|
The Truth Seeker
Tony Stone Matthew 7:7-8 Ask,
and it shall be given you. Seek, and you. shall find. Knock, and it shall be
opened unto you. For every one that asks receives. And he that seeks, finds.
And to him who knocks, it shall be opened. John 8:32 Then
you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. Seven (7) Scientific Reasons
Top Scientist Explains WHAT Convinced Him Of JESUS
DEBUNKING EVOLUTION
"Creation Scientist Shocks Joe Rogan with Mind-Blowing
|
Chapter One Debunking the
theory of evolution Debunking
evolution requires an understanding of the assumptions, false claims and the
lack of the complete body of evidence to support it. We will look at the
fossil record, DNA and mitochondrial DNA evidence, and the mathematics of
evolutionary theory discovering in the process the many gaps in the fossil
record and lack of observed "transitional forms." The rational
scientific consensus is that evolution is an incomplete theory, and just a
hypothesis. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Evolution Delusion Humanity,
and more specifically scientists, are always seeking the truth about our
past, and the adage “Truth always comes out” is true. This happens over time.
Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is the foundation
upon which modern evolutionary theory is built. The theory was outlined in
Darwin's seminal work On the Origin of Species, published in 1859. How
did Darwin’s theory come about? He found skeletons in East Africa that looked
more like apes than humans, although there were many similarities. He assumed
that we must have evolved from apes and, as this now famous image conveys, we
did! WRONG!
The formal definition of evolution is, “The
process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed
from earlier forms during the history of the earth.” However, scientists admit that the fossil record
certainly has gaps, mostly because the conditions required to create fossils
have been rare ever since life began on Earth. A very small percentage of
animals and our Homo Sapiens predecessors, Homo Neanderthal and Homo Erectus,
that lived and died ever became fossils. Thus, many pieces of the puzzle are
missing; with some never be found.
So, this reality tells us that scientists don’t
have all the answers. For example, Richard Dawkins, who was born in Nairobi,
Kenya, and is the emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, previously
Professor for Public Understanding of Science in the University of Oxford
from 1995 to 2008, has written more than a dozen books, one of which is “The
God Delusion”, thinks he has all the answers. He doesn’t! We will look at the
“why?” using scientific facts, evidence and mathematics. Dawkins is more
about his ego and peer recognition than anything else. He has convinced
himself he is right and this arrogant belief is what blinds him. He has shut
his mind to alternate possibilities, and reality. C Joybell C, an author, says, “People will always
believe what they want to believe, about things.” This is due to the fact that people create their
own truths. Often it is anything but the truth, or real. My creed is simple:
Let them! Their beliefs don't alter the real truth, which I present in this
book. Moreover, their attempt at altering your thinking won't do you any
good, unless it’s true. The one area where the Theory of Evolution fails is
it doesn’t mathematically add up! That point must be a critically determining fact,
and key aspect influencing your thinking. What is the real truth and are you
prepared to keep an open mind and evaluate new knowledge, rationally, using
logic? The proponents of the Theory of Evolution,
scientists, like Dawkins, who pursue the glory of peer recognition, who have
been sucked in by plausible groupthink, promote it as the truth of how
humankind came into being – and that there is no God. Even though it is a
false, incomplete picture, which is clearly not and cannot be the truth.
Sadly, this unfounded theory is promoted as gospel, and now is a modern-day
religion that cannot be questioned. But it must be questioned as it is full
of holes. As I will show, their logic is flawed. It is a conglomeration of facts,
speculation, assumptions and suppositions concluded from fragments of
anatomical history found or unearthed in various parts of the world. Built on
Charles Darwin’s assumptive work, people like Professor Emeritus Richard
Dawkins. This scientist and bestselling writer has
become the face of a new crusading atheism. But even his closest allies worry
that his online provocations do more harm than good. So, taking up the
challenge, I will show that he is blinded by arrogance and is delusional. God
does exist! And, I will also prove this, conclusively, using science and
mathematics. Dawkins, our Charles Darwin groupie, engineers his truth to
confuse ignorant and/or lesser mortals. So, why does he not believe in God? Fear! Knowing
the real truth scares the living daylights out of him. Deniability is his
only recourse. Fact or fiction One of the amazing things about human creativity
and ingenuity is the driving force behind it – imagination. It is also what
separates us. No two people are identical in their creative imagination. Yes,
they can collaborate, and, as an ongoing work-in-progress, jointly create
something that is completely transformative. In fact, it can be said that the
staggering and transformative power of makeup artists is mind-blowing. For
instance, Sebastian Stan was made quite unrecognizable using makeup artistry
and prosthetics for the movie, “A Different Man.”
Photo Credits: Left: Jon Kopaloff, Getty Images; Similarly, in 2017, one of the best film
performances of that year came from a man in a fish suit. At the centre of
the movie, The Shape of Water, Doug Jones who played the role of the “fish”
man, wore a costume and makeup that required a pre-dawn call time for three
hours of to have the makeup put on and long days in a cold, wet suit with its
webbed fingers and toes. Mike Hill (black shirt) and Shane Mahan (white
shirt) had to help Jones (centre) stay comfortable in his fish-man costume
during filming. So real was the transformation that even the gill movements
replicated those of a fish.
Photo Credit: Fox News, Searchlight Studios So, what has this got to do with evolution?
Everything in fact. Facial reconstruction is a modern method that combines
both art and science yet is subject to the interpretation of the forensic
artist. A skull found in a cave would look quite different after facial
reconstruction by two reconstructive artists working separately from one
another. Then there is feminisation reconstruction where a man can be made to
look like a woman and vice versa. Same skull, different face.
Four reconstructions using the same skull showing ethnic and gender differences. Photo Credit:
Quora So, why do skulls look the same but the facial
appearances differ? For example, a European face is quite different to an
Asian face to an African face. Below are two pictures. The one on the left is
a scientific recreation of what a Neanderthal man, our “so-called”
evolutionary predecessor, looked like and the one on the right is a photo of
a modern Aboriginal man living in Australia today.
The point here is, with modern technology, and
human imagination, there has been manipulation of the truth by proponents of evolution
to justify their theory of evolution? Of this there is ample proof. And, a
classic example of this creative manipulation can be found in Hollywood where
actors are made up to look like the characters they portray. A good example
of this was Ron Pearlman who played Hellboy
in the movie of the same name and played the Goatman
in the movie The Island of Dr. Moreau
Credit: https://dpntalent.com/talent/ron-perlman/
and
https://bloody-disgusting.com/ So, given this ability to turn a modern human
into different imaginary figures, we know of a few scientists who have
fabricated their stories about their discoveries. We should not just believe
scientists on face value because they are scientists! Let’s take a look a
couple of instances and you be the judge! As Wikipedia records, the Piltdown Man was a
paleoanthropological fraud in which bone fragments were presented as the
fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human. Although there were
doubts about its authenticity virtually from the beginning, the remains were
still broadly accepted for many years, and the falsity of the hoax was only
definitively demonstrated in 1953.
A 1913 reconstruction of "Eoanthropus dawsoni" An extensive scientific review in 2016
established that amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson was responsible for the
fraudulent evidence. In 1912, Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered
the "missing link" between ape and man. In February 1912, Dawson
contacted Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of Geology at the Natural History
Museum, stating he had found a section of a human-like skull in Pleistocene
gravel beds near Piltdown, East Sussex.[2] That summer, Dawson and Smith
Woodward purportedly discovered more bones and artifacts at the site, which
they connected to the same individual. These finds included a jawbone, more
skull fragments, a set of teeth, and primitive tools. Smith Woodward reconstructed the skull fragments
and hypothesised that they belonged to a human ancestor from 500,000 years
ago. The discovery was announced at a Geological Society meeting and was
given the Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"). The questionable
significance of the assemblage remained the subject of considerable
controversy until it was conclusively exposed in 1953 as a forgery. It was
found to have consisted of the altered mandible and some teeth of an
orangutan deliberately combined with the cranium of a fully developed, though
small-brained, modern human. The Piltdown hoax is prominent for two reasons:
the attention it generated around the subject of human evolution, and the
length of time, 41 years, that elapsed from its alleged initial discovery to
its definitive exposure as a composite forgery. It doesn’t stop there! Nebraska Man was a name applied to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a
putative species of ape. It was heralded as the first higher primate of North
America. It was originally described by Henry Fairfield Osborn in 1922, on
the basis of a tooth (a tooth!) found by rancher and geologist Harold Cook in
Nebraska in 1917.
This illustration of H. haroldcookii,
by artist Amédée Forestier, was modeled
on the Java Man. Examinations of the specimen continued, and the
original describers continued to draw comparisons between Hesperopithecus
and apes. Further field work on the site in the summers of 1925 and 1926
uncovered other parts of the skeleton. These discoveries revealed that the
tooth was incorrectly identified. According to these discovered pieces, the
tooth belonged neither to a man nor an ape, but to a fossil of an extinct
species of peccary called Prosthennops, (a
prehistoric wild boar). The earlier identification as an ape was retracted in
the journal Science in 1927. However, at the time if the initial discovery,
they even produced an image of the Nebraska man – all from a tooth. Such is
the creative imagination of humanity. Normally, when a major discovery is made, huge
fanfare follows. But, when it is retracted as an error, a subdued
announcement is made, tucked away on some obscure page in a relevant
publication, which most people miss anyway, leaving the original erroneous
misunderstanding intact. And the image sticks. The one question that evolutionists like Richard
Dawkins can’t answer is if evolution is true, why do we not see transitory
examples of evolution? These “inbetweeners” simply don’t exist.
But what does the maths of our so-called
evolution say? In mathematics it is important to understand what logic is and
apply it accordingly. Logic is a proper and rational way of thinking about
something using sound reasoning, and not speculation, conjecture or
assumption. In mathematics, algebra for instance, we know that what is on one
side of an equation must equal what is on the other side of the equation or
else your determination is wrong. Similarly, in accounting, both sides of the
balance sheet must be equal. The Smithsonian Institute reports, on its
website, that the 40,000-year-old “Neanderthal One was the first specimen to
be recognized as an early human fossil. When it was discovered in 1856 in
Germany, scientists had never seen a specimen like it. Sixteen bones and
fragments were retrieved. A skullcap with a fragment of the left temporal
bone, a fragment of the right scapula, a right clavicle, both humerus (the
right side complete), the right radius, fragments of right and left forearm
bones, five ribs, the almost complete left half of the pelvis and both femora
- were completely preserved. The oval-shaped skull with a low, receding
forehead and distinct brow-ridges, the thick, strong bones were intriguing.
Some of the 16 bones and fragments found in the
Kleine Feldhofer Grotte in Germany. In 1864, it became the first fossil hominin
species to be named. Geologist William King suggested the name Homo
neanderthalensis, after these fossils found in the Feld Hofer Cave of the
Neander Valley in Germany (tal—a modern form of thal—means “valley” in German). Several years after
Neanderthal One was discovered, scientists realized that prior fossil
discoveries—in 1829 at Engis, Belgium, and in 1848
at Forbes Quarry, Gibraltar—were also Neanderthals. Even though they weren’t
recognized at the time, these two earlier discoveries were actually the first
early human fossils ever found. The term “human” is actually attributed to us,
Homo Sapiens. According to the scientific definition, a human being is a man,
woman or child of the species Homo Sapiens, distinguished from other animals
by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright
stance. Homo Neanderthal was an entirely different species as proven by the
differences in our DNA and theirs. What is more, Homo Sapiens appeared on
Earth far too quickly for us to have “evolved” from Homo Neanderthal. Bryan
Sykes (1947-2020), a British geneticist and science writer who was a Fellow
of Wolfson College and Emeritus Professor of human genetics at the University
of Oxford, wrote a book titled “The Seven Daughters of Eve”, in which he
scientifically proved, through the use of mitochondrial DNA (Watson et al.),
that the entire human race originated in East Africa from seven women who
were the daughters of one woman – Eve, and not from Homo Neanderthal, or any
other conveniently termed Homo species – especially not one named as such, in
one case, from part of a jawbone or, in another case, a skull fragment and
nothing else. A monkey is a monkey, not a chimpanzee or a
gorilla. Did the chimpanzee evolve from the monkey and we from the
chimpanzee? That is the nice and tidy assumption from people like Professor
Richard Dawkins whose evidence is full of holes and thus pure conjecture.
Homo Sapiens is supposed to have evolved from the apes because of the
similarity of 98.8% of our DNA, and yet the 1.2% makes us distinctly
different. 1.2% equates to 452,4 billion cells of the 37,7 trillion cells in
a human body. According to the laws of genetics, the human genome accumulates
around 64 new mutations per generation and a generation is regarded as 25
years. As a mutation can be positive, neutral or negative, and, to
accommodate Dawkins, we must assume every positive or negative mutation
positively contributes to a single cell organism evolving to become a human,
it would take 580,0 billion years for this evolution to take place. As the
Earth is only 4,543 billion years old and all life on Earth was destroyed 65
million years ago, how then could a human evolve from a single cell? But there is another assumption they make, which
is even more spectacular. We know from science that cells replicate using a
process called mitosis, which is asexual reproduction that allows a cell to
replicate itself only, and that’s all. There are 78 organs in the human body with each
organ having its own set of distinctive cells. We know this from medical
research. Each type of cell is specialised to carry out a particular
function, either solely, but usually by forming a particular tissue.
Different tissues then combine and form specific organs, where the organ is
like a factory and where every type of cell has its own job.
So, back in the beginning of time, when the
so-called primordial soup existed (an assumption), which is the hypothetical
set of conditions present on the Earth around 3.7 to 4.0 billion years ago
when the first cell was created, by an assumed stroke of luck. Or was it a
lightning bolt? Who knows? Dawkins was certainly not there. Interestingly,
new scientific research rejects the 80-year-old theory of a 'primordial soup'
as the origin of life. They have an as yet an unproven new theory, which they
will probably dump when they realise it won’t work. For a cell to be created, amino acids need to
form, after which a protein needs to form and then a cell. There are twenty
different amino acids in the human body. According to Dawkins, from inorganic
matter, living organic matter was magically formed. He himself, and many
other scientists, have not been able to create the primordial soup. When we
look at a single cell and understand how it functions, we realise that it is
perhaps the most complex structure in the universe. Back to amino acids, which are made from plant-derived
ingredients. Around 3,7 billion years ago, Earth was covered in water – a
proverbial "water world" – without any continents separating the
oceans. There were no plants back then as no land existed. When and how
Earth's earliest continents, the cratons, first rose above the oceans remains
uncertain. Previous research suggested this emergence began roughly 2.5
billion years ago, at the time the North and South Pole ice began forming,
and the rising land was driven by plate tectonics -- the drifting, crashing
and diving of the giant plates of rock that now make up Earth's surface. This
means that the Earth with its land and oceans was totally barren for at least
2 billion years. Why? Because until now, the earliest definitive evidence of
complex land creatures resembling modern organisms were about 580 million
years old. Scientists tell us that all the analyses indicate that land plants
first appeared about 500 million years ago, during the Cambrian period. And yet scientists also tell us that the first
seaweed-like fossils that were unearthed in southern China may be some of the
oldest ocean plants ever discovered. That there is evidence that
cyanobacteria and multicellular photosynthetic eukaryotes lived in freshwater
communities on land as early as one billion years ago and that communities of
complex, multicellular photosynthesizing organisms existed on land in the
late Precambrian, around 850 million years ago. A contradiction of the
previous paragraph. So, what is the truth? Cyanobacteria, which common name is blue-green
algae, are the first organisms known to have produced oxygen. By producing
and releasing oxygen as a by-product of photosynthesis, cyanobacteria are
thought to have converted the early oxygen-poor, reducing atmosphere into an
oxidizing one, causing the Great Oxidation Event and the "rusting of the
Earth", which dramatically changed the composition of the Earth's life
forms. Again, these are all assumptions.
Why? Because Cyanobacteria will reproduce quickly in favourable
conditions, where there is abundant sunlight, still or slow-flowing water and
sufficient levels of nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus. Would a
sea of water be still or slow flowing.
A cyanobacteria cell. Image Credit: Wikipedia Given that the Earth must have been spinning on
its axis and orbiting around the sun, the sea must have been quite turbulent.
And, how much cyanobacteria, as in quantity would it take for the great
oxidising event to take place, given that the sea, being the sea, would have
been to rough for the
cyanobacteria to multiply under adverse conditions. We could speculate
forever, make assumptions and say whatever, leaving out detail of course, and
sound like clever people to ignorant (lacking knowledge) lesser mortals. This is all very interesting but the maths simply
does not add up – given human genetics, mitosis and mutation rates. And,
since when does a single cell organism develop the intelligence to have a
conversation with 77 other very different cell groups, which we assume were
created by convenient luck at the same time, and agree to “come together” to
create a living being? Just not possible! Oh, and 66-million years ago, when the dinosaurs
were wiped out, humans were supposedly marsupials and evolved from there!
Please! Do the maths! Given that a possum is a marsupial with not much of a
brain to speak of and while a racoon has much more of a brain, could it be
said that Neanderthals evolved from possums and Homo Sapiens from racoons, or
was it the wombat or the kangaroo?
Marsupials, Image Credit:
https://www.britannica.com/animal/marsupial Back to the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction
event. The miles-wide asteroid that struck Earth 66 million years ago and
wiped out nearly all the dinosaurs and roughly three-quarters of the planet’s
plant and animal species was a cataclysmic event. A huge crater 180 km (112
miles) in diameter dating to the end of the Cretaceous period was discovered
buried beneath sediments of the Yucatán Peninsula near Chicxulub in Mexico.
The only place that anything could survive was on the opposite side of the
world, namely Eastern India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam,
Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia. According to scientists, it was in this region
that some creatures survived, such as alligators, crocodiles, birds, and
certain rat-sized mammals that would later diversify into the more than 6,000
mammal species that exist today, including humans. Is this possible? Well,
that is what evolutionists claim! People like Dawkin’s. So, what do we know? All cells are asexual, which
means they can only replicate themselves. Cells have very basic and instinctive
intelligence. They cannot collaboratively communicate with other species of
cells. And, cells do not voluntarily associate with other cells. The keep to
their own. We also know, in reproduction, that there is a
fixed mutation every 300 generations. Mutations can either be positive,
neutral or negative. Evolutionists believe that regardless of the nature of
the mutation, every single mutation contributed to the evolutionary process
turning a rat into a man. We know from the Law of Probability that this,
given the number of cells involved, in simply impossible. 1. The
total number of cells in the short-tailed opossum (6 million), in a mouse
(25.8 million), a short-tailed shrew (25 million) and naked mole rat (14.5
million) giving an average of 17,825 million cells. 2. According
to a new analysis of more than 1,500 papers, the average adult male human has
around 36 trillion cells — that's 36 followed by 12 zeros — while adult
females have 28 trillion and 10-year-old children have about 17 trillion. 66 million years equals 24,090,000,000 days. This
means that we need 1494,4 fixed mutations per day to evolve from a rat-like
creature into a modern human. This is simply impossible and a figment of
Dawkin’s mind. Adaptation is not evolution. Adaptation is a
species that adapts to its environment while evolution, according to Dawkins,
is a species that changes and becomes a totally different species. A perfect example of adaptation is Homo Sapiens.
People from around the world have different skin colours. This can be
attributed to the different geographical areas in which Homo Sapiens
gathered. These environmental locations influenced skin colour through
exposure to UV radiation, temperature. etc. You find that people who live
closer to the equator tend to have black skins while people who live closer
to the poles tend to have white skins. However, beneath their skins they are
identical – same limbs, same blood, same organs etc. The other question of course is whether evolution
stops with modern man, and, if evolution is true, why do we not see
evolution’s work in progress given the speed at which evolution is supposed
to be taking place – at 1.5 fixed mutations per day? At this speed we should
be seeing more modern and different forms of modern humans – but we don’t!! Nonetheless, we can safely say that the Theory of
Evolution is based on guesswork and assumption, and is not fact. They simply
don’t know! As said, the maths just doesn’t add up. And, just because someone
happens to be a professor, it does not mean they know everything – as we have
just proven. Extinction is part of Earth's natural history,
and sadly, just like every other year, 2022 saw five species disappear from
our planet. During 2023, 21 species around the world went extinct. What is
perhaps more interesting to note is what researchers at the California
Academy of Sciences described as 153 new animal, plant, and fungi species in
2023. The new species include 66 spiders, 20 sea slugs, 18 plants, 13 sea
stars, 12 geckos, 10 beetles, five fishes, four worms, two wasps, one sea
snail, one scorpion, and one legless skink. More than a dozen Academy
scientists—along with several international collaborators—described the
new-to-science species.
Folmer Bokma, researcher at the Swedish Umeå University, explains that living species have a
limited ability to adapt to the environment. His research, including DNA
analysis, suggest that species do not change gradually, as Darwin’s
evolutionary theory assumes, but suddenly when a new species arises. So, what’s the alternative to Darwin’s evolution?
It’s what is referred to as creationism. Creationism is the belief that the
universe and all things in it were created as they exist today by divine
action, and that the only true explanations are those which are compatible
with Judaeo-Christian fundamentalist belief in an almighty God who is
omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent. The rest of this book will examine the facts and
truth of this belief. In the end it will be your choice to believe or not. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
© Copyright 2025 Tony Stone, South Africa |
