Evolution?

[MaxShimba]

Evolutions: Fakes, Mistakes, Frauds and Phonies
O

The history of the theory of evolution since Charles Darwin wrote in 1859, has been filled with many fakes, mistakes, frauds and phonies. In attempts to justify the theory scientists have taken scanty evidence and given it great significance and in some cases faked or fraudulently presented evidence that was later found out and exposed. As scientific knowledge has increased and evolution has become less and less plausible the frenzy has exploded. In just the last several months we have seen one on the most favored examples of evolution (the peppered moth), cited in almost all high school texts, exposed as a fraud. In November National Geographic published a full color, extensive article about a fossil from China that "almost proved" dinosaurs turned into birds, only to find it was a victim of another fraud. Frauds, fakes, etc. are not new to evolution. For example Nebraska Man and Piltdown Man.

Then there is scanty evidence like Swanscombe Man.

Recent research in Peppered Moths has indicated that the original experiments were both flawed and fraudulent. Check out this web site for the actual publication.
http://www.trueorigin.org/pepmoth1.htm
The moths do not land on trees during the daytime. The actual pictures were faked by gluing dead moths on trees. So it goes, poor science and wishful thinking to justify evolution.

The most recent case of National Geographic being deceived is still unfolding, but we know now that the fossils that were declared to show dinosaurs turned into birds were intentionaly faked. Since evolution is now considered true we can expect the evolutionary scientists to continue to "find" evidence that can't hold up to good scientific scrutiny. It is really unfortunate that the standards they impose on the creation scientists of critical evaluation of evidence do not apply to themselves until others evaluate the work. Another example is the "Big Bang" theory of the origin of the Universe. Over 90% of the evidence is missing (cold dark matter) yet the theory continues because there is no other plausible explanation except "God created" and they will not allow that to enter their thinking. It's a great time to be a Creationist and see the Evolutionists scramble for evidence that does not exist.

[Back]

 

[MaxShimba]

CNN TURK'S ERRORS ABOUT EVOLUTION

PART 2: HUMAN BEINGS SOUGHT TO BE TURNED INTO APES

The Error of Portraying Early Human Races as Primitive

Despite all these facts, Darwinists are still determined to regard early Homo races as primitive, because that is what their theory requires. This dogmatic approach also prevails in the documentary “Walking with Cavemen.” The claim that early human races were unable to speak properly or lacked the capacity for abstract thought is insistently emphasised in the documentary. Yet this assumption is entirely the product of fantasy and is devoid of any foundation.

All the images of “primitiveness” depicted in the documentary—eating raw meat, savage behaviour, etc.—are entirely imaginary. There is no evidence to allow us to determine that these human beings ate raw eat or to show that they behaved savagely. What we do have are fossils of these people, and conclusions of this sort cannot be drawn from them.

The British author Paul Garner describes this distortion in the documentary thus: Page: 13

There seemed to be a concerted effort to reinforce evolutionary ideas by mixing in ape-like behaviour with the human attributes. For example, the ergaster people shown did not wear any clothing or adornment of any kind, they ate uncooked food, and they were shown using ape-like gestures and facial expressions. This animalistic emphasis was at its most brutal when an older male was shown savagely clubbing a younger male involved in a fight with a rival .

Furthermore, as Paul Garner has emphasised, there is in fact direct evidence that Homo erectus did use clothing: Homo erectus fossils have been found in Germany , Siberia and Dmanisi (on the shore of the Black Sea ) and it appears impossible for human beings to survive without clothing in such extremely cold regions.

In addition, there is also extremely important evidence indicating that, contrary to what is claimed about erectus/ergaster human beings in the documentary, they actually possessed an advanced intelligence, imagination and culture. Yet this has been determinedly ignored by evolutionists for decades. One of these pieces of evidence is the 1.7-million-year-old hut remains found by the well-known fossil researcher Louis Leakey at Olduvai Gorge in the early 1970s. 22 Leakey and other researchers concluded that these remains were so complex that they could “only have been constructed by Homo sapiens .” If we leave aside the assumption that Homo erectus was primitive then it appears that this hut was built by erectus human beings living at that time and that it reflects an advanced “ erectus ” culture.

Another striking piece of evidence about Homo erectus is the findings that these people engaged in sailing. One article in New Scientist titled “Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected” refers to evidence that members of Homo erectus who lived 700,000 years ago voyaged on the sea. 23

The fact that human beings who built huts and sailed on the sea are portrayed as primitive ape-men in the documentary “Walking with Cavemen” shows the extent of the distortions in the film.
bone flute

A bone flute made by Neanderthal Man. The calculations made regarding this flute by the musicology expert Bob Fink show that the holes are set out in such a way as to produce the correct notes, in other words that it is an expertly designed instrument.

The same distortion is carried out with regard to the Neanderthals, and these human beings are also portrayed as primitive creatures “bereft of the power of imagination.” Yet fossil discoveries reveal that the Neanderthals actually possessed a sophisticated culture. One of the most interesting instances of this is a fossilised flute made by Neanderthal Man. This flute, made from the thigh bone of a bear, was discovered in a cave in Northern Yugoslavia in 1995 by the archaeologist Ivan Turk. It was later analysed by the musicologist Bob Fink, who established that this instrument, carbon dated to between 43,000 and 76,000 years old, produced four notes with full and half-tones. This discovery shows that the Neanderthals used the seven-note scale which represents the basic form of Western music. Fink states that “ the distance between the second and third holes on the old flute is double that between the third and fourth .” This means that the first distance represents a full note, and the neighbouring distance a half-note. Fink also says that “ These three notes … are inescapably diatonic and will sound like a near-perfect fit within any kind of standard diatonic scale, modern or antique," and states that the Neanderthals were human beings with a musical ear and knowledge. 24

Certain other fossil findings show that the Neanderthals buried their dead, cared for the sick and wore adornments such as necklaces and the like. 25

A 30,000-year-old sewing needle used by Neanderthals was also found during excavations. Made of bone, this needle is exceedingly regular and has a hole made in it to pass the thread through. 26 It is of course impossible to regard human beings with a clothing culture so sophisticated as to require a sewing needle as “primitive.”

The documentary “Walking with Cavemen,” which insists, in the face of all the evidence, on regarding the Neanderthals as “primitive,” is a propaganda film based on falsehood, rather than a true documentary.


HOME PAGE


Notes :
22 A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1st ed., 1970, pp. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol. 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 272
23 "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected", New Scientist , March 14, 1998
24 The AAAS Science News Service, Neandertals Lived Harmoniously, April 3, 1997
25 Ralph Solecki, Shanidar: The First Flower People, Knopf: New York, 1971, p. 196; Paul G. Bahn and Jean Vertut, Images in the Ice, Leichester: Windward, 1988, p. 72
26 D. Johanson, B. Edgar, From Lucy to Language, p. 99, 107

 

[MaxShimba]

Darwinian themes that are refuted.

Natural Selection

1. There is no connection at all between the two concepts "artificial selection" and (Darwinian) "Natural Selection". Down

2. The belief in evolution, per se, is based on several logical fallacies, one in particular, a "post hoc propter hoc" type of argument. Down

3.Belief that "selection" of some kind is the cause of evolution, is an example of the process of inverse reasoning, properly called "inverse logic", which is also a logical fallacy. Down

4. The idea that any type of action (a "cause") outside of the life of the organism is the cause of evolution is a "cause/effect" reversal. Down

5. Darwinian Natural Selection is ubiquitous: Kettlewell's experiment with the moths (supposedly demonstrating selection) is no proof of any aspect of evolution. Down

6. The cause of diversity is not a "selection" process; for analogy, this concept is supported by the operation of a hypothetical Natural Selection "machine". The output of the machine (like evolution) is not caused by any form of selection, as one might conclude, rather it is a phenomenon which is unknown. Down

Survival of the Fittest

7. Darwinists define the two terms, Natural Selection and Survival of the Fittest, by their effects on organisms, as opposed to stating a detailed description of the process, or mechanism of operation, of either term; they are thus each, a non-sequitor. Down

8. The term Survival of the Fittest is a tautology. It predicts an undefined winner which can only be identified by the outcome of the competition in which the competitor is engaged. Down

9. Survival of the Fittest is also ambiguous, a misleading term that is unscientific. Down

10. All organisms such as the Oak tree, Fruit Fly, and others, have aspects of their organisms which are not the "fittest" by any definition. Down

11. If Darwin's theory was truly in operation, the number of species would be reduced from what is now evident. Down

12. The "fitness" of species is limited by a factor unknown to Science. Down

13. The "Malthusian" concept would not effect "evolution" except as to the "rate" of evolution; it promotes stasis rather than evolution. Down

14. Darwin's theory can neither explain the existence of the wide variety of open niches which exist on this planet, nor can any principles or laws it establishes explain the characteristics of current existing or non-existing species, or proto-species to fill the open niches. Down

Two Themes involving Science, used in the study of Evolution:

The "Five Senses Hypothesis"

15. Science Studies almost invariably operate under an assumption, not a part of Science, but rather a proper consideration of Philosophy. This assumption is called "naturalism". As science, it is erroneous. Down

16. Currently, the most prevalent interpretation of Darwinism virtually excludes all other possible scenarios as an explanation for life and all of its forms; this is a logical fallacy based on the "Five Senses Hypothesis". Darwinian Theory has inevitably become a stalking-horse for Naturalism, Secular Humanism, and other materialistic philosophies. Down

~~~~~~~~~

The following text is a version of the article "Natural Selection" as presented on another of the author's pages. (The arguments are identical, but the Theses have not been separately set out and there is no "Down/Back" feature as available here).

SYNOPSIS

This page explores what might be called the most fundamental belief in all of biological science, namely, whether or not the concepts contained in the terms "Natural Selection" and/or "Survival of the Fittest" are, either separately or together, a scientific explanation for the mechanism, or cause, of evolution. These two terms have been chosen for discussion not only because they launched "Darwinism" to the preeminent theory it has become, but also because of the almost universal use of them and all their derivatives, in biology books, papers, and particularly in textbooks.

Both of these terms, even though they have different intended meanings as shown below, are used almost interchangeably as the foundation of Darwin's theory of evolution, and have been, from the original publication in 1859, through to the present day. This in spite of the fact that his theory has gone through 4 or 5 versions incorporating new findings, the current version sometimes called "The New Synthesis".

While no argument is made of the status of "evolution" it is assumed throughout that evolution is not a scientific fact, contrary to another fundamental belief of evolutionists; however as above, the possibility of some sort of evolution is not ruled out either, the question not being germane to this discussion. If you are of the opinion that evolution is a proven fact, this entire discussion has to be considered as erroneous.

Also, a little off-topic to the overall discussion, a paragraph near the end explains how the Malthusian theory (relied on by many evolutionists as a "keystone" to both Darwin and Wallace) really fits into the idea of evolution. In another paragraph, predictions made using evolutionary theory are proposed and studied in attempt to test the theory.

CONCLUSION

It is shown that the process of reason that concludes that Natural Selection is a proper explanation for evolution is faulty, in actuality a process which is correctly termed "inverse logic". It is also shown that the term Survival of the Fittest, even if it were not a tautology, is not a meaningful explanation for evolution, since the organisms that survive are not in fact, the "fittest" by any standard whatsoever.

Darwin's theory takes advantage of the incredible ability of species adaptation to a variety of forms, and presents this capability in argument that explains it as the "cause" of evolution. Darwin's theory is in fact a prescription for "mono-speciation", and cannot explain the diversity so evident in the biological world. The cause of evolution, if it even exists, is currently (2000) unknown to science.

It is also suggested that the nearly rote learning of evolutionary theory is harmful to the development of the formation of the logical process of thought, particularly in the young.

Likewise it is concluded that the "Malthusian" concept is responsible for stasis rather than playing any part in "evolution" - just another example of the inverse logic of the Darwinists.

In closing, predictions made in accordance with the theory have, fortunately, not come true. It is no surprise to the DT that they have not, but Darwinists should be (but aren't) able to explain why this is so

 

[MaxShimba]

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67


Free money to evolutionist. Good luck.

 

[Pundit]

Ukiona watu hawakujibu katika copy paste posts zako ujue unaboa.

 

[MaxShimba]

Ukiona watu hawakujibu katika copy paste posts zako ujue unaboa.

Naona wewe Pundit una matatizo na huyo maxshimba. Mbona kuna thread kibao ambazo hazina majibu au usaidizi ambazo umeziacha na kumlukia huyu maxshimba ambaye thread yake inamajibu?

Yeye alichoweka hapa ni link ya mtu au watu wanaofuata evolution kutoa majibu yao ili wapate pesa. Sasa kosa la max ni nini au liko wapi?

Suala lako la kuwa eti max anakopi na kupest, sioni tatizo lake kwa kuwa hakuna asiye kopi na kupest katika hii JF.

Hata mwalimu wako anayekufundisha, yeye si mwanzilishi wa hiyo elimu, hivyo basi na yeye anakopi kutoka kwa mwanzilishi au mfumbuzi.

Hoja yako haina nguvu zaidi ya kuonyesha chuki uliyonayo kwa Max, na sijui ni yanini na umeitowa wapi.

 

[MaxShimba]

God is dead, Nietzsche rightfully pointed this out more than a hundred years ago.

How sad some people are so far backwards.



Friedrich Nietzsche - The Gay Science

Pundit, hebu angalia majibu yako katika hii thread. Majibu haya yanaonyesha kuwa kuna kitu kinacho kufanya kujibu hivi. Sina uhakika kama unamfahamu huyu Max, lakini inaonyesha kuwa wewe una chuki.

Mtu mwenye akili timamu hawezi kusema ulivyo sema wewe Pundit. Maneno na majibu yako yanatia unchungu, huzuni na ni ya aibu.

Swali kwako, Je na wewe hukukopi hiyo infor kutoka kwa Friedrich? Naomba jibu.

 

[MaxShimba]

Kwanza natoa asante kwa MAX na kwa habari unazo tuletea. Pili natoa pole ya kushambuliwa bila ya sababu na huyo Pundit.

Doedoe umetoa majibu mazuri na kuonyesha kuwa pundit ana chuki na labda jazba fulani imemjaa kifuani.

Mwisho sidhani kama huyo Pundit anaweza kukujibu, kwa kuwa na yeye kakopi.

 

[Nyani Ngabu]

This is fun.....

 

[Pundit]

Kwanza kabisa mimi siko against ku copy paste kama inafanywa ku expand points au kuelezea mambo kwa undani zaidi, lakini what I am against ni huu mpango wa kwenda ku copy na paste post nzima, halafu kabla hujajibiwa unaenda ku copy paste nyingine.

Mimi nina chuki, nina chuki sana, nina chuki sana na ignorance.

 

[MaxShimba]

Kwanza kabisa mimi siko against ku copy paste kama inafanywa ku expand points au kuelezea mambo kwa undani zaidi, lakini what I am against ni huu mpango wa kwenda ku copy na paste post nzima, halafu kabla hujajibiwa unaenda ku copy paste nyingine.

Mimi nina chuki, nina chuki sana, nina chuki sana na ignorance.

Naona umeamua kumtukana kabisaaaaaaa na kukiri kuwa una chuki zaidi ya mara moja kwa Max

Mod unayahona mambo haya. Watu humu ndani sasa wanaanza kukiri kuwa wana chuki tena chuki sana.

Kazi kweli kweli

Ujumbe anaotupa huyu bwana Max sioni tatizolake, hata kama watu hawajibu au hawaweki nyongeza, baadhi yetu bado tunafaidika na elimu iliyo ndani yake.

Mimi ninacho ona kuna kitu hapa, Mpaka urudie zaidi ya mara moja na kuweka msisitizo kuhusu chuki uliyo nayo kwa huyu Max.

 

[Pundit]

Naona umeamua kumtukana kabisaaaaaaa na kukiri kuwa una chuki zaidi ya mara moja kwa Max

Mod unayahona mambo haya. Watu humu ndani sasa wanaanza kukiri kuwa wana chuki tena chuki sana.

Kazi kweli kweli

Ujumbe anaotupa huyu bwana Max sioni tatizolake, hata kama watu hawajibu au hawaweki nyongeza, baadhi yetu bado tunafaidika na elimu iliyo ndani yake.

Mimi ninacho ona kuna kitu hapa, Mpaka urudie zaidi ya mara moja na kuweka msisitizo kuhusu chuki uliyo nayo kwa huyu Max.

Wewe acha kujifanya kupinda mambo, nimesema nina chuki na ignorance. Au hujui maana ya ignorance?

 

[MaxShimba]

Pundit;254319]God is dead, Nietzsche rightfully pointed this out more than a hundred years ago.

Kama wewe unafuata mafundisho ya watu ambao na wao wamekufa hilo ni shauri lako. Mimi ninacho jua Mungu hajafa, na sijui kama wewe kweli unadini, kama wazazi wako wapo hai na kusikia umeamua kufuata au kusema Mungu amekufa, sijui watajihisi vipi..

How sad some people are so far backwards.
Inatia huzuni na inafadhaisha akili na kuumiza roho kuona mtu mwenye akili timamu kufuata na kuandika maneno machafu kama yako. Kama huna la kusema au hunala kuandika ni bora kukaa kimya, kuliko kuandika utumbo kama huu

Friedrich Nietzsche - The Gay Science

Huyu mwandishi alisha kufa miaka kibao, kabla hata ya baba yake hajafa.

PUNDIT HAPA SI MAHALI PA KUTOLEA JAZBA ZAKO

 

[MaxShimba]

Wewe acha kujifanya kupinda mambo, nimesema nina chuki na ignorance. Au hujui maana ya ignorance?

Ni nani huyo mwenye ignorance unaye msema kwenye thread hii?

 

[Pundit]

"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of the truth"

Ignorance ni kufanya mythology za wayahudi kuwa "God's Gospel"

 

[MaxShimba]

"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of the truth"

Ignorance ni kufanya mythology za wayahudi kuwa "God's Gospel"

PUNDIT bado hujajibu swali, ni nani huyo unaye mchukia.

Vipi hii leo unazungumzia Mungu? Kumbuka ulisema Mungu amekufa, Sasa ni nani hapa mpumbavu?

Vipi kuhusu dini ambayo inafundishwa kiarabu na kusomwa kiarabu na hata misikiti yake inaangalia uarabuni, na ngua za waumini wake ni za waarabu, na waumini wake kusujudu na kujifanya Waarabu?

Mbona huyaoni hayo, wewe Pundit?

Swali bado lipo pale pale ni kwanini Unamchukia Max Shimba? Ni kwasababu ya kuwabana katika jukwa la dini au ni nini hasa?

Mod unayaona haya?

 

[MaxShimba]

PUNDIT bado hujajibu swali, ni nani huyo unaye mchukia.

Vipi hii leo unazungumzia Mungu? Kumbuka ulisema Mungu amekufa, Sasa ni nani hapa mpumbavu?

Vipi kuhusu dini ambayo inafundishwa kiarabu na kusomwa kiarabu na hata misikiti yake inaangalia uarabuni, na ngua za waumini wake ni za waarabu, na waumini wake kusujudu na kujifanya Waarabu?

Mbona huyaoni hayo, wewe Pundit?

Swali bado lipo pale pale ni kwanini Unamchukia Max Shimba? Ni kwasababu ya kuwabana katika jukwa la dini au ni nini hasa?

Mod unayaona haya?

Anamchuki Max Shimba, nasikia amewanyamazisha Waislam wote kwenye jukwaa la dini. Ndio maana jamaa anajazba kibao na kuzungumza mambo yasio na maana na yasio na mwelekeo.

 

[MaxShimba]

Anamchuki Max Shimba, nasikia amewanyamazisha Waislam wote kwenye jukwaa la dini. Ndio maana jamaa anajazba kibao na kuzungumza mambo yasio na maana na yasio na mwelekeo.

Mr. Schmidt hapo umeweka wazi na kusema ukweli kuhusu huyu Pundit. Pundit amefilisika kidini na ameshindwa kujibu makombora huko na kuamua kumwaga jazba zake hapa.

Mara Mungu amekufa, mara Imani ya Kiyaudi ni ya ...., mara namchukia tena sana Maxshimba, huyu jamaa anaitaji msaada

 

[MaxShimba]

Creationism is faith in a book, not GOD, imo.

Which book is this? Can you be open and specific?

 

[MaxShimba]

Which book is this? Can you be open and specific?

He can't answer that. Remember some people like him are full of blahing blahing.