Bible Studies Post and discuss short Bible studies.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-18-2008, 01:13 PM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a
Default Evolution vs. Creation

The Human Placenta defies evolution...

The Risky Expulsion of the Placenta after Birth
During the baby’s development, the placenta is securely attached to the endometrium of the uterus by some of the larger branches of each cotyledon. When the uterus contracts to expel the placenta after the birth of the baby, some of the endometrial surface is torn off with it. This results in severing about 20 large uterine arteries which, if unchecked, would involve the loss of blood at a rate of about one pint per minute. Since fewer than five quarts (4 liters) of blood are in the adult female body, all the blood would be lost in less than 10 minutes. It is also important to note that the blood-clotting mechanism is suppressed in the placenta and uterine blood vessels during pregnancy, creating a situation comparable to a hemophiliac with 20 severed arteries. These factors result in a wound that no one would expect to survive!

Saved by a Miracle!
How does a woman survive childbirth with such a wound? Here is another example of the awe-inspiring work of God, the Creator and Sustainer of life. You see, each of the severed uterine arteries has a precisely placed muscular sphincter that acts like a purse string, or a surgeon’s hemostat, to immediately close off the loss of blood. As a result, a normal birth involves the loss of only about a pint of blood. Simply amazing!
more here:
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
Old 12-20-2008, 03:26 PM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a

Historical Lies of Evolution
"Archaeoraptor": The $80,000 Fake Dino-Bird
from National Geographic

National Geographic boldly proclaimed to the world in a six-page color article that "Archaeoraptor liaoningensis" was "a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds." The discovery was later found to be an embarrassing combination of two completely different animals. For some in the scientific community, the nature of Nat Geo's retraction was almost as embarrassing as the lies it published.

The Fossil Remains
In March, National Geographic published a letter, of less than 90 words, written by Xu Xing, one of the scientists who originally examined the "Archaeoraptor," in the magazine's "Forum" section. "People who were looking for the retraction couldn't find it," DeWitt said. "A letter to the editor is not the usual way to handle an error of this magnitude."

In stark contrast to their sensationalistic ‘Feathers for T. rex’ article, National Geographic has printed a brief, yet revealing statement by Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Beijing. Xu's revelation appears in the somewhat obscure Forum section of the March, 2000 issue, together with a carefully crafted editorial response. The letter from Xu Xing, vertebrate paleontologist from the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, reads:

‘After observing a new feathered dromaeosaur specimen in a private collection and comparing it with the fossil known as Archaeoraptor [pages 100–101], I have concluded that Archaeoraptor is a composite. The tail portions of the two fossils are identical, but other elements of the new specimen are very different from Archaeoraptor, in fact more closely resembling Sinornithosaurus. Though I do not want to believe it, Archaeoraptor appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’

The Perpetrators
The "true missing link" fossil was created by Chinese craftsmen, smuggled into the United States from China and was sold for $80,000 to the owner of a dinosaur museum in Monticello, Utah, before it eventually landed in the halls of the National Geographic Society in Washington.

In a six-page color spread, complete with artist's drawings, photographs and diagrams, National Geographic's November 1999 issue reported that the "Archaeoraptor," supposedly a 120-million-year-old bird-like creature with the tail of a meat-eating dinosaur, had been discovered in a fossil unearthed in the remote Liaoning Province of China.

The $80,000 FAKE FOSSIL had also been showcased before more than 100,000 people, the majority of them children, at the National Geographic's Explorers Hall in Washington between Oct. 15 and Jan. 21.

As more evidence of altered fossils begins to surface, one must seriously question the integrity of the fossil industry and the stories these fossils are supposed to tell. A Feb. 19, 2000 New Scientist article sheds light on the growing problem of faked and altered fossils. Referring to the Chinese fossil birds, paleontologist Kraig Derstler from the University of New Orleans in Louisiana says, ‘almost every one that I’ve seen on the commercial market has some reconstruction to make it look prettier.’

The illegal yet highly profitable market of Chinese bird fossils has enticed the local farmers into creating marketable fossils, real or not. Derstler points out that ‘adhesives and fake rock have become very easy to make and very difficult to spot.’

The paleontologist Luis Chiappe, of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, describes how one such specimen almost fooled him, till he noticed that one leg was longer than the other. ‘I wasn’t sure what was wrong with it,’ Chiappe said. Only close examination revealed that two slabs had been mortared together. ‘On the surface you really couldn’t see that.’

Dr Larry Martin of the University of Kansas, who is a staunch critic of the dino-to-bird theory, commented, ‘I don’t trust any of these specimens until I see the X-rays.’ 6 Joints and gaps in the reworked fossils are revealed with X-rays. Martin went on to say:

‘The farmers do not believe this is wrong, they look at it as restoring an art object to make it more marketable. The whole commercial market for fossils has gotten riddled with fakery.’

A General Warning
"Archaeoraptor" illustrates the danger of publishing so-called factual "evidence" regarding the notion of macroevolution. Evolutionists still base new taxonomic classifications on nothing but obscure fragments and teeth. DeWitt noted he is concerned that the scientific community's predisposition toward evolution too often takes precedence over objective scientific research.

"Many scientists are so convinced that Darwinism is correct that they can't even see the plain evidence that contradicts it," DeWitt said. "Because they only look for evidence that supports the theory, they can be easily duped. The Archaeoraptor incident shows what can happen when scientists fail to consider alternative explanations."

Last edited by Bro. Parrish; 12-20-2008 at 03:34 PM.
Old 12-20-2008, 03:36 PM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a

The Piltdown Man memorial stone, circa 1938.

Historical Lies of Evolution
Piltdown Man: 40 Years of Deception

Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus Dawsoni) was once thought to be a "missing link" between man and ape. The first Piltdown fragments were discovered in 1912. Thereafter, over 500 scientific essays were written on the Piltdown Man in a 40-year period. The discovery was proven to be a deliberate hoax in 1953.

Piltdown Man: The Fossil Remains
Piltdown Man consisted of two human skulls, an orangutan jaw, an elephant molar, a hippopotamus tooth, and a canine tooth from a chimpanzee. Sir Kenneth Oakley has determined the human skulls to be approximately 620 years old. They may have belonged to Ona Indians from Patagonia, as the skulls were unusually thick. Thick skulls are a common trait among Ona Indians. The orangutan jaw is around 500 years old, perhaps from Sarawak. The elephant molar is thought to be from Tunisia. The hippopotamus tooth is thought to have come from Malta or perhaps Sicily. The canine tooth belonged to a Pleistocene Chimpanzee. The Piltdown remains were purposefully scattered around a quarry in Piltdown, England, so that they could be "discovered" later as evidence for evolution and the development of man from ape. The skulls had been treated with acid. All of the fossil remains were stained with an iron sulfate solution. The canine tooth was painted brown and patched with bubble gum. The molars were filed down. The portion of the orangutan jaw that connected the jaw to its skull was carefully broken so as not to show evidence that this jaw did not belong to a human skull.

Piltdown Man: The Perpetrators
The Piltdown Man hoax is thought to have been perpetrated by Charles Dawson, an archaeologist, geologist and fossil collector for the British Museum. However, no one is quite certain who was involved. There are a number of other suspects, including Sir Arthur Smith Woodward, Keeper of the British Museum's Natural History department, and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a paleontologist and Jesuit theologian.

Piltdown Man: A Deliberate Hoax
Piltdown Man was obviously a deliberate hoax. Upon critical investigation, the hoax was exposed very quickly. However, the "find" was not investigated properly until forty-years after the initial "discovery". This was due primarily to the excellent credentials held by the men who made the "discovery." Very few experts ever suspected fraud. It wasn't until 1949, when the fossils were dated using the fluorine absorption technique, that the authenticity of the "discovery" was called into question. It is true that the fluorine test was not developed until many years after the hoax. However, the file marks upon the teeth, and the fact that the "wear" was backward, would have been immediately obvious upon any inspection from the very beginning.

Piltdown Man: A General Warning
The story of Piltdown Man acts as a warning to all of us. We must fully investigate any and all data very carefully. Not only are we contending against the obscurity of the past, but the hidden intentions of ambitious men.

Last edited by Bro. Parrish; 12-20-2008 at 03:48 PM.
Old 12-20-2008, 03:41 PM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a

Historical Lies of Evolution
Nebraska Man: The Tale of the Tooth

Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii) was described on the basis of a single tooth. This tooth was used to construct an entire species, complete with illustrations of the primitive man and his family. The amazing missing-link discovery was later determined to have come from a pig.

The Fossil Remains
In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called "Nebraska man", in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a "scientific name", Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

The Perpetrators
The picture above was drawn on the basis of a single tooth and it was published in the Illustrated London News magazine on July 24, 1922. However, the evolutionists were extremely disappointed when it was revealed that this tooth belonged neither to an ape-like creature nor to a man, but rather to an extinct pig species.

Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, "Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. 67 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

A General Warning
Nebraska Man illustrates the danger of basing discoveries on such scant evidence. It is still useful because Evolutionists still base new taxonomic classifications on nothing but teeth.
Old 12-20-2008, 03:51 PM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a

Historical Lies of Evolution

The Search for Evidence
After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that "half-man half-ape" creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for "living transitional links" led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.

Ota Benga was a member of the Batwa people, and lived in equatorial forests near the Kasai River in what was then the Belgian Congo. Ota Benga was captured in the Congo in 1904 by a business man named Samuel Phillips Verner, who was under contract from the St. Louis World's Fair to bring back pygmies for exhibition. In his own tongue, Ota Benga's name meant "friend." He had a wife and two children who were previously killed in a massacre.

The Perpetrators
Chained and caged like an animal, Ota Benga was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with apes and introduced him before many thousands of visitors as "the closest transitional link to man."

Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York (the photo above of Ota Benga was reported taken at the zoo) and there they exhibited him under the denomination of "ancient ancestors of man" along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional "transitional form" in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal.

Bronx Zoo director William Hornaday saw the exhibit as a valuable spectacle for his visitors, and was encouraged by Madison Grant, a prominent scientific racist and eugenicist.

A September 10, 1906 New York Times story reported:
"The person responsible for this exhibition degrades himself as much as he does the African," said Rev. Dr. R. MacArthur of Calvary Baptist Church. "Instead of making a beast of this little fellow, he should be put in school for the development of such powers as God gave to him. It is too bad that there is not some society like the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. We send our missionaries to Africa to Christianize the people, and then we bring one here to brutalize him."

The zoo director finally acquiesced, and allowed Ota Benga out of his cage. Once let out, Ota Benga spent most of his days walking around the zoo, often with huge crowds following him, and returned to the "monkey house" only to sleep at night.

The New York Times of September 18, 1906, described the scene:
"There were 40,000 visitors to the park on Sunday. Nearly every man, woman and child of this crowd made for the monkey house to see the star attraction in the park—the wild man from Africa. They chased him about the grounds all day, howling, jeering, and yelling. Some of them poked him in the ribs, others tripped him up, all laughed at him."

Being treated as a curiosity, mocked and made fun of by the visitors, eventually caused Benga to react with aggression to those around him.

Eventually Ota Benga was removed from this terrible life, and he worked at a tobacco factory for some years, but he never fully adjusted to American society, and this is no surprise considering his ordeal. Ota Benga eventually committed suicide, and was buried in an unmarked grave.

A General Warning:
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, "Archeoraptor," and "missing links" in cages... these scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. We need to bear this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the "human evolution" myth.

Last edited by Bro. Parrish; 12-20-2008 at 04:12 PM.
Old 12-20-2008, 04:17 PM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a

Historical Lies of Evolution
The Minnesota Iceman

Hoaxes abound in the efforts of evolutionists to provide proof of the alleged molecules-to-man evolutionary scenario. They are also plentiful in show business. One of the more bizarre episodes, involving both these aspects, is the Minnesota Iceman mystery, which occurred in the U.S.A. during the late 1960s and early 1970s.

In December 1968, Dr Bernard Heuvelmans, a Belgian cryptozoologist visiting the U.S.A., and Ivan T. Sanderson, an American zoologist, heard of an exhibit which had been shown on the U.S. carnival circuit in 1967–68, claimed by its showman, a Mr Frank Hansen, to be the ‘missing link’ between humans and apes. On December 17, 1968 the two zoologists inspected the exhibit in a trailer-truck at Hansen’s home at Rollingstone, Minnesota.

Argosy, May 1969. Actual photo on left.
Notice the so-called "scientific rendering of probable features" on right. I remember when I read this article as a child I was stunned by what I saw. - Bro Parrish

The Evidence
The object appeared to be a large human-like corpse, preserved in a block of ice (some of it transparent, some frosted, some opaque) under a plate-glass lid in an insulated refrigerated coffin. For three days, the two scientists photographed and made drawings of the creature as best they could through the glass and the block of ice.
It was male, about 1.8 metres (six feet) tall, and covered in thick long brown hair. The shoulders were very wide, ‘constructed like those of a powerful human wrestler’. The torso was barrel-shaped, tapering to narrow hips. One arm was thrown up over the face and appeared to be badly fractured. The hands were huge. The legs were ‘about the standard length for a six-foot man’, but the arms were ‘longer than the average’. The feet were ‘more than ten inches [25 centimetres] wide measured across the toes’, with the big toe lying ‘beside the next one as does a man’s, and not opposed to the other toes, as does an ape’s.’

The Perpetrators
Heuvelmans sent his notes to the Belgium Royal Museum in January 1969, and confidently named the creature Homo pongoides. As the pongids are the anthropoid apes, this evolutionist scientist was thereby claiming that this unauthenticated creature was a new species, an ape-like man. The museum published his material in the prestigious Bulletin of the Royal Institute of Natural Sciences of Belgium.

On March 11, 1969, a Belgian newspaper published the first press report, and soon journalists from all over the world sought information, much to the consternation of Hansen, who wanted neither this much publicity nor an in-depth investigation. Why would a showman shun free publicity, unless he knew the whole thing was a fake?

On March 13, 1969, the Smithsonian Institute requested permission from Hansen to inspect and x-ray the specimen. Hansen refused and stated in a letter that the original specimen had been removed by the owner, that it would never again be exhibited, and that it would be replaced by a man-made model for the coming show season. Hansen and the exhibit then disappeared.

The zoologist Sanderson wrote a report in the trilingual Italian scientific journal Genus, and a popular summary entitled ‘The Missing Link’, which appeared in Argosy, May 1969, pp. 23–31, illustrated by Heuvelmans’ excellent photographs.

Bernard Heuvelmans, the most pre-eminent zoologist involved, always maintained that the first object he and Sanderson examined was ‘the fresh remains of a neanderthaloid human’.
Ivan Sanderson, also an evolution-believing scientist, dissociated himself from Heuvelmans’ term Homo pongoides and the suggestion that it was a Neandertal. His cautiously worded conclusion stated that it was ‘some form of primate . . . an anthropoid, but whether it is a hominid, a pongid, or a representative of some other previously unsuspected branch of that super-family we are not prepared to say or even speculate’.

Frank Hansen, when asked by a journalist whether the original iceman was real, replied: ‘I never did find out. I just knew, whatever it was, it was just the greatest exhibit possible . . . I didn’t want to ask.’ And did the original still exist? ‘Oh yes, the owner’s still got it on ice in California.’

John Napier, curator of the primate collections at the Smithsonian Institute, has the most plausible explanation. He regarded it ‘as a problem for a detective agency rather than for a biologist.’ He concluded that Hansen was a clever showman who conceived the idea of exhibiting a monster in ice (‘which serves both to heighten the illusion and prevent too close an inspection’). After a couple of years, to increase public interest, Hansen leaked information which reached Sanderson and, by chance, the international expert, Heuvelmans. Huge and embarrassing publicity resulted, when newspapers all over the world carried the story. ‘The unexpected had happened. Science was taking the story seriously.’ To keep scientists at bay and to deepen the mystery, Hansen substituted the ‘original’ with a ‘model’. According to Napier, this model was, in fact, the original, defrosted and slightly rearranged in posture, and then refrozen, all of which could have been done during Hansen’s vacation in March–April, 1969. Napier concluded: ‘ . . . if there is a Barnum Award, my vote would go to Frank D. Hansen.’

Of course, had the ‘original’ really been genuine, the owner could have gained a huge financial reward by selling it to a museum. He never did, even after the exhibit had run its course on the carnival circuit. Already in 1969, rumours had begun to circulate that the iceman was nothing more than a model made from latex rubber and bear hair in a Hollywood monster factory, in April 1967, by a Mr Pete Correll.

A General Warning
The Minnesota Iceman was clearly a gigantic hoax. But how could experienced zoologists and scientific journals have got themselves so much ‘out on a limb’ over this alleged ‘missing link’?

Answer: All claims about alleged ‘missing links’ have in common the desire on the part of the researcher to find anything which would substantiate the molecules-to-man myth. This can blind even the most pre-eminent scientists to reality. Sadly, for some years, tens of thousands of people in the USA had belief in evolution reinforced, and consequently belief in the Bible discredited, by this ‘ape-man’, which was nothing more than another hoax.

References included here:
Old 12-20-2008, 10:24 PM
George's Avatar
George George is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Posts: 891
Default Re: "Evolution vs. Creation"

Aloha brother Parrish,

Thanks for the informative Posts.

You may already know about this source - but if you don't, this is a really great source of info on the same subjects (including "cosmology" - the beginning of the Universe, i.e. matter).

Brother Vance Ferrell may have the very best single book on this subject: "SCIENCE VS. EVOLUTION = 1008 PAGES @ $11.50 per Book, or $5.45 each in a box of eight!

You can check them out at:

They also have a 3 Volume Encyclopedia (ON-LINE) that covers practically every subject involved in this very important controversy. {Volume #1 = ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE. Volume #2 = ORIGIN OF LIFE. Volume #3 = OTHER EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION}

Last edited by George; 12-20-2008 at 10:46 PM.
Old 12-21-2008, 10:39 PM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a

Thank you Brother George!
Old 05-20-2009, 08:55 AM
Bro. Parrish
Posts: n/a

Well here we go again...
please see post no. 2 on this thread for previous claims by National Geographic...

New Fossil Links Humans, Lemurs?

May 19, 2009—Meet "Ida," the small "missing link" found in Germany that's created a big media splash...

Here is AIG's take on the story...

Ida: The Missing Link at Last?
For all the headlines and proclamations, this “missing link” story includes an amazing amount of hot air.
A story we first previewed on May 16 has since rocketed to the heights of media hype as a team of scientists reveals “Ida,” the latest and greatest supposed missing link. But does Ida actually support “the evolution of early primates, and, ultimately, modern human beings,” as one news outlet reported?

"Even the contents of Ida’s stomach were preserved. While the researchers believe Ida sunk to the bottom of a lake and was buried, this preservation is more consistent with a catastrophic flood."

"Much of the excitement over Ida appears to stem from a well-coordinated public relations effort to promote an upcoming documentary and a new book titled The Link...

as Hurum commented, “This fossil will probably be pictured in all the textbooks for the next 100 years.”

From the AIG sidebar:
"despite the treatment most media reports are giving Ida, the research team behind Ida was asked to remove their speculation from their peer-reviewed paper! Even so, the Guardian also reports, “There is even talk of Ida being the first non-living thing to feature on the front cover of People magazine.” Indeed, it seems that the pitch of Ida as the missing link is full-out sensationalism by people who are bypassing the scientific community with a direct-to-the-public appeal on behalf of Darwinism."
more here:

Last edited by Bro. Parrish; 05-20-2009 at 09:18 AM.
Old 05-20-2009, 11:27 AM
Brother Tim's Avatar
Brother Tim Brother Tim is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 864

I am very tempted to go full-bore sarcastic and write something about lemurs and MVers and missing links, but I will get under my body.

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

Contact Us AV1611.Com