11-Archaeopteryx Is Not the Missing Link between Reptiles and Birds
Archaeopteryx
Ever since the 19th century, evolutionists have portrayed the 150-million-year old fossil known as Archaeopteryxas the greatest fossil evidence for the theory of evolution. They claimed that the fossil has a number of reptilian features that make it a “missing link” between reptiles and birds. Recent findings have invalidated this claim, however, by revealing that Archaeopteryx was a fully-fledged flying bird. In addition, the therapod dinosaurs formerly regarded as the supposed reptilian ancestors of birds are in fact much younger thanArchaeopteryx—an inconvenient fact that evolutionists attempt to conceal.
12- The Fossil Record Refutes the Famous “Equine Evolution” Scenario
For decades now, the “evolution” of the horse has been presented as one of the best- documented proofs of the theory of evolution. Four-footed mammals that lived in different periods have been arranged in an arbitrary order from small to large, and this “horse series” displayed in the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. The fact is, however, that recent research in years has revealed that the extinct species in the horse series were not one another’s ancestors. The sequence is highly inaccurate, and that the smaller quadrupeds depicted as the ancestor of the horse actually appeared on Earth long afterwards.
Evolutionists produce totally unrealistic illustrations and fossil reconstructions. They have no other significance than to reflect evolutionists’ vivid imaginations and be used as tools for evolutionist propaganda. There is no scientific basis to this technique, which is employed only to indoctrinate society with evolutionary scenarios.13- Evolutionists’ Ape-Man Stories Are not Based on Any Evidence
The pre-eminent deception of Darwinism is that human beings evolved from ape-like creatures—a claim that’s been imposed on the popular imagination by way of countless of imaginary drawings and models. In fact, there is no evidence that such “ape-men” ever lived. Australopithecus, commonly depicted as today’s man’s earliest ancestor, of, was in fact an extinct species of ape not so very different from chimpanzees. Classifications such as Homo erectus, Homo sapiens neandertalensis and Homo sapiens archaic, which follow Australopithecus in the so-called family tree of humans, are actually different human races. The small anatomical differences between these classifications and today’s man can also be observed among different races alive today, such as native Australians, pygmies and Inuit, or Eskimos.
14- The 99% Genetic Similarity between Man and Chimps Is A Deception
For a very long time, the evolutionist choir has been propagating the unsubstantiated thesis that there is very little genetic difference between humans and chimps. In every piece of evolutionist literature, you could read sentences like "we are 99 percent equal to chimps" or "there is only 1 percent of DNA that makes us human". Although no conclusive comparison between human and chimp genomes has been done, the Darwinist ideology led them to assume that there is very little difference between the two species.
A recent study shows that the evolutionist propaganda on this issue-like many others-is completely false. Humans and chimps are not "99% similar" as the evolutionist fairy tale went on. Genetic similarity turns out to be less than 95 %.
A biologist at the California Institute of Technology based this on a computer program that compared 780,000 of the 3 billion base pairs in the human DNA helix with those of the chimp. He found more mismatches than earlier researchers had, and concluded that at least 3.9 percent of the DNA bases were different.
This led him to conclude that there is a fundamental genetic difference between the species of about 5 percent.(http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/24/humans.chimps.ap/index.html)
New Scientist, a leading science magazine and a strong supporter of Darwinism, reported the following on the same subject in an article titled "Human-chimp DNA difference trebled":
We are more unique than previously thought, according to new comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA. It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992833)
15- Creation, Not Evolution, Is the Origin of Human Consciousness
The theory of evolution cannot explain how human consciousness emerged. Unconscious atoms and chance cannot account for human beings who found civilizations, produce works of art, establish scientific fields from medicine to archaeology, philosophize, rejoice and feel amazement, compose music, take pleasure from the arts they have created, enjoy the taste of yogurt, have friends, understand such concepts as loyalty, self-sacrifice and love, feel longing, build space vehicles, invent the microscope and the light bulb—and study the atoms that comprise their own bodies. It is impossible to account for consciousness in terms of any materialist philosophy that regards a human being as an assemblage of matter. By themselves, the atoms and molecules in the brain can neither feel, nor know anything, nor speak. Consciousness is an attribute of the human soul; and it is God Who bestows that soul on human beings.
16- The Claim that Some Organs Are Vestigial Is Untrue
Evolutionist sources have long suggested that certain organs in the human body no longer have any function and that they are not used but represent a legacy from long-dead ancestoral forms. The human appendix and the coccyx were for many years regarded as “vestigial” organs. However, the latest scientific research has revealed that these organs do, in fact, serve a purpose. The list of “vestigial organs” that evolutionists drew up at the beginning of the 20th century is now completely discredited. In the same way, the concept of “junk DNA” proposed by evolutionists—the claim that a large part of the DNA chain serves no purpose—has also been discredited by new discoveries.
17- It Is Utterly Impossible for Proteins to Form by Chance
It is mathematically impossible for proteins, the building blocks of life, to have formed by chance. For example, the odds of an average-sized protein molecule, which consists of 288 amino acids, emerging by chance is 1 in 10300. (This is an astronomical figure of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) In practical terms, it is impossible for this to happen. (In mathematics, chances smaller than 1 in 1050 are regarded as having zero probability.) The theory of evolution, which is unable to account for the formation of even a single protein in terms of chance, can never explain how the cell and even more complex structures came into being.
18- Chance Combinations of Inanimate Molecules Cannot Account for Life
Even if we assume that protein molecules did come into existence by chance, still it is impossible for life to emerge spontaneously. Thousands of further stages are needed in order to progress from a protein to a cell. Above all, any protein that happens to form by chance will have to wait patiently for other proteins to form alongside, while not itself suffering any impairment due to ultraviolet rays or mechanical effects in its immediate environment. Then these other proteins must form in sufficient numbers and at the same point and combine in a meaningful manner in such a way as to constitute the organelles of the cell. No foreign substance, harmful molecule or useless protein must enter the sequence. Then, these organelles have to combine in an exceptionally planned and organized manner, attract the requisite enzymes and be covered with a membrane. And then finally, the interior of that membrane must be filled with a special fluid that provides an ideal environment for these organelles. Yet by itself, every one of these stages is impossible.
19- Any Single Cell Is More Complex Than Even A Great City
Around 4 billion years ago, according to the evolutionist scenario, various inanimate chemical substances entered into a reaction, combining under the effects of lightning or earthquakes, and thus gave rise to the first cell. In fact, however, scientists describe the cell as having as complex a structure as that of a city like Paris or London. A great number of structures inside the cell, from energy-producing plants to protein factories, from transport systems carrying raw materials to decoders that interpret DNA, and communications systems, are all in a constant state of activity in a flawless organization. Believing the evolutionist claim that the cell came into being by chance is as illogical as claiming that all the buildings, roads, transport systems, water and electricity grids in New York City emerged spontaneously thanks to the effects of random natural phenomena such as storms and earthquakes.
 |
20- The Creation in the Structure of the Cell is One Proof that Invalidates the Theory of Evolution
Thanks to their perfect structures, some 200 different kinds of cells perform different functions in the body.. For example, nerve cells have extensions approximately 1 meter long, reaching from the spinal cord down to the feet. This enables stimuli to reach their destination very quickly along a single route. Blood corpuscles, on the other hand, are only 7 micrometers in size, which allows them to pass easily through microscopically small capillary vessels.
Inside the eye’s light-sensitive retinal cells, a large number of membranes carry light-sensitive pigments and nerve connections. In this way, the cells become sensitive to light. The intestines contain food-digesting cells with a shape ideally suited to their task. All these cells come into being through the division of one single cell in the human embryo. But did unconscious atoms and coincides assume the responsibility for these cells’ flawless shapes so ideally suited to their functions? This extraordinary organization and planning, which the theory of evolution can never account for, is a proof of God’s creation.
