Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully received. It helps to know what people want to know about.
www.evolution.htmlplanet.com
alfredem@paradise.net.nz.

Which religious belief controls education?

Evolutionists and Humanists (a registered religion) accuse creationists of trying to bring religion into the school science classes, but this is not true. The creationists object to fables and lies, such as the peppered moth, gill slits and recapitulation, and many others ( Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, hopefully no longer used) being taught as if scientifically valid, thereby deceiving the students and helping to set them on the path to confusion, depression and lack of purpose in an increasingly amoral world, (the claims and counter-claims that evolutionists have about almost everything, make their 'science' very confusing, if you are following claims about some fossil for example, in Nature or Science magazines, a few months later there will probably be opposing claims) Probably most people interested in creation do so because of an interest in the Christian belief, and the apparent young age of the earth, and the catastrophic flood recorded in the Bible, which could lay down fossil beds, such as are found throughout the world. After all, if the land and the sea bed were all leveled out, the whole world would be covered with water to a depth of 2.7 Kilometers. If the initial land mass was only a few hundred feet above sea level it wouldn't take much seismic activity to drop it below sea level, or raise sufficient seabed to flood the land.

Catastrophic events.
The mountains we have now would have erupted as the result of such upheavals, or the processes thereafter, hence the shells on top of mountains. It is estimated that there are 700 million cubic kilometers of fossil bearing sedimentary rock. This fits in well with the creationist claims of a young age and a violent flood, but not so well with evolutionist claims of slow and gradual as even given the billions of years, some of the flood deposits are so extensive that a truly major flood would be needed. The Morrison Formation extends from Texas to Canada and is the same material all through. This means a vast supply of material and a vast sorting or carrying current to deposit it, nothing we know of today comes anywhere near that. Flooding a river valley and a few feet of silt is the most we get today. There are many other large formations of flood deposits that would have needed a world wide type of flood, not just a continental one. This raises the question of the fossil deposits and what it is actually a record of, a violent flood which would bury quickly, and in some cases up-root and re-deposit elsewhere, or a slow and gradual process that would leave most of the fossil material on top or insufficiently covered to stop it rotting. Polystrate fossils are proof of quick deposits, otherwise the fossil, usually a tree trunk, would rot before the next layer was deposited, though evolutionists often claim the succeeding layer may have been deposited thousands of years later.

Tell the truth, no equivocation!
Creationists believe that they eventually have to face up to a God who says you must not lie, and therefore want to find and teach the truth, so they want science classes to be free of vague assumptions and just-so stories that are made up to make it seem as if evolution has the evidence that it claims. Evolutionists on the other hand, believe there is no God to answer to, no one to set moral standards, so their statements are somewhat suspect. To see some examples of this go to "Behe responds to Russell Doolittle, Ken Miller and Keith Robison. http://trueorigin.firinn.org//behe03.htm where only part of a research paper's text is quoted by Russell Doolittle to support his claim, but not the part showing that his claim is false.

Teach students their value and the truth.
In searching the web for scientific origins of life information I found talk.origins, which after study I found to be all talk and no scientific origins of the source of life, and no proofs of evolution. Most of their reasoning, and that of top evolutionists, depends on assuming evolution is true, as a belief system, then interpreting the evidence to force fit it into that belief, and if it doesn't fit , discard it as unbelievable, an error in the data, an anomaly, or something that needs more research. When you check out the evolution theory and find it is supported in the classroom, in books, on TV and web pages such as talkorigins, by stories that are obviously not true, you would want to make changes to the education system to ensure that students are taught what is true, so they can base their life and morals on what is correct. Not doing so usually leads to heartaches, or worse later on. One way to solve the problem is to teach students the true claims of both possibilities, and let people decide for themselves. Unfortunately most teachers and professors have not found out the true evidence that supports creation and opposes evolution because of the enormous effort put in by evolutionists and humanists to prevent the evidence being openly discussed in universities and the public forum. Evolutionists are afraid of open discussion, as they are finding that debating against creationists is usually a losing battle, as the scientific evidence fits the possibility of creation very well, and most support for evolution seems to depend on wild assumptions or extrapolations that don't stand up to real science.

Can we measure the age?
Radiometric dates Radiometric dates are regularly discarded as discordant, if they don't fit the preconceived belief as to what age the test should reveal. For example look at the dating of KNM-ER 1470 Skull found by Richard Leaky near Lake Rudolf, in northern Kenya, in 1972. (see URL below) The first age the laboratory gave, in 1969, before Lucy was found, was 212 to 230 million years, far too great for the fossils found below the layer of volcanic ash being dated. An extraneous argon age discrepancy was blamed for this, but the only reason for believing the date was wrong was the supposed evolutionary age of the fossils, but establishing that age was the reason for the tests. The age was down to 2.6 million when the Lucy was found below this ash. In 1980-81, with more criticism of previous dating, the age was set at 1.87 -1.89. As this seemed to fit in with the assumed ages of associated fossils, it seems to be settled. This is why laboratories want details with the sample that includes the expected age of the sample. If their tests show a vastly different age, they can then say there is an anomaly in the sample. But if those who submitted the sample don't agree, they won't use the date given, or even mention it.

Unguided solar energy.
Another assumption frequently used by evolutionists is that life started in some primordial pool, primeval soup situation, and that because the earth is not a closed system, some of the radiation from the sun can be used to create order, specifically chemical RNA or DNA, to create life. Top evolutionary researchers cannot even come close to a theory that shows that this is possible, see in my web page Rebuttal and solar radiation. for further details. Unguided solar energy alone cannot produce the molecular structure of living things, and evolutionists can never produce an "energy to information conversion factor" or a guidance system to explain how energy creates useful information. The application of solar energy to some "primordial soup" type of situation would most likely break down any chemistry, such as amino acids, needed to form polypeptides or DNA. Also experiments produce a 50/50 mixture of left- and right-handed chiral amino acids, but proteins comprise only left-handed amino acids, and in nucleic acids, starch, glycogen etc contain only right handed sugars, never mixed left and right handed together, and the chance of forming long chains without the wrong handed ones messing it up is virtually nil, beside which polymers must be highly specific. Prebiotic simulation experiments produce at least three times more uni-function molecules than bi-functional molecules. (Dickerson, R.E.,1978 Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life, Scientific American 239(3):62-102.) If a uni-functional molecule joins the chain then that ends it, nothing else can join it, so the probability is that all randomly formed chains would be too short for living systems, as well as not correctly specifying a useful product, or folding to a useful shape.

Destructive force.
Solar energy is a destructive force, but some aspects of it can be harnessed by living entities, such as plant photosynthesis, or your skin producing vitamin D, but until there is the organisation of life, it cannot be harnessed. I have often heard evolutionists claim that solar energy alone is responsible for the development of the molecular structure of living things, meaning the very first living cell was created by solar energy, but they can never give a coherent explanation, just a statement of dogma, which is totally ridiculous. It is well known that, now that life is established, most of life's nourishment comes from solar energy harnessed by life-forms. But how was life established in the first place? It was not by solar energy, since there was nothing to harness it, as that requires information etc, and a mind to produce the plans, program, and the complex processing equipment, to give it the ability to reproduce the next generation.

Contaminated by the water
The main problem is that DNA or RNA would be immediately contaminated by the water and other chemicals, and either broken down again, or gummed up, and useless. Never have I seen any attempt by evolutionists to formulate an "energy to information conversion formula", that might encode the required specifications into the DNA or RNA, as to how the life form will operate, nor an explanation of what guides the solar radiation to form a useful chemical, instead of breaking it down, as it normally does. ( I have to repaint the sunny side of the house more often because the sun breaks down the chemistry. I also get sunburn doing it as the sun damages the chemistry of my skin ).

Intelligible meaning.
Without overcoming these two problems, non-random formation and intelligible meaning and operation, there is no start of life that can evolve into a higher order. The creation of life is too complex for a primordial pool or "simple RNA or DNA" unprotected by a cell wall to perform the task claimed as simple by evolutions proponents. Often things that have been disproved are still used as evidence, such as the peppered moth hoax ( see "Moths and bacteria." on the index page) and the ever-popular recapitulation that was proved to be a fraud in the 1860s. It was popularised in the late 1860's by Ernst Haeckel, a German evolutionist who faked the drawings, and used the same drawing several times claiming them to be different species. This was promptly disproved by L. Rutimeyer, Professor of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy at the University of Basel, and William His Sr, Professor of Anatomy at the University of Leipzig, who was a famous comparative embryologist. It is known as the "biogenic law" or "embryonic recapitulation" or "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". It has been very useful in textbooks to deceive many generations. Even though they know that it is not true, it is still used by evolutionists, as it makes it sound as if they have support for evolution, and of course it helps a lot when counselling women to have an abortion, now a big industry, and they don't care about lying to woman in that situation (it is just at the fish stage), as they don't believe there is a God to answer to. Under the evolutionary, and humanist, moral system, you only have to make the person feel good about the idea now, and not worry about the future, when they may have severe depression over killing their baby. This has caused social problems, because if you believe that you are a product of a meaningless accidental evolutionary process, then what purpose do you see in life? It leads to drug abuse, disrespect for others, and violence and murders, even killing your own child before birth. The latest American way is to kill at the time of birth, when it is very obviously human. (I heard on the radio that one American politician said that she would not give a baby constitutional rights as a human until it was "taken home". This would enable inspection, evaluation and disposal or acceptance before you are classed as "human".

Humanists and evolutionists push euthanasia.
Now that you are old enough to read this, if you are unemployed, or for some reason perceived as a drain on society, should some committee evaluate you for euthanasia? Some countries have accepted euthanasia, so if you are old and get sick, don't go to hospital, as they may put you down, (which is often done without consultation). Evolution removes any basis for any fixed rights, and society can change any rights, as Hitler (an avid evolutionist, some claim he was a christian, but his murders and violence prove otherwise) did with the Jews, and three million of other races.) If evolution is not true, then the creator gave you unalienable rights. The social consequences have been enormous, particularly for children, and after all, what value do your parents put on you if abortions are so widely accepted? The stresses caused by easy divorce and promiscuity have been great for the legal profession.

Lucrative industry!
The abortion industry is also very lucrative for the surgical and allied employees, taking up much time and expense that otherwise would be spent on seriously needed operations. It is so vehemently supported by some politicians and the health sector that I wonder how far the "graft" reaches. Is it just that they are all on the same evolutionary ideology "the people are grass, get paid for mowing it". (Stalin regarded sending thousands of his soldiers to fight and die as morally the same as mowing the grass). Obviously they have no concept of the value of human life and their eternal destiny, is it that "I am valuable, to me, but none of you have any value", how then do you rate your long term partner, parents, or children? Just valueless evolved pond scum? (As Richard Dawkins teaches.) How do you want to be regarded, others want respect also, it starts at conception.

You are valuable and greatly favoured.
Get a better view of what this world is about, and your value and purpose. Go to:beginning.html An outline of why we are here, and the purpose.

To be greatly favoured go to:salvation How to get the right relationship.

wysiwyg.html Evidence for the age and fossils of the earth.

This web site operated by:-Alfred.

Comments, criticisms and suggestions gratefully received. It helps to know what people want to know about.
www.evolution.htmlplanet.com

alfredem@paradise.net.nz.

URLs with scientific information on the subject or guidance not based on hype.