Jewish Deception
Parts 7 through 10
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch

Jewish Deception Part 7

The purpose of evolution, according to the Socialists, at least in a book entitled "Evolution of Man," published by the Socialist Worker's Party, is clear: "Modern Socialism is closely allied to the modern scientific theory of evolution. If laborers understand science, they become socialists." (The Evolution of Man, pp. 9-10)

 But the theory of evolution has another purpose, more pervasive than the desire to convert the reader to the theories of Socialism. Julian Huxley, a scientist, has explained that: "Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed since natural selection could  account for any known form of life. There was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution." (Issues In Evolution, Sol Tax, Editor, p. 45)

 So evolution has two direct, non-competing purposes: to convince the student that Socialism is the partner to evolution, and secondly that there is no creative force in the universe. Huxley further went on to point out that: "The supernatural is being swept out of the universe... God can no longer be considered as  the controller of the universe... Operationally, God is beginning to resemble, not a ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." (Evolution...God's Method of Creating, Plain Truth, June-July 1974, p. 19)

 The Masonic Order also places a strong emphasis on the theory of evolution, according to W.L. Wilmhurst's book entitled "The Meaning of Masonry," adds: "This, the evolution of man into superman, was always the purpose of ancient mysteries. Man, who has sprung from the earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature, to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution by becoming of a god- like being and unifying his conscience with the Omniscient..." (The Meaning of Masonry, by W.L. Wilmhurst, pp. 47, 94)

 Recently, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, a competing theory to evolution was being developed. It is important to understand this new theory and its effect on evolution and science. The two competing theories may be defined as follows:

 1). Organic Evolution: the theory that all living things have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic evolutionary process from a single source which itself arose from a dead, inanimate world.

 The Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. has defined evolution in this manner: "Evolution is the concept that species change through time. Over millions of years small changes accumulate to become large differences, new species arise, others die out. Rates of change vary greatly, and directions of change are unpredictable." (Evolution at the Smithsonian, Henry Morris, p. i)

The competing theory is defined as:

 2). Creationism: the theory that all basic animal and plant types were brought into existence by acts of a Creator, using special processes which are not operative today.

 Notice that both theories are just that: theories. Neither can be proven in the scientific laboratory. Both attempt to explain the Earth and its inhabitants from the various facts existent in the world.

 The Creationists claim that there are two scientific laws that disprove evolution. These laws are called the Laws of Thermodynamics (Thermodynamics is defined as the science of heat exchange or heat transfer). These Laws are as follows:

 1). The First Law of Thermodynamics: The total amount of energy remains constant. Energy is not being created anywhere in the universe, it is only being changed.

 2). The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is changing through decay. Energy becomes less available for further work.

 One of the world's leading Creationists, Dr. Henry Morris, has stated that: "The Second Law demonstrates that there must have been a beginning or otherwise the  universe would already be dead. The First Law demonstrates that the universe could not have begun itself, since none of the processes creates anything." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, by Henry Morris, p. 19)

 Dr. Morris continued: "The real law of change, however, is one of decay, NOT OF GROWTH, a change 'DOWN' instead of a change 'up.' Thus the laws of thermodynamics sharply conflict with the philosophy of evolution." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 19)

 Both of these theories look at the universe and then attempt to explain its origin. These two theories are contrary to each other. Evolution theorizes that The Earth created life through a gradual process when first forms of life were created and then the higher forms evolved from the earlier.

 The second theory, Creationism, contends that all animal as well as all human life was created at nearly the same moment. Except for the White Man who came along about 6,000 years ago. Neither theory can be reproduced in the laboratory, and neither is taking place now. The evolutionists explain that the first cause of life was chance. The Creationists explain it as the act of a Creator.

 Perhaps a review of the Creationist's arguments will assist those who have never examined these two theories side by side. There are at least nine strong arguments against the theories of the evolutionists.

 1). Chance: The evolutionists theorize that simple life originated from the creation of amino acids, which later combined in chains to form protein, all by the randomness of chance.

 A). Amoeba: "A unicellular protozoan found in stagnant water or as a parasite, of indefinite and reproducing by simple division." (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 20)

 For a multiple celled animal to come from an Amoeba, it would have to divide itself into a mutant, to produce a male or a female. Then there would have to be two such mutants to occur at one time, within a few seconds of each other and within a few inches of one another or they would die before they could mate. The chances of this happening are so astronomical, there is no possibility of such a thing happening! So a simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 simple amino acids. But not just any combination of amino acids aligning in exactly the right order is one chance in one followed by 158 zeroes.

 "Astro-physicists estimate that there are no more than 10 to the 80th infinitesimal  'particles' in the universe (one followed by 80 zeros), and that the age of the universe in its present form is no greater than 10 to the 18th seconds (30-billion years). Assuming each particle can participate in a thousand billion 10 to the 12th different events every second, (this is impossibly high, of course) then the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could ever be made) in all the universe throughout its entire history is only 10 to the 80th x 10 to the 18th or 10 to the 110 (one followed by 110 zeroes). Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 110th therefore  cannot occur. 'Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe.' Thus, the above suggested ordered arrangement of 100 components (100 Amino Acids forming in a chain to give simple life) has a zero probability. It could never happen by chance." (Probability and Order Versus Evolution, by Henry Morris, p. 1)

Jewish Deception Part 8

The purpose of evolution, according to the Socialists, at least in a book entitled "Evolution of Man," published by the Socialist Worker's Party, is clear: "Modern Socialism is closely allied to the modern scientific theory of evolution. If laborers understand science, they become socialists." (The Evolution of Man, pp. 9-10)

 But the theory of evolution has another purpose, more pervasive than the desire to convert the reader to the theories of Socialism. Julian Huxley, a scientist, has explained that: "Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed since natural selection could  account for any known form of life. There was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution." (Issues In Evolution, Sol Tax, Editor, p. 45)

 So evolution has two direct, non-competing purposes: to convince the student that Socialism is the partner to evolution, and secondly that there is no creative force in the universe. Huxley further went on to point out that: "The supernatural is being swept out of the universe... God can no longer be considered as  the controller of the universe... Operationally, God is beginning to resemble, not a ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." (Evolution...God's Method of Creating, Plain Truth, June-July 1974, p. 19)

 The Masonic Order also places a strong emphasis on the theory of evolution, according to W.L. Wilmhurst's book entitled "The Meaning of Masonry," adds: "This, the evolution of man into superman, was always the purpose of ancient mysteries. Man, who has sprung from the earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature, to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution by becoming of a god- like being and unifying his conscience with the Omniscient..." (The Meaning of Masonry, by W.L. Wilmhurst, pp. 47, 94)

 Recently, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, a competing theory to evolution was being developed. It is important to understand this new theory and its effect on evolution and science. The two competing theories may be defined as follows:

 1). Organic Evolution: the theory that all living things have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic evolutionary process from a single source which itself arose from a dead, inanimate world.

 The Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. has defined evolution in this manner: "Evolution is the concept that species change through time. Over millions of years small changes accumulate to become large differences, new species arise, others die out. Rates of change vary greatly, and directions of change are unpredictable." (Evolution at the Smithsonian, Henry Morris, p. i)

The competing theory is defined as:

 2). Creationism: the theory that all basic animal and plant types were brought into existence by acts of a Creator, using special processes which are not operative today.

 Notice that both theories are just that: theories. Neither can be proven in the scientific laboratory. Both attempt to explain the Earth and its inhabitants from the various facts existent in the world.

 The Creationists claim that there are two scientific laws that disprove evolution. These laws are called the Laws of Thermodynamics (Thermodynamics is defined as the science of heat exchange or heat transfer). These Laws are as follows:

 1). The First Law of Thermodynamics: The total amount of energy remains constant. Energy is not being created anywhere in the universe, it is only being changed.

 2). The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is changing through decay. Energy becomes less available for further work.

 One of the world's leading Creationists, Dr. Henry Morris, has stated that: "The Second Law demonstrates that there must have been a beginning or otherwise the  universe would already be dead. The First Law demonstrates that the universe could not have begun itself, since none of the processes creates anything." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, by Henry Morris, p. 19)

 Dr. Morris continued: "The real law of change, however, is one of decay, NOT OF GROWTH, a change 'DOWN' instead of a change 'up.' Thus the laws of thermodynamics sharply conflict with the philosophy of evolution." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 19)

 Both of these theories look at the universe and then attempt to explain its origin. These two theories are contrary to each other. Evolution theorizes that The Earth created life through a gradual process when first forms of life were created and then the higher forms evolved from the earlier.

 The second theory, Creationism, contends that all animal as well as all human life was created at nearly the same moment. Except for the White Man who came along about 6,000 years ago. Neither theory can be reproduced in the laboratory, and neither is taking place now. The evolutionists explain that the first cause of life was chance. The Creationists explain it as the act of a Creator.

 Perhaps a review of the Creationist's arguments will assist those who have never examined these two theories side by side. There are at least nine strong arguments against the theories of the evolutionists.

 1). Chance: The evolutionists theorize that simple life originated from the creation of amino acids, which later combined in chains to form protein, all by the randomness of chance.

 A). Amoeba: "A unicellular protozoan found in stagnant water or as a parasite, of indefinite and reproducing by simple division." (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 20)

 For a multiple celled animal to come from an Amoeba, it would have to divide itself into a mutant, to produce a male or a female. Then there would have to be two such mutants to occur at one time, within a few seconds of each other and within a few inches of one another or they would die before they could mate. The chances of this happening are so astronomical, there is no possibility of such a thing happening! So a simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 simple amino acids. But not just any combination of amino acids aligning in exactly the right order is one chance in one followed by 158 zeroes.

 "Astro-physicists estimate that there are no more than 10 to the 80th infinitesimal  'particles' in the universe (one followed by 80 zeros), and that the age of the universe in its present form is no greater than 10 to the 18th seconds (30-billion years). Assuming each particle can participate in a thousand billion 10 to the 12th different events every second, (this is impossibly high, of course) then the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could ever be made) in all the universe throughout its entire history is only 10 to the 80th x 10 to the 18th or 10 to the 110 (one followed by 110 zeroes). Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 110th therefore  cannot occur. 'Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe.' Thus, the above suggested ordered arrangement of 100 components (100 Amino Acids forming in a chain to give simple life) has a zero probability. It could never happen by chance." (Probability and Order Versus Evolution, by Henry Morris, p. 1)

Jewish Deception Part 9

The geological column is a column that shows the various layers, one on top of another. The older layers are supposed to be on the bottom, the newer layers on the top. Each layer was supposedly laid down on top of the layer just underneath. This process assumedly took billions of years. In addition to this insurmountable problem for the evolutionists, there is yet another. "It is now known that complex plants existed in the Cambrian Period, which, on the  evolutionary time scale, is 200-million years or so before even simple land plants are supposed to have evolved." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 22)

 In Glacier Park, for example, "There are numerous localities around the world where supposedly older and simple fossils have been deposited in layers vertically above layers containing 'younger,' more complex, fossils." (Letter to the Editor from Duane T. Gish, The News-Sentinel, March 4, 1975)

 But one of the most startling discrepancies in the fossil records came to light when a Tuatara lizard was found alive on some islands off New Zealand after the animal was supposedly extinct. Because the scientists have not found any fossil remains of the lizard in any rock supposedly younger than 135-million years old, they presumed that the lizard was extinct. In other words, the animal once lived 135- million years ago, but not between then and the present, as there have been no fossil remains of the lizard found in those layers of rock above those supposedly 135-million years old.

 Finding some living Tuaturas on the surface of the earth really puzzled them. Where are the fossil remains of the lizard for the last 135-million years? Don't ask the evolutionist. Only the Creationist has the answer: the assumptions made in dating fossils is wrong. (The Genesis Flood, p. 177) Such anomalies are very common all over the world.

 For instance, one scientist became troubled when he was checking fossil remains in the Grand Canyon. He found a layer of rock containing a certain fossil. Above that layer was a thick barren layer, indicating that the fossil had become extinct. But the layer directly above the barren layer was a layer containing the fossil evidences again. "The evolutionary theory allows no backtracking, no renewal of a species, once it has become extinct." (Canyon of Canyons, by Clifford Burdick, pp. 42-43)

 The fossil record's inability to explain the basic tenet of evolution, that simple life evolved into complex life, has been noted by some prestigious scientists. One, David Raup of Chicago's famous Field Museum, has said that about the fossil record: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been  greatly expanded. Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, has had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Creation, Selection & Variation, by Gary E. Parker, p. iii)

 In spite of all of these problems, the evolutionists still continue to hold up the fossil record as the evidence proving their case. Perhaps the reason this is so lies in the rather interesting fact that: "...more than half of the geologists in the world work directly for oil companies, and the support for many geologists in academic [pursuits] and [in] government comes from petroleum." (The Genesis Flood, p. 430)

 3). Mutations: The Arizona Daily Star of April 4, 1981, carried a picture of a two-headed snake. The caption underneath the picture said that the associate professor of zoology at Arizona State University said that the snake "'wouldn't last in the wild.'" (The Arizona Daily Star, April 4, 1981, p. 2-B)

 The snake was a mutation and it would have difficulty surviving in nature! Evolutionists claim that mutations are the changes that account for the changes in species, yet scientists know that about ninety-nine out of one hundred mutations produce inferior creatures, such as the two headed snake that "wouldn't last in the wild." If this is true, then the fossilized remains of these ninety-nine unsuccessful mutations should be in the fossil record, as well as the successful ones found so abundantly. The fossil record reveals no fossil remains of known mutations.

 4). Time: The evolutionists theorize that there have been millions, if not billions, of years in which man and the various animals have been able to evolve into higher forms of life. Certain species have died out and become extinct before other species, including man, evolved.

 At a debate between an evolutionist and a Creationist in Tuscon, the evolutionist, a professor at the University of Arizona, claimed that, if ever fossil records of man could be found alongside fossil records of the dinosaur, this find would seriously weaken, but not destroy, the evolutionary theory. He explained that this was because the dinosaurs had become extinct, according to the evolutionary theory, around sixty million years before the appearance of man on the earth.

 One of the spectators at the debate hastened to point out to the scientist that such fossil evidence did indeed exist at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, south of Ft. Worth. Apparently a flood in 1900 eroded away the top layer of mud and exposed a limestone layer underneath it.

 This limestone layer, supposedly 120-million years old, contained a rather startling discovery. The stone contained human footprints! Since it is theorized that man appeared on Earth about 1-million years ago, approximately 119-million years of time had disappeared, at least if the rock was supposedly 120-million years old.

 But there was even something more startling in the stone. The human footprints were side by side with dinosaur footprints! The theory is that the dinosaur died out about 60-million years ago. That means, according to the evolutionary theory, that it is impossible for man and the dinosaur to have been on the Earth at the same time.

 The spectator asked the professor if he had an explanation. Did man and the dinosaur co-habitate the Earth at the same time? How could the rock be 120-million years old, the dinosaur footprints 60-million years old, and the man's footprints 1-million years old? The scientist was quick to offer an explanation. His position was that the rock was once soft, about 60-million years ago.

 The dinosaur moved through the mud, leaving behind the evidence of his presence, his footprints. The mud, then became hard and some 59-million years later, because of some mysterious circumstance, became soft once again. Man then moved through the soft mud, leaving behind his foot prints. Then, for some other unexplained reason, the rock became hard again, leaving both the dinosaur and the human footprints side by side. (WOW -- WOW and double WOW) When questioned as to why the dinosaur footprints didn't erode when the limestone became soft again, unless man's footprints were placed down in the soft mud precisely the same day the mud got soft and then hard again: The Scientist had to admit that he had no answer!

Jewish Deception Part 10

 Also, what mechanism did the professor know about that could cause rock to become hard, then soft, then hard, then soft, and then hard again? Once again, he had no answer. The scientist was unwilling to admit that the fossilized footprints "weakened, but didn't destroy" his evolutionary theory, even though that conclusion was his opening statement.

 5). Gravity: Gravity holds us firmly on the ground and also keeps the earth circling the sun. It draws rain from the sky and causes the tides. This mysterious gravity force continues to puzzle  scientists even as it give stability to the universe.

 How is gravity able to act across empty space, and why does it exist in the first place? Science has never been very successful in explaining such "natural" laws. After all, these universal rules cannot slowly arise by mutation or natural selection; they have been here for since the very beginning.

 Gravity, as well as every other intricate physical law and constant, is actually an absolute testimony to creation. What is Gravity? Galileo (1564-1642) first explored the motion of falling objectsd. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) later described the law of gravity: All objects in the universe attract each other. This attractive force is proportional to the objects' masses and deceases as the square of the distance separating them.

 Figure 1 illustrates the gravity force; Table 1 gives some representative values. Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) finally measured the gravitation constant which allowed the gravity force to be precisely calculated. Comments from these science pioneers show their respect for gravity's origin: "Galileo: From the Divne Word, the Sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed." (From Galileo's letters of 1613-1615. Quoted by Gerald Holton, Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science (Addison- Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA, 1973, p. 57))

 "Newton: This most beautiful [gravitational] system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." (In the second edition of Newton's Principia. Quoted by J. De Vries, Essentials of Physical Science. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, SD, 1958), p. 15)

 "Newton: When I wrote my treastie [Principia] about our [solar system], I had an eye on such principles as might work with considering men for the belief in a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose." (From a 1692 letter. Quoted by Gerald Holton, p. 192)

 The origin views of Cavendish are not known because he left very little written material. One will search in vain for these creation quotes, or anything similar, in most science books. Texts typically give only half the story; they accept gravity without any discussion of its origin and implications. The properties of gravity illustrate just how unique this essential force is. Consider six points, chosen from many others.

 1). Gravity does not change with time. Many researchers have looked for a possible variation in the strength of gravity, without success. Some feel that stronger gravity in the distant past might possibly have helped trigger star formation or the Big Bang itself. Even with a long time scale, however, gravity appers to be perfectly constant. ("Timeless Gravity." Nature (15 November 1990) 348 (6298), p. 195) Gravity therefore does not solve the problems of Big Bang cosmology.

 2). Aside from air resistance, large and small objects fall downward in exactly the same time. Drop two compact objects and you should see and hear them hit the floor simultaneously.

 3). Gravity is always attractive, while other forces such as magnetism can either repel or attract. This beneficial property makes gravity the universal "Elmer's Glue" which binds the universe together. Even the distant galaxies, which appear to have been created with an outward expanding motion, are gradually slowing due to the inward gravity pull from all other galaxies in the universe.

 4). Gravity cannot be turned off or shielded in any way. Intervening objects have no effect on the original gravity force between two separated masses. This means that there is no anti- gravity chamber available in which the occupants can continually flat freely. The weightless, gravity-free  feeling you may have experienced on an amusement park ride results from a temporary falling motion. Orbiting astronauts appear weightless only because their fall toward the earth is balanced by the outward directed centrifugal force.

 5). Gravity attration does not depend on the composition of objects, only on their mass or weight. Several blocks composed of glass, lead, ice, or styrofoam, if they all have equal mall, will attract each other identically.

 6). The gravity force decreases with distance but is actually infinite in its extent. Gravity acts instantly between the earth and moon, as well as across the millions of light years of space between galaxies, according to classical theory.

 Gravity and Scripture: Two Bible verses especially help us understand the nature of gravity. First, Colossians 1:17 explains that Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist. The Greek verb for "consist" (sunistano) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together. Extrabiblical Greek use of this word pictures a vessel holding water within itself. The word is used in Collosians in the perfect tense, which describes a present continuing state arising from past action. This perfect tense also implies permanence of the act of holding the universe together.

 One mechanism used is obviously gravity, established by the Creator and still maintained without flaw today. Consider the alternative: If th eLord turned His back on the universe for one moment, instant chaos would result. Without gavity, the earth, moon, and stars would immediately disintegrate.

 A second reference, Hebrews 1:3, declares that Christ upholds all things by the Word of His power. Uphold (Greek, enegko) again describes the sustaiing or maintaining of all things, including gravity. The word "uphold" means much more than simply supporting a weight.

 It includes control of all the ongoing motions and changes withink the universe. (Vincent, M.R., Word Studies in the New Testament on Hebrews, first published in 1886 (MacDonald Pub. Co., McLean, VA, 1970), p. 1093) This infinite task is managed by Christ's Almighty Word, whereby the universe itself was first called into being. (Hebrews 11:3)

Jewish Deception Part 11

  Gravity and Modern Science: We know of just four fundamental forces in nature. First, there is the electro-magnetic force which operates electric motors, radio-television, and particle accelerators. Second and third, the strong and weak nuclear forces aruse within the nuclei of atoms.

 Finally, there is gravity, actually 1040 times weaker than electromagnetism, and the only force known in Newton's day. Gravity dominates other forces on the larger scale of space objects. (Suppose the gravity force which keeps the moon circling the earth was to be supplied by a steel cable. Since this force is 35 million billion tons, the cable would have to be over 600 miles in diameter to avoid breaking! Gravity is immense on the scale of solar-system objects). Some example values of the attractive gravity force between objects.
 

Comparison Chart

Ojects

Gravity Force (pounds)

You and this Impact article 10.0
You and the moon 0.001
Two locomotives 0.005
You and the earth Your weight
Moon and earth 7 X 1019
Earth and sun 8 X 1021

 Physicists have long attempted to "unify" these four basic forces into just one entity or theory. Initial success was shown by Faraday and Maxwell 150 years ago when electricity and magnetism were combined.

 So far, however, gravity has proven a special challenge to the experts. Gravity should reveal both wave and particle (qunatum) properties, to fit the pattern of the other forces. Traveling gravity waves, suggested by some researchers, should slightly compress or "curve" space-time, according to Einstein.

 The hypothesized particles called gravitons, with no mass or charge, are thought to stream back and foth continually between the earth and moon, resulting in the observed gravity force. Neither gravity waves nor graviton particles have been observed yet. One wonders if scientists will "ever" discover the actual method by which the Lord maintains the gravity system. Perhaps, similar to the creation process itself, such details lie forver beyond our probing.

 It is a fair question to ask natural science why basic laws such as gravity exist. Why is the universe filled with intriguing technical relationships, symmetry, and unity? Some experts are quick to reply that the task of science is only to find out the "how" of nature, not the "Why." But this excuse simply revelas the incompleteness of natural science alone. Ultimate truth about the universe must also deal with God's initial provision and his continuing care for us. The Creator is clearly an intimate part of every physical detial, including gravity.

 The fact is, the scientist was bending the facts to explain his theory, rather than adjudting the theory to explain the facts!
 
 One scientist, when asked about some of the human footprints in the stone, while he was an observer to their uncovering at the site in about 1955, said that if the human footprints were alone in the rock, he would have to conclude that they were human. But since they were beside the dinosaur footprints, he wasn't sure. To further complicate the problem for the professor at the debate, other scientists have carbon dated some plants in the limestone layer. They were found to be 38,000 to 39,000 years old, quite a bit earlier than the supposed age of the rock which is theorized to be 120-million years old.

 In addition, other scientists have found another problem for the evolution theory at this same site. They have found human footprints in rock layers Below strata containing the footprints of the dinosaur. All of these facts fit the Creationist's theory that holds that man and the dinosaur lived at the same time, not millions of years apart, but thousands of years ago. This explains the footprints of both at the same site, in the same layer of limestone.

 5). Sequence: The age old question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?," is an appropriate question to ask in the evolution versus Creation debate. The world is full of examples of animals and plants that had to appear on the scene at precisely the same moment in the past!

 For instance, the bee and the flower both had to appear at exactly the same time or the earlier would not be able to survive. Then there is the problem for the evolutionist which is the question of when certain predators for certain animals evolved. There is a naturally occurring balance of nature whereby the population of one species is kept in balance by another species, its natural predator.

 If the population of the hunted animal suddenly increases, the population of the second animal, the hunter, increases as well. As the population of the hunted animal decreases, so does the population of the second animal. It is only when man artificiality intervenes in the environment that this system gets out of balance.

 Take, for example, the case of the rabbit in Australia. This animal is not native to this country and was reportedly brought there as a game animal to be hunted for sport. But since the rabbit has no natural predator in Australia and is a rapid breeder, the animal is increasing in numbers so quickly that it is starving other animals native to the land because it is consuming their share of the available food. A similar problem is occurring in Oregon with the opossum. This animal is also not native to the area, having been brought to the Northwest by Southern Negros who came to build ships during World War II.

 After the war was over, the Negros, for the most part, returned to the South and they released whatever animals they had on hand at the time. These animals breed rather rapidly and have spread all over the Northwest to the point where they are eating vital food needed by other animals. The opossum has no natural predators, and it is prospering to the detriment of other animals native to the are. Some locals have claimed that the only predator of the opossum is the automobile! It seems that it is the major predator of this little animal because it strikes so many of them at night as they cross the roads looking for food. It has become a real problem for those living in the Northwest.

 But these examples ask the question that the evolutionists have trouble answering: the hunted animal and its predator, the hunter, had to "evolve" at exactly the same time, or either the world would be overpopulated by the hunted animal, if it had "evolved" first, or with large quantities of fossils of the hunter if it had "evolved" before its food supply "evolved."

 Man's attempts to artificially induce an animal into the environment where there is no natural predator proves that both the hunted animal and its predator had to "evolve" precisely at the same time. Thus, the existence of such a balance of nature strongly implies a designer or Creator.

Jewish Deception Part 12

 6). Missing Links: One of the areas most open to question by the Creationists is the area of the "missing links," the humans and near humans who supposedly link man and his ancestors. A quick look at some of these "missing links," or early men, shows how weak this evidence is for the case of the evolutionists.

 (a) The Zinjanthropus Man: The fossil evidence of this early "man" was discovered in strata supposedly 1 and 3/4 million years old. Yet when the scientists carbon dated other material in the same layer, that material was found to be approximately 10,000 years old.

 (b) The Nebraska Man: This connecting link was cited at the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee by leading scientists to prove that man had evolved from earlier forms of existence.

 The fossil evidence of the Nebraska Man consisted of a tooth that was said to have come from a prehistoric man who supposedly lived one million years ago. Scientists used this tooth to reconstruct the Nebraska Man's flesh, hair and family. (Impact #101, by Gary E. Parker, November 1981, p. ii) Yet when more fossils were unearthed at the same site, it was discovered that The Nebraska Man was only a Pig!

 (c) Piltdown Man: This man was supposed to be half a million years old and was constructed from a piece of jaw  discovered in 1912. The fossilized jaw was considered to be authentic until 1953 when it was discovered that the jaw had turned out to be the Jawbone of a Modern Ape. In addition, the jawbone had been filed down and stained to look older. In other words It was a deliberate Hoax. (Impact #101, by Gary E. Parker, p. ii)

 (d) Neandethal Man: This connecting link was once pictured as a link between apes and man, but was later found out to be strictly human, just another man.

 One can only speculate as to why the evolutionary scientist is so quick to grasp at anything that appears to be a link connecting man with the ape. Perhaps the question has been answered by the following statement: The real reason why; after multitudes of fossil fragments have been examined and sorted by evolutionary anthropologists for over a hundred years -- there is still no agreement as to man's evolutionary ancestry, is because he had no evolutionary ancestry! All the real evidence indicates that man was true man right from the start. (Impact #74, August 1979, by Henry M. Morris, p. 11)

 Maybe this is why some evolutionists are now shifting away from the theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys. Unfortunately, their predetermined prejudices stay with them when they develop new theories. Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center of Emory University.

 Dr. Bourne is an Australian born, Oxford educated American cell biologist, anatomist, and considered to be one of the world's leading primatologists. He has declared his belief that "apes and monkeys are the evolutionary descendants of man!" (Acts & Facts, August 1976, Vol. 5, No. 8, p. 1) This so-called scientist wants man to believe that the ape and monkey are Man's Grand Children.

 7). Male and Female: The obvious fact that so many animal species have evolved into male and female types is another thorny problem for the evolutionists.

 Both sexes are absolutely essential to the continued propagation of the animal species, and it is absolutely imperative that both evolved at exactly the same time. That means, if one species of animal evolved a male into a higher form of life in the process of evolution, that animal had to have a female of exactly the same type evolve at exactly the same time, or the new male wouldn't have been able to reproduce itself!

 8). Age of The Universe: It is claimed by the evolutionists that the Earth was "Created" about 4.5-billion years ago. The Creationists are now developing a very effective scientific argument that the Earth cannot be older than 10,000 years old.

 Some of the arguments for a young Earth are as follows:

 (a) Decay of the Magnetic Field: National Aeronautical and Space Administration orbiting satellites have been measuring the Earth's magnetic field and have found that it is slowly decaying, or wearing down. One scientist has interpreted these scientific data and has drawn this conclusion: "Since the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, extrapolation back into the past more than 10,000 years predicts a current flow so vast that the earth's structure could not survive the heat produce. Thus the Earth cannot be much older than 10,000 years old." (Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973, by T.G. Barnes)

Continuing with the presentation of the arguments for a young Earth:

 (b) Oil Seepage: It is estimated that the amount of oil that seeps into the oceans is 5-million tons per year. It is also estimated that the total amount of offshore oil is 100-billion tons, which means that the total amount of oil would have been lost to the oceans 2500 times, if oil is estimated to be 50-million years old, or that it would only take about 20,000 years to deplete the entire quantity of offshore oil. ((Submarine Seeps, Are They A Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution, Science, by Max Blumer, Vol. 176, p. 1257)

 (c) Helium Decay: As plant and animal life dies and then decays, a certain amount of helium is released into the atmosphere. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the  atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the Earth appears to be about 10,000 years old, even allowing for moderate helium escape to the space above the atmosphere. (Impact, June 1981, p. iii)

 (d) Population Growth: Evolutionists generally theorize that man evolved about 1-million years ago. These early humans have multiplied, so the theory goes, to the point where there are now about 4-billion people on the Earth. "The same population statistics which supposedly pre-age a man in the past...An initial population of only two people, increasing at 2% a year, would become 3.5-billion in only 1,075 years...An average population growth of only 1/2 of one percent would generate the present world population in only 4,000 years." (Evolution and the Population Problem, Impact No. 21, by Henry M. Morris)

 (e) Meteoritic Dust on the Earth: "There is no measurable accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Earth's surface, but present rates of influx of such dust from space would produce a layer 1/8th of an inch thick all over the Earth in a million years, and a layer 54 feet thick in 5-billion years." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 92)

 (f) Decay of the Sun: In 1980, two scientists discovered the, "...sun has been contracting 0.1% per century..." they believed that this shrinkage was continuous and has occurred at the same rate as in the past. Therefore, if this is correct, only 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as big as it is today; 20-million years ago, the surface of the sun would have touched the Earth and the Earth would have been a cinder. (The Sun Is Shrinking, Impact #82, Russel Akridge, April, 1980)

Click Here if you would like a hard copy of any of Willie Martin's books

Jew Watch - Willie Martin

horizontal rule