Of course, many people believe in evolution. But what they do not realize, is that there are actually six types of evolution. They don’t realize that, because they are told this and that happened and they do not bother to do any research on this most important question!
Really think about this now! What were you really shown as supposed “proof” of macroevolution?
What you are shown as “proof” that it is the truth, is some examples of microevolution (a variety of frogs, flies, etc.). But then comes the bait and switch, where these scientific examples of microevolution, are replaced with words and nothing else, that then tells them that these frogs turned into a higher form of life than frogs.
I.e., You are shown examples of microevolution and then told that this means that macroevolution (goo to you, by way of the zoo) is true.
I’m sorry folks, but that’s not science! That’s bait and switch! You wouldn’t put up with that from your car dealer, so why do you tolerate it when it comes to the question of whether you were created as you are, or were just trillions of accidents in a row, that somehow all turned out right for every type of living creature, which we all know is a ridiculous proposition? And evolutionists are no better than a used car salesman! It’s the same racket!
But of course, many people believe in the evolution of man from ape. I am not one of them, but many people do. And they also believe that all life evolved from a rock (but that’s a story for another day).
And of course, this is ingrained in us and now into our children in the schools. From the very first page of their history books, our children are taught the “long ago” fairy tale of evolution, which always begins with, “millions of years ago…”.
As far as man is concerned, they are taught that man was dumbass way back when, in “long ago” land and that he got smarter as he “evolved”. And in that “doesn’t actually exist fossil chain of mankinds evolution”, the fairy tale makes a stop along the way to look at “Neanderthal Man”, whom the evolutionists teach our children was a pretty dumb oaf compared to us. And of course, the artists render him as a big, half ape looking moron, with a thick head and a brow structure that reaches out about 8 miles in front of him. And of course, in these drawings, he’s very hairy all over!
News Flash: You can’t tell how hairy anything was from bones! Thus, in order to draw any version of “man” (in the supposed evolution of man) as hairy, you have to first assume that man evolved from ape. But assuming and then proceeding to state something as fact without any proof, is not science! It is doctrine!
The truth about Neanderthal Man, is that we do just do not and cannot know how “hairy” he was. But I would hazard a guess that he was no hairier than we are and in fact, we’ve all seen men right here in our own time, that are pretty damn hairy all over! Are they secretly apes in disguise? Their wives may say that they are, but no, they’re not. :-)
The truth is, going only by bone structure, which is all we have of Neanderthal Man, except for a protruding brow, which even some people today have, you could put him in a suit and walk him down a NYC street and he’d hardly get a second look!
And I have always told people that man has always been man. And as far as Neanderthal Man, I have always stated that he was just as smart as you or I. And now even the evolutionist scientists have to admit it (see link further down)! :-)
Saying that he wasn’t, is to assume evolution to be true. There is no other reason to say that he was not smart! But it’s a bad assumption folks, as the evolutionists are finding out now! And furthermore, science does not consist of making an assumption and then trying to force the data to fit your paradigm and then ignoring any and all criticism by trying to change the subject to ridiculing creationists, in an attempt to dodge the issue.
The truth is, when you draw really hairy men and make them look like they walked hunched over like an ape (which is not supported by the fossil record) and you make their heads look like an apes head, then it’s not very difficult at all to get the kids to believe it’s true! But that’s the very definition of propaganda, folks! Not science! Propaganda in the form of an artists rendition, promoted and held out there as if an artists drawing could somehow prove that man evolved from ape, to get the kiddies to believe, is not science, folks!
And what they’re not telling you folks, is that these artists are not experts in this field, or anything. Rather, they’re simply artists that are hired and then told by these evolutionists what it has to look like when it’s finished. And of course, as I said, the evolutionists approach this by first assuming that evolution is true and therefore, Neanderthal Man (as but one example) had to be hairy, didn’t he?Thus, the artists are simply drawing what they’re told to draw and how they’re told to draw it, based on the faith based, preassumed doctrine that macroevolution is a fact of science, when nothing could be further from the truth!
Charles Darwin himself wa frustrated by this fact and he himself said that the ONLY thing that could prove [macro]evolution to be true, is the fossils. And yet, here we are, about 160 years later and still, there is no such thing as even one single chain of fossils, showing the evolution of one kind to another, let alone proving the evolution of ape to man! It simply does not exist! In fact, I have formally debated scientists in the related fields and have requested said chain of fossils that will show any kind evolving into another kind time and time again, with not one single scientist able to produce the goods! And truth is, even the biggest names today in the involved fields, have admitted this very same thing!
So let’s get this straight. You believe in evolution, even though the fossil record does not support it and then you call your belief “science” and my belief “faith”??? Huh?
The true, scientific facts simply do not support what our children are taught and in fact, they support the opposite, which the story shown by the link further down in this email will demonstrate!
The problem that I have with the whole thing is that our children are being taught this garbage, as if it is a proven fact of science! But in truth, it’s just a fairy tale, folks!
And in teaching that man was dumb, but then got smarter and is more intelligent today than ever, technology is being equated to intelligence, implying that if you have more technology now, then it means that man is smarter now. But that’s not an accurate measure at all, folks! By that measure, if we invent a new way to look at video, it means that now we’re suddenly smarter (mankind as a whole)! It also means that as soon as HD TV came out, mankind as a whole “evolved” to be smarter! Obviously erroneous thinking that cannot hold up to even the weakest at scrutiny! Yet that is what the evolutionist is stuck with! But evolutionary thinking always crumbles, when you look beneath the surface!
Now of course, if you ask an evolutionist directly (this specific question), he/she will deny that they believe this, because they also know just how ridiculous it sounds. But when you don’t get that specific and discuss the broader picture of man’s level of intelligence increasing over time as a result of his supposed evolution, with this same evolutionist, without bringing up the specifics, you will find that they will indeed point to the technological achievements of man, as their supposedly perfect example of man’s intelligence increasing over time.
Yet, as I will repeat below, shouldn’t we ask the question; “Didn’t man have to already be that intelligent, in order to invent the items in the first place?”. I mean heck, if we go along with the evolutionist, then man must be “evolving” like crazy beginning in about 1976, given how fast new technologies have emerged since that point in time?”.
So the question is… Is that reflected in the family unit? I.e., beginning in 1975, were children like “tons” smarter than their parents, making their parents intellectual idiots compared to them, keeping in mind that these children were the very ones that would invent all of these cool gadgets?
And it gets even worse! Think about it. People who were already alive and adults at that time must have “suddenly evolved” mid-life, given that during their childhood, these types of technologies did not yet exist. Yet, even though these same people invented these items in their adulthood, we find zero evidence in the historical record, of adults “suddenly evolving” in their adulthood, in the mid-70’s.
But as I said, the evolutionist makes a foolish argument when it comes to man’s intelligence over time. Think about it. If more technology meant that man got smarter, i.e., that the technology shows how smart man is at a given time, then how did these same men invent the technology, before they were that smart?
In other words, if man is dumber because he didn’t yet have the technology, then he wouldn’t have been capable of inventing the technology, because he wouldn’t have been smart enough to do so yet! :-)
And so what people don’t realize, is that to believe in the evolution of ape to man, would mean that we are far more intelligent today, than even 50 years ago, let alone hundreds of years ago. After all, look at the difference in toys, right?
Yet, when scientists were polled regarding whom they thought the greatest scientist who ever lived was, the overwhelming majority responded with the name; “Sir Isaac Newton”, who lived from 1642 to 1727 A.D.!
And in case you’re not aware, Sir Isaac Newton is the guy in the story you were told in school, about the apple falling on his head and then he came up with the concept of gravity. But in truth, Sir Isaac was responsible for a whole lot more than his theories on gravity! But the point being made here, is that there goes another fantasy from evolution out the window! :-)
Of course, when confronted with these facts, the evolutionist will run to their fallback position which states that this “evolution” happened long ago.
Well, if that’s the case, then why point to the toys we have today as proof, when just 100 years ago we didn’t have any of them? That’s not “long ago”, compared to when Neanderthal Man lived, now is it?
You see, if you really pay attention and listen objectively, you will find that when confronted with facts, the evolutionist will always end up contradicting themselves. And when that is pointed out to them, their next step is always to try to deflect away from that, by beginning to ridicule your belief in God.
But ridiculing someone else’s faith is not the same thing as proving [macro]evolution to be true. Nor is demanding that someone else “prove God”. In fact, even if an evolutionist could prove that someone’s faith is ridiculous, that does not prove that their claims about evolution are true. They are simply trying to change the subject, because they know that they do not have the one thing that can prove evolution. And that is an undeniable chain of fossils, showing the evolution of ape to man. If they don’t have that (and they don’t), then evolution is their belief that they take on faith. And thus, to ridicule anyone else believing something by faith, makes them hypocrites!
And as for Neanderthal Man, the truth is, that he was no less smart than we are today! And my statement would be that he was actually smarter than we are today. Don’t scientists claim that a larger brain size equals more intelligence? Of course they do! And we now know that the brain of Neanderthal Man was actually larger than ours is today! So following their own logic, he was smarter than we are today!
Therefore, using the logic of the evolutionists, man has not gotten smarter over time. He has actually gotten dumber! :-)
We can also look at ancient languages to see this, because contrary to the ideas that you were taught in school when you were a child, language was actually more complex in ancient times, not less! Examples of this are all over the place! In fact, there is an ancient language that we are currently still trying to decipher and have been trying to do so for decades now and still cannot get it! And that’s because it is that complex!
Anyway, there pops another balloon in the evolutionary thought process. :-)
The bottom line is that scientists are now being forced by solid evidence to admit what those who support creation have been trying to tell them all along! That man did not “get smarter over time”! And that more toys does not automatically equal more intelligence!
Rather, it simply means that when a new technology is invented, it is then proved that man was already that smart, or he couldn’t have invented said new technology.
Only evolution would teach that highly complex devices require an intelligence to invent them, but the intelligent inventor, who is (conservatively speaking) trillions upon trillions of times more complex than the device he just invented, came about by accident!
Here is a link to a story about Neanderthal Man, that is “breaking news” (for evolutionists)! And I just love the example given in it about comparing man today, to man in history! :-)
So what about you? Will you still keep believing in evolution, claiming that it’s more logical; that it makes more sense, even while those supposed “facts of evolution” crumble all around you? I mean, if Neanderthal Man was just as smart as you (and maybe even smarter), that means that since he is supposed to be our “evolutionary forefather”, that man did not get more intelligent over time. He got dumber. Of course, looking around today, that doesn’t surprise me.
But the bigger question is; “Do you get it? There goes man’s evolution! Right out the window!
But hey, you can still keep believing if you want. That’s your right. Just remember what you will need to start calling it now and here’s a hint: It’s not “science”.
What you have to call it now, is “faith”. Because that’s what it’s called, when you believe in something that you cannot put in a test tube and physically demonstrate to others. And I can state as a fact, that there has never been demonstrated to anyone, a verifiable chain of the evolution from ape to man. And as any honest scientist must admit (and as even Charles Darwin himself stated), there is only one thing that can prove macro-evolution (goo to you, by way of the zoo) and that is the fossil record. And even though in this case, we’re even giving the evolutionists the benefit of only having to prove their claim of “ape to man”, by those same fossils, if they have them, they still can’t come up with the goods! Rather, they find a fossil of an ape and they just assume it’s an ancestor of man. Sorry, but that’s not science!
There is no such thing as a chain of fossils, showing the evolution of ape to man!
So that means of course, that if you wish to continue to believe that this happened, then in this case, you’ll have to call your continued belief and your claims that “macroevolution = science” what they are, that being “foolishness”. Because that’s what you call it when you believe that which is in direct contradiction to demonstrated facts, such as those found (and the admissions made by these same scientists) in the link above.
You see, that’s what atheistic scientists kept claiming that creationists are, for believing in God and believing that He created man as man and for believing that man has always been an intelligent creature.
If only they would examine themselves for once, huh? :-)
And could they prove their past claims? No! Of course not! And the truth is, that they claimed what they did, based on their assumptions; their preassumed doctrine; their paradigm/world view!
You know, those very same assumptions about man’s evolution that just got proven wrong! :-)
What will they do, now that they no longer have the big dumb oaf version of Neanderthal Man, that is required for their proposed evolution of man, from ape to man, from dumber to smarter?
Moral of the Story? Simple!
Scientists claiming it is so, does not make it “science”! Because science is not a conclusion. It is a method.
And what is that method? Well, it actually consists of one of two valid methods…..
In order for something to be called a “scientific fact”, a scientist (or anyone) must demonstrate something to be scientifically true by either:
A) Direct observation. This does *NOT* include indirect observation, i.e., inferring something.
B) Repeatable results through repeated experimentation. You must be able to get the same result again and again, using the exact same experiment and performing it in the exact same way and without any help/interference.
So to say something “is science”, is to misuse the word, because science is *ONLY* the method and not the conclusion that someone might make!
In other words, let us say that you perform an experiment because you think that if you do ‘X’, then the result of the experiment will be ‘Y’ (that is called a hypothesis). So you perform the experiment, but it fails to yield the results that you thought it would, time after time.
But here’s the thing! Even though you did not get the results that you thought you would, the experiment was still “science”! Because “science = the method used” and not “the results”!
What is not science, is what evolutionists do, which is to not only assume the results, but to call results that they have assumed would occur, “science”. Not only this, but even when there is data that directly contradicts macroevolution and their “billions of years” ages, instead of tossing out evolution, they instead toss out the results (I can provide many examples of this) and then continue to call a result (macroevolution) “science”.
And if said data is shown to them by a Creationist, they proceed to try to shift the argument into a ridicule session! That’s why the admission about Neanderthal Man in the link above completely surprised me!
But for the reason that I gave you above about science being a method and not a result, that is why there is in truth, actually no such thing as “science vs faith” in the “evolution vs creation” debate. And do not presume the best about them here. They are lying when they make the claim that there is such a thing! And while there certainly are many who are indeed that brainwashed to believe that there is, others do indeed know that they are indeed lying about it when they say such things.
Look, I am a Creationist. And I am NOT against science! I ABSOLUTELY LOVE science! All serious Creationists do! And even better yet, I also do understand science, as applied to a number of disciplines and I use science quite often! But science does not automatically equal whatever evolutionists say! Once again, science is a method, not a conclusion!
Understand this clearly, folks! When you begin by assuming the conclusion, then you are not applying the scientific method! Rather, you are making an assumption and then falsely calling that “science”, when it is really faith! That’s what a conclusion without the science to support it is!
So what is the difference between Creationists and Evolutionists?
Creationists do demonstrate many of their claims to be true, using scientific methods. But when it comes down to the all encompassing “Jehovah is real!”, they admit that they believe this by faith. They cannot put God in a test tube. If they could, then they would be God, not Him. :-)
Evolutionists claim that; “[macro]evolution is science”, which is an erroneous statement to begin with. And they then claim that “evolution is proved”, which is another erroneous statement, since science does not “prove” anything! Nor can it “prove” anything (except math)! Once again, it is a method and not a conclusion! But evolutionists even go on to claim that “[macro]evolution (goo to you, by way of the zoo) = science”. And yet, they simply cannot demonstrate their claims to be scientifically accurate! But if you will not bend to their will, they move on to ridiculing you!
As anyone intelligent knows, when all the other side has, is ridicule, then they know that they have no argument and tey’re trying to distract you from that fact.
Now I say that it cannot be done. But I also say that if you can prove macroevolution to me, then I will change my mind and believe it.
Will you turn away from evolution, or at least consider doing so, or at least at minimum, consider a careful review of your belief in evolution and what it actually consists of, when you’re shown that the evidence weighs in against the claims of these people?
Or will you continue to believe it, calling it “science” when without the evidence, it is really faith, because you do not like the alternative?
And that’s what it really boils down to folks! It’s not about whether or not evolution makes more sense than creation. It’s about people NOT WANTING to believe the ONLY alternative, which is creation! And they do not want to believe in that, because then it means that they also have to stand before a Judge one day and that means that they have to stop doing what they want and that they will have to answer for the things they do and admit that they are not a “good person” like they claim to be.
That’s what it’s all about for them. It’s not about science. And that is easily proved, by their lack of knowledge on the subject of evolution. I mean, how can a person honestly claim that evolution makes more sense to them, when they can’t even hold together a discussion on the subject?! You want me to believe that you’ve made an informed decision, yet you have no clue what that information is?! Please!
You children are taught that God is not real. That He did not create man. In fact, there is a college right now, that gives 9 books to every graduate. And one of them is titled; “Living with A Wild God – A non-believers search for the truth in everything”.
Now if the schools simply want to separate school from church, then why would that book be handed to every graduate of that school?
The truth is, they are actively taking away your child’s faith from them, with lies compounded with lies! No school that wasn’t actively discussing your child’s faith, would give them such a book as a graduation present! And in case you want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they just want to give students both sides of the issue, then where’s the book in those nine that supports their faith? They don’t get one of those! Besides, I thought they wanted to separate religion from school? How does tem graduating with the school now seeing them as non-believers in need of a way to search for something to replace their faith, equate to separation of church and state?
College is supposed to be about teaching your children HOW to think. Instead, they’re teaching them WHAT to think! And they ridicule anyone who dares speak of faith! Even after this news, your children will still be taught that the evolution of ape to man is a fact. Why?