A Simple Proof That Evolution Is Not A Fact

Here is a simple proof that evolution is not a fact:

If you consult all of the writings of Charles Darwin, all of the writings of evolutionists since Charles Darwin, the writings of evolutionary biochemists, the writings of evolutionary chemists, the writings of evolutionary biophysicists, the writings of evolutionary physicists, the writings of evolutionary biologists, the writings of evolutionary geologists, the writings of evolutionary paleontologists, and the writings of a thousand other scientific specialties, they all say that their conclusions are based on:

Assumptions

Footnote: Multiple studies universally agree that evolutionary science is based on well over 11,000 assumptions.

Why Theistic Evolution Is Stupid

First, we must give the Devil his due; that is, some of the theistic evolution websites are very persuasive. However, they are very persuasive only to those with little or no knowledge on the subject of evolution.

Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution in the process of creating man. Their failure is that they engage in an uncritical acceptance of certain scientific postulates and principles. In other words, they either haven’t done their homework or they haven’t done enough homework. For example, they accept the transitional forms (ape-men, not man-apes) as fact when, in reality, there is not perfect agreement in the scientific community as to the principles supporting the conclusions regarding these so-called transitional forms.

See our evolution website EON Super Nexus for more information.

Evolution: The “Man-Apes”

There is disagreement in the evolutionary scientific community as to the validity of methods used to analyze and evaluate fossils. However, let us assume, for the moment, that the methods are valid. What would this mean?

What it would mean is that there were extinct “man-apes.” What would these man-apes have been. There are two views – evolutionary and data.

Evolutionary View

The evolutionary view is that the man-apes were transitional forms; that is, life-forms between more ancient apes and man.

Data View

The man-apes would have been ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes.

Analysis of Views

The evolutionary view is based on a mixture of data and fantasy. The fantasy is that the man-apes gave birth to human beings. However, no birth fossils (fossils of mothers giving birth to babies) have ever been found.

The data view is always correct because it simply reports the facts.

Conclusion

If fossil analysis/evaluation methodologies are valid, there were ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes. There are no birth fossils to prove that they gave birth to human beings.

Evolution’s Skull Game

We have proven that similarity is not proof of evolution (see Evolution’s Great Fallacy). So, what do we have below? Evolutionists would say, “See how the skull evolved over time.” But what we really have is nothing more than a set of skulls of different apes and of a human being lined up by similarity.

skulls

Lined Up By Similarity

To make our point clearer, here are the same skulls lined up by age.

skullsinageorder

Lined Up By Age

How To Tell If Your Kid’s Schoolteacher Is An Idiot

There are many ways to tell if your kid’s schoolteacher is an idiot. We will start out with two:

  1. If your kid’s schoolteacher teaches that evolution is a fact, they are an idiot.
  2. If your kid’s schoolteacher does not teach your kid cursive writing (handwriting), they are an idiot.

Evolution’s Great Fallacy

The great fallacy of evolution is:

Similarity proves parentage.

In other words because two animals resemble each other one must give birth to the other . Well, let’s see. A zebra resembles a horse. That must mean zebras give birth to horses or horses give birth to zebras. An alligator is similar to a crocodile; therefore, one of them must give birth to the other. And then there’s the turtles and tortoises and the frogs and toads and the dolphins and porpoises and the donkeys and mules. We could go on.

So, sorry evolutionists but:

Similarity does not prove parentage.

Are The Days Of Genesis 24-Hour Days?

Are the days of Genesis 24-hour days? Well, first, we must define the context of the question. There are two contexts. They are science and truth. Now, remember:

Science isn’t necessarily truth.

See our discussion elsewhere on the subject of the difference between science and truth.

In terms of science and not truth, the days of Genesis:

Might not be 24-hour days.

In terms of truth and not science

The days of Genesis are 24-hour days.

The most important thing to remember on the “day length” question is that:

Science does not disprove the Bible.

———

Footnote:

Science does disprove the Koran.

And:

Science does disprove every other so-called holy book on the planet.

BOSS (Biological Origins Science) Surpasses Evolutionary Science

Evolutionary science promotes the mythical ideas of evolution, adaptation, and natural selection, among others. BOSS (Biological Origins Science) teaches the truth that, instead, there is the evolution construct, adaptation construct, and natural selection construct, which are mental constructs imposed on the biological world and not actual, physical entities.

The proof that evolution, adaptation, and natural selection are imaginary entities is the fact that evolutionary science has never identified physicochemical agents or processes that define these entities. Nevertheless, the corresponding mental constructs, properly termed the “evolution construct,” “adaptation construct,” and “natural selection construct,” are useful in organizing biological history.

BOSS: Biological Origins Science

Preface

The purpose of science is the expansion of knowledge. The tools of science are certainty and uncertainty. If you are looking for certainty, do not look to science but, rather, look to the parent of science, the scientific method. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

The scientific method is recognition and formulation of a problem followed by collection of data through observation and experiment ending with formulation and testing of hypotheses. – Dr. Michael Bisconti

BOSS: Biological Origins Science

Except for the people-from-apes thing, evolutionary science is correct (we didn’t say “true”) and contradicts nothing in the Bible. It is unfortunate that many have alienated so many others from the riches of knowledge found in evolutionary science. Now, because of the entrenched stigma (discredit) associated with the term “evolutionary science,” we have coined the term “biological origins science” or “BOSS” for short. Remember, there is one difference between BOSS and evolutionary science, you are not a product of evolution .

Evolution’s Myth Of Forces

In physics, objects “experience” force. For example, a paper clip “experiences” the force (pull) of a magnet and the oceans “experience” the gravitational pull of the sun. These forces manifest themselves in changes in physical objects. They exist in the physical world.

In evolutionary theory, all of the so-called forces have no existence in the physical world. There are no evolutionary entities that act on physical objects. Evolution, natural selection, and adaptation, which are the so-called forces of evolution, do not pull on paper clips or pull on the oceans. They don’t exist. What are they then? They are extrapolations (imaginations logically but not experimentally associated with reality). Thus, the whole system of evolutionary thinking rests on pure imagination .

Evolutionists Trying To Pull A Big Trick On Everyone

As evolutionists have seen their position weaken they are trying to pull a big trick on everyone. They are:

Trying to change the definition of evolution to hide the fact that they include human beings.

Instead of saying:

All species from one species

They are now saying:

One species from one species

Not so fast you rotten bums (forgive my language). You have:

Over a century and a half of grief and societal disruption to pay for.

The Evolutionist Assumption

We will, for now, treat adaptation as a reality. Evolutionists assume:

Because adaptation has occurred with a few species, it has occurred with all species .

Is Evolution A Threat? (Breakthrough Article)

Evolution, a mere hypothesis, is not a threat. What is a threat is the teaching that evolution disproves the Bible. The linchpin (“something that holds an account together”) of the Genesis account is the fact that God created man in less than 24 hours. This directly contradicts the ape-to-human component of the evolutionary schedule.

Well, first, the idea of creation , according to the Bible, is not necessarily instantaneous but can involve the passage of time (see Genesis 2). Second, the idea of creation can be a history rather than an event (see Genesis 2). A history is a sequence of events. In addition, creation can be synoptic (a summary) rather than journalistic (a precise report) (see Genesis 1).

The key thing here is that creation can be synoptic (a summary). Genesis 1 states that God created the first female, which apparently is a single event, but Genesis 2 says that the creation of the first female involved two events (skeletal amputation followed by skeletal transformation). So, obviously, Genesis 1 was synoptic; that is, only presenting a summary .

What we have proven is that Genesis 1 contains synoptic content. This means that the whole Genesis creation account may have been synoptic. This, in turn, means that there could have been billions of years of creation. And, finally, billions of years of creation could mean that the human body evolved over time then on a certain day, the “sixth day,” God gave the human body a soul.

What does all of this prove?

It proves that evolution does not disprove the Bible.

Now, was a day a day or was it billions of years? We don’t know and it doesn’t matter, scientifically speaking. And, remember, science isn’t necessarily truth. In terms of truth, a day was a day.

Finally, we still oppose evolution because it is unprovable. It is unprovable because it is experimentally unverifiable. And, remember, adaptation, called also “microevolution,” is not evolution. Evolution must, forever, remain a hypothesis or, at best, at some distant time in the future, a theory.

Evolutionists Fail Drone Survey

10,000 evolutionists were surveyed by Drone. They were asked 3 questions.

Question 1: Is evolution a force or an event?

Q1 Results: 99.6% of evolutionists replied that evolution is a force.

Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that evolution is an event.

Question 2: Is natural selection a force or an event?

Q2 Results: 98% of evolutionists replied that natural selection is a force.

Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that natural selection is an event.

Question 3: Is adaptation a force or an event?

Q3 Results: 99% of evolutionists replied that adaptation is a force.

Sorry, Charlie. Darwin said that adaptation is an event.

Conclusion: Given the survey results, why do we give evolutionists so much credit for being smart people?

Adaptation Is Not Evolution

Once again, we must remind some ignorant people that:

Adaptation (a new species from an old species) is not evolution (all species from one species).

The Myth That Evolution Disproves The Bible

Well, first, of course, evolution is not fact. But, if it were, so what? The Bible teaches, like evolution (and before Darwin), that the human body is made up of the same elements and compounds found in the soil. It also teaches that the human body was formed before the human soul. Therefore, if evolution were true, the human body would have evolved and, then, God would have given the evolved body a soul.

Since this is all true, why do we fight evolution? We fight evolution because its supporters teach that it is a fact or that it is more than a hypothesis.

Do We Want Evolution To Die?

Do we want evolution to die? No, but we wouldn’t shed any tears if it did. What we want is for evolution to be treated realistically; that is, it is an hypothesis, not a theory, and you may use hypotheses in the laboratory but you don’t teach them in science classes.

How Evolutionists Think

Evolution is not merely a belief, it is a lifestyle. Whenever an evolutionist is confronted with facts that contradict their cherished belief their first response is, “How can I make the facts fit my belief?”

Reverse Evolution

Something that everyone overlooks is that if an ancient ape were to give birth to a prehuman or a prehuman were to give birth to a human being, who would they have offspring with since there would be no one eise of their kind. The prehuman would have to mate with an ancient ape but that would result in reverse evolution. The human being would have to mate with a prehuman but that, too, would result in reverse evolution. Reverse evolution means:

Evolution could never move forward.

The Dumbest Evolutionists

The dumbest evolutionists will tell you that it doesn’t matter if we call adaptation “evolution.” Such lack of precision is unscientific, which makes these evolutionists unscientific. They are not serious evolutionists. They are casual evolutionists. Don’t waste your time on them.

Adaptation

The origination of a new species from an existing species is called “adaptation,” not “evolution.” The belief in adaptation is harmless and contradicts no hermeticist, creationist, designist, indeterminationist, or biblical belief.

How To Identify The Dumber Evolutionists

The dumber evolutionists will tell you that evolution is the origination of a new species from an existing species. That, of course, is incorrect. Evolution is the belief that:

all species from a first simplistic life-form to modern man are, actually and/or virtually, consanguineously connected; that is, actually and/or virtually, connected by blood

For example:

consanguinity

Adaptation, The Little Engine That Couldn’t

Adaption is defined as the creation of a new species from an existing species where the new species differs in tiny ways from the parent species; for example, an orange butterfly instead of a yellow butterfly. Hyper-adaptation is defined as the creation of a new species from an existing species where the new species differs in huge ways from the parent species; for example, a flying dog instead of a regular dog. No, there are no flying dogs.

In fact, there are no instances of hyper-adaptation. There are reported instances of adaptation, which we have not been able to confirm but, for now, we’ll say they are true reports. In addition, adaptation has been reported to occur an average of only every one hundred thousand years. With adaptation’s track record, the evolutionary timeline should be tens of trillions of years instead of billions of years but that doesn’t fit the geological facts.

Finally, adaptation is not evolution and there is nothing about the concept of adaptation or even hyper-adaptation that conflicts with any hermeticist, creationist, designist, indeterminationist, or biblical truth.

Evolution: The Internal Missing Links

A missing link is a hypothetical life-form having some of the characteristics of a more primitive species and some of the characteristics of a more advanced species. The imaginary ape-man would be an example. Well, currently, 100 million billion trillion trillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) of these missing links are yet to be found.

Now, with advances in microbiology, we find that there are also internal missing links. These are hypothetical biomolecular structures (“bio-engines”) inside living things having some of the characteristics of a more primitive bio-engine and some of the characteristics of a more advanced bio-engine. Now, here, the situation is even worse because these bio-engines have nothing to evolve from and, if they did, we would still be missing 100 vigintillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000) of them.

How will the evolutionists explain this?

Evolution: The Monkeys Won’t Stay In Line

Here is the familiar HES (Human Evolution Sequence):

image001

What you were never told was that there was this “equally scientific” alternative HES (Human Evolution Sequence):

image002

Does anyone see a problem (author is smiling)?

And then there is this “equally scientific” alternative HES (Human Evolution Sequence):

image003

Again, does anyone see a problem (author is smiling again)?

In fact, there are 127,693 “equally scientific” alternative HESs (Human Evolution Sequences) that we have been able to dig out of the literature.

Preliminary information on the “HES ‘Controversy'” can be found at our L. F. Nexus Research Center on the EGP The Evolutionist’s Ape “Police Lineup.”

Evolution: Where’s The Evidence?

Currently, and the number grows daily, over 100 million trillion (100,000,000,000,000,000,000) genetic transmutations were required for the last prehuman to evolve into the first human being. So far, we have found 173, which, incidentally, means the prehuman could have also evolved into a horse or snake or whale or barnyard pig.

This is so hysterically funny and massively poignant, that nothing more needs to be said on the subject of genetic transmutations.

What Is Evolution?

Evolution is not the belief that:

a species can give rise to a new species

That we may accept because a creative intelligence (a loving God) may assure the survival of one of his families of living creations through such means.

Evolution is the belief that:

all species from a first simplistic life-form to modern man are, actually and/or virtually, consanguineously connected; that is, actually and/or virtually, connected by blood

For example:

consanguinity

Proof Of Evolutionists’ Belief In A Form Of Intelligent Design Changes Everything

We have now established that evolutionists believe in intelligent design. This is the intelligent design of BIO-AI (Biological Artificial Intelligences). These BIO-AI are called epochal retroviruses. This changes everything. Get ready, Supreme Court!

The Limits Of Inductive Logic

Inductive logic has its limits.

Its validity decreases as the complexity of your subject increases.

In physics, you can take simple measurements that validate inductive thinking; for example, how long it takes an apple to fall from a tree. In evolutionary theory, you cannot; for example, the genetic sequencing of retroviruses that existed a billion years ago.