us all the way back to Acanthostega', with the earliest amphibians some of them had six fingers. It’s not really an evolutionary issue."

Dr. Eugenie Scott, 10-11-1999
"The Mike Rosen Show," KOA Radio
http://www.reasons.org/resources/multimedia/interview/19991011.ram


Obviously Dr. Eugenie Scott – who is a major opponent to the furthering of Creation Science – doesn’t feel that "human tails" are an evolutionary issue at all. As she so clearly stated, such mutations happen that equip people with six fingers as well, but this isn’t evolution. The idea of "throwbacks" is only an argument for evolution when they’re convenient. For instance, if a fatty extrusion of flesh is located somewhere near an individual’s lower back, it’s a "tail". If a person grows a sixth finger, or an additional nipple, it’s a genetic mistake. This type of flexibility barks at the credibility of the person offering such an argument.

Interestingly enough, the author of this website uses a picture of a Hindu baby who reportedly is the reincarnated version of the "monkey-faced god." I recalled seeing this picture some months back online in an article. There was a very important bit of information that the author of this website chose to exclude for his or her visitors. A follow up documentation ran on Ananova soon thereafter regarding this brow-raising Hindu baby-god. The title, "Doctors fear baby with tail may not have long to live". The opening statement was blunt, and to the point, "Doctors in India fear a baby believed to be the reincarnation of a Hindu god may need urgent surgery." So much for the great evolutionary-throwbacks, eh?

The article moved on to state that, "His family refuse to let him be examined by doctors who think he may have a deformity of the spinal column or a tumour." Like the evolutionists, they are fixated on such a great reason for this "tail", and unfortunately for the boy’s sake, this could be a deadly thing. So why would "Visual Evolution" exclude such a thing from their website? It seems to me that they are more interested in passing evolution off as science rather than educating people in the fields of True science. This isn’t all the article contains. Dr. Surender Sharma says: "The parents will be making the child's life more difficult if they don't see a pediatrician immediately. The appendage could well be a deformity of the spinal column or a tumour that could require urgent surgery."

The article was concluded with Dr. Bagai saying, "It's time they stopped imagining things. One wishes they understood he could be suffering and may not have long to live." I really feel this works equally as well with the evolutionists who are willing to smear the truth to further their cause. It’s time they stopped imagining things. The website has a nice display of other deceitful images as well, including two images of males with extrusions from their lower backs. Notice that these are not even lined up with the spinal column. This is common among such defects. If they were tails, one would expect them to be lined up somewhat.

Overall, this is a deceitful presentation that should be completely voided or greatly modified to include any form of Truth.



Top




 

 


TrueAuthority.com - All Rights Reserved - true@trueauthority.com - Best Viewed With IE 6.0 & Above
Give Your Opinion - Use Of Articles



C vs E Home Home