Evolution III
Even if semi-humanoid life forms existed, it does not prove in the slightest that they were our ancestors. Perhaps they existed, as ape-like mammals, with more similarity to humans that the apes with which we are familiar. Fine. But what says they are our ancestors? Nothing at all.
However, there is no evidence at all that those fossils are indeed of ape-humans. They don’t even have proof that those creatures even existed. Any shred of a fossil that they find that gives them an opportunity to speculate about what kind of creature the fossil came from, they latch on to and built mountains out of molehills, and produce theories about what the creature was. This happens constantly:
Zinjanthropus Man, a humanoid race touted as being 600,000 years old based on "fossil evidence", was not even based on one body, or even an entire skull. They found one skull with the lower jaw missing. The skull was not found in one piece - it consisted of 400 fragments, found distributed among tons of debris, and put together at the discretion of the people who stand to gain the most by such a "discovery". The entire episode was totally biased, and they still have zero evidence that this creature was anything but human, with, at most a perhaps slightly deformed skull.
And how do they know how old this creature was? Because of the fossils that they found in the same strata with his fossils. And how do they know how old those animals were? Because of the theory of evolution which says that such animals should be that old. There is no evidence of anything here - just theory and wishful thinking.
Every such "discovery" has had opposing scientists who declare them to be nothing. Java and Peking Man were declared by the prominent evolutionist Weidenrech to be plain humans, nothing more and nothing less.
E.E. Stanford, ("Man and the Living World") declared that Neanderthal Man lives with us today. In "The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution". W.E. LeGros Clark declares that Neanderthal Man existed at the same time with regular human beings.
All these types of ape-humans are nothing but apes or humans that can be seen among us today. At the London meeting of the Congress of Zoology it was revealed that the museum exhibits of Neanderthal Man walking hunched over like an ape was a regular human who had arthritis. Only 13 samples of Neanderthal Man have ever been found - ever! - every one of them incomplete, yet the evolutionists built on them an entire mythical "race" of ape-men.
Procunsul Africanus, touted as the ancestor of "both apes and humans" was declared at that same convention to be nothing but a plain ape.
Java Man was represented by a skull cap, a left femur, a small piece of a jaw, and 3 teeth. Nothing more. And they were found not together but about 50 feet apart, over the span of a year, among many, many other bones and debris. Based on this "evidence" they created an entire era in history. Later they found more skulls, more bones, etc. Everything was the same as human remains except for the teeth, and evolutionists claim that those teeth are the teeth of a plain monkey.
Peking Man has nothing that cannot be found in normal men. Cro-Magnon Man was, evolutionists admit, "fully developed" and intelligent as any man today. He was about 6 feet tall, with a regular forehead, full chin and large brain. He is no more proof of evolution than we are.
But do the math: Even according to the most stubborn and irrational evolutionists, for every single fossil of normal humans and apes that they find, they should be finding billions upon billions of in-between fossils. The steps between ape and human included tons of in-between creatures, and mutant creatures which were not fit for survival. Yet no such fossils have been found. Even the little that they desperately squirm to concoct is pitifully useless compared to what should exist out there. Yet fossils of regular men and apes exist in abundance - in abundance! - and only once in a blue moon do they even claim to find an in-between fossil. And incidentally, the fossils of normal men are found in the same strata as those of the "ancient" and prehistoric men. Go figure.
The fossil record is the biggest proof against evolution. Not that proof is needed - the entire idea is a baseless theory, the only reason they cling to it is because they have nothing better to cling to, if they don’t want to admit the obvious - that the world was created by G-d.
---
Monkeys are obviously the closest things, intelligence-wise, to humans (and sponges to plants) but monkeys were created completely separately from humans. We are not related at all.
Don't accept it. It's nonsense.
Evolution, by definition, means "slow progress", the opposite of revolution, which means sudden progress. When did this "evolution" supposedly occur?
Besides, there is no viable evidence for evolution. The evidence is evidence only assuming there is no Creator. All the similarities between us and monkeys are, to us, meaningless, because threes no reason to assume that one Creator did not create many of His creations with similar physicality. But if you assume there is no creator, then the question arises: how do you explain the similarities between us and lower species? And besides -- how in the world did such complex "animals" such as humans get here anyway? There are two options" fast or slow. Fast makes no sense if there is no creator.
Or maybe it's just an example of Rav Chaim Brisker's rule (which kind of comes from the SMA) that Daas Baalei Batim is the opposite of Daas Torah. Because in Torah literature it says that people became monkeys, as in the Dor Haflagah ...
---
Carbon-14 dating rests on two assumptions. (a) that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and (b) its rate of decay has always been constant.
Neither of those assumptions has been proven or close to proven. And since the world was created in six days, who knows how the cosmic radiation in the atmosphere was fluctuating then.
There is another issue that makes the carbon dating useless. When the world was created, it already had an age. In other words, when Adam for instance was created, he was an adult, even though he was one day old; there were fully grown trees; the sun's light already reached the earth; an entire world existed, full-blown and OLD. How old was the world at the moment it was created? I don’t know -- it doesn't say. But we do know that it didn't start from scratch. And so let's say someone would chop down a tree 1 week after it was created and find maybe 50 rings inside - would that prove that the tree was 50 years old? Nope - it would only prove that when it was created it was created as an adult, 50 year old tree.
So even if dating would be accurate, it still doesn't prove that the world was not created 6,000 years ago - because when it was created, it already could have been thousands of years old.
Dinosaurs are no more of an issue than the dodo or any other extinct animal. Also, some say many giant animals perished if they could not fit into the teivah. But there is zero evidence outside of Hollywood science fiction flicks that dinosaurs lived on this world before humans.
Actually, there have been human fossils found on the same level as dinosaur fossils, and even deeper; the fossil evidence itself does not support the evolutionary theory in the slightest. On the contrary, Darwin predicted that it would, and a century of digging has shattered his hopes. The evolutionists have yet to explain why the fossil evidence does NOT support their theory.
---
[Part of the following is a response to an article in an obscure tabloidish magazine that claimed that the in-between fossils going from fish to land creatures had been found. The claim was later pretty much quashed, but the response is still important]
Well it's no wonder the world isn't hopping with this discovery, whose news is relegated to places like where you found it.
Read the article again, and separate the hype and the "this may be what were looking for" from the facts. They found a fish that can do some kind of pushup, had a mobile neck and "had lost the bony coverings of the gills that fish use to fan water to maximize their oxygen intake".
No evidence of lungs, nothing. "These suggest that the fish may have been at least partly air-breathing, like modern tetrapods", they say.
It "suggests the fish may have been". They have no evidence, but because this fish has these features, MAYBE this is what it means, they say. "Maybe", meaning why not make it another theory? But evidence that this thing was actually air breathing? Not there.
All he claims to have is a fish with some unusual characteristics. Even he doesn’t claim to have anything more. He says, he "now plans to return to Ellesmere Island to search for a fossil even closer to the moment when vertebrates first stepped onto dry land."
Good luck.
But it doesn't matter, really. Because its not one single fossil they have to find, but tons --- there should be tons of them every step of the way between pond slime and human. It's not impressive to find a duck billed platypus or a dolphin or, well, a monkey, and say this is the missing link. They'll have to do a lot better than this fish. Don't expect this "discovery" to generate a lot of excitement even among evolutionists.
The only reason they make came up with the theory that we came from monkeys is because they refuse to believe that we were created as men - so we had to come from somewhere. The only thing they could come up with is that we came slowly from monkeys - which came from lower life forms - which came from non-life forms - which came from simple molecules. And since this entire process is supposedly random and accident it can only happen after like gazillions of years (scientifically, however, there has not been enough time in the entire universe, even according to them, for life to have developed).
They know that evolution is not a good theory - but it’s the best they got. And they only accept it - even as a mere theory -- because they have no alternative. It’s not as if there’s actually evidence that humans are somehow descendants of monkeys. It’s merely that "Well we had to come from somewhere!"
So they are forced to accept evolution with all its holes and contradictions because they have no choice. Once you do not want to accept the possibility of G-d creating the world, you have to come up with some alternative.
But if you are a bit more open minded and willing to accept the possibility (we know it is a fact) that G-d created man, then why in the world would someone want to accept evolution?
Its like if the Amish people use candles because they refuse for some reason to use electricity (it's just an analogy - they really do use electricity), would any regular person who does use electricity say to himself "Well, if they use candles I can too, so let me throw away my light bulbs and buy some candles."?
It's not as if there's evidence for evolution and we need to reconcile that evidence with what we know; on the contrary - there's no evidence to evolution and they are constantly trying to reconcile it with what they know are facts. The only reason they believe in evolution is not because of the "evidence" to for but because they have no other choice. We did come somehow, right? And that is the evolutionists' big problem.
And not all scientists believe in evolution. It’s inaccurate to make this a "science vs. religion:" issue – many, many scientists have said that evolution makes no sense, but since the alternative to evolution is only creation, they will stick to it anyway.
It's simply an issue of closed-mindedness, in the form of unwillingness to accept the possibility (which we know as fact) of creation.
Once should never confuse science with scientists. Science is knowledge; scientists are people, complete with their own agendas, weaknesses, and dishonesties. Their PhD’s do not make them any more moral or honest or objective than truck drivers.
And so, the “proof” cited for evolution by scientists, from so-called “vestigial” organs, that is organs in the human body (and animals bodies) that have no purpose, but are similar in design to a organ in an animal that does have a purpose, shows that our bodies are later versions of those animal bodies, and those organs are kind of “left overs” from the olden days when we needed them.
Here is an example of how scientists like to make believe that their own words, even if unsubstantiated and unverified, constitute “science”.
Of course, there is no scientific evidence that any organ has no purpose.
The most scientists can say is that they have not found a purpose. As if the fact that they haven’t found a purpose means that there is none. As in the above example, they have been wrong many times, even when they were so sure of themselves. This is why, not long ago, they would cut out your tonsils if they got inflamed with tonsillitis. They were so sure that because they could not find a use for the tonsils, that means there is no use, that they would actually remove hundreds of thousands of them from the human body as if they were, well, useless organs. The scientists have made several other mistakes in this area as well, relying on their arrogance to conclude that “Since WE don’t know of a purpose for this organ, therefore, it has no purpose”
How arrogant, and how ridiculous!
Here is where the Torah’s view of science diverges from that of the scientists.
Says the Rambam: “How does one come to love and fear Him? When one ponders His actions and His creations, and sees in them intelligence that has no measure and no end.” (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:2)
The wisdom of Hashem Himself is manifest in the wonderful world we live in, and since His wisdom is infinite, the wisdom contained in the world is infinite.
And so, no matter how much wisdom scientists discover in the universe, it is nothing compared to what they have not yet discovered. Therefore, the idea that “if we big shot scientists, with our great knowledge of the universe, cannot find a purpose for this organ, it must have no purpose”
Scientists may understand a lot, but compared to what there is to understand, they know nothing. The scientist – not science, but the scientist, in his arrogance – has no idea how much more he has yet to discover, how wonderful and immeasurable and boundless are the wonders of Hashem’s world.
And the fact that these organs “are similar” in structure to organs in other animals does not constitute any evidence of one organ “descending” from the other. The real reason why organs are similar in different species is because they were made by the same Designer. A nickel is similar to a quarter but it doesn’t mean one evolved form the other. This reasoning of theirs, that similarity in structure and appearance implies a relationship is based on the assumption that there is no single designer for both. Once you take the Designer out of the picture, it is indeed a weird coincidence that two organs in apparently unrelated species, one of which seems not to have a purpose, bears an uncanny similarity to the other. The “logic” of evolution – what of it that can be called logic – is all based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Now the question is: IF there is no creator, how did we get here? IF there is no Creator, then why do these organs seems so similar? The entire nonsense is only assumptions and wishful thinking, not logic or reason.
Science is infinite. Scientists are finite. For scientists to say that because they do not see intelligence in an organ therefore there must be no intelligence is not base on any scientific evidence; it is nothing but the assumption of the scientists, based on the arrogant idea that if they don’t see it, it’s not there.
Such an attitude does not honor science; it reduces science to a discoverable, finite subject matter, whose limits are somehow measurable by the yardstick of what “scientists” have figured out. None of that is the result of any scientific evidence at all – just the arrogance of the scientist.
However, there is no evidence at all that those fossils are indeed of ape-humans. They don’t even have proof that those creatures even existed. Any shred of a fossil that they find that gives them an opportunity to speculate about what kind of creature the fossil came from, they latch on to and built mountains out of molehills, and produce theories about what the creature was. This happens constantly:
Zinjanthropus Man, a humanoid race touted as being 600,000 years old based on "fossil evidence", was not even based on one body, or even an entire skull. They found one skull with the lower jaw missing. The skull was not found in one piece - it consisted of 400 fragments, found distributed among tons of debris, and put together at the discretion of the people who stand to gain the most by such a "discovery". The entire episode was totally biased, and they still have zero evidence that this creature was anything but human, with, at most a perhaps slightly deformed skull.
And how do they know how old this creature was? Because of the fossils that they found in the same strata with his fossils. And how do they know how old those animals were? Because of the theory of evolution which says that such animals should be that old. There is no evidence of anything here - just theory and wishful thinking.
Every such "discovery" has had opposing scientists who declare them to be nothing. Java and Peking Man were declared by the prominent evolutionist Weidenrech to be plain humans, nothing more and nothing less.
E.E. Stanford, ("Man and the Living World") declared that Neanderthal Man lives with us today. In "The Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution". W.E. LeGros Clark declares that Neanderthal Man existed at the same time with regular human beings.
All these types of ape-humans are nothing but apes or humans that can be seen among us today. At the London meeting of the Congress of Zoology it was revealed that the museum exhibits of Neanderthal Man walking hunched over like an ape was a regular human who had arthritis. Only 13 samples of Neanderthal Man have ever been found - ever! - every one of them incomplete, yet the evolutionists built on them an entire mythical "race" of ape-men.
Procunsul Africanus, touted as the ancestor of "both apes and humans" was declared at that same convention to be nothing but a plain ape.
Java Man was represented by a skull cap, a left femur, a small piece of a jaw, and 3 teeth. Nothing more. And they were found not together but about 50 feet apart, over the span of a year, among many, many other bones and debris. Based on this "evidence" they created an entire era in history. Later they found more skulls, more bones, etc. Everything was the same as human remains except for the teeth, and evolutionists claim that those teeth are the teeth of a plain monkey.
Peking Man has nothing that cannot be found in normal men. Cro-Magnon Man was, evolutionists admit, "fully developed" and intelligent as any man today. He was about 6 feet tall, with a regular forehead, full chin and large brain. He is no more proof of evolution than we are.
But do the math: Even according to the most stubborn and irrational evolutionists, for every single fossil of normal humans and apes that they find, they should be finding billions upon billions of in-between fossils. The steps between ape and human included tons of in-between creatures, and mutant creatures which were not fit for survival. Yet no such fossils have been found. Even the little that they desperately squirm to concoct is pitifully useless compared to what should exist out there. Yet fossils of regular men and apes exist in abundance - in abundance! - and only once in a blue moon do they even claim to find an in-between fossil. And incidentally, the fossils of normal men are found in the same strata as those of the "ancient" and prehistoric men. Go figure.
The fossil record is the biggest proof against evolution. Not that proof is needed - the entire idea is a baseless theory, the only reason they cling to it is because they have nothing better to cling to, if they don’t want to admit the obvious - that the world was created by G-d.
---
Monkeys are obviously the closest things, intelligence-wise, to humans (and sponges to plants) but monkeys were created completely separately from humans. We are not related at all.
Don't accept it. It's nonsense.
Evolution, by definition, means "slow progress", the opposite of revolution, which means sudden progress. When did this "evolution" supposedly occur?
Besides, there is no viable evidence for evolution. The evidence is evidence only assuming there is no Creator. All the similarities between us and monkeys are, to us, meaningless, because threes no reason to assume that one Creator did not create many of His creations with similar physicality. But if you assume there is no creator, then the question arises: how do you explain the similarities between us and lower species? And besides -- how in the world did such complex "animals" such as humans get here anyway? There are two options" fast or slow. Fast makes no sense if there is no creator.
Or maybe it's just an example of Rav Chaim Brisker's rule (which kind of comes from the SMA) that Daas Baalei Batim is the opposite of Daas Torah. Because in Torah literature it says that people became monkeys, as in the Dor Haflagah ...
---
Carbon-14 dating rests on two assumptions. (a) that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and (b) its rate of decay has always been constant.
Neither of those assumptions has been proven or close to proven. And since the world was created in six days, who knows how the cosmic radiation in the atmosphere was fluctuating then.
There is another issue that makes the carbon dating useless. When the world was created, it already had an age. In other words, when Adam for instance was created, he was an adult, even though he was one day old; there were fully grown trees; the sun's light already reached the earth; an entire world existed, full-blown and OLD. How old was the world at the moment it was created? I don’t know -- it doesn't say. But we do know that it didn't start from scratch. And so let's say someone would chop down a tree 1 week after it was created and find maybe 50 rings inside - would that prove that the tree was 50 years old? Nope - it would only prove that when it was created it was created as an adult, 50 year old tree.
So even if dating would be accurate, it still doesn't prove that the world was not created 6,000 years ago - because when it was created, it already could have been thousands of years old.
Dinosaurs are no more of an issue than the dodo or any other extinct animal. Also, some say many giant animals perished if they could not fit into the teivah. But there is zero evidence outside of Hollywood science fiction flicks that dinosaurs lived on this world before humans.
Actually, there have been human fossils found on the same level as dinosaur fossils, and even deeper; the fossil evidence itself does not support the evolutionary theory in the slightest. On the contrary, Darwin predicted that it would, and a century of digging has shattered his hopes. The evolutionists have yet to explain why the fossil evidence does NOT support their theory.
---
[Part of the following is a response to an article in an obscure tabloidish magazine that claimed that the in-between fossils going from fish to land creatures had been found. The claim was later pretty much quashed, but the response is still important]
Well it's no wonder the world isn't hopping with this discovery, whose news is relegated to places like where you found it.
Read the article again, and separate the hype and the "this may be what were looking for" from the facts. They found a fish that can do some kind of pushup, had a mobile neck and "had lost the bony coverings of the gills that fish use to fan water to maximize their oxygen intake".
No evidence of lungs, nothing. "These suggest that the fish may have been at least partly air-breathing, like modern tetrapods", they say.
It "suggests the fish may have been". They have no evidence, but because this fish has these features, MAYBE this is what it means, they say. "Maybe", meaning why not make it another theory? But evidence that this thing was actually air breathing? Not there.
All he claims to have is a fish with some unusual characteristics. Even he doesn’t claim to have anything more. He says, he "now plans to return to Ellesmere Island to search for a fossil even closer to the moment when vertebrates first stepped onto dry land."
Good luck.
But it doesn't matter, really. Because its not one single fossil they have to find, but tons --- there should be tons of them every step of the way between pond slime and human. It's not impressive to find a duck billed platypus or a dolphin or, well, a monkey, and say this is the missing link. They'll have to do a lot better than this fish. Don't expect this "discovery" to generate a lot of excitement even among evolutionists.
The only reason they make came up with the theory that we came from monkeys is because they refuse to believe that we were created as men - so we had to come from somewhere. The only thing they could come up with is that we came slowly from monkeys - which came from lower life forms - which came from non-life forms - which came from simple molecules. And since this entire process is supposedly random and accident it can only happen after like gazillions of years (scientifically, however, there has not been enough time in the entire universe, even according to them, for life to have developed).
They know that evolution is not a good theory - but it’s the best they got. And they only accept it - even as a mere theory -- because they have no alternative. It’s not as if there’s actually evidence that humans are somehow descendants of monkeys. It’s merely that "Well we had to come from somewhere!"
So they are forced to accept evolution with all its holes and contradictions because they have no choice. Once you do not want to accept the possibility of G-d creating the world, you have to come up with some alternative.
But if you are a bit more open minded and willing to accept the possibility (we know it is a fact) that G-d created man, then why in the world would someone want to accept evolution?
Its like if the Amish people use candles because they refuse for some reason to use electricity (it's just an analogy - they really do use electricity), would any regular person who does use electricity say to himself "Well, if they use candles I can too, so let me throw away my light bulbs and buy some candles."?
It's not as if there's evidence for evolution and we need to reconcile that evidence with what we know; on the contrary - there's no evidence to evolution and they are constantly trying to reconcile it with what they know are facts. The only reason they believe in evolution is not because of the "evidence" to for but because they have no other choice. We did come somehow, right? And that is the evolutionists' big problem.
And not all scientists believe in evolution. It’s inaccurate to make this a "science vs. religion:" issue – many, many scientists have said that evolution makes no sense, but since the alternative to evolution is only creation, they will stick to it anyway.
It's simply an issue of closed-mindedness, in the form of unwillingness to accept the possibility (which we know as fact) of creation.
Once should never confuse science with scientists. Science is knowledge; scientists are people, complete with their own agendas, weaknesses, and dishonesties. Their PhD’s do not make them any more moral or honest or objective than truck drivers.
And so, the “proof” cited for evolution by scientists, from so-called “vestigial” organs, that is organs in the human body (and animals bodies) that have no purpose, but are similar in design to a organ in an animal that does have a purpose, shows that our bodies are later versions of those animal bodies, and those organs are kind of “left overs” from the olden days when we needed them.
Here is an example of how scientists like to make believe that their own words, even if unsubstantiated and unverified, constitute “science”.
Of course, there is no scientific evidence that any organ has no purpose.
The most scientists can say is that they have not found a purpose. As if the fact that they haven’t found a purpose means that there is none. As in the above example, they have been wrong many times, even when they were so sure of themselves. This is why, not long ago, they would cut out your tonsils if they got inflamed with tonsillitis. They were so sure that because they could not find a use for the tonsils, that means there is no use, that they would actually remove hundreds of thousands of them from the human body as if they were, well, useless organs. The scientists have made several other mistakes in this area as well, relying on their arrogance to conclude that “Since WE don’t know of a purpose for this organ, therefore, it has no purpose”
How arrogant, and how ridiculous!
Here is where the Torah’s view of science diverges from that of the scientists.
Says the Rambam: “How does one come to love and fear Him? When one ponders His actions and His creations, and sees in them intelligence that has no measure and no end.” (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 2:2)
The wisdom of Hashem Himself is manifest in the wonderful world we live in, and since His wisdom is infinite, the wisdom contained in the world is infinite.
And so, no matter how much wisdom scientists discover in the universe, it is nothing compared to what they have not yet discovered. Therefore, the idea that “if we big shot scientists, with our great knowledge of the universe, cannot find a purpose for this organ, it must have no purpose”
Scientists may understand a lot, but compared to what there is to understand, they know nothing. The scientist – not science, but the scientist, in his arrogance – has no idea how much more he has yet to discover, how wonderful and immeasurable and boundless are the wonders of Hashem’s world.
And the fact that these organs “are similar” in structure to organs in other animals does not constitute any evidence of one organ “descending” from the other. The real reason why organs are similar in different species is because they were made by the same Designer. A nickel is similar to a quarter but it doesn’t mean one evolved form the other. This reasoning of theirs, that similarity in structure and appearance implies a relationship is based on the assumption that there is no single designer for both. Once you take the Designer out of the picture, it is indeed a weird coincidence that two organs in apparently unrelated species, one of which seems not to have a purpose, bears an uncanny similarity to the other. The “logic” of evolution – what of it that can be called logic – is all based on the assumption that there is no Creator. Now the question is: IF there is no creator, how did we get here? IF there is no Creator, then why do these organs seems so similar? The entire nonsense is only assumptions and wishful thinking, not logic or reason.
Science is infinite. Scientists are finite. For scientists to say that because they do not see intelligence in an organ therefore there must be no intelligence is not base on any scientific evidence; it is nothing but the assumption of the scientists, based on the arrogant idea that if they don’t see it, it’s not there.
Such an attitude does not honor science; it reduces science to a discoverable, finite subject matter, whose limits are somehow measurable by the yardstick of what “scientists” have figured out. None of that is the result of any scientific evidence at all – just the arrogance of the scientist.
Labels: Evolution
posted by Moderator at 2:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home