SECTION II: True Science Does Not Bully Or Lie

Evolution has been aggressively advertised as scientific truth in opposition to religious dogma since its inception in the 19th century. Its claim that there is no Creator of life has made significant inroads against religious belief in developed nations.

A new poll conducted by Ipsos for Reuters News in twenty-four countries found that 41% of respondents identified themselves as “evolutionists” and 28% as “creationists,” with 31% indicating that they “simply don’t know what to believe,” according to a press release issued by Ipsos on April 25, 2011.

What has Evolution discovered since its philosophical inception in the 19th Century that establishes its scientific credentials?

There were three major revolutions in scientific thought that prepared the way for a successful theory of evolution.

The first major change in scientific thought was in the field of biology. Linnaeus, the Swedish biologist, had…abandoned the theory of the chain of being that claimed that all living creatures formed an unbroken scale of complexity and nobility, terminating with the most complex and noble of all, humanity. Instead, Linnaeus showed that life could be divided into five separate kingdoms, each divergent from the other.

What a gross distortion of the facts.

In fact, Linnaeus was a devout Christian who believed that The study of nature would reveal the Divine Order of God’s creation, and it was the naturalist’s task to construct a ‘natural classification’ that would reveal this Order in the universe.”

In fact, the separation of mortal living creatures into five categories follows the biblical account of creation which defines 1) water animals, 2) winged animals, 3) beasts of the earth, 4) cattle, 5) creeping things, and finally 6) man as a unique creation representing Spirit God himself in material form.

Pay close attention to the Newspeak used by Evolutionists.

From the National Science Education Standards on Evolution:

Evolution is a well-supported theory drawn from a variety of sources of data…including observations about the fossil record, genetic information, the distribution of plants and animals, and the similarities across species of anatomy and development. Scientists have inferred that descent with modification offers the best scientific explanation for these observations.

Is evolution a fact or a theory?

Scientists most often use the word “fact” to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is a fact…

Within the same breath this teacher states that “Scientists have inferred” and that evolution is a fact because it is “something that has been tested or observed so many times.” 

In fact, Evolution is not even a scientific theory. It has remained strictly in the realm of imagination.

we’d like to clear up and emphasize the distinctions between scientific hypothesis, theory, and law,…

A scientific theory can be defined as a series of repeatedly tested and verified hypotheses and concepts. Scientific theories are based on hypotheses that are constructed and tested using the scientific method, and which may bring together a number of facts and hypotheses.

For a theory to be valid, it must be testable, hold true for general tendencies and not only to specific cases, and it must not contradict verified pre-existing theories and laws... 

a scientific law is the description of an observed phenomenon…Laws can be thought of as the starting place, the point from where questions like “why” and “how” are asked.

The scientific method is…a process that’s meant to ensure that the…conclusions are not biased by subjective views and can be repeated consistently by others…

In the information era, scientific concepts surround us, but even if access to knowledge is easier than ever nowadays, there are still a lot of misconceptions around. It’s always better to be on the safe side and getting your facts straight.

Nowhere is “getting your facts straight” more important than investigating the reality of hyper dimensionality vs Evolution’s pure materialism.

Evolution is not a fact. It has never been observed. On the contrary, multiple evolutionist claims have been disproven.

The following quotes are from scientific articles, not Bible apologists.

The Bone Wars, also known as the Great Dinosaur Rush, was a period of intense and ruthlessly competitive fossil hunting…marked by a heated rivalry…resorting to bribery, theft, and the destruction of bones. Each scientist also sought to ruin his rival’s reputation and cut off his funding, using attacks in scientific publications…

The Bone Wars of the mid-1800s resulted in a lot of dubious species

the original fossil evidence for Trachodon was limited to seven teeth…

Left: Black and white sketch of three teeth. Right: Painting of a duck-billed dinosaur standing by a pool of water. Brown and green tones.
Left: Sketch of the teeth that Leidy used to name Trachodon. (Sketch via DinoHunters.comRight: Artist interpretation of Trachodon. (Trachodon image via

The dinosaur family tree is littered with dubious species like these.

[Answer:] It really isn’t that simple…

Currently it is estimated that around 2,100 “good skeletons” have been found, and the number of known species is several hundred (300-500)…researchers often rely on the bone structure of contemporary reptiles and birds, which are the descendants of the dinosaurs and therefore their distant relatives…

Please do not quote parts of this article, but only cite it at its entirety.

For the sake of brevity in my writing I did not quote the above article in its entirety, but I did provide a link so my reader can confirm that the writer of this article prevaricated and never answered any of the questions posed.

What the writer of the above article does reveal is the circular reasoning used by Evolutionists to establish their belief system by substituting the bones of contemporary animals into incomplete fossil skeletons to “prove” that contemporary animals are descended from those extinct animals.

scientists…very rarely unearth an entirely intact dinosaur skeleton…

SUE is the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton discovered to date, with 250 of the approximately 380 total bones in a T. rex.

‘when it comes to complete dinosaur skeletons, there’s just one. Yes, oneit’s been over a century and a half since it was first uncovered…”

Of the 120 known varieties of sauropod, complete skulls have been found for only eight.

That seems really sketchy to me. How can they derived 120 varieties from eight skulls?

Four bones were found on the Isle of Wight in 2019 and researchers from the University of Southampton believe they all belong to a dinosaur which comes from the same family as the Tyrannosaurus rex.

That’s a lot of speculation.

Evolution is not a theory, because there is no series of repeatedly tested hypotheses.

It is not even a hypothesis, because it is not based on observation of stages of evolution even in the fossil record or – and this is key – the ability to generate life in so much as in a one-celled organism.

While the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question…the connections among them – are much debated by researchers and further confounded by a fossil record that only offers fragmented look at the ancient past. The debates are sometimes perceived as uncertainty about evolution, but that is far from the case.

Asserting that the existence of a human evolutionary family tree is not in question is not based on science. It is first degree dogma. Trustworthy forensic and paleontology research should be as uncertain about their convictions as homicide investigators and juries if they want to reach a truthful conclusion.

“Cro-Magnon” is the name scientists once used to refer topeople who lived…40,000–10,000 years ago…In the 19th century, scientists…decided that the [fossil] findings were different enough from…us…to give them a different name…

A century and a half of research since then has led scholars to change their minds. The new belief is that the physical dimensions of the so-called “Cro-Magnon” are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation…

More important is the successful recovery of ancient DNA…

Ancient DNA recovered from fossils is a valuable tool to study evolution and anthropology. 

This is simply not true. There is no DNA to be found in fossils which by definition have had all their organic cellular matter replaced with minerals.

Fossils are not the remains of the organism itself! They are rocks. 

OK, so maybe that’s not so much a lie as ignorance on the part of the writer and publisher posing as experts on evolution. What about preserved actual organic remains, like a wooly mammoth in Siberia?

What’s the shelf life of DNA?

If a body is left out in the sun and rain, its DNA will be useful for testing for only a few weeks. If it’s buried a few feet below the ground, the DNA will last about…10,000 years. If it’s frozen in Antarctic ice, it could last a few hundred thousand years. 

However, devout evolutionists maintain their belief that “DNA supports evolution because all life on Earth carries DNA, and evolution happens only after DNA changes.

There is no logic in that circular reasoning, let alone use of the scientific method.

These changes are called mutations and happen spontaneously from flawed – [FLAWED!] – DNA copying or from mutagens, such as X-rays or chemicals.

It is common knowledge that genetic mutations are detrimental, not beneficial.

You don’t hear evolutionists crowing about the latest findings being uncovered by DNA investigators.

University of Illinois animal geneticists…have created a side-by-side comparison of the human genome and the pig genome…”We took the human genome, cut it into 173 puzzle pieces and rearranged it to make a pig,” said Schook. “Everything matches up perfectly…

So, if all of the genes match up, what is it that makes a pig a pig and a human a human? “That’s the million dollar question,” said Beever. “The genes match up when compared side-by-side, but understanding how they work together is the next step…”

Why do we need this much information about the pig? “It’s clear that the pig one of the closest large animal species to humans,”

Interspecies organ transplant activities between humans and pigs have even taken place, called xenotransplants.

How do evolutionists handle this?

Saying that we share 99.9 % of DNA is misleading…blanket comparisons of all DNA sequences between species are not very meaningful.

Then how can evolutionists make the completely opposite claim in support of evolution?

humans and chimpanzees share around 99 percent of the same DNA…

In contrast to all this, the genetic difference between individual human beings averages out to be only around 0.1%.

Furthermore, chimp transplants into humans have failed.

American surgeons used organs from chimpanzees... [kidneys, livers, heart]

Invited to speak at a surgeon’s conference…the moderator introduced him to the large audience by saying: “In Mississippi they keep the chimpanzees in one cage and the Negroes in another cage, don’t they, Dr. Hardy?”…

No other chimpanzee-to-human organ transplants by U.S. surgeons have been attempted since [1973]…

chimps were too close to humans for the comfort of the rest of society. Ethics, not genetics, won the argument. 

Whoa. Now that we have discovered that pigs are even closer to humans than chimps, is anyone in society rising up in condemnation of the massive pork industry? About 118 million hogs are slaughtered in U.S. facilities each year.

Evolution’s failure to follow scientific methodology is most clearly shown by the fact that, despite two hundred years discovering billions of fossils the world over, absolutely no fossils of the theorized transitional states between any species have ever been found.

A lack of discovery removes a suspect from legal consideration.

This lack of discovery should have eliminated evolution as a scientific consideration.

This doesn’t stop Evolutionists from clinging to the concept with the tenacity of an over-confident Middle Schooler.

Following is a good example of how fossil dating cannot be taken seriously.

The discovery of carvings on a snake-shaped rock along with 70,000-year-old spearheads nearby has dramatically pushed back the earliest evidence for ritual behavior, or what could be called religion.The finding, which researchers have yet to formally publish, comes from a cave hidden in the Tsodilo Hills of Botswana, a mecca of sorts for the local people, who call it the Mountain of the Gods…

[The researchers] found…a six-meter-long rock that bore a striking resemblance to a snake, including a mouthlike gash at the end. “My first words I remember saying are, ‘My god…”

Snakes feature prominently in the traditions and the mythology of the San, sometimes called the Bushmen.

[R]eliable markers of the site’s longevity lay buried…In a one-meter-wide, two-meter-deep excavation right next to the snake, the researchers uncovered more than 100 multicolored spear points from a total of 13,000 man-made artifacts.

The tips closely resemble those found elsewhere in Africa that researchers have dated at up to 77,000 years old, Coulson says. Judging from the rare colors of the stone points and the pattern of fragments, people from far and wide likely brought them to the cave partially made and finished working them there, she explains.

Some of the stone tips seem to have been burned or smashed in what may have been a type of sacrifice…Other spearheads exhibit chips and marks that suggest someone had struck the finished tips dead-on, something that researchers have observed at sites in Siberia, she notes.

Did you catch the self-serving circular reasoning in this account?

  1. The researchers date the use of the stone snake by the artifacts found with it.
  2. Although it is impossible to date when these stones were worked into artifacts, in an inexcusable misuse of the term “reliable”, researchers deceptively claim they can be dated by their resemblance to those found elsewhere which have been dated to 77,000 years old.
  3. The reliability of that dating is not provided, and is in fact impossible to provide.
  4. The reality, as stated by the article, which, significantly, has not been published, is that this site has been in continuous use for just the last few thousand years by the San people whose offerings are most certainly among the artifacts discovered.

The San populated South Africa long before the arrival of the Bantu-speaking nations, and thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans…The San are the best model we have for the hunter-gatherer lifestyle…

Rock art by the late Stone Age hunter-gatherers can be found in the form of paintings or engravings in almost every district in South Africa…Although many are not well preserved, collectively they represent a remarkable record of the beliefs and cultural practices of the people who made them. Most were created by San hunter-gatherers…

The San have a rich oral history and have passed stories down from generation to generation. The oldest rock paintings they created are in Namibia and have been radiocarbon-dated to be 26,000 years old.

Wait, what? Radiocarbon dating has been demonstrated to be unreliable

In recent years, a field that has traditionally relied on fossil discoveries has acquired helpful new tools: genomics and ancient DNA techniques...hinting at a far more complex past than was previously appreciated—one rich in diversity, migration, and possibly even interbreeding…

“To piece together that story, we need information from multiple different fields of study,” remarks Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany. “No single one is really going to have all the answers—not genetics, not archaeology, not the fossils, because all of these areas have challenges and limitations.”


Really? I don’t believe in evolution because I require evidence. Does my writing so far Indicate that I am ignorant, stupid, cognitively or perceptional impaired, or wicked?

Is it possible that Richard Dawkins is a malignant narcissist, wickedly gathering an adoring band of followers with what he knows are deceptions?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s