THE ORIGINS OF SPECIES BOOK REPORT.

Hypothesis A temporal working explanation or supposition based on accumulated facts and suggesting some general principle or relation of cause and effect; a postulated solution to a scientific problem that must be tested and if not validated, discarded. according to Invitation to Biology 5th Edition by Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes. It is my view that Darwins theories are all based on a presentation of facts based upon his bias to the Scriptures, or seen in another way.. His belief system, (which is one of Atheism, which forms the bases to his scientific conclusions and consequent false presentation of facts.) It is my intention to present his scientific observations and compare them to the facts of the Scriptures. I am of the view that Satan has taken the mindset of mankind and twisted it, to cause mankind to question Gods word, thereby casting a seed of doubt and causing these so called facts to become erroneously factual in their minds, as he did with Eve Yea, hath God said, Ge 3:1. In the world of unbelief, there has been a perceived need by Atheists, Scientists and Theologians to prove God scientifically and not accept God by faith. It is my view that mankind (this includes some Christian theologians) have failed to accept the very first verse in the bible by Faith, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge 1.1 It is God who proves science, and not science that proves God! I am also of the opinion that that we are not to give place to the devil. Unfortunately the world has done so, especially the Church. As I have read through this material of Darwins, I have realised that this is not facts but fiction. There is enough facts in there for this lie to appear truthful, If I had my way, I would not have bothered reading this material, as I believe it to have been a waste of time and also I believe that it is giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils, that it has been driven by Satan and mankind has swallowed it, hook line and sinker. I have struggled over several months to put this in logical order that I can make sense of it all and give a reasoned book report. Admittedly I am struggling with this, as a lot of it does not make sense to me and I came across a lot of contradictions and circular reasoning. Be that as it may, I have to submit this report! It is my observation that Darwin has an assumption or bias that he tries to bring across in his presentation of Facts .. it is this mindset or bias that he tries to cloud in and amongst all his facts or illustrations.. I wonder why he did not just come out and state it, and then try and prove it. He seems to come across as a naturalistic scientist; however, I believe that his scientific facts hide or cloud his ultimate motive. It is interesting to note that he says the following about being factual, "A fair result can be obtained only by a fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" Charles Darwin icons of evolution DVD Coldwater media. Yet he does not life up to this in this presentation A lot of Darwins assumptions are based on scientific findings of his day. In a sense it can be said, scientifically he only deduced, and concluded in accordance to the

Minnaar scientific writings and findings of his day. We can therefore excuse some of his observations as being unscientific (to a degree) yet excusable within the scope of scientific data available at the time. This might be true for him, but not for the scientific world today. Science has disproved his theories and assumptions, yet the scientific world out there continues to teach and preach Darwinism or evolution. Here is a quote by a Geolge Wald a Biochemical Scientist in his book An enquiry into life, he says, "I will not accept that (creation) philosophy, because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation and arising evolution", that says it all!

The facts that should be brought to the attention to the world at large, is that evolution in itself should be, (and rightly so) categorized as a religion. It is based on, and inherently assumed (as belief) that the world came from an explosion of gases, evolved into something, which swam in water, crawled out of this sea of mud, out onto dry land, frolicking around, coming out of wars (arising out of the principal of the survival of the fittest), eventually developing into the species and fauna that is seen today. All, from nothing! My friend, this is a belief, a faith, a religion! Darwinism, evolution or atheism is a religion. The fool said in his heart there is no God.. ps 14.1 David Berlinski, a signatory and mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institutes Center for Science and Culture, said: Darwins theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe., and this man tells us it is a fact, "Evolution is fact, not a theory...birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun." Richard C Lewontin 1981 If I may be so bold.. I would have entitled this report ..Faith versus Science, or, facts versus Science . My presentation of this report will be based on the explanation of a hypothesis as stated above a postulated solution to a scientific problem that must be tested and if not validated, discarded, I want to further expand my presentation with a paraphrase of a statement made by a theologian that is unknown to me, The Bible is to the theologian as the world is to the scientist. In other words I will be refuting Darwins findings against the facts of the Scriptures. I am not a scientist nor a naturalist or any form of ist, so, on some of his observation, it will be taken as being a reasonable scientific observation and accepted in good faith, however, I am a Biblicist. I will therefore scrutinize his summarizations, looking at the heart of the matter; scrutinizing through the lenses of Gods Word. With that all said and done, here is my report: The book under question is known as The origin of species or The origin of species by means on natural selection or (as less advertised by its original title) The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life By Charles Darwin, printed October 1st, 1859. His book consists of 207 pages and covers 14 chapters. Darwin starts out by proving his point by looking at the observable. He says that we are to look at the domesticated animal, it is a known fact that with cross breeding we can

Minnaar

come up with different variations of cattle etc, includes plant life in this observation, he then introduces us too the wild, and mentions that, although not as clear, that there is some form of cross breeding that occurs naturally, however he concludes from his own admissions, when studying the hypothesis of interbreeding of domesticated animals and birdlife that it is not possible to interbreed without aid from the scientific world, and that in it self is a careful and laborious process, which under his observation has not produced a new distinctive breed. Certainly, a breed intermediate between two very distinct breeds could not be got without extreme care and long-continued selection; nor can I find a single case on record of a permanent race having been thus formed. He even quotes a breeder who concludes that each species is a distinct species and cannot be cross bred, Ask, as I have asked, a celebrated raiser of Hereford cattle, whether his cattle might not have descended from long horns, and he will laugh you to scorn. I have never met a pigeon, or poultry, or duck, or rabbit fancier, who was not fully convinced that each main breed was descended from a distinct species. Yet he concludes that the species we see today was not as it is today, but by the engineering of man, that it is mans ingenuity that has produced the variant species , We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to make for himself useful breeds. He attempts to support his hypotheses by stating that the process of new species, can be achieved if we take careful, and diligent actions over a very long period of time, he also states that it is his belief, (not observable fact) that the perfect animals bred today were not perfect in its original form. I believe that the conditions of life, Over all these causes of Change I am convinced that the accumulative action of Selection, whether applied methodically and more quickly, or unconsciously and more slowly, but more efficiently, is by far the predominant Power. What Darwin is saying here is that man has manipulated our domestic animals to suite our needs (consequently, the differing variations) and that he refuses to believe that there were once original breeds in the one breath, and the contradicts himself by stating that all breeders know this fact, He then sums up that it is possible, over a long period of time, he sums up that man can manipulate breeding to produce another distinct species. He moves his thoughts and observations from variations and cross breading within known domesticated animals to the realm of the natural animal world. It is interesting that He acknowledges (and with a supportive experts opinion) that there has never been a new species of animal cross breed. There have been changes within a species, yet no different breed has ever been produced. He states that, in the science of breeding, if any changes were to occur, it would take years to achieve, if any. His expert observes that anyone can see that breeding does not develop a new species, nor is it possible to

Minnaar cross breed species into another kind. Yet Darwin leads one to presume, in his expert opinioned musings that, given enough time, it might be possible.

He now looks at variations under nature, in this presentation of thought he brings out the fact that, within the scientific world there has not been a standard of descriptive terms set (that would aid everyone from speaking or presenting facts under the same umbrella or description), in other words they had not defined their terms. Some scientists would categories a species and a kind differently, some would imply that breeding or kind means one thing while another, some thing else. So within the scientific community it was hard to understand what they were describing within there own academic circles. the various definitions which have been given of the term species. No one definition has as yet satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation. The term "variety" is almost equally difficult to define; but here community of descent is almost universally implied, though it can rarely be proved I deduced that Darwin did not define his own terms, nor did he truly understand what he was trying to say. For that matter, I dont think he truly understood what others were saying as no true definition of terms were being clearly presented to one and all. It is as if nobody was prepared to put his head on the block and just state his rendition or understanding of the terms (it may just be that none wanted to appear ignorant and in their pride, kept quiet). As I read his definition of terms, I came to the realization that truly in this study there appears to be much confusion about defined terms. In the one breath it may mean one thing, to another, something else. However it is interesting to note that the word species is applied to a distinct act (of God) in original creation. When he speaks of variation, he implies that there is an inherent variety due to physical conditions and on the other hand he waffles on about a variety in other climatic conditions which are not inherent varieties (truly not making sense). As a whole, there appears to be no clear definition of terms! Darwin states, No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the very same mould. This observation is true, but he contradicts himself when he says varieties have the same general characters as species, for they cannot be distinguished from species,--except, firstly, by the discovery of intermediate linking forms, and the occurrence of such links cannot affect the actual characters of the forms which they connect; and except, secondly, by a certain amount of difference, for two forms, if differing very little, are generally ranked as varieties, notwithstanding that intermediate linking forms have not been discovered; but the amount of difference considered necessary to give to two forms the rank of species is quite indefinite, I know that this is somewhat of a large quotation but, I want to present that, in his reasoning species and variants are indistinguishable, then he goes on to try and explain what he means with his exceptions clauses but he does not make sense. It would seem to me that he is trying to be intellectual and scientific, yet he is not saying anything! To me he

Minnaar is trying to present a fact that there are no real distinct features between species. He is advocating that the lines are blurred. In other words, the difference between a giraffe and a mouse is very much indistinguishable.

He presence his facts by stating an observation that larger genera were once variants, who through time, developed into varying species if species have once existed as varieties, and have thus originated: whereas, these analogies are utterly inexplicable if each species has been independently created. , within this observation he tries to refute that things all came from an original creation, to his observations it is utterly inexplicable, I am of the opinion he has a hidden agenda within his scientific observations as he is not trying to present facts, but he is attempting to distort them. He is being dishonest and deceitful! It was Hitler who said tell a big enough lie, long enough. People will believe it and I think this is true here. The scientific and religious world gave him a platform and he used it! He observes that, the bigger dominate genera, within its varieties develop and grow, towering over the weaker and yet leaving other species within its wake as it changes and adapts to its environment throughout nature the forms of life which are now dominant tend to become still more dominant by leaving many modified and dominant descendants. ..., however, he latter expresses that there are no traces of the modified descendants, as it took a long time and the geological evidences are inconclusive at best and not reliable. I believe that Darwins hidden agenda is against the biblical belief of a God, who created all things. He refuses to accept and believe Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And he, as a scientist, accepting creation as it is and discover Gods wonderful creation as it stands leaving him enthralled at the wonder, beauty and for some part, the cruelty of it all. He further argues that, nature in itself bears testimony on natural selection, based on the survival of the fittest, he argues that there is the instincts of preservation against natural enemies and climatic or natural environment, that cause it to instinctly adapt and survive. It is Darwins observation, that every species and variants and kinds, strive to survive, but not only to survive, but seemly to be dominant in its quest to have its kind survive at all costs. He also promotes the idea that, whatever adaptation it has gained to survive within nature and it has adapted to overcome its natural enemies, that change within its variants then takes this information and strives to survive and become the dominant variety. Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection..

Minnaar

He does make an observable statement that I believe is recognized by the educated and uneducated, Nothing is easier than to admit in words the truth of the universal struggle for life,..I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny,.. it is most necessary to keep the foregoing considerations always in mind In His observation, no one species in itself is the dominant, nor are we to mingle in the struggles to give advantage to some and not others, as all life is in effect related somehow one with another He concludes this by saying that the struggle for existence and preservation leaves one with no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply. That all this in the quest of life, is a good thing. That the means justify the end, that the perfect species we see today is just a process of survival that it is natural and ever evolving, improving and adapting, consequently it will become the dominant. In Natural selection, Darwin tends to see that, selection in the field of domestication is effective, yet only under certain conditions (or as he puts it certain peculiarities), and he says in the realm of nature, it too is effective,. However he implies that this natural selection tends to the advancement of the creature, and this evolving takes thousands of generations? It is also of interest that he muses over the issues of all creatures great and small (whatever their complexities) are close nit, and to some degree related, he then brings up the question whether this relationship is what tends to the evolving naturally selected creature to develop and improve itself naturally. I on the other hand, conclude that he missed the point that all creatures within the earthly realm are of the same material. We breathe the same air, we eat of the same vegetation and meats (who feed off the same vegetation), surely he then should be able to conclude that we are all (in a sense) related, however complex or simple we are..we are of the earth. I am of the conclusion as I read through Darwins work, that of a truth it is not scientific in nature but rather he has an underlying thesis that he wishes to present (and that is of a spiritual nature..that its to doubt Gods word, as we are told that God created everything as it is old and in its natural state and form) Natural selection will modify the structure of the young in relation to the parent, and of the parent in relation to the young... This does not sound scientific in any way. How does a parent giving birth to a child (who duplicates itself in its offspring) then draw from the structures of the young? This is not common sense. He is trying to prove that, as the elder learns to adapt, it imparts this adaption to its young and the young in turn gives it back to the parent who intellectually (in an evolutionary process) then imparts this new information to its offspring. When its comes to the sexual transformation of a species that adapts itself and becomes another type of its own, yet ever evolving and adapting and developing, he uses the scientific observation under domestication to presume this is the same within

Minnaar

the real of the wild..he uses the word probably. As a Scientist who prides himself in the powers of his mind and diligent observations and accurate research, the word probably does not cut it. Is it a scientific observation or not? To be scientific in ones observation is to take and experiment (project/ observation) and duplicate it. This then becomes a scientific fact. He fails in this! Insofar as sexual selection, he imitates that the dominate male will have more offspring than the lesser. It is this stronger gene pool that dominates the new world ..ever moving forward, ever advancing and adapting and mutating and developing through thousands of years or as he puts it generations. Darwin comes to an observation that breeding and cross breeding improves within plants (he mentions animals, but he does not say which one) in the one breath and in the other, he says it diminishes. It has been proven that mutations of any sorts, do not improve and nor do they breed other mutations. Any form of mutation and or cross breeding between species dies, normally, within a short period of time. In the following statement, Darwin contradicts himself, observe the following Intercrossing plays a very important part in nature in keeping the individuals of the same species, or of the same variety, true and uniform in character. He alludes to that those that self breed (pollinate) that they improve over time, that they evolve into stronger and better adapted versions of themselves. This does not make sense. How can it evolve as it may learn to adapt and then die? How does this information cross over to another of its kind if it is dead? He goes on to say that natural selection and the survival of the fittest keeps the species pure.. This is a contradiction once again of his main point, and that is natural selection and cross breeding and adaptations improve the species and that it adapts and survives its surroundings and enemies. He then concludes that through eons of time and slow processing that the creatures that cross breed with other creatures will eventually develop into beautiful creatures, developing and taking their stronger forms and adaptations as their own and become great, all this through nature's power of selection. Another issue that he faced is, why are there different variants? And how did the climate and natural environment affect selection? It is somewhat interesting to note that he would make statements that he has presumed that things happen by chance and in the same sentence state that this cannot possibly be true. I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations..had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation. I am of the opinion that at times he did not know what he is talking about. That he was not sure exactly what his belief system is (or let me put it another way.. what he understood to be true by his observations). He presumes that the conditions of life, determined the deviations of structure in creatures of this world. That they adapted to their environment, rather than acknowledging that just may be, the creature was so made by design. That this is his initial form and structure and that he was designed to stay within that condition of life. That he did not through eons of time evolve into whatever structure it is today. Darwin tends to presume, without any scientific basis, that a tropical and or arctic wolfs blood may just be mingled with a

Minnaar domestic animals blood and he keeps using the words may and perhaps when speaking of things pertaining to support of his evolutionary position.

He thinks that the use and disuse of a feature of a creature and their accompanying organs tend to fall away over a period of time and it then evolves by dropping off that organ as it becomes redundant, he even implies that just the habit of using or disusing will eventually develop into the creature losing the ability or functionality altogether, and this, as the creature evolves and adapts to its environment in each successive generation, On the whole, I think we may conclude that habit, use, and disuse, have, in some cases, played a considerable part in the modification of the constitution, and of the structure of various organs; but that the effects of use and disuse have often been largely combined with, and sometimes overmastered by, the natural selection of innate differences. He also implies that the modification of these creatures, do stay around for a long period of time (a geological period) and then it developed into and adapts to a new modification. I think to cover up for a lack of evidence; he brings in this argument to cover the difficulty of finding the old species and the new species together in the same place and time His view of natural selection cause him to conclude that the survival of the fittest, through sexual accumulation of the dominating male ensures that the true species survives, the adaption of the creature to its environment, whether it deals with an enemy or the climate, ultimately develops the species into a stronger, more capable, more intelligent creature that is ever evolving. He says there is a cause and there is an effect. The effect is the observable creature before him and the cause is the will to survive and adapt by whatever means. He then alludes to the difficulties of conclusively proving the descent of modification and the difficulty of giving substance to his theories; he also looks at the reasons for the absence of transient species or modifications. He introduces the reasons for organs and draws erroneous conclusions about the similar types of organs, stating that they confirm his view of evolution. Darwin takes a look at his theory and finds difficulties due to a lack of evidences. He asks pertinent questions that demand an answer which, in effect he cannot answer. The question that is most damning to his observations is that there are no transient species, that have been modified and adapted through time, and that those that have crossbred, end up being sterile and thus it does not perpetuate itself, thereby creating a new modified version of it self. He then refers to the various organs of some, and the intelligence of others, that have not crossed over to, and incorporated to other evolving creatures, and not only that, the problem in this regard, given the sheer volume of all living creatures, there should be numerous examples of mutations/ adaptations within every species. Darwin does try and explain it away by saying that each surviving species as it modifies will seek to destroy its parent and weaker species, thus protecting the survival of the fittest, and yet he concludes there should be evidence seen in the

Minnaar remains thereof, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form. But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?... He concludes that the lack of evidence is due to the nature of the fossilized organs not surviving the damages caused the force of the sea. .. I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed; the imperfection of the record being chiefly due to organic beings not inhabiting profound depths of the sea, and to their remains being embedded and preserved to a future age only in masses of sediment sufficiently thick and extensive to withstand an enormous amount of future degradation; and such fossil ferrous masses can be accumulated only where much sediment is deposited on the shallow bed of the sea, whilst it slowly subsides..

In Darwins day, the scientific world believed that all things roll down the hill, in this case everything lands up in the sea, consequently the fossil evidence must then be sitting within the sediment deposits within the sea bed and sea shore, however for the evidences to be preserved there has to be a very favorable conditions for this to occur. Given the fact that the sea is forever changing, breaking down, it is extremely difficult to find the necessary evidence. It is also his conclusion that the earth was one big land mass, and it had broken up into islands, which causes species on some parts of the earth to appear constant, while the modified were separated onto other regions of the earth Geology would lead us to believe that almost every continent has been broken up into islands even during the later tertiary periods;.. He also reaffirms his believe that the evolving species exterminates the parent, this being the process of the concept of survival of the fittest, consequently there is no fossil evidence. Darwin in part of this summation discounts the biblical view of creation and all that is in it, by saying the evidence of survival of the fittest discounts a God of design. He seems to think that the will to survive of each species supersedes the conclusions of any God. But rather it is the mindless evolving and adaption that is the cause of all He who believes that each being has been created as we now see it. He who believes in separate and innumerable acts of creation will say, that in these cases it has pleased the Creator to cause a being of one type to take the place of one of another type He who believes in the struggle for existence and in the principle of natural selection, will acknowledge that every organic being is constantly endeavoring to increase in numbers; ..we naturally infer that the eye has been formed by a somewhat analogous (similar/parallel) process. But may not this inference be presumptuous? Have we any right to assume that the Creator works by intellectual powers like those of man?. It should be noted when Darwin reflects on the biblical stance and he looks at the scientific stance, he does presumes that each creature that God created is out there evolving into another more superior creature and not only that, he takes one to the presumption of the observer, not based upon fact but rather belief. This being the case his presentations of facts is not for the scientific person, but the faith of the person.. Either you believe there is a God or you dont, and he calls upon the belief of the unbeliever to consider the survival of the fittest , as being scientific facts.

Minnaar 10

Instincts are used as his next point of support. He presumes that the instincts to survive and adapt is inherent in every creature, and it is this that leads to the concept of survival of the fittest and the focus on preservation, and a slow process of modification. Here Darwin wants to bring to bear the reason of instincts. He states that it wont be his purpose to define instincts, but as he rightly brings to mind that everyone knows about instincts and he elaborates that he wants to bring out the diversities of instinct and of the other mental qualities of animals within the same class. He uses the example of a bee who instinctively constructs a perfect honeycomb (an engineering feat on its own). He use this to illustrate that that mental qualities vary and that they are inherited and that all instincts are not perfect. Included in this observation of instincts and if one takes corporeal structures it all tend to corroborate the theory of natural selection. How he comes to this conclusion. Only God knows. Instincts dont prove evolution. All they do is prove that instincts are inherited from the parent (as God had created them). He implies that it is learned behavior and then adapted and modified for the use of the next generation to guarantee the continuation of its species. He deduces that the instincts of a creature is there acting within the creature, not placed there by a creator but rather .. as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, thereby allowing the strongest live and the weakest die. He is trying so hard to prove the survival of the fittest and the evolving of different species, that his logic seems to be clouded, and he keeps repeating his thesis statement over and over again.) Hoping someone will believe it! Darwin takes us back to his first point of support for his views and introduces the issue of hybrids and crossbreeding. He looks at cross breeding and the sterility of the crossbred and hybrid giving the explanation that sterility is a good thing based on the fact that it has prevented the cross over of species, and that the naturalist are in a sense right about this, however, he mentions that it was more than that, it was to protect the species (to keep it pure and keep it surviving and being dominate) and he advocated that it was not so by design but rather incidental (He keeps moving away from the fact that God design it this way) The view generally entertained by naturalists is that species, when intercrossed, have been specially endowed with the quality of sterility, in order to prevent the confusion of all organic forms. This view certainly seems at first probable, ... The importance of the fact that hybrids are very generally sterile, has, I think, been much underrated by some late writers... I hope, however, to be able to show that sterility is not a specially acquired or endowed quality, but is incidental on other acquired differences. In references to hybrids and the differences between plant life and animal life (which in the former case, more experiments have been done) he states that by inference the gap or links between species are far more apart and that any hybrid experiment can be considered as authentic. He also advocates that although it has been determined that crossbreds and hybrids are sterile, yet he states that under the circumstances (science is always evolving) that it cannot be stated as an absolute . Here again he is contradicting himself. He reminds me of an illusionist, now you see it, now you dont

Minnaar 11 The next argument is interesting in that he looks at the science of geology and the reasons for the lack of evidence and the imperfections of the geological argument. Although he makes an argument against it, he concludes that in itself it is still correct. He agrees with the argument, that the varying and distinctive forms and their supposed subsequent innumerable transitional links are none existent, as he states .. is a very obvious difficulty.. He blames the climate for exterminating the species and that the conditions for preservation must be ideal, not only that but the intermediate adapting varieties were fewer in number, who in turn were destroyed by the stronger, and yet he says that they must have been numerous in number in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous., once again, contradictory! He adds that the geological information is inadequate and of no use as a limiting evidence for the evolutionary process, he explains that it is because the geological record is of an extreme imperfection Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He also implies that the intermediate links would be hard to find as we would not be able to identify that they are of the same species and that they had modified themselves. In regards to evidence and a lapse of time, he states that, the parent would have had to survive and the intermediate would have had to flourish and they would have then grown side by side until the parent became extinct. The problem with this scenario would imply (once again) that his theory would have had substantial evidence, and yet there is none. Common sense would conclude that, where there is no evidence, then it could not be as he implies. He adds that the reason for a lack of evidence is that the modifications took a long time and it was a drawn out process., weeded out through natural selection. He brings in the argument for the lack of evidence due to faulty geological science. The science of the day, understood that fossils could only be found at the bottom of the sea bed, specifically at the mouth of a lagoon. It is his understanding that the evidence of geological readings is gathered by taking note of the years gone by as soil and rock is grinded by the sea and then sediments are deposited for the strata to produce the necessary fossil evidence that is required. In other words he is saying that the science of paleontology is not perfect for this type of evidence/ gathering for his theories as it is inadequate. It is his conclusion in this regard that the poor presentation is due to the degradation of the fossils by time , the elements of water and grinding sand that has caused a lack of proper supporting evidence That our paleontological collections are very imperfect, is admitted by every one... Only a small portion of the surface of the earth has been geologically explored, and no part with sufficient care, ... No organism wholly soft can be preserved. Shells and bones will decay and disappear when left on the bottom of the sea, where sediment is not accumulating . He also brings in superstition for the lack of evidence Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms.., He also ,at some point concludes that the missing links will not be found. His conclusions in this regard is

Minnaar 12 to say - that although the evidences are not forthcoming, it is from the understanding that in observation alone of the history of the aging earth, it is possible to come to some conclusion, albeit from a slowly changing environment. He concludes that it is time that does it, whether we have no evidence, it is just so, look at the natural geological record, as a history of the world imperfectly kept, and written in a changing dialect; of this history we possess the last volume alone,. On this view, the difficulties above discussed are greatly diminished, or even disappear, We must just accept this fact. According to Darwin, there is no fixed law of development; it is spontaneous and unique to each, and he says it must be slow (according to his theory, this can only happen over a long period of time, time changes everything). He says that there are so many varying factors that would aid the modification, regardless if it is an improved modification or not, it is not surprising that the evolving life form keeps its original makeup. This is circular reasoning; he makes no sense Whether such variability be taken advantage of by natural selection, and whether the variations be accumulated to a greater or lesser amount, thus causing a greater or lesser amount of modification in the varying species it is by no means surprising that one species should retain the same identical form much longer than others; or, if changing, that it should change less. He is using this logic to explain away no scientific evidence for his theories, that is there are no connecting links! He tries to explain away the lack of evidence, by saying that the lack of fossil evidence is because, as at first there is a burst of new modifications and then they decrease in number, consequently there is no real evidence to prove his assumptions We have seen in the last chapter that the species of a group sometimes falsely appear to have come in abruptly; But such cases are certainly exceptional; the general rule being a gradual increase in number, till the group reaches its maximum, and then, sooner or later, it gradually decreases. He adds that the observable appearance of species is in fact a false observation, that what we see just is. By saying so he tries to disclaim the idea or truth that God had immediately created life forms as we see them today. He fails to bring in that some numbers decrease as their enemies breed and they increase when their respective enemies die off numerically due to a lack of food source. God has set up nature to balance itself out. This fact has been scientifically proven by studying the life style of the British fox and hares. He reaffirms his belief that the reason for the differing varieties and adapting and resulting new species, is because of the principle of the survival of the fittest concept. According to him, it is this survival principal that caused the adaptions and modifications to cause the continuance of it own species, he also insinuates that this life changing forms almost simultaneously change worldwide. that the forms of life change almost simultaneously throughout the world. Pg 129 (this phenomena is a miracle in itself as far as I am concerned) He later adds that he will not undertake a recent argument which forms are more advanced (the older or the newer, his reasoning is that the scientific world has not defined its terms, so he was not going to bring this into his argument. (it is strange

Minnaar 13 because this whole book is just about that, discussing a theory that is contrary to the known world knowledge that God created the world and everything in it.) Once again this is circular reasoning, as he has been telling us that it is the survival of the fittest, that the surviving fittest is modifying and improving over a long period of time, then he turns around and says, I wont discussed it. He now looks at the distribution of the species and variety, and concludes that that it is neither the physical conditions nor the climate that accounts for the Varity that neither the similarity nor the dissimilarity of the inhabitants of various regions can be accounted for by their climate and other physical conditions. Of late, almost every author who has studied the subject has come to this conclusion. He also states that, although there seems to be an indication of mass migration, the climate, nor the natural environment caused it to modify. It seems to me that he keeps changing his conclusions, (and yet he is forcing the issue of survival of the fittest and adaptations by any means) although the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. (that is, his observations and or conclusions are wrong) .some forms have retained nearly the same character from an enormously remote geological period, so certain species have migrated over vast spaces, and have not become greatly modified. He remarks that, according to his theory, that as there are continuous adoptions over a long slow process, it is not directly gained from a single parent but rather gained from both parents who are continually evolving,. But an evolving, who it turn never blend with the original. Must have descended from a succession of improved varieties, which will never have blended with other individuals or varieties. at each successive stage of modification and improvement, all the individuals of each variety will have descended from a single parent Darwin alludes to the Pangaean theory where the land masses formed one big continent and the animals were then divided as the plates shifted and divided the planet earth as we know it today. ..land may at a former period have connected islands or possibly even continents together, and thus have allowed terrestrial productions to pass from one to the other. However it is interesting to note that he denies this as a theory, especially when he is discussing the issue of the migrating speciesbut to the best of my judgment we are not authorized in admitting such enormous geographical changes within the period of existing species. Darwin brings up the fictionist geological period which helps as a point of reference to long periods of time that the epoch was included within the latest geological period. We have, also, excellent evidence, that it endured for an enormous time, as measured by years, at each point . He also brings in the glacial period (measured over years) as taking place over a long period of time, and he speculates that this gradual creeping cold, forced different species to adapt to survive or dieThe Glacial period, as measured by years, must have been very long... It is his view, the rivers of waters flowed from the icy north to the equator (south), as the waters rose, so it left its debris or deposits of fossils, consequently explaining the reason for the various similar fossils found, (distributed throughout the various continents) The living waters may be said to have flowed during one short period from the north and from the south, and to have

Minnaar 14 crossed at the equator; but to have flowed with greater force from the north so as to have freely inundated the south He later brings in the arguments of embryology, morphology and rudimentary organs. Darwin states that all organisms resembled each other, in varying degrees. They could not be classified exclusively to land or sea and their respective eating habits were not all flesh eaters or plant eaters, so it was difficult as they were busy evolving so true distinctions could not be made From the first dawn of life, all organic beings are found to resemble each other in descending degrees.. He eludes further that organs which are similar in function, does not classify the creature to a certain group. This fact he says, is acknowledged by almost every author, He also adds that organs can become obsolete as the species adapts, although it may be seen in the embryonic phase, the adult discards it and renders it useless. He remarks that it is difficult to make distinct classification because no single character is universal and constant He mentions that classification does not vary between the embryo or the adult, it is still concluded as being the same. Naturalists, Milne Edwards and Agassiz according to Darwin seemed to emphasis the embryonic characters as more important than classifications in it self. Some classifications are made based upon the geographical location to those that are closely allied forms. He bases his classification upon genealogy, natural descent and of course survive and adaptations of the fittest and he does not recognize Gods hand in His creation and the distinct kinds of speciesall true classification is genealogical;.. and not some unknown plan of creation, ... Darwin appeals to ones imagination rather than good science, however he appeals to the observable facts that there is a struggle for existence which leads to preservation, and that all organs and instincts are variables (ever changing and adapting) that all organs and instincts are, in ever so slight a degree, variable,--and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to its preservation. His concluding remarks state that Evolution is by natural selection or survival of the fittest I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists entertain, and which I formerly entertained--namely, that each species has-been independently created--is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification. He also concludes that Evolution takes place over a long period of time yet cannot be proved, .. we have no just right to expect often to find intermediate varieties in the intermediate zone. For we have reason to believe that only a few species are undergoing change at any one period; and all changes are slowly effected . His view is that creation evolved over time and not as God says, and he scoffs at those who presume the geological record is sufficient in itself, as he alludes..it is not proof enough (back to his contradictions and circular reasoning) The belief that species were immutable productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration; and now that we have acquired some idea of the lapse

Minnaar 15 of time, we are too apt to assume, without proof, that the geological record is so perfect that it would have afforded us plain evidence of the mutation of species, if they had undergone mutation Here Darwin says that the time span of a fossil /species can be determined by the preceding or succeeding forms and those variations/ adaptations took time The noble science of Geology loses glory from the extreme imperfection of the record. The crust of the earth with its embedded remains must not be looked at as a well-filled museum, but as a poor collection made at hazard and at rare intervals. .. the blank intervals between the successive stages as having been of vast duration. But we shall be able to gauge with some security the duration of these intervals by a comparison of the preceding and succeeding organic forms. . This is his summation of it all: due to his theories the outcome of man in all spheres of life has changed. 1 There is a new understanding that it took a long period of time for life to evolve 2. That all human perspectives will change in all aspects 3. That the field of psychology will change 3. That the origin of man will be seen in a new light (this was to Move you away from the belief in God) " Darwinian evolution truly was a dangerous idea, one that consciously undermined faith in God and belief in the Bible, replacing it with scepticism and a materialist world view" D Cloud article when Christians school undermine the faith 04/08/2010 4. He seems to think that his view of the world is more superior than Gods .. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator.. . 5. He sees evolution as being nobler than being created by God ..When I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings ..they seem to me to become ennobled 6. Judging the future, he believes that the world will be dominated by the few and stronger, and that all adaptions and modifications moves towards perfection. Here he was right, it gave us Hitler and Stalin and the likes of Mussolini, all believing that it is the survival of the fittest, allowing justification for the extermination and oppression and the glory hunting and the destruction of all and sundry around them, and it was not a move to perfection but rather degradation and wickedness We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. ... And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection. And of course we see other observation based on this theory, Charles Darwin and other fathers of the theory of evolution were racists. Indeed, if evolution is true, racism is a proper conclusion, because it would mean that some types of men are more advanced than others, just as man is more advanced than his (alleged) ape ancestors. Darwin said: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. ... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine] and the gorilla (The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, 1871, pp. 241-42). Ernst Haeckl said, The Caucasian, or Mediterranean man (Homo Mediterraneus), has from time

Minnaar 16 immemorial been placed at the head of all races of men, as the most highly developed and perfect (The History of Creation, 1868, vol. 2, p. 321). Darwins friend Thomas Huxley said, No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man (Lectures and Lay Sermons, 1871, p. 115). To claim that man evolved and yet that all men are equal and that there is purpose to life are impossible contradiction In this, I hope I have given you an overview of what Darwin actual thought. I must also say that I think his book had to be read as a whole rather than segments, as he is trying to give his complete view and why he believes his theory to be true, however, his supporting points can be dissected and broken down and disapproved by science. He has tried to win you over by giving you a lot of facts and little proof, and yet he wants you to take a bit of each and come to the same conclusion that he has.- .that we evolved and that there is no God!. I want to bring you back to the thought of Darwin "A fair result can be obtained only by a fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question" , which I have noticed that he did not live up to in his book. With this in mind I want to show some scientific facts and current comments about the theories of Darwin and then produce evidences from Gods word that supersedes anything man can produce. Factual or otherwise!.

Evolution has many meanings, only one of which is scientific. 1. Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter i.e the big bang 2. Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen 3. Stellar and planetary evolution - Origin of starts and planets. no one has seen a star form 4. Organic evolution - Origin of life 5. Macroevolution. Changing from one kind to another 6.Micro - evolution. variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed. The first five are religious. Definition of evolution: evolution is descent with modification or change over time, (living things have changed over time or evolution is a change of species over time) according to general science books taught in the classes in America. "real evolution would mean an increase in genetic complexity not just shuffling genes that already exist, genetic information is lost not added" according to Kent Hovind Dr Dino. Darwin in his theory has touched on all these subjects, throughout his book. I do want to bring in some comments made in regards to evolution from the churches perspective, A few years ago, Pope John Paul II described evolution as "more than just a theory." Bishop Harries claims that the theory of evolution deepens the Christian faith, because to believe that the universe started "about 12 billion years ago" shows how patient God is! A Newspaper report by The Sunday Telegraph Church vindicates Darwin. THE Church of England will concede in a statement tomorrow that it was over-defensive and overemotional in dismissing Charles Darwin's ideas. It will call "antievolutionary fervour" an "indictment" on the Church. The bold move is certain to dismay sections of the Church that believe in creationism and regard Darwin's views as directly opposed to

Minnaar 17 traditional Christian teaching. The apology, which has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the Church's director of mission and public affairs, says Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century. The statement will read: "Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends." Opposition to evolutionary theories is still "a litmus test of faithfulness" for some Christian movements, the, Church will admit. The comments are included on a Church of England website promoting the views of Darwin, due to be launched tomorrow. - (extracted around 17th Sept 2008..not sure of date) Terry Mortenson, Ph.D. in the History of Geology from Coventry University in England, says there is no scientific fact that contradicts the Bible. Dr. Mortenson is on the staff of the Creation Museum in Kentucky, and in a video recorded interview with me at the museum on June 23, 2009, he said: I have studied a lot of arguments from evolutionists; I have had seven formal debates with evolutionary professors at universities, and I have never read or heard any scientific fact that contradicts what the Bible says. There are evolutionists interpretations of the facts, but the facts themselves are not contrary to Scripture. In a blog entitled Origins Views and the Assemblies of God, dated December 11, 2010, Dr. Mortenson wrote: Science has not found anything that contradicts the straightforward, literal understanding of Genesis ... Science has not found a living cell spontaneously evolving into existence by chance from non-living matter, as evolutionists claim has happened 3.5 billion years ago. Science has not found transitional forms between different kinds of plants and animals, either living or in the fossil record, to support evolutionist claims that all life is descended from a common ancestor--the first living cell. And science has not found millions of years of time in the rocks or a gas cloud collapsing to form a star. None of those things has ever been observed by any scientist, so they are not findings of science. Rather, evolutionary scientists using anti-biblical (naturalistic and uniformitarian) assumptions and imagination have interpreted some of the observations of the natural world (while ignoring other observations) to invent a story about the past that contradicts the timetested, historically orthodox and exegetically sound interpretation of Gods inerrant Word. It is not a conflict between the findings of science and traditional interpretations of the Bible. It is rather the conflict between the atheistic and deistic interpretations of Gods creation by people who are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:1820) versus the sound interpretation of Gods Word by godly leaders and pastors in the church down through history. D Cloud I would now take you to the bible and see what God says about these things, first of all I want to bring out Gods observations in regards to mens heart and attitude towards the things of God and His creation. I have brought this up as I believe if a man questions something, and he is sincere and wants to know the answers, God tells us in James, that he will not withhold and answer, yet here I see God warns that these people are willingly ignorant (As Kent Hovind would say Dumb on purpose), That they are

Minnaar 18 scoffers, looking to spoil you and all this philosophy are vain and of no intrinsic worth to anyone, that they are drawn away of their own desires and want to destroy the faith of others. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. Rom 1:28-32 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, : For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 2Pe 3:35 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:8 I want to now show that God proves science, we will now look at the presentation of the origins of man through the hands of God. We see that In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. We also note that the earth had no form and void, We also note that God created time space and matter on the first day V1-5, this refutes the cosmic theory, specifically the Big Bang, and it took Him a day to do it. We see the divisions of the heavens, that is - the air and space and water, we can conclude from V7-8 that God refutes the Chemical evolution, that it did not evolve from nothing, but God spoke it into place by His word and He says that He rested the second day On the Third day we see the earth formed (created old) The grass and fruit and all herbs are all created complete and all of its own kind Verses 9-13 The forth day sees the formations of starts and sun and moon, night and day. We see the formation of the stellar universes, which iwas all done in one day Verse 14-19 that this refutes the stellar evolution and factors in cosmic evolution, and once again God rested on that fourth day. On the fifth day of creation, God created the birds and fish and animal life as we know it, all after their own kind. It is interesting to note that He created them complete (he describes the different kinds, He does not say from one ameba or one kind) We can also add man into this, which occurs on the sixth day Verses 24-27, including the cattle and other animals during this time period.

Minnaar 19 On the last day, we see that God rested, which is the seventh day ge 2:13. It is argued by some that these are not literal days, that there was a gap between gene 1:1 and ge 1:2, and it is during that time of emptiness and void that all evolved. These imaginative thoughts are just that, empty. God tells us that He created it in seven days. The Hebrew language a day is just that a day. That God created everything complete, and after its own kind, that is to say that there is no cross breeding within kinds. That each kind is a kind after its own. We do not see, billions of years in a chance development nor do we see the development of those of the opposite sex being breed on its own tangent and adaptations , we are told that God created man and woman different yet of the same kind. I believe that Darwin and his ilk have failed to believe the very first verse of the Bible , In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Ge 1.1, That it was Darwins lack of faith, that had him turn to the sciences and try and reconcile science to God and could not come to the conclusion that it is God who proves science, and not science that proves God. I am also of the believe that Darwin set out to destroy the faith of many, as he concludes when he looked in the future how it would effect the outlook of mankind in the future, that his predictions became true, is observed today as we see men killing men, defending themselves with the attitude of it is the survival of the fittest , that the psychology of man in his social circles have been turned upside down has also come true, for example , the social acceptance of the homosexual behaviour and marriage. That right has become wrong and wrong has become right..O what a twisted world we live in! That man worships the creature more that the creator is so true and prevalent today. Thanks to the doctrines of Devils, perpetrated by the likes of Darwin. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Heb 11:3