Darwinist lies keep being told and displayed, so let's expose some of them
Creationism.org has a large section of pictures concerning origins and Creation versus Evolution issues. Many lies and myths are promoted by Darwinists. Let's start by showing some images from the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.
The Peppered Moth Myth:
Why are these lies being told?
This is the long-falsified myth of the Peppered Moth. The Darwinist story goes that the whitish peppered moths were being eaten at prodigious rates by birds during the British Industrial Revolution when the widespread burning of coal caused tree trunks to be smudged and darkened, so that the moths would stand out like sore thumbs. However, a mutation that caused dark moths saved the day! Darker moths were selected and so the moth population became mostly dark moths, as the moths were not as easy to spot.
This story is flawed for several reasons. First, the moths do not tend to land on tree trunks. The embarrassing truth of that famous peppered moth picture is that moths needed to be glued to the tree trunks to take the pictures.
Second, the moth population already had both light and dark varieties within the gene pool. So a dark version did not "mutate" into existence, it was already there. Third, all through the entire process of studying these moths, researchers saw that the moths landed in places where the dark or light version was not a significant advantage to them. A fouth point? Creationists believe in natural selection, in fact a creationist thought of the concept first (Blyth) and considered it part of the design of created beings so that they might adjust to changing conditions. Both dark and light versions of the Peppered Moth are found in England, just as they were one hundred and fifty years ago and fifty years ago.
For many years scientists have known that the story of the Peppered Moth does not in any way support the Darwinist hypothesis, so this display and the words of the display are blatant lies. No surprise, the entire hypothesis is based on flawed and mistaken observations of a 19th Century "scientist" whose observations were, we know now, fueled largely by his worldview. Charles Darwin was determined to figure out a mechanism by which evolution could happen, he was not convinced by evidence that evolution was a likelihood.
The myth of abiogenesis:
Take a look at these simplistic and completely imaginary pictured words!
Now it just so happens that research tells us that both of these announcements prominently displayed in the Denver museum are complete falsehoods. Every test done by scientists trying to figure out a path for abiogenesis runs into insurmountable barriers. At the molecular level there are too many challenges for abiogenesis to have been an undirected process. In fact, with all their scientific machines and devices and test tubes and chambers, science is no closer to finding a natural cause for life than it was after the Miller-Urey experiments were done...Unless you consider a long series of failed attempts to be success?
The Miller-Urey Fairy Tale:
Strangely, the Miller-Urey experiments were presented as some kind of success when in fact they were the first in a series of attempts to produce life artificially that simple identified the hopelessness of the concept.
As explained in previous posts, the Miller-Urey experiments produced "building blocks of life" that were actually only products of a very controlled environment, were not of a type that actually is found in living things and were not capable of being released into a natural environment. There are all sorts of chemical reactions that defeat various steps needed to go from goo to you or even to a one-celled organism. Again, Denver Museum is presenting lies as facts...It is propaganda rather than science.
Explosion of life?
One of the few things they get right is that the lowest levels of sedimentary rock there are all sorts of varieties of living things. But while the museum calls it "an explosion" with no real explanation for how such an explosion could take place, creationists call it the bottom layer of the flood remains. Since the "Precambrian" rock layers have been found to yield all major forms of life, even vertebrates (which is a dirty Darwinist secret) and is most likely just those organisms that were located in the lowest areas of the Prediluvian planet and that many of them are very advanced (check out trilobite eyes) the "explosion" does more to falsify Darwinism that explain it!
The Museum also has fables about wing morphology that genetic studies have falsified and other rather hilarious assertions. But you have to wonder how they can present an underwater animal giving birth and not understand that it would require an amazingly quick catastrophic process to bury and preserve an animal in the process of birth!
Another common myth that most of us ran into in school textbooks....because over 100 years after the Haeckel Embryo Chart was exposed as a fraud many school textbooks either pictured it or referenced it as part of the curriculum,
Haeckels Embryo Chart.
| Haeckel used the following chart to show that we resemble these animals. This is how he drew the embryos of each. Haeckel used deception to convince others that Evolution was true. |  |
But Haeckel changed the drawings of each animal to make them look like they were similar.
| At the top of this chart you will see how Haeckel drew each embryo. But at the bottom you will see a real picture of what each embryo really looks like: |  |
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was embraced by many people because they could use it to justify things like abortion. But the main reason people believed it, was because the only alternative to believing in Evolution, was to believe in God.
Why do school textbooks still use Ernst Haeckel's "evolutionary recapitulation" model though proven a fraud?
"Why do school textbooks still use Ernst Haeckel's 'evolutionary recapitulation' model though proven a fraud? Like Darwin, Haeckel claimed that the developmental stages of an embryo retrace its evolutionary past. In other words, the human embryo supposedly goes through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on. Countless students have therefore been taught, Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.? Support for this notion came, not from scientific research and observation, but solely from Haeckel's own diagrams.Ernst Haeckel was a professor of zoology in Germany from 1865 until 1909. In 1868, he fabricated the embryologic evidence for evolution by fraudulently producing the diagrams to prove? the theory. Reputable German scientists immediately began refuting his evidence, demonstrating that Haeckel had falsified his pictures. Notwithstanding, these diagrams have been taught in biology textbooks at the high school and university levels as recently as the 1990s and the idea they purport to prove is still presented in textbooks today.
The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these gill slits? are not even slits.
So what are these misnamed structures? Actually, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo's throat. These folds are called pharyngeal arches, since they are arch-shaped folds near the throat. (Pharyngeal is the scientific word for things having to do with the throat. When you say you have a sore throat, your doctor says you have pharyngitis.) The creases between the folds are called pharyngeal clefts, and the undersides of the folds are called pharyngeal pouches."
[Elizabeth M. Mitchell, M.D., wife of AiG speaker Dr. Tommy Mitchell, received a bachelor of science in chemistry from Furman University in 1980, graduating summa cum laude. She graduated from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in 1984 and completed her residency training in obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Affiliated Hospitals in 1988. She earned fellowship in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and practiced medicine in Gallatin, Tennessee, until 1995, when she retired from private practice to devote herself more fully to the needs of her three children.]
Darwinist websites tend to post lies like the ones exposed above. For instance, I commend to you this link that takes you to several good pictures of Acambaro figurines. Acambaro figurines have been investigated and tested and have proven to be genuine artifacts made by long-dead men who evidently lived at a time when dinosaurs were not uncommon. I have made many posts on the subject...only one person of low character hired to proclaim the figurines fakes has been often credited with "falsifying" the artifacts, while Mexican authorities and several American scientists and also detective novel writer and expert Earl Stanley Gardner all did tests and experiments and went so far as to dig under the local sheriff's own house only to find figurines buried there as well. The figurines were genuine, being buried in undisturbed ground, having the patina typical of long burial and with no local kilns capable of making them found. In fact the figurines were at first being sold for practically nothing by natives unaware of their historic value, so modern production of the figures would not be practical.
Lies are part and parcel of the Darwinist story. Morphology is being falsified by DNA study. Careful study of reproduction has revealed hardened systems in place to conserve the kind. The mother lays the framework for the child. Meta-information is included in the information passed from the parents that is specific to the kind (baramin) so that, while speciation can happen and in fact there are pre-existing switches that can aid speciation, there is no evidence in the study of organisms that supports macroevolution. Facilitated Variation studies show us how organisms are designed with information that provides for contingencies and redundancies. Organisms have sophisticated, complex, highly efficient systems that make human factories look primitive. Organisms are now being studied by engineers so that mankind can try to copy the superior designs of organisms. I would say that the study of organisms leads one to believe in a Creator. I would also say that real science agrees with me. Looking forward to the day Darwinism hits the dustbin...