Three reasons for rejecting Evolution

The fossil column is flawed

part 1

part 2

The Letter being quoted on this segment

Homonids are a Hoax

part 3

Radiometric dating is riddled with errors

part 4

part 5

Fallacies of Evolution: A Series of Three Lectures
Evolution is not accepted by all scientists and much less by all scholars; it is admittedly an unproven theory; it is by its own principles unscientific, unphilosophical, unchristian, and simply a rehash of the old teachings of chance garbed in scientific terms. No single case, in the theoretical and popular use of the term, has ever been shown, and there is no known cause which actuates it. …. it is flatly in opposition to the teachings of the Bible and destructive of all Christian faith; that it had its beginnings in heathenism and takes its ending in atheism. … The craze of the last half century is little more than a recrudescence of a philosophy which has divided the opinion of men from the earliest ages. In both Egyptian and East India mythology, the world and all things in it were evolved from an egg; and so in the Polynesian myths. … “Dr. Etheridge, of the British Museum, one of England’s most famous experts in fossilology, has passed the following criticism upon evolution: ‘In all this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.’ ”

John D. Charles, Fallacies of Evolution: A Series of Three Lectures, 11,14,16-17 (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1917).

False Science is used by Evolutionists
Faith and Science Falsely so Called – John MacCarthur

Which Came First – The Chicken or the Egg?
Rethinking Evolution – Chicken or the Egg – by Ray Luff

What the Bible says about man’s deception and God’s desire that we know the truth
2 Thes. 2 – . 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there first comes the Apostasy [falling away], … 9 … according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 and with all deception of unrighteousness in those who perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 that they all might be judged [damned] who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (SKJV)

1 Tim. 6 – 20 … keep that which is committed to your(s) trust, avoiding dishonourable and vain babblings, and oppositions of science (knowledge) falsely so called: 21 which some asserting have erred concerning the faith. (SKJV)

1 Tim. 2 – 3 … God our Saviour; 4 … desires all men to be saved, and to come to a knowledge of the truth. (SKJV – Available at

Some interesting Videos on Youtube giving further reasons to reject evolution
(disclaimer: These videos of what others are saying who are not associated with our website.)
Expelled – Ben Stein interview with Richard Dawkins
Earth is 6,000 years old

Categories: Absolute Truth, All Blog Entries, evolution, false science | Tags: , , , , | 13 Comments

Post navigation

13 thoughts on “Three reasons for rejecting Evolution

  1. Whether intentional or not I do not know, but only the first reason is online.

    • Adam you caught me. It took awhile to get all the sessions converted and online. Come back and visit each week as we attempt to explore what is true and what is not. Thanks for commenting.

  2. Pingback: Hominid hoaxes – Misguided Mondays « EvoAnth

  3. In case you didn’t get the pingback I discussed the second reason on my blog

  4. Adam,

    Thanks for your review. It was not completely slaming us for our viewpoint. And it shows good journalism. You clarify some things that we did not clarlify. You handle your objection to the way we presented the topic in a well thought out manner.

    We would like to invite you as a call in guest on a future program when we have Dr. Harold McCarthy back with us for a followup. We would like to have good clean, honest debate at our site.

    We are low budget but we also want to not have a high powered presentation that is overpowering.We were hoping our chat’s would seem refreshing. They are unscripted so they will always seem uprofessional but so are conversations in day to day life between friends.

    I am also following your site.

    Ray Luff,
    (A copy of the post which I also made at Adam’s website.)

    • Whilst I would not be adverse to such an appearance I question whether a debate would really work on your show. They are typically highly structured whilst your show is more informal (not that that’s a bad thing). A simple conversation might work better.

      • Adam,

        I think you are right about a simple conversation. I think we’d turn the table and allow you to ask some of the questions of our Dr. Harold McCarthy and visa versa, He could ask you a few things. We are hoping to talk about “The great anthrapogenic climate myth” in an upcomming show and a few more topics before bringing Harold back, perhaps in September. We do not want to focus solely on any one particular topic. We are hoping to discuss in general as time goes on topics in which the Christian World View differs from the Secular Humanist World View. This can be in politics, morality, science, philosophy, pscychology and I am sure I could come up with a few other areas. We don’t want to spend all our time on one topic. But Evolution is a key topic which we hope to come back to from time to time.

        I can’t resist asking you this Adam. What did Adam say to Eve when he first met her? Madam Im Adam. Now say that backwards. (I believe that question was posed in Ripley’s believe it or not.)


  5. As I said in my post one of my primary goals is education. To educate you typically have to stay within your own field of expertise, which in my case in human evolution. Whilst the other topics do sound interesting I do not think I could add to much to the conversation.

    In the meantime I hope what I’ve written (and may yet write on the other 2 reasons) provides something to think about and maybe even some discussion points for the show. I know you’ve certainly given me a lot to mull over.

  6. What’s up everyone, it’s my first pay a visit at this website, and paragraph is actually fruitful for me, keep up posting such posts.

  7. Alex Keith

    The Fossil Column is Flawed

    THERE IS NOWHERE THAT THE FOSSIL COLUMN IS COMPLETE: This is not an argument against evolution, it is an argument for geology and how sedimentary layers are produced, weathered and reshaped by tectonic activities. In any one location there may be complete geological eras missing because they were eroded away or because no sedimentation was occurring at the time. However, there are certain features that because of their global nature, can be used to separate different strata. These include large volcanic eruptions and large meteor strikes. By using these it is possible to piece together a complete strata.

    THERE ARE AREAS WHERE THE COLUMN IS UPSIDE DOWN: Again, this process is well understood and is evidence supporting plate tectonics, not evidence against evolution. But even though some sections appear to be upside down relative to those in different locations, the order or the layers within them is always consistent.

    THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FORMS BETWEEN SPECIES: This argument is often used as an argument against evolution. But it simply is not true. There are many lineages in which there is a very good fossil record of evolution from one form to another. Horses and whales for example. But the confusion here is the word “species”. This is a completely man-made term and does not really exist in nature. Sure, it is easy to say that a dog and a cat are different. But what about a dog and a wolf. They are classified as different species but they can breed with each other and produce viable offspring. The same is true for tigers and lions. Even donkeys and horses can breed, but the offspring is always sterile. If you were able to line up every generation from an ancestral bacteria to your uncle Bob, there is no point along that line in which you could say that a new species has formed, but you would have no problem saying that a bacteria and man are different species. Whenever a transitional fossil is found between two previously discovered fossils, the argument by creationists is now that there are two gaps instead of one. But how was the creator created?

    PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM CONTRADICTS DARWINIAN EVOLUTION: In fact, it is fully consistent with it. S. J. Gould’s theory simply proposed a mechanism to explain why we often see new species appear to arise suddenly. It simply proposes that the evolution sometimes occurs in small isolated populations. The process is still gradual. But when the barrier that separated this population from the rest of the world disappears (e.g., land bridge, erosion, river dries up, whatever) the new form, which actually may be very old, appears to spring up. If you want modern day analogies, look at HIV, SARS, H1N1, etc. They all originate in a small localized are and spread rapidly.

    HOMMINIDS ARE HOAXES: I won’t touch on this because Adam did quite a good job dealing with it. I will only add one comment. It is true that the Piltdown Man was a hoax, but the discovery of this hoax was by evolutionary scientists, following the scientific process.

    RADIOMETRICS ARE RIDDLED WITH ERRORS: The good doctor mentions that the radio-carbon dating has uncertainty associated with it but, because it can be calibrated against other measures, that it is fairly reliable. First, it should be mentioned that every single measurement has an error associated with it. For some tests the uncertainties are greater than with others. Radio-metric dating is no different. All radio-metric dating requires what is called a “re-set mechanism”. For carbon 14 this occurs when the organism dies. For potassium/argon this occurs when the molten lava solidifies. In all of these dating techniques, it is a ratio that you are measuring, not the radioactive isotope alone. In molten lava, there is essentially no argon40 because it is a gas and dissipates quickly. When the lava hardens the breakdown product of potasium40, argon40, can no longer escape. Because we know the rate at which potassium40 degrades, we can tell the age of the rock (when it solidified) by the ratio of potassium40 and argon40. The errors associated with the accuracy have more to do with the preparation of the sample than with the technique itself. That is why you never rely on a single measurement.

    So, in short, the three reasons why evolution cant be real as explained in these videos are not reasons at all.

    Evolution and natural selection are testable, they have predictive strength and they are falsifiable. What is meant by the last word is at the heart of why creationism can not be treated as a science. A scientific theory, by definition, must be falsifiable. This simply means that it must be open to an experimental approach that, depending on the outcome, can disprove the theory. It must also be mentioned that a scientific theory can never be proven, only disproven. That is not a weakness in science, but a strength. Gravity is a theory, but I don’t think that anyone would want to test it by jumping off a building.

    Another prediction of evolution is that no animal will be perfectly “designed”, which I assume is not a weakness of intelligent design. But humans, as is every animal, is riddled with design flaws. Our eye is very poorly designed. Our spine and body wall is not very well designed for being upright (propensity for lower back problems and hernias). Natural selection explains this quite well but I have yet to hear a rational argument for this from a creation perspective.

  8. Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you writing this
    article and also the rest of the site is also very good.

  9. Hello everyone, it’s my first pay a visit at this website, and post is actually fruitful in support of me, keep up posting these content.

  10. Pingback: Hominid hoaxes - Misguided Mondays - EvoAnth

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: