Top Twenty-
- The primordial soup, it appears that the geologists do not now think that the ancient world had the right conditions to form amino acids as per Miller’s famous experiment. Also, note that some amino acids uncouple in the presence water. So, any primordial soup or a bottom of the sea hot water geyser is hard to imagine as a manufacturing base for proteins. The Long Life-
Long Gap Model has no need of demonstrably impossible chance happenings being a requirement and so provides a better explanation then the current world wide accepted evolution paradigm for the beginning of life. - Chemical evolution-
abiogenesis, evolutionists assume that RNA molecules self-formed in the correct order by ‘a process not understood’. But the same problem of statistical odds greets them as per above. There is not enough matter in the whole universe or time since the big bang for this to happen. It requires great faith to believe this and faith alone (or maybe desperation). It is not science. I highly recommend a look at James Tour’s web site here, He is a synthetic chemist who actually has to manufacture the building blocks of life and reveals just how difficult this is. His scientific approach is extremely thorough. To quote him: “I merely showed that the requisite molecules (lipids, proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates) are so unlikely to have occurred in the states and quantities needed, that we could never have gotten to the point of figuring out the genesis of the requisite code or information”. [2] (It should be noted that James Tour although a creationist may not agree with some of the views on this web site). - So, the fossil record begins with single cell organisms-
a vast jump from nothing. Where are the precursors? Single cells are about as complicated as it can get as far as I am concerned. There is no fossil evidence of any chemical evolution prior to the appearance of single cell organisms. The Long Life- Long Gap Model describes the archaeozoic being laid down in a manner similar to our own present dark biosphere and provides a much better explanation without the need to invent the unobserved concept of chemical evolution. - The Cambrian explosion. Where are the intermediate fossils? The strata goes straight from single cells to the bewilderingly diverse Cambrian. The Long Life-
Long Gap Model describes when death first hit the world with the Cambrian layer being laid down by a slow flooding process leading to rising sea levels. In effect sampling mainly shallow marine animals unable to escape. Evolution has no answer to this layer. The Long Life- Long Gap Model provides a coherent and workable reason for the sudden prolific diversification in this era and also links it to the snowball earth. - The sudden appearance of almost every animal with arguably no intermediates at all. The Long Life-
Long Gap Model describes a creation intact and complete from its beginning and gives a plausible reason for all layers separated by numerous catastrophes and flora and fauna fossilised by ecosystem, location, mobility and protection by watcher angels with an initial slow stage of ingression inland from the sea, followed by multiple recoveries. This is a better explanation than random mutations which again relies on absurd and impossible odds. - Every animal you see is supposed to have evolved from a fish, ask yourself how many intermediaries there should be (at least many millions) and ask yourself how many have been found. (I will give you a clue, it will be arguably, none). For each intermediary there should also be thousands of examples of each of them. We should be knee deep in intermediaries and there should be more intermediaries than non-
intermediaries. The Long Life- Long Gap Model used in this site has no need for these missing transitional fossils. - The Cretaceous followed by the Paleogene? Huge changes with no intermediaries. Where are all these missing links? The Long Life-
Long Gap Model describes a total end to one creation and a re- installation, selecting many of the same plants, selecting and modifying many animals and creating new fauna especially birds. Then adding man. The fossil record supports this model completely as does the Bible. - Information means intelligence, Genes carry information, so they must have been produced originally by intelligence. This is covered in great detail by Stephen Meyer, I highly recommend his books and many of his interviews are on YouTube. He has, in my opinion the sharpest mind either side of this entire debate at the moment. He easily wins any arguments put to him and his books, ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ and ‘Signature in the cell’, completely refute evolution well beyond any reasonable doubt, and again, in my opinion, emphatically prove intelligent design. An example interview (here}
- Drivers of abiogenesis: what drives chemicals in this first place? Do they have an end purpose? How do they know when to stop? Why do they not form one of the 10>500 possible wrong proteins? ‘Random does not possess omniscience’ -
Stephen Meyer - How does the simplest life form self-
assemble when it takes very many proteins to make this happen. Even one protein to form is against impossible odds. But to assemble these together is beyond ridiculous to be put down to chance. One of Meyer’s metaphors was to make a simple smallish protein ‘is like finding one atom in 50 galaxies about the size of our Milky Way.’ - The degradation of DNA is a big problem for the evolutionist, DNA is degrading and at a measurable rate, eons of time would result in unworkable genomes. The Long Life-
Long Gap Model gives much shorter time of only 6000 years from the fall for this degradation to be taking place and it also gives a reason for the degradation. - Diversity, stasis, disparity and sudden appearance in stratigraphic columns: Evolution theory describes a slow change by random mutation allowing species to slowly evolve into similar species so diversity of species happens slowly and species are similar. So, in the stratigraphic column you would expect to find similar species close together while going through this change. But this is not what the stratigraphic column shows. It shows diversity with a lot of disparity between species. Greatly differing species present together. Some species appear to remain the same for long periods of time and then suddenly disappear and new ones suddenly emerge. The Long Life-
Long Gap Model gives a credible explanation of this as the fossil record ‘selects’ different ecosystems by the nature, location and cause of the catastrophe that causes them. Subsequent and new previously less common organisms become dominant organisms seeming to suddenly appear and some completely new organisms appearing due to changes within ‘baramin’ potential. - Questioning evolution is not good for your career, scholarly peer review articles are not published, journals will only use naturalistic explanations. Creationist’s careers stalling, Here. This disgusts me and is not scientific-
the truth is actually banned! How many scientific papers have you seen with creationism as an option? Why is that then? What are they afraid of? - Disinformation/misinformation ‘Evolutions is a proven fact now’. You should consider these pages and consider how it is possible to say this. Who could say this in light of what you now know?
- Natural selection is not the be all and end all, ‘random genetic drift’ also happens and may eclipse the natural selection drivers except for extremely beneficial traits.
- So called random mutation (not random at all but in-
built potential) are just fine tuners and cannot explain gross macro- evolution. These fine tunings are better explained by an unimaginably initially complicated design with vast potential. What a work this creation is? - Polystrate fossils. Many fossils of trees and animals, cross over multiple layers of strata. According to evolutionary theory these have taken millions of years to form. Such fossils would clearly rot to nothing in less than that time and should not fossilise.
- Punctuated Equilibrium: Organisms appear abruptly: Old organisms die out and new ones appear abruptly with no obvious predecessor. Evolutionist claim that it is the incomplete fossil record that allows things to appear suddenly but why is the record just incomplete for transitional fossils then? This has led to evolutionists hypothesising that evolution happens in bursts or ‘punctuated evolution’, but this just greatly increases the already impossible ‘statistical likelihood’ problem. Whole systems changing randomly? Why do evolutionists buy into this? It always staggers me. Give me a viable mechanism do not just give it a big name and describe what you want it to do.
- Marine invertebrates to fish no intermediaries, a huge gap. Back bones evolving in one jump?
- ‘Intermediate eyes show evidence of evolution,’ Do they? I think the eyes of each organism are perfectly suited for it, they balance and are appropriate, a more refined one will not benefit it, it does not need anything more.
Why not check out a very well written summary with a more scientific slant than here of the top ten problems with evolution by Casey Luskin here. I suggest,there just is no viable option other than creationism.
And for Young Earth Creationists,
- No Human Fossils before the Cenozoic: Excepting some unverified reports there appears to be no Human fossils in the early fossil record. Non-
Gap creationists cannot satisfactorily explain this. Trying to explain this by having a hope ‘that such fossils will be found or by declaring there must be a processes which might explain this that we do not understand yet’, is similar to the evolutionist stance. A viewpoint of having a kind of faith in a process not currently described or observed. There are no humans until after the KT extinction in the Long Life- Long Gap Model as presented on thus site, ‘young earth’ is a theory in trouble because of this fact. It is inconceivable that humans would not be present at all layers in a world wide catastrophe. The Long Life- Long Gap Model describes no Humans until after the KT extinction and the fossil record supports this. - There are thousands or feet of single cell organisms in the Archaeozoic fossil record. There is not enough time in young earth models for this deposition to occur. Although I accept that catastrophic floods can sift organisms, no flood process could be that efficient at separating out just single cells organism. The Long Life-
Long Gap Model model explains this layer. - Too much is crammed into one flood, some strata are clearly laid down in dry conditions and some over long time periods. No problem explaining these with Satanically induced multiple catastrophes, two worldwide floods and follow on catastrophes as described on The Long Life-
Long Gap Model. - Several layers of stacked dinosaur nest fossils apparently on top of a catastrophic flood is difficult to explain with one flood. The Long Life-
Long Gap Model model has no problem explaining this phenomenon. - While I accept that the overall calibration of the atomic ageing is wrong the proportions between the ages does not fit with a young earth.
- Carnivorous activity of what is likely nephesh chay animals is present in the early Palaeozoic so Adam’s fall must be before then. That leaves a whole lot of fossilisation to take place with the flood.
- Human footprints with dinosaurs can be explained by Watcher Angels l(Kat Kerr).
- The Bible clearly describes a gap in several places and with similitudes that point to Jesus himself, see the rest of this site.
Scripture is infallible, so true data can only illuminate it further. An intransigence in your belief that your interpretation is correct may be a form of pride, the worst of all sins? Or making an idol of your own hermeneutics? A misguided belief that accepting Gap theory is a test of your faith?
1. From a quote by James Tour here
2. From James Tour’s web site here
Why Aren’t the Wrong Proteins Formed ? Why Doesn’t the Mutation Happen Somewhere Else in the Genome? Why not a wrong option, wrong place and wrong time?
Deceptive Statistics-
I like statistics but I know they can be deceptive. The birthday paradox is one example. How many people have to be in a room to get an ‘evens’ (50 % chance) that two of them have the same birthday (date not year)? Most people tend to come up with 182/3 people as it is ½ of 365 days. The answer is counterintuitive and is just 23 people. So, if there are more than 23 people together then you have got a better than evens chance that two have the same birthday. Most people do not believe it but you can see the rationale well explained here. It is a paradox that fools most people.
Likewise, a common and foolish betting technique at roulette is go for 50/50 bets of black or red (I am ignoring the presence of ‘0’ and ‘00’ on roulette tables for ease of odds calculation) and if you lose, then just double the same bet next spin on the same colour , then keep doing it until you win. The ‘law of averages’ means after what would seem to be a relatively low number of spins the right colour will come up and you will win in the end. But records show that there was once a documented instance of 32 consecutive reds here. It seems counterintuitive to have this many but again a study of the odds of this event show there is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the power 9, (that is 10 with nine noughts after it ) or 1 chance in 10 billion of it happening. Now with all the roulette games that have occurred since its invention then 32 consecutive reds now seems reasonable. But at what stage do odds become so unlikely that you could deem them impossible? (Strictly speaking impossible is the wrong term because there is still a possibility.)
The chances of getting a 100 reds or blacks consecutively in roulette is about 1 in 10 to the power 30
The chances of getting a 1000 reds or blacks consecutively in roulette is about 1 in 10 to the power 300
It seems logical to me to know that the 100 consecutive and certainly the 1000 are just not going to happen, no matter how long you play for so, I put my blurred impossibility line somewhere around these values.
Winning the British National Lottery (Lotto) 26 times (on the trot with one ‘go’ and the same numbers each time and if you do not get it right each time you start again): The chances are about 1 in 10 to the power 192.
That also is, as far as I am concerned, never going to happen. How can I say this? I am not sure why I can, but I am confident that at some stage odds become absurd and an an impossibility.
1
2
3
4
5
66
7
8
9
10
More on Kinds here
10
Smoke and mirrors
Deception is the name
name of the game
? (sneak things in? Name -
11
Evolution? You Sure?
With great insight, Todd Wood here points out that God, through His creation, communicates with us. His creation utters speech and reveals His attributes, with its beauty and elegance. It is part of the reason for the creation.
Picture #1 The archaeopteryx, what do you see? A primitive transitional animal between dinosaurs and birds or a beautifully designed creature perfectly ‘fitting in’ with its ecosystem, uttering speech?
Picture #2 A mud skipper. What do you see? A primitive transitional animal between fish and mammals or a beautifully designed creature perfectly suited to its ecosystem, uttering speech?
Picture #3 #4 #5. The three British woodpeckers (two of which frequent my garden I am pleased to say). What do you see? Variation within a biblical kind, all 200 or so woodpeckers descending from an original woodpecker ‘kind’ and diversifying within this created kind but remaining woodpeckers, all uttering speech? Or, do you see proof that fish could become humans by this same process extrapolated over millions of years?
I suggest the answer to all of these questions depends on your paradigm view and not science.
Is beauty and elegance really just a lucky side effect of chance mutations?
Picture #7 -
Woodpeckers and Dogs
Chuck Missler brilliantly used a giraffe here and green woodpecker here as examples of the absurdity of random mutations causing macro changes.
Concerning the woodpecker, here is the list of adaptions Missler described the green woodpecker possessing and I have added a few also. It has a very strong beak with a ‘shock absorber’ between the beak and skull, a chisel shape to the beak for wood cutting, a spongy padding around the brain, a brain packed closer to the skull, an extended hyoid bone apparatus to facilitate the tongue to extend great lengths, a membrane to stop the eyes popping out, a sticky tongue, a very long tongue with a barb on the end and some of the tongue wraps around the skull and attaches under the eye socket. It also has different than usual tail feathers that can act like a tripod support. The toes are two forward and two back and not three to one. They can make a drumming sound to attract partners. They have extra and differently designed feathers to cover their nostrils to prevent sawdust inhalation and the list goes on…
As a dentist very well acquainted with the amazing design of the tongue,(Multiple origins and no insertion), it is inconceivable that the origin and anatomy of the tongue could change, the complexities of such a design change are clearly not down to chance any design change would, I believe, result in an early death.
I want you to consider any bird of similar size to a woodpecker acquiring these adaptions. Talk me through the process. Consider the odds and the likelihood of these changes. What are the calculable actual odds of these multiple protein systems forming randomly in the right place for the right bird with the other synchronised mutations? Do we ever see such macro changes occurring in one go? Do partial changes give a benefit? Does ½ a protein convey an advantage? Why didn’t the random mutations form a different protein or mess up an existing one? Why don’t humans have occasional similar multi protein genetic mutational changes? Random does not possess intelligence it does not work to a design, or driver, does not know it’s surroundings, does not know available food sources and does not have a beginning or an end in mind… but God does.
Micro Evolution-
I am assuming the evolutionist stance that all dogs evolved from one dog like/wolf like creature. I am happy to go along with this. So, by natural selection or selective breeding all dogs from the Pekinese to the Great Dane are produced from these lupine ancestors. Evolutionists describe this process and say ‘well look how wolves evolved into all manner of dogs, so extending this, ‘you can easily see how fish could evolve into humans’.
Well errr….. no. I do not see it that way, the process is bounded. Dogs will remain dogs. This is an unjustified extrapolation [1]. Evolutionists describe this as evolution producing new traits but in reality it is, I believe, the exact opposite, information and potential is lost and not gained from the genetically rich first created ‘kind’ wolf.
I suggest that random mutations do not create new traits but rather selective breeding eliminates some possibilities and brings forward other ‘hidden’ traits. The potential was there in the original wolf all along. The progeny have less information and potential. No new traits are added. If this was random then it should be easy to go back the other way from dogs back to original dog like/wolf like creature which has not been observed. Or, consider Pekinese dogs, using just Pekinese dogs and their offspring, it should, according to evolutionary theory, be quite easy to selectively breed to get to Great Danes, well..;. good luck with that!
God does not appear to do the ‘same’. He appears to build in change. It seems entirely plausible that all woodpeckers originate from the same core woodpecker. But, consider these woodpeckers again, in a staggering design capability God has built in a potential to diversify within a ‘kind’ to a present day 200 or so types of woodpecker. Each a thing of matching beauty and different from its cousin, different colour schemes, slightly different attributes, perfectly suited for slightly different ecosystems. Incredible.
I think further new species will appear too. Change with beauty is constant in God’s creation.
The Evolution Paradox-
‘Proteins form by random mutations, small and subtle changes over time each resulting in benefits to the organism and hence they are more likely to survive and pass these changes on’-
Firstly, for a mutation to work it must be beneficial. For some proteins they must form in full to be of use. Half an insulin molecule does not regulate blood sugar levels half as well as a full molecule, it does not regulate it at all. Likewise, haemoglobin does not carry oxygen unless fully formed. (This is described as irreducible complexity)
So these proteins must form in their entirety in ‘one go’. There are 20 amino acids, so, again assuming random presentation of these amino acids the probability of them forming complex proteins used in the building blocks of all life forms can easily be calculated. A ‘1 in 20’ chance of getting the correct amino acid sequence with each addition. Proteins can be made up of many of these amino acids.
Insulin has 51 amino acids, there are approximately 10 to the power 66 chances of getting the sequence right by randomly selecting amino acids. That is 1 chance in 10 with 65 noughts after it. Some blood clotting proteins have over 2000 amino acids. e.g. Factor 8 the anti-
If you do the the calculation for these bigger proteins then most calculators can not handle it and come back with infinity. It becomes too high for the average one to work out. It becomes a number 10 to the power 2600+. These are impossible odds by anyone's standards. These are ‘worse’ odds than the roulette and lottery odds above.
To elaborate these numbers in more detail Chuck Missler (here) brilliantly chose to compare these numbers with other high numbers that are easier to appreciate, I have extended them a little, all the following are some very big numbers.
Other High Numbers to Think About and What Odds Mean
Number of atoms in the cosmos: 10 to the power 80 (a 10 with 80 noughts after it)
Number of stars in the cosmos:10 to the power 24 (a 10 with 24 noughts after it)
Number of seconds since the supposed Big Bang (15 billion years):about 10 to the power 18 (a 10 with 18 noughts after it)
Evolutionists tend to emphasise long times and very large numbers to sneak in the idea that given enough time the odds say they will happen. Is it true? So I have picked the very highest number and the very longest time available in the universe. Consider this:
The Biggest Numbers Available
If every single proton, neutron and electron (about 10 to the power 80) in the entire Universe were some kind of protein manufacturer and had a trillion (10 to the power of 12) goes every single second since the beginning of time (about 10 to the power 18 seconds) to create some of these bigger proteins then it would probably not have done it by now. They would only have had 10 to the power of 110 attempts. This falls way short of the bigger proteins likelihood of being randomly formed. This is just one protein. This is a transferable argument to all other components of life let alone putting the pieces together to form something of use in multi-
The whole random mutation driving evolution is another example of counterintuitive statistics. The odds just do not stack up. Even if you look at modifying an existing protein then remember that the modification can be anywhere in the protein and be any of the amino acids and the odds are always just as prohibitive.
This is the game changer, there is nowhere to hide with this information, evolution is done, buried, it’s over, there is no mechanism for evolution that does not fall foul of this odds problem. No evolutionist has come up with an argument against this nor, to their absolute eternal (sadly, maybe literally) shame, do they tend mention it as a flaw to their own argument and theories. Evolutionists who do not tell you this are guilty of bias by omission. When I point this out to my friends I watch, in shock really, as they glaze over and somehow do not want to embrace the basic maths and the consequences of this simple statement of facts. Evolutionists without a mechanism, you got nothin!
As a healthcare worker I must say how shocked I am at all this, the whole of healthcare has moved to evidence based treatments, if there is no evidence for any treatment to be effective you cannot do it. If only the same was true of geology, evolutionary biology and astrophysics too.
If you are new to the creationist v evolutionists debate then ask yourselves why you have not heard this argument before? Evolutionists are well aware of it and they choose not to mention it. Good scientific articles always put both sides of an argument and inform us as to why they take their stance. This is just proteins, remember there are also other components (nucleic acids, lipids and glycans to consider). Every time you hear the term mutation, I suggest, you ask why wasn’t the wrong protein formed or for the wrong place and why not mutate somewhere else in the genome? Note the same questions apply to modifying existing proteins too.
Synchronised Mutations
Of course, the evolution of one protein on its own is unlikely to be able to do anything, synchronised mutation must occur to form complex systems and the odds climb even higher and it becomes absurd, yet some of the best minds, the sharpest intellects in the world still believe it ?????
Epigenetics
This fascinating subject does, I believe, add more fuel to the creationists arguments, so now it appears that genes can be switched on and off by surrounding or environmental conditions. Of course this just makes another layer of complexity to come about randomly. Why doesn’t the environmental condition switch on or off another gene? Why does the same gene form at the same time as its epigenetic switch? (There go those odds again, they just keep climbing). So, a protein has to form that can ‘sense’ its surroundings and then switch on/off a gene that will result in a benefit to the host organism. Within that environment. This sounds a lot like information and intelligent design. ‘Information always means intelligence.’ See #8 below for more on this Stephen Meyer quote.
Faith, Scripture and Love
Faith in God-
Faith in scripture-
Faith in your own interpretation of Scripture-
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
I think some young-
Faith in Science-
Dictionary.com defined science as
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
(I suggest this too, is a continual process)
Absolute faith in one Scientific Theory-
They say they love science, but I think some evolutionists just love the theory of evolution and its bi-
—–––––––––––––––––––––
Deception and Problems With Evolution The last throes of an outdated theory
Briefly,
- The fossil record on closer than a superficial inspection just does not support evolution.
- Random mutations as the driver of evolution break impossible odds.
- Evolutionists use an unjustified extrapolation of in built genetic potential being realised, this leading to diversity within biblical kinds
- The fossil record and good science does not support a 6000 year old universe and a one flood created all fossils approach either.
- The more fossils that are discovered the less the Theory of Evolution is supported, this is the exact opposite to what evolutionists and Darwin predicted.
- The supposed evolutionary and Hominins ‘trees’ have become a tangled mess with no smooth transitions at all.
Now in more detail,
Transitional Fossils-
Here are some web sites that say transitional fossils (missing links) are many here here here
Here are some web sites that say there are no transitional fossils at all. here here here
However, it is undisputed that all transitional fossils are disputed and often between palaeontologists themselves. Evolutionists should reveal this. I take the stance that there are no transitional fossils at all but I leave this up to the reader to research themselves on the links above. Certainly, even staunch evolutionists must confess that even if their own missing links are regarded as true there is still a statistically impossibly vast number missing. Creationists consider the transitionals to be variations within a ‘kind’ or just designed that way like the mud skipper and archaeopteryx above.
There are some famous evolutionists who do bravely declare this lack of missing links.
Dr Colin Patterson, the then Palaeontologists to the British Natural History Museum when asked why he did not include any illustrations of transitional fossils, said ‘he did not know of any’. here
Stephen J Gould the Palaeontology professor of Harvard University confessed ‘there is not one fossil that a water tight case could be made for being a true transitional fossil.’ He also declared that the ‘extreme rarity’ of interim fossils remains a trade secret of paleontologists here.
Stating categorically there are missing links is not science.
Human Missing links: (A tangled web used to deceive)
Rupe and Sandford’s book ‘Contested Bones’ here page 264 paragraph 2, states:
Unfortunately when human bones are found too early in the fossil record then such bones are either reclassified (ie Mary Leakey’s Homo bones and footprints) re-
When I read this quote my overriding emotion is anger, the age of misinformation, disinformation and withholding of information is upon us. But it aint science that’s for sure.
The ascent of man, I commend the designers of such pictures as (#11) above, which any advertiser would be proud to have produced as a brand and logo. Its success has been unparalleled in science. The only trouble is, it is not science and such a smooth transition with multiple changes in the same direction just does not exist. The hominins record is a tangled tree with dead ends all over the place and nothing like this or similar images is true.
Evolutionists should distance themselves from that logo unless of course they want to be party to a deception.
In my opinion, Rupe and Sandford’s explanation of 5 different lines (see main essay on this site) is supported more by the data, why not check for transitional hominins/hominids fossils yourself, without them Evolution fails? Get Googling.(It should be noted that Sandford and Rupe although creationists may not agree with some of the views on this web site)
Kat Kerr does not endorse this web site. You can hear for yourself her revelations on Kat Kerr’s own web sites:
Copyright © SynergyWorking
All rights reserved
Author: Alan Parsonage
Allowed with credit for non profit and teaching. .Appropriate attribution must be given.
Content may not be altered. NB Kat Kerr and other authors must be asked for permission for their own revelation and quotes.
Please note although I have made every effort to be as accurate as possible there may be differences between Kat Kerr’s revelations and my interpretation of them and I advise that you check them out directly.
All Bible quotes and links are from the superb resource Blue Letter Bible here
By providing links to other sites, WordlsApartBiblically does not guarantee, approve, or endorse the information or products available on these sites.
Gap Theory Reveals #2
