Log in to become a member of Joel Hendon's Fan Club!
The credibility of the atheistic evolutionists has been dropping now for at least five decades. The reason for it is quite simple although the cause for the reason is much more complex. The simple reason is that they are losing their challenge of divine creationism from every angle. The simple cause for their failure is that they never had scientific evidence or reason to challenge from the beginning. There is far more to it than that, but when trying to compact the answer into a single sentence, that’s it.
Many with Ph.D.’s in Biology, Astronomy, Chemistry, Biochemistry, Paleontology, Physics, Mathematics and related studies latched onto the supposition of Darwin’s Origin Of Species (1859) and his “natural selection" and “survival of the fittest" ideas with all their strength. They have staked their reputations, their careers, and yes, their credibility, on these baseless figments of one man’s imagination. Darwin had not one tiny scientific fact to base his infamous doctrines on. Not one. His entire hypothesis was formed because he saw certain animals which had some characteristics similar to others. He found numerous finches with differing beaks. THIS should be evidence that a one celled amoeba would evolve into a Smithsonian Professor with a Ph.D.?
But regardless of how flimsy his idea was, these scientists snatched it up since they had been looking for some answer, other than Intelligent Design, for the universe and for man. Problems arose early on, simply due to the fact that nothing would come along to verify their adamant stand. Since so much had been gambled on this plan and since much time and money had been invested in it’s search, some would become fearful of collapse of the entire program of research and therefore resorted to fraud and downright lies.
These fraudulent scams began around the time Darwin wrote his book. An embryologist named Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s, published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in the early stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., professor for the University of California at Berkeley in his book, Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong, (2000)stated:
“When Haeckel’s embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings were deliberately distorted to fit his theory."
Earlier, in 1894, Professor Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge University wrote concerning Haekel’s embryonic similarities were, “not in accordance with the facts of development."
The rotten part is, the embryonic drawings are still in some Biology textbooks and are being taught as ancestral similarities to prove the evolutionary doctrine. Shameful.
But numerous such fraudulent episodes have arisen since that time. There is the infamous “Piltdown" man: “A supposed early species of human postulated from a skull allegedly found in a gravel bed in about 1912 but determined in 1953 to be a fake constructed from a human cranium and the jawbone of an ape." (Answers online dictionary)
Then there is “Lucy", evolutionists best shot. “The skeletal remains of a female hominid, Australopithecus afarensis, found in Tanzania in 1974 and dated at about 3 million years old. Lucy is the most complete australopithecine skeleton yet discovered, being about 40 percent intact." (Answers online dictionary)
Lucy's actual remains did not include hands or feet but their reconstructions are commonly presented with human or near-human hands and feet despite the fact that other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape, with curved fingers for moving about in trees. Their reasoning for their view was they found clear tracks of human footprints in the same strata and location as Lucy's remains and the assumption is that at least one Australopithecus MUST have had human feet.
Read the following statement concerning cover story in the French scientific magazine, Science et Vie: February 1999:
Scientific discoveries have left evolutionist assumptions regarding "Lucy," once considered the most important example of the Australopithecus genus, completely unfounded. The famous French scientific magazine, Science et Vie, accepted this truth under the headline "Goodbye, Lucy," in its February 1999 issue, and confirmed that Australopithecus cannot be considered an ancestor of man.
When a fraud is uncovered and somewhat acknowledged and somewhat apologized for by the scientific community, they boast about being honest and acknowledging wrong doing. But what they do not tell you is they promote that error as long as possible and milk ever drop that can squeeze from it. The Piltdown man, their most obvious debacle, was kept as fact and gleaned every follower possible for approximately forty years, and this after some had strongly questioned the authenticity of it. They call their work science, when there is no science to it whatsoever. Not one drop of Macroevolutionism can be shown to be accurate. Certainly not reproduced or proven in any way.
A quote from Dr. Niles Eldredge sums up the facts pretty well: "...geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them." Dr. Eldredge further said, "...no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures." (Evolution Is A Farce, CSTNews.com)
Some evolutionists distortions and exaggerations may very well come from an overly eager and zealous desire. However, those which are simply lied about are inexcusable. What they do not realize (or perhaps do not care) is the more of these things that occur, the lower their credibility will become. When these frauds are known, every biology book which contains them should be banned, rather than to try and keep them covered up. This type of behavior will eventually come home to roost for them. It invariably does.
Author Biography: Joel Hendon was born September 20, 1930 near Gadsden Alabama. He attended public schools in Cherokee County, Alabama and after serving a tour of duty in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, attended Jacksonville State University, Jacksonville, Alabama majoring in Business Administration. He became a Christian in 1948, and although he followed secular work as a career and retired from Allied Signal Aerospace in 1997, he is an avid student of the Holy Bible and related works as well as biblical history. He has an extensive website of religious and political conservative articles and links to many other sites. http://hebronics.org/index.html
» left by Ken E from Australia (293 days 21 hours ago.)
The Piltdown fraud was not presented by the scientists of the day as "proof" of evolution, whatever journalists might have written then or later. It was probably an attempt by Charles Dawson to get into the Royal Society, which failed. The association of the jaw and cranium was considered to be a mistake by Marcellin Boule of Paris and by Gerrit Miller of the Smithsonian, and Miller never changed this view. In 1930 he concluded it was a hoax, but was dissuaded from publishing on the grounds that he had never seen the actual materials. By the 1930s or 40s many of those British scientists qualified to have an opinion regarded it as anomalous. No thunderings from pulpits, no pious pamphlets and no rantings from soapboxes saw the end of Piltdown, it was evolutionary scientists who exposed the fraud and published the fact within a few weeks.
Contrast that with the persistent creationist repetition of the lie that carbon-14 is used to date old rocks, that the Paluxy footprints were human, that Noah's ark has been found in Turkey, or Armenia, or somewhere else, that there are no transitional "forms", that scientists identified the Nebraska tooth as human, ad infinitum et ad nauseam.
Haeckel and embryology. His drawings were finally rejected as exaggerated in 1917 after a decade or more of controversy. Though exaggerated, they are still based on facts. It is true that they were included near the front page of a standard molecular biology textbook, though I think in the second edition they were removed. They are irrelevant to molecular biology in any case.
"Atheistic evolutionists" is a bizarre term. Many "evolutionists" are religious, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pople - both of them accept evolution. Large numbers of people from all the major faiths accept evolution.
Whether or not "Lucy" is an ancestor of humans is irrelevant as far as the truth of evolution goes. It is a contraversy *within* evolution.
The Niles Eldredge quote is taken out of context. Niles Eldredge accepts evolution. He was talking about "well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time", in the specific context of the theory of "punctuated equilibrium".
You say "Not one drop of Macroevolutionism can be shown to be accurate. Certainly not reproduced or proven in any way", yet you do not offer any alternative which can be "reproduced or proven in anyway", whilst also overlooking that fact that evolution has been observed, and in reproduceable experiments.
Ben, I've never professed to offer empirical evidence or proof. The only difference is, by accepting intelligent design by some superior power, it answers all the questions. Besides, all I was bringing out here is the fraudulent acts and overbearing forcing of their opinions. And that is all they have, opinions. There is a website which has hundreds of quotes by scientists who ackknowledge they have nothing to base their ideas on.
Aslo, when I speak of atheistic evolutionists, I am speaking of atheistic evolutionists. Any true Christian will not fake something to make it look like it is a "missing link".
As I see it, Intelligent Design doesn't answer all questions - it raises a whole lot of new ones (who designed the designer, why are there so many elements of bad design in nature etc etc). Evolution answers a lot of questions and in turn raises new ones too of course!
The Piltdown hoax was perpetuated *against* scientists as much as *by* them (if indeed the perpetrators were scientists at all) - many scientists were fooled by it and spent time trying to produce theories that could explain this new piece of evidence that didn't match their evolutionary expectations derived from other fossils found (the Piltdown remains suggested that our larger brains evolved in their entirety before our jaws adapted to new types of food, which didn't fit the evolutionary model of the day which expected both changes to have occurred in tandem, as demonstrated in other fossils).
I'm not suggesting the hoax was perpetuated by Christians (I don't know if those who did it were Christian or not, they were certainly not acting in a very "Christian" manner when they did it!), but you seemed to be using "atheistic evolutionists" more as applying much more generally than just referring to the perpetuators of the Piltdown hoax. The credibility of the hoaxers hasn't decreased much in recent decades...they lost that
Do you accept the existence of "Christian evolutionists", or would you class them as not being true Christians?
The majority of Christians (and non-Christians) in the Western world, certainly in Europe, accept evolution.
The biblical account answers all the questions. The designer is a Spirit that is eternal. He is the cause, and is not an effect. If our law, of cause and effect is absolute, then this is the only possible answer. Everything else is an effect as well as a cause..
If the hoax was perpetrated by "Christians", they were not Christians. As far as my accepting Christian evolutionists, I don't make judgements on that. But, I question your statement that a majority of Christians accept evolution if you refer to macro-evolution.
I personally don't accept macroevolution whatsoever, microevolution occurs and is even illustrated in the bible. Macroevolution has no basis or evidence to ever have occurred.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
