11- Archaeopteryx Is Not the Missing Link between Reptiles and Birds

Archaeoptery

Ever since the 19th century, evolutionists have portrayed the 150-million-year old fossil known as Archaeopteryx as 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 than Archaeopteryx-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.

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.

6- No Transitional Forms Have Ever Been Found in the Fossil Record

The theory of evolution claims that the transition from one species to another takes place from the primitive (simple) to the more complex-progressively, and in stages. According to this claim, bizarre, monstrous creatures known as "transitional forms" must have existed during this progress from one species to another. For example, there must have existed half-fish and half-amphibian creatures that, despite still having fish characteristics, had also acquired some amphibious ones, as well as half-human, half-ape creatures, and half-reptile, half-bird life forms.

If any such transitional species had really existed, then their remains should be encountered in the fossil record. But in over a century, there is still not the slightest trace of such intermediate forms that paleontologists have searched for with such great eagerness.

7- Living Groups Emerged Abruptly on Earth and at the Same Time

Almost all the basic living categories known today emerged suddenly and at the same time, during the Cambrian Period, 530 to 520 million years ago. Living organisms with totally different bodily structures-sponges, mollusks, worms, Echinodermata, arthropods and vertebrates-all appeared suddenly, simultaneously, with no life forms remotely resembling them in any earlier geological period. This fact alone completely undermines evolutionists' claims that living things evolved from a single common ancestor gradually, and over a very long period of time.

The fact that the Earth was suddenly filled with a great many species, all possessing radically different physical structures and exceedingly complex organs demonstrates that these were, of course, created. Since evolutionists deny creation and the existence of God, they cannot definitely explain this miraculous phenomenon.

8- Species Living Today Have Undergone No Changes over Hundreds of Millions of Years

Had evolution actually taken place, then living things must have emerged on Earth as a result of small, gradual changes-and to have continued changing over the course of time. Yet the fossil records demonstrate the exact opposite! Different classes of living creatures emerged suddenly, with no ancestors even remotely resembling them, and remained in a stable state, undergoing no changes at all, often for hundreds of millions of years.

9- Fish that Ruined Evolutionists' Dreams:Colecanth

Colecanth

Evolutionists used to depict the Colecanth, a fish known only from fossils dating back 400 million years, as very powerful evidence of a transitional form between fish and amphibians. Since it was assumed that this species had become extinct 70 million years ago, evolutionists engaged in all kinds of speculation regarding the fossils. On 22 December 1938, however, a living Colecanth was caught in the deep waters of the Indian Ocean. More than 200 other living specimens have been caught in the years that followed.

All the speculation regarding these fish had been unfounded. Contrary to what evolutionists claimed, the Colecanth was not a vertebrate with half-fish, half-amphibian characteristics preparing to emerge onto dry land. It was in fact a bottom-dwelling fish that almost never rose above a depth of 180 meters (590 feet). Moreover, there were no anatomical differences between the living Colecanth and the 400-million-year-old fossil specimens. This creature had never "evolved" at all.

10- Birds' Wings Cannot Be the Work of Chance

Evolutionists maintain that birds evolved from reptiles-though this is impossible, and a bird's wing alone is sufficient to prove this. In order for evolution of the kind claimed to have taken place, a reptile's forearms would have to have changed into functional wings as the result of mutations taking place in its genes-and quickly! And this is not feasible. First of all, this transitional life form would be unable to fly with only half-developed wings. It would also be deprived of its forearms. That would mean it was essentially deformed and therefore-according to the theory of evolution-would be eliminated.

In order for any bird to fly, its wings had to be fully formed in every detail. The wings should be soundly attached to the chest cavity. The bird would need to have a light skeletal structure allowing it to take off, maintain its balance in the air and move in all directions. Its wing and tail feathers would have to be light, flexible and in aerodynamic proportion to one another. In short, everything would have to operate with a flawless coordination in order to make flight possible. How could this inerrant structure in birds' bodies have resulted from a succession of random mutations? That question has no answer.

1- The Theory of Evolution Regards Chance as a Creative Deity

The theory of evolution claims that unconscious, unreasoning, inanimate atoms such as phosphorus and carbon assembled themselves together by chance. As a result of such natural phenomena as lightning, volcanic eruptions, ultraviolet rays and radiation, these atoms organized themselves in such a flawless way as to give rise to proteins, cells-and thereafter, fish, rabbits, lions, birds, human beings and all manner of life forms.

That is the basic claim made by the theory of evolution, which regards chance as a creative deity. However, belief in any such claim is a violation of reason, logic and science.

2- Natural Selection Cannot Account for the Complex Structures in Living Things

The theory of evolution maintains that those living organisms that best adapt to their environment have more opportunities to survive and multiply, and therefore, they can pass on their advantageous characteristics to subsequent generations, and species evolve by way of this "mechanism."

But the fact is that the mechanism in question-known as natural selection-cannot cause living things to evolve, nor endow them with any new features. It can only reinforce existing characteristics belonging to a particular species.

In any given region, for example, those rabbits able to run fastest will survive, while others die. After a few generations, all the rabbits in this region will consist of fast-running individuals. However, these rabbits can never evolve into another species-greyhounds or foxes, for instance.

3- Peppered Moths Are No Evidence for Evolution through Natural Selection

Of all the supposed "proofs" of the theory of evolution, the most frequently repeated concerns changes in a species of moth in 19th century Britain. It is claimed that due to air pollution during the Industrial Revolution, tree bark was darkened-for which reason dark- colored moths were better camouflaged from predatory birds, and thus their numbers increased.

But this is not evolution, because no new species of moth emerged. All that happened was that the ratio ratio of the two already existing types in an already existing species changed. In addition, it has since emerged that the account on which this claim was based was untrue. The well-known photos showing moths clinging to the bark of trees were found to be fabrications. Contrary to what has been claimed, no instance of so-called "industrial melanism"-the darkening of color due to industrial pollution-has ever taken place.

4- Just as an Earthquake Cannot Improve a City, Neither Are Mutations Advantageous to Develop Living Things

Mutations are caused by random changes in the DNA in which all the information concerning the human body's characteristics is encoded. Mutations occur due to outside agents such as radiation or chemicals. Evolutionists maintain that such random genetic changes can cause living things to evolve. The fact is, though, that mutations are always harmful to living things, do not develop them, and can never endow them with any new functional features (such as wings or lungs, for instance). Mutations either kill or deform the afflicted organism. To claim that mutations improve a species and endow it with new advantages is like claiming that an earthquake can make a city more advanced and modern, or that striking a computer with a hammer will result in a more advanced model. Indeed, no mutation has ever been observed to increase-much less improve-genetic information.

5- Life Comes From Life

The erroneous theory known as "spontaneous generation," which had been around since at least the Middle Ages, maintained that inanimate substances could by chance assamble to produce a living being. The idea that insects formed from food wastes or mice from wheat was widespread up, until the 18th century. Even in the 19th century, when Darwin wrote his book The Origin of Species, the scientific world still widely believed that bacteria could arise from inanimate matter.

In fact, however, only five years after Darwin published his book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment." (Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose, Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life, New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977. p. 2)

His findings revealed, once again, that life did not emerge spontaneously on Earth, but that it began with a miraculous creation.