Σάββατο, 19 Σεπτεμβρίου 2015

Evolution frauds

Why are there evolution frauds.
In 1859, in his book Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin said: Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, (why) do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?”. This is from chapter six entitled Difficulties on the Theory. Scientists who believe evolution have been searching for transitional forms ever since but they have been not found. Therefore, fraudulent fossils have been made and presented as transitional forms.
See 9 frauds of evolution below.

Earnst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud.

Evolution fraud Haeckels drawings
Evolution fraud. Haeckels drawings are still printed in some of todays school science text books with full knowledge that they are wrong.
One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years.
Most people have seen those drawings of human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and they look virtually indistinguishable. (The Haeckel embryo sequence shown purported to show – left to right – a hog, calf, rabbit and human).This has long been said to demonstrate that humans share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution.
These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know – and one of many surprises in the evolution debate is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in “Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries,” a 1915 book by J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull, who quoted 19 leading authorities of the day.

Ernst Haec

  • Rutimeyer said in 1868,
  • “Haeckel claims these works to be both easy for the scientific layman to follow, and scientific and scholarly. No one will quarrel with the first evaluation of the author, but the second quality is not one that he seriously can claim. These are works, clothed in medieval formalistic garb. There is considerable manufacturing of scientific evidence perpetrated. Yet the author has been very careful not to let the reader become aware of this state of affairs.” (Referate, L. Rutimeyer, in Archiv fur Anthropologie, 1868). [Notes: In 1868, L. Rutimeyer wrote an article, entitled “Referate,” which appeared on pages 301-302 of the Archiv fur Anthropologie (Archives of Anthropology). In that article, Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy, at the University of Basel, reviewed two of Haeckel’s books, Natural History of Creation (Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte), and his Uber die Enstehung and den Stammbaum des Menschengeschlechts, both of which had been newly published the same year that Rutimeyer’s review was published: 1868. Rutimeyer the fraudulent woodcuts. For example, the dog embryo and human embryo, shown on page 240 of Haeckel’s book, are completely identical. Haeckel maintained that he faithfully copied the dog embryo from Bischoff (4th week). Rutimeyer then reprinted the original drawing made by Bischoff of the dog embryo at 4 weeks, and the original of human embryo at 4 weeks made by Haeckel. The originals were very much different! Then Rutimeyer notes that, elsewhere in Haeckel’s book, that same woodcut is used to portray a dog, a chicken, and a tortoise! Rutimeyer was a well-known German scientist living at that time. He regularly had articles in each yearly volume of Archiv fur Anthropologie, yet his book review was never translated into English nor published in Britain or America!]
    Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution.
    The matter was settled with finality by Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London. He found there was no record that anyone ever actually checked Haeckel’s claims by systematically comparing human and other fetuses during development. So Richardson assembled a scientific team that did just that – photographing the growing embryos of 39 different species.
    In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: “This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. … These are fakes.”
    Today – believe it or not – Haeckel’s drawings still appear in many high school and college textbooks. Among them are “Evolutionary Biology” by Douglas J. Futuyma (Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998), and also the bedrock text, “Molecular Biology of the Cell” (third edition), whose authors include biochemist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences.
    Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are just one of evolution’s pillars now under spectacular scientific assault. There are many others.

    Piltdown man, deliberate evolution fraud.

    Completley fabricated fraud showing the willingness of evolutionists to swollow anything that seems to support their pet theory.
    Completley fabricated fraud showing the willingness of evolutionists to swollow anything that seems to support their pet theory.
    Britain’s Greatest Hoax.  That was the title of the ‘Timewatch’ investigation of the Piltdown Man fraud, shown on BBC2 television recently.1 Viewers were presented with a great British ‘whodunnit’ that tried to identify those who made monkeys out of the scientists of the day.
    The history of the discovery of the earliest Englishman (as Piltdown Man was so often called) is fairly common knowledge.  A laborer was supposedly digging in a gravel pit near the village of Piltdown in Sussex in southern England when he found a piece of bone.  He passed it to the local amateur archaeologist of the district, Charles Dawson, who verified its antiquity and pronounced that it was part of a skull which was possibly human.  Dawson began to search for the rest of the skull and, in 1912, a jawbone was discovered.  Sir Arthur Smith Woodward of the British Museum verified that the skull had human features and the jaw was ape-like.  The fossils became known as Piltdown Man and were called Eoanthropus dawsoni which means ‘Dawson’s Dawn Man’.  In 1915, another Dawn Man was found a couple of miles away from the site of the first find.  Fossil remains of animals that lived with Piltdown Man, together with the tools that he used, were also found at the two sites.  At last, here was ‘proof’ that apes had evolved into humans in England.
    Almost forty years later, in 1953, Piltdown Man was exposed as a forgery, mainly through the work of Dr Kenneth Oakley.  He showed that the skull was from a modern human and that the jawbone and teeth were from an orangutan.  The teeth had been filed down to make them look human.  The bones and teeth had been chemically treated (and sometimes even painted) to give them the appearance of being ancient. In addition, it was also shown that none of the finds associated with Piltdown Man had been originally buried in the gravel that had been deposited at Piltdown.  The Piltdown Man fraud was a great embarrassment to the UK scientific community and questions about it were even asked in the House of Parliament.At the time that the discovery of Piltdown Man was announced, it was believed that the remains of the Neanderthals that had been found in Germany were ape-men and it was believed that the cave paintings that had been found in France had been painted by ape-men.  The British evolutionists, however, had other ideas.  They believed that apes had evolved into humans in the UK—preferably in England.  Piltdown Man was ‘proof’ that the first ape-man lived in the garden of England!  The desire to find the earliest Englishman had blinded the scientists of the day, so they uncritically accepted Piltdown Man as being genuine.  No scientist is a seeker after truth in some sort of idealized neutral fashion—in this case, they interpreted their finds within their (evolutionary) world view, fashioned by parochial prejudice.Some have suggested Sir Arthur Smith Woodward was the fraudster.  He was without doubt Piltdown Man’s greatest advocate.  Had he carried out some basic scientific tests and a more detailed examination of the finds, he would have realized that he was dealing with a hoax.  He retired from the British Museum in 1924 and spent the next 20 years, until his death in 1944, digging at the Piltdown Man site in Piltdown searching for more finds.  He did not find any.  Surely if he was the perpetrator of this hoax, he would not have wasted the last 20 years of his life in what he would have known to be a futile search.It would appear that the best candidate for being the perpetrator of the Piltdown Man fraud is none other than Charles Dawson.  He was always vague about the events surrounding the initial discovery and after he died in 1916, it was realized that all the historical artifacts that he had supposedly found and that were on display in Hastings Museum were forgeries.  However, it appears that Martin Hinton of the British Museum suspected that Piltdown Man was a hoax.  Hinton, himself, was one who enjoyed playing hoaxes and jokes on others.  In 1915, Dawson and Woodward found a curious bone implement under a hedge at Piltdown.  This implement had all the hallmarks of a Hinton joke for it looked like a cricket bat—presumably the first Englishman loved his game of cricket!  It is quite likely that Hinton fashioned this implement and placed it at the site in the hope that it would be found and that as a result, Dawson would know that someone knew that Piltdown Man was a forgery.  Unfortunately, this plan backfired and a description of this implement was written up and published!
    Evolutionists often express irritation when Piltdown Man and other fakes are raised by their opponents.  A common attempt to put a ‘positive spin’ on the whole affair is to portray it as a ‘plus’ for science, demonstrating its allegedly ‘self-correcting nature’.  After all, we are told, it was evolutionary scientists themselves who discovered the fraud.  However, the issue is not the hoax as such; the scandal of Piltdown is that such an amateurish, clumsy and obvious fraud (even showing filemarks on the teeth) went undetected for over 40 years.  Generations were indoctrinated into the ‘fact of evolution’ via Piltdown gracing countless textbooks and encyclopedias.Many scientists, including people writing doctoral theses, had access to the bones, and they were laboriously studied.  No-one saw the hoax at the time, but afterwards, it all seemed obvious; things like the file marks suddenly sprang into view.  It was clear that even highly qualified scientists had simply seen what they were looking for and ignored that which did not fit their preconception.  It is also no surprise that the hoax was not uncovered until after other ‘plausible candidates’ for man’s evolutionary ancestry were on the horizon.
    (ref, Dr A J Monty White. CEO AiG UK)

    Nebraska Man. False evolutionary model made from a pigs tooth. The pig was still alive too.

    This drawing of nebraska man was formed in the minds of evolutionists from a pig tooth.
    This drawing of nebraska man was formed in the minds of evolutionists from a pig tooth.
    Like many supposed predecessors to our  current human form. Nebraska man was formed form the minimalist of bones. A single tooth was all it took for evolutionists to come up with the drawing you see above.
    In 1922 Paleontologist Harald Cook found a single tooth in Western Nebraska USA in Pliocene deposits that were alleged to be 6 million years old. To find a “Missing link” in the USA is a big thing for a start as most humanoids were thought to be from Africa. Another example of “we will take any proof of evolution”.  This Nebraska man tooth was the reason that evolution started to be taught in schools. Before Nebraska man evolution had a hard time getting taught in schools but such was the fanfare of Nebraska man that evolution became the excepted norm. Even so this embarrassing oversight due to the rabidness  of evolutionists to “prove” their theory, only lasted a few years before it was found out as a “DUMB” mistake. The pig it belonged too is a species of pig called “prosthennops serus”, this pig was found still alive in Paraguay in 1972.

    Java Man is False!

    Java man was created from this bone fragment.
    Java man was created from this bone fragment.
    The human fossil commonly known as Java Man was found in 1891 by Eugene Dubois who was the first person to deliberately search for human ancestors. Dubois was a former student of Earnst haeckel who became intent on discovering the missing link his mentor believed had evolved somewhere in Africa or East Asia, and which Haeckel had already named without any physical evidence – Pithecanthropus alalus (man without speech). To aid in his investigations, Dubois signed up as a doctor with the Dutch medical corps in the Dutch East Indies with the intention of hunting for fossils during his spare time.
    After years of excavations with the assistance of forced laborers, they dug up a tooth and skullcap on the banks of the Solo River on Java island (an island of Indonesia). The skullcap was ape-like having a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. The following year and about forty feet away, the workmen uncovered a thigh bone that was clearly human. Due to the close proximity of the find, Dubois assumed they belonged to the same creature. Dubois then named the find  Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man).
    After returning to Europe in 1895, Dubois went on a lecture circuit and displayed his fossils to the International Congress of Zoology. His discovery received a lukewarm reception, causing him to became secretive, and paranoid, refusing to let anyone else examine the bones. Rudolph Virchow, who had been Haeckel’s professor and is considered the father of modern pathology remarked: “In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.”
    A later team of German scientists traveled to Java in 1907 to unearth more clues on human ancestry. They hired 75 workers and sent 43 crates of fossil material back to Germany, but no evidence of Pithecanthropus could be found. Instead the German scientists found modern flora and fauna in the strata where Dubois had found his Pithecanthropus. Dr. E. Carthaus, a geologist on the expedition concluded that Pithecanthropus was a modern human.
    Further suspicions regarding the credibility of Dubois involve two other skullcaps that Dubois expedition had uncovered which were clearly human. He apparently failed to display the human skullcaps when parading his Pithecanthropus. In fact, he kept the skulls hidden under the floorboards of his house for thirty years, then finally made them known in the 1920s.(ref,http://creationwiki.org/Java_Man).
    Neanderthal man, another deliberate fraud by evolutionist scientists.
    Neanderthal fraud man.
    Neanderthal fraud man.
    “If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.” Most of us have heard this piece of advice on more than one occasion. Yet, this was exactly the case with a famous Neanderthal fossil discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg, Germany. Prior to its discovery, the evolutionary timeline of ape-like creatures remained extremely “fuzzy” as it approached modern man. There simply were not any fossils that shed light on this period. But a single discovery dated by Professor Reiner Protsch cleared up the picture. Many years ago, he was invited to date the famous skull, which he later pronounced to be the vital missing link between Neanderthals and modern humans. He dated the skull at 36,000 years old, allowing it to fall neatly into the evolutionists’ timeline between Neanderthals and modern man. Finally, thanks to Protsch, the gap had been filled. All the pieces were in place.
    For evolutionists, it was too good to be true. And indeed, it was. On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled he had “fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues” (see “Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster,’ ” 2005). Once believed to be a world-renowned expert on carbon dating, Protsch’s entire professional career is now being questioned. The university noted: “The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years” (“Anthropologist Resigns…”).
    Protsch’s work first attracted suspicion when scientists at Oxford wanted to double-check the authenticity of his dates and verify the ages of many previously reported fossils using modern techniques. Oxford officials insist that this “dating disaster” was discovered during a routine examination, and was not an attempt to discredit Professor Protsch. The fossils he had dated were just in a long line of others that were being rechecked. According to Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax: “[A]nthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago” (as quoted in Harding, 2005). He continued: “Prof. Protsch’s work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish” (emp. added).
    But the Neanderthal skull was not the only forgery Oxford discovered. Protsch also had paraded “Binshof-Speyer” woman before the public, stating that she was 21,300 years old. Yet the new Oxford date puts this woman living at 1,300 B.C. Protsch also claimed that “Paderborn-Sande Man” walked the Earth 27,400 B.C., and yet the corrected figure reveals that he died only a couple hundred years ago—in A.D. 1750! Futhermore, Protsch also is being investigated for a scandal in which he allegedly tried to sell 280 chimpanzee skulls to individuals in the United States for $70,000.
    Evolutionists are quick to point out that this is how science works—that it is self-correcting. And there is a great deal of truth to that statement. However, one must question how such scientists can continue to support evolution being taught as “fact,” knowing that much of what we believe to be true today will have to be “self-corrected” in the future. Why not allow students to “examine the controversy” and discuss possible problems with evolutionary theory? How many students did Professor Protsch affect with his forged information? Likely, that number is in the thousands. After all, his dates “looked good” and “fit the evolutionary timeline,” which meant textbooks would be quick to pick them up. Never mind that the material was a complete hoax.
    According to the World Net Daily Web site, Rudolf Steinberg, Frankfurt University’s president, “apologized for the University’s failure to curb Protsch’s misconduct for decades. ‘A lot of people looked the other way,’ he said.” But what good does that apology do when it comes to unraveling the lie that was sold to the public for so many years? The article went on to report: “Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London’s Natural History Museum, said: ‘What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory’ ” (2005). How many times must we rewrite evolutionary history? Don’t students deserve better? Don’t we all deserve better?
    Neandethal man, just a modern human with disease.
    After discovering the first Neanderthal skullcap in 1856 in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, German anatomist Ruldolph Virchow said in essence that the fossil was the remains of a modern man afflicted with rickets and osteoporosis. In 1958, at the International Congress of Zoology, A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton established that it was simply an old man who had suffered from arthritis. Francis Ivanhoe authored an article that appeared in Nature titled “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” (1970). Virchow had reported that the Neanderthal’s ape-like appearance was due to a condition known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction (and deficient calcification) of bone tissue. The disease causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull that had been studied up to that point in time apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels.
    Even though Ivanhoe was an evolutionist, he nevertheless went on to note that the wide distribution of Neanderthal finds in various parts of the world explained the differences seen in bone configuration. The extreme variation in locations of these Neanderthal discoveries probably played a role in the diversity of the fossils assigned to the Neanderthal group. The differences likely were a result of different amounts of sunlight for a given area, which prevented or retarded vitamin D production (vitamin D is manufactured in the skin upon exposure to sunlight). In adults, a lack of vitamin D causes osteomalacia, a softening of the bones that often results in longer bones “bowing” (a condition reported in many Neanderthal fossils).
    Scientists have debated long and hard concerning whether there exists any difference between Neanderthal specimens and modern humans. One of the world’s foremost authorities on the Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus, concluded:
    Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans (1978, 87[10]:58).
    Harding, Luke (2005), “Another Day, Another ‘Science’ Fraud,” MedKB, [On-Line], URL: http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alternative/11208/Another-Day-Another-Science-Fraud.
    “Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster’ ” (2005), World Net Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42940.

    Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Article by Brad Harrub PH.D.
    Lucy the hominid. Evolutionists are clueless.
    Lucy the ape was said to be our ancestor.
    Lucy the ape was said to be our ancestor.
    Lucy, a hominid ancester to modern man supposedly is really just an extinct species of ape. There is no evidence for or against but evolutionist and geologist Frank Brown of the university of Utah said this, “We’ve always assumed Lucy was our ancestor, and now we need to re-evaluate that idea,”
    On this video below we see Dr David menton show how lucy has possibly been fraudelently modified to walk like a human. Its a very interesting video to watch and we can see from the original bones of Lucy that she was a knuckle walker.
    As we can clearly see evolutionary scientists do not let science do the talking. Scientists today enter their field of expertise as already converted atheist evolutionists. Subscribing to a theory of faith, they then set out on a lifelong mission to prove their personal beliefs, even to the point of fraud rather than let science speak for itself. This video, im sure you agree shows this.
    Orce Man.
    Are we supposed to believe such confused scientists?
    On May 14, 1984, the *Daily Telegraph, an Australian newspaper, carried the story of the latest hoax: “ASS TAKEN FOR MAN” was the headline.
    A skull found in Spain and promoted as the oldest example of man in Eurasia, was later identified as that of a young donkey!
    A three-day scientific symposium had been scheduled, so that the experts could examine and discuss the bone which had already been named, Orce Man, for the southern Spanish town near which it had been found. The French caused problems, however. Scientists from Paris showed that Orce Man was a skull fragment of a four-month-old donkey. The embarrassed Spanish officials sent out 500 letters canceling the symposium.
    Archaeoraptor is a faked evolution example of a missing link.
    Fake Dinosaur bird. Evolutionists are so quick to swollow fabrications such is the keenness to prove evolution.
    Fake Dinosaur bird. Evolutionists are so quick to swallow fabrications such is the keenness to prove evolution.
    by Owen D. Olbricht
    The hoax was most likely an honest mistake not like the Piltdown man fraud of 1908 which combined recent skeletal remains with various animal parts. The name given the find in July 1997 was Archaeoraptor Liaoningenesis Sloan after Christopher Sloan, senior assistant editor of National Geographic, who wrote, “With arms of a primitive bird and tail of a dinosaur, this creature found in Liaoning Province, China, is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” He confidently affirmed, “We can now say that birds are theropods just as confidently as we can say that humans are mammals” (“Feathers for T. Rex?” National Geographic, vol. 196, No. 5, November, 1999, pages 98-107.
    In the last article of the October, 2000, issue is the embarrassing admission that the Archaeoraptor fossil was a fraud, a combination of fossils. This all happened because of inadequate scientific consideration of evidence.
    Lewis M. Simons, a veteran investigative reporter looked into the matter and described what went wrong (“Archaeoraptor Fossil Trail,” National Geographic, vol. 198, No. 4, October, 2000, pages 128-132).
    A farmer digging in a shale pit in Xiasanjiazi, China, hacked out a slab containing “the fossilized bones of what seemed to be a bird, including a faint aura of feathers and a beak lined with tiny teeth” (page 128). “Continuing to dig, he uncovered another, smaller slab a couple of yards away. This one contained a tail, rigid and about the size of a crocheting needle, a skull, a foot, and some other parts” (loc.cit.).
    The farmer took the two slabs home. “Using a home made paste, he glued the slab of the tail to the lower portion of the birdlike body. With counterslab pieces from the body itself–and possibly other scraps he had kept over time–he glued in missing legs and feet” (page 129). “The result was the missing link–the body of a primitive bird with teeth and the tail of a landbound little dinosaur, or dromaeosaur. In time the tail, and the question whether or not it belonged where it was stuck, would wag the dinosaur (loc.cit.).
    The reason the fraud was not immediately discovered was that scientists who looked at it at first were busy with other projects, and assuming it was authentic, did not scrutinize it carefully. Stephen A. Czerkas, director of a nonprofit dinosaur museum raised $80,000 to buy it, never doubting it was authentic. He stated, “It’s a missing link between terrestrial dinosaurs and birds that could actually fly” (vol. 196, No. 5, page 99).
    He showed it to the renowned Canadian scientist, Philip J. Currie, who accepted it as authentic without adequately examining the fossil, supposing it was real. He consulted with Christopher Sloan of National Geographic who wrote the story that the missing link between dinosaurs and birds had been found. A complete investigation of the fossil was not made because of a deadline to submit the story for publication.
    Kevin Aulenback examined the fossil and wrote that it “is a composite specimen of at least 3 specimens.with a maximum.of five.separate specimens” (Vol. 198, No. 4, page 131). This should have been adequate evidence that it was a fraud; however, not until Xu Xing presented the results of his examination of the fossil was it finally admitted that it was a fraud. “`I am 100% sure..’ Xu wrote, `we have to admit that Archaeoraptor is a faked specimen'” (page 132).Finally it was conceded that “beyond all doubt that the tail belonged to the second fossil” (ref, doesgodexist.org/MarApr01/AnotherHoax.html)
    Horse evolution fraud
    This evolution of the horse timeline is a fraud and was never based on any fact. It is still used in todays text books.
    This evolution of the horse timeline is a fraud and was never based on any fact. It is still used in todays text books.
    1. In 1841, the earliest so-called “horse” fossil was discovered in clay around London. The scientist who unearthed it, Richard Owen, found a complete skull that looked like a fox’s head with multiple back-teeth as in hoofed animals. He called it Hyracotherium. He saw no connection between it and the modern-day horse.
    2. In 1874, another scientist, Kovalevsky, attempted to establish a link between this small fox-like creature, which he thought was 70 million years old, and the modern horse.
    3. In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn’t changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in “the evolution” of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what we see in school textbooks.
    The question is: “Is the scheme proposed by Huxley and Marsh true?”
    The simple answer is “No”. While it is a clever arrangement of the fossils on an evolutionary assumption, even leading evolutionists such as George Gaylord Simpson backed away from it. He said it was misleading.

    So what’s the difficulty for the horse with the theory of evolution?

    1. If it were true, you would expect to find the earliest horse fossils in the lowest rock strata. But you don’t. In fact, bones of the supposed “earliest” horses have been found at or near the surface. Sometimes they are found right next to modern horse fossils! O.C. Marsh commented on living horses with multiple toes, and said there were cases in the American Southwest where “both fore and hind feet may each have two extra digits fairly developed, and all of nearly equal size, thus corresponding to the feet of the extinct Protohippus”. In National Geographic (January 1981, p. 74), there is a picture of the foot of a so-called early horse, Pliohippus, and one of the modern Equus that were found at the same volcanic site in Nebraska. The writer says: “Dozens of hoofed species lived on the American plains.” Doesn’t this suggest two different species, rather than the evolutionary progression of one?
    2. There is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. This is circular reasoning, and does not qualify as objective science.
    3. The theory of horse evolution has very serious genetic problems to overcome. How do we explain the variations in the numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae within the imagined evolutionary progression? For example, the number of ribs in the supposedly “intermediate” stages of the horse varies from 15 to 19 and then finally settles at 18. The number of lumbar vertebrae also allegedly swings from six to eight and then returns to six again.
    4. Finally, when evolutionists assume that the horse has grown progressively in size over millions of years, what they forget is that modern horses vary enormously in size. The largest horse today is the Clydesdale; the smallest is the Fallabella, which stands at 17 inches (43 centimeters) tall. Both are members of the same species, and neither has evolved from the other.
    Two horses. Photo copyrighted. Supplied by Eden Communications. My research has left me troubled. Why do science textbooks continue to use the horse as a prime example of evolution, when the whole schema is demonstrably false? Why do they continue to teach our kids something that is not scientific? Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of the American Museum of Natural History, has said:
    “I admit that an awful lot of that (imaginary stories) has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable …”.

    The horse series is often presented as proof of evolution. The number of toes in foreleg and hind leg supposedly decreased as the horse evolved, and the size supposedly increased from a small doglike horse to a large modern horse. Yet three-toed horses have been found with one-toed horses, showing they lived at the same time. And there are tiny living Fallabella horses only 17 inches ( 43 centimeters) tall.


    1. O. C. Marsh, “Recent Polydactyle Horses”, American Journal of Science 43, 1892, pp. 339-354 – as quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly correspondence, Vol. 30, December 1993, p. 125.
    2. Niles Eldredge, as quoted in: Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, fourth edition (revised and expanded), Master Book Publishers, Santee (California),1988, p. 78.
    Author: Peter Hastie. Copyright 1996

    Παρασκευή, 18 Σεπτεμβρίου 2015


    14 - 1
    Η ηλικία της Γης – Θεός και Επιστήμη
    “… εκτίμηση της ηλικίας της Γης γύρω στα 10.000 έτη (!) και
    όχι δισεκατομμύρια έτη που πιστευόταν μέχρι τώρα”
    (Αμερικανός χημικός Williard Libby)
    Οι ραδιομετρικές μέθοδοι χρονολόγησης στηρίζονται στα ραδιενεργά στοιχεία, που περιέχονται στα ευρήματα (πετρώματα, απολιθώματα). Ανάλογα με τα ραδιενεργά αυτά στοιχεία έχουμε 4 ραδιομετρικές  μεθόδους. Όλες οι μέθοδοι στηρίζονται σε δεδομένα μη αποδείξιμα, που λειτουργούν ως αξιώματα των μαθηματικών. Θεωρούνται ότι έτσι είναι, επειδή διαφορετικά δεν μπορούν να προχωρήσουν αυτές οι μέθοδοι χρονολόγησης και οδηγούνται οι επιστήμονες σε αδιέξοδο. Συγκεκριμένα:
    1. Επειδή ο ρυθμός διάσπασης των ραδιενεργών στοιχείων στις σύγχρονες μετρήσεις είναι σταθερός, θεωρείται ότι πάντοτε αυτός ο ρυθμός ήταν σταθερός. Διαφορετικά δεν μπορεί να γίνει χρονολόγηση.
    Αυτό όμως αποδείχθηκε ότι δεν είναι σωστό. Ορισμένοι εξωτερικοί  παράγοντες παρεμβαίνουν και αλλάζει ο ρυθμός διάσπασης. Η πυρηνική βιομηχανία πλέον στηρίζεται στην επιτάχυνση του ρυθμού διάσπασης με εμπλουτισμό ουρανίου. Αυτός ο εμπλουτισμός αποδείχθηκε ότι γίνεται και με φυσικό τρόπο, αλλάζοντας το φυσικό ρυθμό διάσπασης και ανατρέποντας τις χρονολογήσεις εκατομμυρίων και δισεκατομμυρίων χρόνων, κατεβάζοντας τες σε μερικές χιλιάδες χρόνια.
    2. Για να γίνει δυνατή η χρονολόγηση θεωρείται ότι αρχικά η συγκέντρωση των ραδιενεργών ουσιών στο εύρημα ήταν μηδενική. Αυτό όμως είναι αυθαίρετο, δεν αποδείχθηκε ποτέ και ούτε είναι δυνατό να αποδειχθεί ποτέ, όπως τονίζει ο αστρονόμος Άλλαν Γ. Σάνταζ  στο βιβλίο “Επιστημονικό Έτος” του 1968. Γιατί; Γιατί κανένας αστροφυσικός δεν ήταν παρών στην δημιουργία τους. Και ο καθηγητής της Μεταλλουργίας Μέλβιν Α. Κούκ είναι κατηγορηματικός: “Ατυχώς, μόνο υποθέσεις μπορεί να κάνει κανείς για αυτές τις συγκεντρώσεις ραδιενεργών στοιχείων. Τα χρονολογικά αποτελέσματα που επιτυγχάνονται έτσι, δεν μπορούν να είναι παρά υποθέσεις (Prehistory and Earth Models, σελ. 24)
    Πιο αναλυτικά:
    α. Μέθοδος ουρανίου- μόλυβδου
    Η βασική αρχή της μεθόδου αυτής είναι η εξής: για πολύ μεγάλες χρονικές περιόδους το ουράνιο διασπάται αυθόρμητα σε μόλυβδο και ήλιο. Ο ρυθμός διάσπασης θεωρείται σταθερός όχι μόνο στο παρόν αλλά και σε όλους τους περασμένους αιώνες.
    Αυτή η μέθοδος είναι που στήριξε τα συμπεράσματα των εξελικτικών για την ηλικία της Γης (ότι είναι 4.600 εκατομμ. Ετών!).
    Με μια πρώτη θεώρηση, φαίνεται η διάσπαση του ουρανίου να είναι η ιδανική μέθοδος γεωχρονομετρίας και επιστημονικά πέρα από κάθε υποψία. Η έρευνα όμως των τελευταίων δεκαετιών άρχισε να δημιουργεί σοβαρές αμφιβολίες ως προς την αξιοπιστία της.
    Εκτός από το φυσικό εμπλουτισμό του ουρανίου  στα ραδιενεργά σώματα, που ανατρέπει τη σταθερότητα στο ρυθμό διάσπασης του, υπάρχουν και άλλοι παράγοντες, που επιδρούν. Π.χ. ένας καταιγισμός νετρονίων στην ατμόσφαιρα  της Γης από μια έκρηξη ενός υπερκαινοφανούς αστέρα. Αυτό έγινε πολλές φορές αποδεδειγμένα στο παρελθόν. Κάτι τέτοιο αυξάνει σημαντικά το ρυθμό ραδιενεργού διάσπασης των πετρωμάτων. Τι αποτέλεσμα έχει αυτό; Το περιγράφει ο Frederic B. Juenman: “αν μια αιφνίδια πτώση μειώσει το δυναμικό της Γης κατά 1 εκατομμύριο βόλτς, θα μπορούσε να έχει σαν αποτέλεσμα τη μείωση του υποδιπλασιασμού του ουρανίου από 4,5 δισεκατομμύρια έτη σε μόλις κάτι παραπάνω από ένα δευτερόλεπτο (!!!).
    Για αυτό και στην εγκυκλοπαίδεια Britanika, στο  λήμμα Dating, σημειώνεται: Η μέθοδος ουρανίου, ως γεωχρονομέτρηση, εκτοπίστηκε σήμερα από τις τεχνικές καλίου-αργού και ρουβιδίου- στροντίου. Οι λόγοι για αυτό είναι: περιορισμένη δυνατότητα εφαρμογής και αμφισβητούμενη αξιοπιστία.
    β. Μέθοδος Καλίου-Αργού
    Η μέθοδος αυτή στηρίζεται στη διάσπαση του καλίου σε αργό. Ο ρυθμός διάσπασης και εδώ θεωρείται σταθερός και στο παρόν και στο παρελθόν.
    Όσο περνούν τα χρόνια όλο και περισσότερα προβλήματα εμφανίζονται και σε αυτή τη μέθοδο. Εκτός από τα γενικά μειονεκτήματα, τα ιδιαίτερα (μειονεκτήματα) που περιπλέκουν την όλη διεργασία είναι ότι το κάλιο διασπάται σε δυο διαφορετικά ραδιογενή θυγατρικά προϊόντα με δυο διαφορετικούς ρυθμούς.  Αυτό σημαίνει πως η μέθοδος καλίου-αργού δίνει δυο διαφορετικές τιμές χρόνου, που απέχουν πολύ  η μία από την άλλη. Η διαφορά ρυθμίζεται συνήθως με τη βοήθεια της μεθόδου ουρανίου-μόλυβδου. Π.χ. Η μέθοδος καλίου χρονολόγησε τις βασαλτικές λαβές  της Χαβάης από 160 εκατομμύρια έτη έως  3 δισεκατομμύρια έτη (!). Πως μπορεί να “ρυθμιστεί” όμως αυτή η τεράστια χρονική διαφορά με μια μέθοδο που ουσιαστικά είναι αναξιόπιστη; Αξιοσημείωτο ακόμη είναι ότι οι παραπάνω βασαλτικές λαβές Χαβάης, που χρονολογήθηκαν με τους παραπάνω τεράστιους αριθμούς, στην πραγματικότητα χρονολογούνται από μια έκρηξη τι 1801 κοντά στο Χουαλαεί.
    Επομένως “δεν προκαλεί έκπληξη το γεγονός, ότι η μέθοδος καλίου- αργού δίνει διαφορετικά αποτελέσματα σε διάφορα μεταλλεύματα, στο ίδιο πείραμα”.
    γ. Μέθοδος Ρουβιδίου- Στροντίου

    Η μέθοδος αυτή στηρίζεται στη διάσπαση του ραδιενεργού ρουβιδίου σε στρόντιο. Τα μειονεκτήματα της είναι: ο χρόνος διάσπασης (υποδιπλασιασμού) δεν είναι γνωστός με ακρίβεια. Θεωρείται αρκετά μεγάλος, από 47 έως 120 δισεκατομμύρια έτη. Για το ίδιο κοίτασμα πετρώματος αποδίδει ηλικίες, που δεν συμφωνούν μεταξύ τους κ.α.
    Για αυτό και στο τρίτο σεληνιακό συνέδριο, που έγινε στο Χιούστον, τον Ιανουάριο του 1972, ο Leon T. Silver του τμήματος Γεωλογίας και Πλανητικών επιστημών, στο California Institute of Technology αμφισβήτησε τους υπολογισμούς της μεθόδους αυτής. Έτσι κι αυτή η μέθοδος είναι αναξιόπιστη.
    δ. Μέθοδος ραδιενεργού άνθρακα 14
    Η μέθοδος αυτή ανακαλύφθηκε μετά το Β’ παγκόσμιο πόλεμο (γύρω στο 1949) από τον Αμερικανό χημικό Williard Libby (Βραβείο Νόμπελ για την ανακάλυψη του).
    Ο άνθρακας 14 είναι ο άνθρακας που σχηματίζεται στα ανώτερα στρώματα της ατμόσφαιρας. Άζωτο της ατμόσφαιρας και νετρόνια της κοσμικής ακτινοβολίας (που βομβαρδίζουν διαρκώς την ατμόσφαιρα) δίνουν το ραδιενεργό άνθρακα 14 (C14).
    Αυτός διαπερνά την ατμόσφαιρα και εισχωρεί στα σώματα των φυτών και των ζώων. Όταν πεθάνει ένας οργανισμός σταματά να παίρνει ραδιάνθρακα 14. Τότε, επειδή αυτός διασπάται, λιγοστεύει διαρκώς μέσα στο νεκρό οργανισμό. Η μέτρηση του C14 στα εργαστήρια επιτρέπεται τον υπολογισμό του χρόνου που πέρασε από τον θάνατο του οργανισμού μέχρι την εξέταση του από τους επιστήμονες.
    Τα πρώτα 10 χρόνια περίπου επικρατούσε μεγάλη αισιοδοξία για τη νέα μέθοδο. Βέβαια ο ίδιος ο W. Libby και οι συνεργάτες του έβλεπαν ένα πρόβλημα. Για να γίνει η χρονολόγηση, απαραίτητη προϋπόθεση ήταν να μένει σταθερός ο ρυθμός σχηματισμού και ο ρυθμός διάσπασης  του C14 .
    Στις μετρήσεις ο Libby έβλεπε ότι ο ρυθμός παραγωγής ήταν περίπου 25% ταχύτερος από το ρυθμό διάσπασης. Επειδή όμως  αυτό δεν μπορούσε να εξηγηθεί με τα γνωστά επιστημονικά μέσα, ο Libby απέδωσε τη διαφορά σε πειραματικό σφάλμα.
    Οι πρώτες ανησυχίες και απογοητεύσεις εμφανίστηκαν κυρίως στη δεκαετία του 1960. Τα κελύφη ζωντανών μαλακίων χρονολογήθηκαν ότι είναι μέχρι 2300 έτη με τον C14 (Keith M. And Anderson G., Science, 16 Αυγ. 1963, σελ. 634). Ασβεστοκονίαμα από ένα αγγλικό κάστρο ηλικίας 785 ετών έδωσε ηλικία με τη μέθοδο C14 …7370 έτη (Baxter M.S. and Walton A., Nature, 7 March 1970, σ. 937-8). Σε φώκιες πρόσφατα σκοτωμένες έδωσε η μέθοδος ηλικία 1.300 έτη και σε μουμιοποιημένες φώκιες, νεκρές μόνο επί 30 έτη, χρονολογήθηκαν για 4.600 έτη (Dort W. Antarctic Journal of the U.S., 6, 1971, σ. 210).
    Όμως το σπουδαιότερο ήταν το εξής: Τα πειράματα επαναλήφθηκαν από χημικούς. Με βελτιωμένες τεχνικές, μετά από πείρα 10 ετών, αποκαλύφθηκε ότι η διαφορά που παρατήρησε ο Libby , δεν ήταν απλό πειραματικό σφάλμα , αλλά υπήρχε πράγματι και μάλιστα πάνω από 25%.
    Αυτό το παραδέχθηκε και ο ίδιος ο εφευρέτης της μεθόδου χρονολόγησης με C14. ” Όταν αναπτύξαμε τη μέθοδο μας δεν είχαμε άλλη επιλογή παρά να υποθέσουμε ότι οι κοσμικές ακτίνες είχαν παραμείνει σταθερές, παρ’ όλο που δεν είχαμε την παραμικρή ένδειξη ότι πράγματι ήταν έτσι. Αλλά τώρα γνωρίζουμε ότι οι μεταβολές υπήρχαν”.
    Αυτό όμως τι σημασία έχει;
    Ο Melvin Kook εξηγεί: Αυτό οδηγεί σε δύο εναλλακτικά συμπεράσματα:
    α. ή η ατμόσφαιρα βρίσκεται για κάποιο λόγω σε μια μεταβατική φάση δημιουργίας, όσον αφορά τον C14 ή
    β. κάτι πάει λάθος σε κάποιο από τα βασικά αξιώματα  της μεθόδου C14.
    To πρώτο ερμηνεύεται με το ότι η ατμόσφαιρα βρίσκεται σε κατάσταση μη ισορροπίας, γιατί δεν έχουν  περάσει ακόμα τα 30.000 έτη. (Η μέθοδος C14 λέει ότι απαιτούνται 30.000 έτη για τη σταθεροποίηση της από τη στιγμή της δημιουργίας της.)
    Το δεύτερο, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τη διαφορά ρυθμού δημιουργίας και διάσπασης του C14 , που δεν υπολογίζονται αρχικά, έχουμε, με βάση τα δεδομένα του ίδιου του Libby, εκτίμηση της ηλικίας της Γης γύρω στα 10.000 έτη (!) και όχι δισεκατομμύρια έτη που πιστευόταν μέχρι τώρα.
    Επομένως η μέθοδος, που φαινόταν να δικαιώνει την άποψη των εξελικτικών για τα δισεκατομμύρια έτη, ή ίδια- παραδόξως- την καταρρίπτει πλέον και ενισχύει τα δεδομένα της Αγίας Γραφής.
    Περιοδικό ΖΩΗΡΥΤΟΝ
    Νοέμβριος – Δεκέμβριος 2006