Marvin Cooley Marvin Cooley

EVOLUTION IS A FRAUD

EVOLUTION IS A FRAUD

How Science Cheats At Proving Its Theory

The word THEORY, is a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts. To be considered a THEORY, something must be confirmed and account for the known facts. Evolution has been neither.

In contrast, a hypothesis is an idea or a guess at something without facts to support it. If the evidence proves the hypothesis, it then becomes a theory.

The idea of evolution has never reached that step. At best, evolution is a hypothesis. Unproven and without correspondence with fact, it stands as an idea scientists seem desperate to substantiate, though they remain unable to do so. An examination of the facts easily proves there is no THEORY of evolution.

Looking at the evidence is not that easy. I would think that the facts could be found in science books, magazines and articles. Certainly some facts may be discovered in the scientific literature, but the authors of such works seem bent on creating false and misleading information about evolution. Proponents of evolution often steer past the facts and go directly to the myths surrounding their beloved hypothesis that guides the writing of the textbooks and articles they publish.

Biology textbooks have a section about evolution. One of the favorite proofs commonly included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man. This is supposed to show they all had a common ancestor. The problem is, the pictures are not accurate. Ernest Haeckel deliberately distorted the pictures to fit his theory.

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least sixteen major biology textbooks published from 1999 through 2002. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man. These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel’s fraud in an effort to promote what they call the THEORY of evolution.

The problem is--the authors of modern science textbooks will include the faked pictures as proof of evolution even when they know of the fraud. Students are being taught these lies as if they are facts. The students then build their own belief system on such lies, only perpetuating the lies.

Even Darwin used the Haeckel lie. In his famous book, ON THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES, Darwin called the similarity of embryos as reported by Haeckel the strongest facts for evolution. There had already been many articles published in the mid-to-late 1800s that disproved the drawings of Haeckel, making it inconceivable that Darwin was not aware of the fraud. Yet he included Haeckel’s pictures not only as evidence for evolution, but also called them the strongest facts.

Lots more lies are intentionally being published in textbooks. An experiment done in the early 1970s that supposedly reproduced the atmospheric conditions of the Earth billions of years ago continues to be reported in science textbooks. It claims to show how proteins were formed. The scientific community has demonstrated that the environment within the test tubes was unlike any on Earth. There is no evidence the atmosphere was ever made up of the concoction used in this experiment, yet it is regularly referred to as a possible starting point from which all creatures have evolved.

There are multitudes of other false conclusions and outright lies in pro-evolution literature. These things continue to be included in modern science textbooks and articles. The reader must sift through the garbage to find the facts.

Even with all the fraud currently found in science, there are facts that can be discerned. It takes patience and work to dig them out of the scientific literature, which is so biased in favor of evolution.

Where are the missing links? If reptiles somehow changed and became mammals, there should be fossils representing the intermediate steps. But there are none. These missing intermediate fossils are referred to as missing links. And no matter what animal is studied, without exception, there is a gap in the records where these missing links exist. Through the millions of years and billions of animals it would take to evolve from one species to another, there is not a single fossil to demonstrate the link from one species to another. Yet the evolutionists base their conclusions on such connecting links as if they were commonplace in the fossil record.

Not one missing link has been discovered. This cannot be ignored. But that is exactly what pro-evolution scientists do. They refuse to release their grip on evolution even when the evidence contradicts their claims. Even Darwin was aware of the missing evidence for evolution. Missing links in the fossil record were a worry to Darwin but he felt sure they would eventually turn up--yet they never have.

Tyndall and Louis Pasteur proved that the law of bio-genesis applied for MICROSCOPIC forms of life. Evolutionists, geneticists, biologists, scientists in any field whatsoever, have never been able to demonstrate, nor to offer the slightest evidence that the LIVING can come into existence from the NON-LIVING! The spontaneous generation of a living organism is IMPOSSIBLE. Yet some scientists are so steeped in the theory of evolution, they cannot bring themselves to fully accept the absolutely irrefutable proof of scientific laboratory experiments! There is something wrong with a thought process ending with an IMPOSSIBLE conclusion. At best, it is irrational--at worst, it is an intentional lie. Either way, such reasoning is commonplace in the support for evolution.

It is difficult to sort out the facts from the fiction when researching the THEORY of evolution. But harder giving up an idea even when it is proven to be wrong. It is difficult to admit being wrong--to admit error--to unlearn false facts. The THEORY of evolution has repeatedly been proven wrong, yet scientists will not admit they have been wrong. In teaching lies to students in elementary, secondary, university and graduate studies proves how far they are willing to go to try to push their false THEORY of evolution.

The lie of evolution has imprisoned mankind with ignorance. As a result, mankind finds himself racked with unsolvable problems. If evolution is false, what other answer is there? As Einstein said--there must be a creator. There is no other answer.
5,231 views 40 replies
Reply #26 Top
I'm more than willing to accept an argument that God created the universe and evolution was part of that creation.

There is no scientific proof to contradict this and religion is all about belief, so lack of any scientific proof to say God created the universe is not a problem.


The Hebrew word for day spoken of in Genesis 1:1 is "yom". This signifies a 24 hour period because it is followed by "evening and morning was the first day" etc. not milions of years.
hard to believe in evidence of Creation? Supposedly no evidence refuting evolution? read through these articles... Link
Reply #27 Top
Evolution does not require new information, it requires a mutation to a specific gene or group of genes. A mutation is not an addition, subtraction, or reshuffling. Mutation, BTW, is a process that has resulted in the wide variety of dog and cat breeds and traits that exist, although it does not come into play in the breeding process.
Reply #28 Top
Evolution does not require new information, it requires a mutation to a specific gene or group of genes. A mutation is not an addition, subtraction, or reshuffling. Mutation, BTW, is a process that has resulted in the wide variety of dog and cat breeds and traits that exist, although it does not come into play in the breeding process.


I'll be back later in a few days...
Reply #29 Top
Reason and truth have a long and convincing relationship with one other, while faith and reason have been largely antagonistic. Reason has mercilessly demolished all the sacred temples of faith that have purported to understand the logic of present circumstances (ie, the Solar System). Why should we trust what the leftist propoganda community, with its unrivaled scheme of perception and reason, says about the current conditions of the universe, and not what it says about the past? Aren't the two inextricably fused, different fields of existence in the same dimension of reality?

The gist of your message seems to be one of coerced defeatism, suggesting that because empiricism cannot provide us with a perfect understanding of the past, and leaves us with many holes and gaps in our knowledge and theory (as it logically should), we must give up all attempts to fill in those holes and come to Jesus like good little children. There is something primitive and desperate about this stance. Likewise about the belief that because science is always changing and the bible is absolute, the bible has the highest authority, as if 'might makes right' is the unerring law of the universe. The theory of evolution is a work in progress. None of the claims in your link poses irrefutable evidence against evolution. The article manipulates the reader into looking at evolution from a vantage point at which its flaws are of far greater importance than its strong rational basis. There are many camps and degrees of evolutionary theory. Some adhere to a belief in random mutation, some see the mutation process as being monitored and utilized by the cellular and genetic structure that controls the development process. For all the 'holes' that your link exposes, science can provide its own theories and explanations. The authors of the link could just as easily have explored alternative conceptions of evolution, but they were lazy. They gave up, said 'come to Jesus', and sold some books in the process.
Reply #30 Top
Marvin, there is a great reason I don't read your blog. You try proving points with your natural bias. You find the most outrageous "evidence," and use it to support your claim.

Evolution is a theory, which means it's advanced from a hypothesis. Creationism (or believers in "Intelligent Design") will never get a scientific shred of evidence until God himself comes down from the fucking sky and tells the World that he is the reason for the Universe's existance. If Creationists want to try and prove Evolution false in a scientific fashion, you don't go around trying to find a single piece of evidence that disproves the theory. THAT'S NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS!. If you want to prove it false, you don't try to disprove it, you try to prove Creationism. Good luck with that.
Reply #31 Top
And, while I'm at it, turn off your caps lock key Marvin, before I come to your house and take away your keyboard.
Reply #32 Top
Dont take it so personal........I only meant that people in general are obsessed. I may be a little obsessed with some of my own opinions. peace brothers...... and sisters.
Reply #33 Top
So it seams that evolutionists are as divided and confused as the professing Christian world!

All evidence relies on an interpretation based on everybody's particular bias, in which case, as i've written above give ALL perspectives a go. The media hasn't done that, has it. The world-wide education system hasn't done that, has it.
Reply #34 Top
how do creationists explain SARS? or the annual appearance of newly evolved strains of flu from asia? or antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
Reply #36 Top
Evolution does not require new information, it requires a mutation to a specific gene or group of genes. A mutation is not an addition, subtraction, or reshuffling. Mutation, BTW, is a process that has resulted in the wide variety of dog and cat breeds and traits that exist, although it does not come into play in the breeding process.


Hardly! a mutation is an addition. How do you get from an amoeba to a man? Through increases of genetic information, and evolutionists use mutation to supposedly prove that! If you take a look at the amoeba and human dna you'll find a whole host of stuff in the human dna that isn't in the amoeba.

Where did it all come from:

1. Chance and random processes

2 or creative design and organisation.

read this article: Link
Reply #37 Top
PEOPLE.............DONT TAKE THIS ARTICLE SO PERSONAL. OVER THE YEARS I HAVE READ UP ON VARIOUS SUBJECTS AND THIS IS SOME OF THE OPINIONS I HAVE FORMED. HUMAN NATURE IS JUST AS CORRUPT AMONG SCIENTISTS AND EDUCATORS AS POLITICIANS, BUSINESS PEOPLE, LAWYERS, ETC. AND EVEN PASTORS AND MINISTERS. BIASES, CREATIVE IDEAS, OUTRITE LYING, ECT. ARE MORE OR LESS NORMAL IN ALL FACETS OF LIFE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE HIGH AND MIGHTY INSTITUTIONS OF LEARNING ARE JUST AS IMMORAL AND CORRUPT AS ANY OTHER PROFESSION.

THIS IS MY VIEW ON THE WORLD. MAYBE IM PARANOID OR JUST PLAIN WRONG ON SOME THINGS. IM SURE I MUST BE WRONG ON SOME THINGS IN LIFE. NON THE LESS, THIS IS MY OPINION ON THESE MATTERS.

Reply #38 Top
Higherdepth,

It seems that you have a problem with the education system teaching science.

We need to teach our children the theories and hypothesis that are currently informing and guiding scientific practice and thinking. Unless, of course you want your children to have no understanding of a part of civilisation that is driving both economies and culture.

It is as necessary for our children as it is for us to understand science and its theories so as to criticise and constructively analyse it as well as learn from it.

Whatever your religious belief, an education in the bible will not help a person with coping in this world beyond aiding in literacy. This is the best it can hope for, the worst is breeding the fanaticism that has caused so many of our past and present travesties.

I have no problem with the use of religion as a guide in matters of morality and ethics (as long as its non-denominational and occupies a position of tolerence), but i do disagree with its encroachments into other areas of education.

And before you attack science as a myth of our making or another narrative that relies on faith to work, think about what you're typing on, think about what allowed the construction of places of worship.

Science allows the transference of thought into the corporeal, it makes possible its proof and verification. Science even disavows itself of the endevour to disprove the existence of God. It is not a disprovable hypothesis and therefore cannot be included in the scope of study of science, just like the theories of psychodynamics are not considered scientific.

The most science allows is agnosticism. It cannot extend itself to atheism as we cannot disprove the theory that God does not exist.

How's that for understanding.

Marco