Iphone 3gs Connect To External Screen

7 - The "ape-men": What was it?


MANY years we hear that have been found the fossil remains of ape-men. The scientific literature is full of illustrations depicting these creatures. These are the rings of evolutionary transition between the animals and man? Our ancestors were ape-men? Evolutionary scientists say yes. For this expression often read like this heading of an article that appeared in a scientific journal: "How la scimmia diventò uomo”.1

2 Alcuni evoluzionisti, è vero, non credono che questi ipotetici antenati dell’uomo debbano essere definiti “scimmie”. Nondimeno, alcuni loro colleghi non vanno troppo per il sottile.2 Stephen Jay Gould ha detto: “Gli uomini si sono evoluti da antenati dall’aspetto scimmiesco”.3 E George Gaylord Simpson asserì: “Il comune antenato sarebbe sicuramente chiamato scimmia nel linguaggio popolare da chiunque lo vedesse. E dato che il termine scimmia, antropomorfa o no, è definito dall’uso popolare, gli antenati dell’uomo erano scimmie antropomorfe o erano scimmie”.4

3 Perché la documentazione fossile è così important to show that man is descended from ape-like ancestors? Because humans and animals present, there is nothing to support this thesis. As mentioned in Chapter 6, between man and animals today, including the family of great apes, there is an abyss. Since among the living is not any connection between man and ape, it was hoped to find in the fossil record.

4 From the perspective of evolutionary theory, the obvious gap that now separates man from apes is strange. According to this theory, as the animals spent at higher levels, become more adaptable to survive. As ever, then, the family of monkeys - creatures "lower" - still exists, while there is not one of the alleged intermediate forms considered more advanced on the evolutionary ladder? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no "man-ape." There seems likely that all of the latest and, purportedly, the most advanced "rings link" between modern man ape-like creatures have been extinct, but not the lower apes?

That consistency has the fossil evidence?
5 From scientific literature, from what you see in the museums and television programs, one would think that should definitely esserci numerosissime testimonianze del fatto che l’uomo si sia evoluto da creature dall’aspetto scimmiesco. Ma è così? Per esempio, qual era a questo riguardo la documentazione fossile disponibile ai giorni di Darwin? Furono forse le testimonianze esistenti a incoraggiarlo a formulare la sua teoria?

6 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists dice: “Le prime teorie sull’evoluzione umana sono, se ci si pensa, davvero molto strane. David Pilbeam le ha definite ‘esenti da fossili’. Cioè, per logica, queste teorie sull’evoluzione umana si sarebbero dovute basare su qualche testimonianza fossile, ma in realtà i fossili o erano così pochi da non influire minimamente sulla teoria, or missing altogether. So between the presumed close relatives of man and the first human fossil was just the imagination of scientists of the nineteenth century. " This scientific publication explains the reason: "They wanted to believe the evolution of man, and this affects the results of their work" .5

7 After more than a century of research, which now has the consistency of fossil evidence in support the thesis of "ape-men"? Richard Leakey said: "Those who work in this field have so few clues on which to base their conclusions are often forced to change it '.6 New Scientist notes:" Judging by the amount di testimonianze su cui si basa, lo studio dei fossili umani non merita d’essere considerato più che una branca secondaria della paleontologia o dell’antropologia. . . . La raccolta è terribilmente incompleta, e gli esemplari stessi sono spesso molto frammentari e non decisivi”.7

8 Sullo stesso tono, il libro Origini: Nascita e possibile futuro dell’uomo ammette: “Appena, seguendo la via dell’evoluzione, ci spostiamo verso gli ominidi, il nostro cammino si fa sempre più incerto, ancora una volta a causa della scarsità dell’evidenza fossile”.8 La rivista Science aggiunge: “La principale documentazione scientifica consiste in una raccolta pietosamente limitata bone by which to reconstruct the evolutionary history of man. One anthropologist has compared the company to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace starting from thirteen pages selected at random ".9

9 What is the consistency of actual fossil evidence relating to" ape-men "? Here are some opinions. Newsweek: "'The fossils could all on one desk,' said Elwyn Simons of Duke University" .10 The New York Times: "The known fossil remains of human ancestors would fill a pool table, a pretty poor platform from which scrutinize the last million years ".11 Science Digest:" Without noteworthy all the material evidence in support of human evolution still does not fill a single coffin! . . . The apes, for example, seem to have come out of nowhere. They have no past, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern man - this is a standing, naked, tool manufacturer, from massive brain - is, if we must be honest with ourselves, a fact equally mysterious ".12

10 The men of modern type , able to reason, plan, invent, build on knowledge gained and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. In his book The Mismeasure of Man, Gould says: "There are no traces of biological changes in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago" .13 Thus the book The Universe Within (The universe is all ' internal) asks: "What prompted the change. . . to produce, overnight, the modern man with his highly specialized brain? "14 Evolution is not able to respond. But the answer could not be in the creation of a living being different and highly complex?

Where are the "rings" conjunction? 11
But scientists have not trovato i necessari “anelli” che collegano l’uomo ad animali scimmieschi? Non secondo le testimonianze. Science Digest parla dell’“assenza di un anello mancante che spieghi la comparsa relativamente improvvisa dell’uomo moderno”.15 Newsweek ha commentato: “L’anello mancante fra l’uomo e le scimmie antropomorfe . . . non è che la più affascinante di un’intera gerarchia di creature fantasma. Nella documentazione fossile, gli anelli mancanti sono la norma”.16

12 Non essendoci anelli di congiunzione, si devono fabbricare da testimonianze inconsistenti “creature fantasma” da spacciare come realmente esistite. Questo spiega il perché di contradictions such as this over by a scientific journal: "Men have evolved gradually from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists argue, for sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working essentially on the same data, it seems to have reached the opposite conclusion ".17

13 This helps us to better understand the comments of the esteemed anatomist Solly Zuckerman, who, in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh , wrote: "The search for the proverbial 'missing link' in the evolution of man, the holy grail of an irreducible sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation e il mito fioriscano altrettanto rigogliosi oggi come cinquanta o più anni fa”.18 Zuckerman osservò che troppo spesso si ignoravano i fatti per sostenere le opinioni in voga nonostante l’evidenza del contrario.

L’“albero genealogico” dell’uomo
14 Un risultato è che l’“albero genealogico” della presunta evoluzione dell’uomo da animali inferiori cambia in continuazione. Per esempio, a proposito di certi fossili rinvenuti in epoca più recente, Richard Leakey disse che la scoperta ‘segnava la fine del concetto secondo cui i fossili più antichi potessero disporsi in una sequenza ordinata di trasformazioni evolutive’.19 E in un resoconto the same discovery published in a newspaper read: "All the texts of anthropology, all the articles on the evolution of man, all the human family tree drawings should be thrown away. Apparently they are mistaken ".20

15 The hypothetical family tree of human evolution is littered with" rings "once accepted as such and then discarded. In an editorial in the New York Times notes that the evolutionary science "leaves much room for conjecture that theories help to understand the origin of man more things on account of its authors on the subject. . . . Often those who find a new skull seems to want to redraw the family tree of man, putting his discovery on the central line leading to humans and all the other skulls on the side lines that are lost in the void ".21

16 Reviewing the book The Myths of Human Evolution (The myths of human evolution), the evolutionist Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine notes that the authors omit any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that "as for the rings that make up the set of ancestors of the human species, we can only guess," the magazine says, "Eldredge and Tattersall insist that the man tries in vain their ancestors. . . . If there was evidence, they say, 'we may confidently expect that, with the gradual discovery of other hominid fossils, the history of human evolution would become clearer. Instead, if anything, the opposite has happened '. " Discover

17 concludes: "The human species, like all others, will in some respects an orphan, having lost in the past the identity of his parents' .22" Lost, "perhaps from the perspective of evolutionary theory . But the alternative of Genesis Has not "recovered" as our parents are actually in the documentation fossil, that men in all respects, just like us? 18

Fossils reveal that man and apes had a distinct and independent source. For this there is no fossil evidence of a link between man and ape-looking animals. These ties have never existed in reality.

What did they look?
19 If man's ancestors do not look like monkeys, how come the scientific publications and museums around the world are filled with reproductions and reconstructions of ape men? Are based on what? The book The Biology of Race (The biology of race) answered: "In these reconstructions tissues muscle and fur is necessarily the result of imagination. " He adds: "The color of the skin color, shape and distribution of hair, his features, the facial appearance: about these characters, with regard to prehistoric humans, we know absolutely nothing" .23 Even

20 Science Digest said: "The vast majority of artists' conceptions are based more on imagination that evidence. . . . Artists must create something that is a middle way between the ape and man, the finding is considered more ancient, more ape-like appearance is attributed to him ".24 Donald Johanson, search for fossils, he admits: "No one can be sure how exactly it would pose an extinct hominid" .25

21 As New Scientist reported, there are "good enough fossil evidence to bring out our theories from the world of the imagination" .26 Therefore, as an evolutionist admits, the representations of the "ape-men" are "mostly fantasy. . . invented out of whole cloth ".27 In the book Man, God and Magic (Man, God and magic) Ivar Lissner therefore observes:" As we're slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, we must also understand that the first men of the Age Ice Age were neither brutal beasts or half-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct the Neanderthal man or even to Beijing ".28


22 Their longing to find traces of the" ape-men ", some scientists have fallen victim to outright fraud, such as that in 1912, Piltdown man. For nearly 40 years was considered authentic by most evolutionists. Finally, in 1953, the scam came to light and, thanks to modern techniques, it was discovered that human and ape bones were put together and artificially aged. In another case, was designed and disseminated a "ring mancante” dall’aspetto scimmiesco. Ma in seguito si venne a sapere che l’“evidenza” disponibile consisteva in un solo dente, il quale apparteneva a un maiale estinto.29

Che cos’erano?
23 Se le ricostruzioni degli “uomini-scimmia” sono congetturali, cos’erano allora quelle antiche creature le cui ossa fossili sono state ritrovate? Uno di questi primi mammiferi considerati antenati dell’uomo è un piccolo animale dall’aspetto di un roditore che si dice sia vissuto circa 70 milioni di anni fa. Nel libro Lucy — Le origini dell’umanità gli autori Donald Johanson e Maitland Edey scrivono: “Erano quadrupedi insettivori, similar in size and shape to the squirrels' .30 Richard Leakey calls it a mammal "primate-like mice" .31 Is there any concrete proof that these animals were the ancestors of man? No, only illusory speculation. No transitional stage has ever connected with something other than what it actually was: a small rodent-like mammals.

24 After this, the list generally accepted, and a "jump" acknowledged that about 40 million years, there are fossils found in Egypt and called Aegyptopithecus, monkey, Egypt. It is claimed that this creature to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have published illustrations of this little creature with titles like "Our ancestor was an ape-like creature." (Time) 32 "similar to the first African monkey called the common ancestor of humans and apes." (The New York Times) 33 The 'Aegyptopithecus. . . is an ancestor that we share with apes today. " (Source) 34 But where are the rings of connection between it and the previous rodent? Where are the rings which would link it to what comes next in the evolutionary sequence? Do not they have found none.

Rise and Fall of the "ape-men" After a 25
Another giant hole in the fossil record, we find another fossil creature that had been presented as the first humanoid monkey. He said he had lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus, Rama's monkey (legendary Indian prince). If they found trace fossils in India half a century ago. From these fossils we proceeded to build an ape-looking creature in the upright position. About it, says Origins: "At the current state of knowledge, is the first of those representatives of the human family known by the name of hominids" .35

26 fossil evidence on which rested this conclusion? The same book says: "The documentation on Ramapithecus is considerable, although in absolute terms it remains dramatically low, as fragments of the upper jaw and lower teeth and a collection of "36 Is this a" documentation "as" considerable "to allow the reconstruction of a" man-ape "in the upright position and define ancestor man? Yet this mostly hypothetical creature was depicted by artists as a "man-ape", and their evolutionary patterns invaded the texts, all based on some fragments of teeth and jaws! However, as reported by the New York Times for decades Ramapithecus "has occupied the position with maximum stability at the foot of the evolutionary tree of man" .37

27 Ma la situazione è cambiata. Fossili più completi scoperti di recente hanno rivelato che il Ramapithecus assomigliava molto alla famiglia delle scimmie antropomorfe attuali. Così ora New Scientist dice: “Il Ramapithecus non può essere stato il primo rappresentante della linea dell’uomo”.38 Queste nuove informazioni hanno indotto la rivista Natural History a chiedere: “Come ha potuto il Ramapithecus, . . . ricostruito sulla sola base di denti e mandibole — senza che si sapesse nulla del bacino, degli arti o del cranio — introdursi in questa processione che porta all’uomo?”39 È evidente che per far dire ai fossili quello che non dicono, come in questo caso, there must be a willingness to truly believe what you want.

28 Another quantum leap between this creature from the next "man-ape" listed as an ancestor of man. This is Australopithecus or southern ape. The first fossil of this creature were found in southern Africa to the twenties. He had a small brain case, which recalls that of apes, and pronounced jaw, to what was said, walked on two legs bent, his face was hairy ape. It is alleged that she had lived from three or four million years ago. Over time it was accepted by almost all evolutionists as an ancestor of man.

29 For example, the book The Social Contract (The social contract) said: "Unless one or two exceptions, all competent researchers now agree that the australopithecines. . . are in fact ancestors of man ".40 The New York Times wrote:" It was the Australopithecus. . . eventually evolve to Homo sapiens, or modern man '.41 And in the book Men, Time, and fossils, Ruth Moore wrote: "Judging from all the facts, the man had finally met his predecessors." And he declared emphatically: "The evidence was overwhelming. . . was finally found the missing link ".42

30 But when, at any campo, un’asserzione si basa su testimonianze fragili o addirittura inesistenti, oppure su vere e proprie frodi, prima o poi crolla. Così è stato per molti esempi passati di presunti “uomini-scimmia”.

31 L’Australopithecus non fa eccezione. Ulteriori ricerche hanno rivelato che il suo cranio “si differenzia da quello dell’uomo per altri motivi, oltre al minor volume cerebrale”.43 L’anatomista Zuckerman scrisse: “Se lo si confronta con crani umani e di scimmia, il cranio delle australopitecine risulta essere inconfondibilmente scimmiesco, non umano. Sostenere il contrario equivarrebbe a dire che il nero sia bianco”.44 Disse pure: “Le nostre scoperte non lasciano praticamente dubbi sul fatto che . . . l’Australopithecus non assomiglia all’Homo sapiens ma alle attuali scimmie, antropomorfe e no”.45 Anche Donald Johanson dice: “Gli australopitecini . . . non erano uomini”.46 Similmente Richard Leakey ritiene “improbabile che i nostri diretti antenati discendano da queste [le australopitecine]”.47

32 Se qualcuna delle australopitecine fosse trovata in vita oggi, verrebbe messa in uno zoo con le altre scimmie. Nessuno la chiamerebbe “uomo-scimmia”. Lo stesso può dirsi per gli altri “cugini” fossili che le assomigliano, come l’australopitecina di tipo più piccolo chiamata “Lucy”. Riguardo ad essa Robert Jastrow dice: “Il cervello dell’australopiteco non era grande in assoluto — solo un terzo del cervello umano”.48 È ovvio che anche questa creatura era semplicemente una “scimmia”. Infatti New Scientist afferma che il cranio di “Lucy” era “molto simile a quello di uno scimpanzé”.49

33 Un altro tipo fossile è chiamato Homo erectus, uomo a stazione eretta. Le dimensioni e la conformazione del suo cervello rientrano in effetti nei limiti inferiori di quelle dell’uomo moderno. Inoltre l’Encyclopædia Britannica osserva che “le ossa degli arti finora rinvenute non si distinguono da quelle dell’H[omo] sapiens”.50 Comunque, it is unclear whether this was a human or not. If it was, it must be simply an extinct branch of the human family. The human family


34 Neanderthals (named after the Neander Valley in Germany, where it was found the first fossil) was undoubtedly human. At first it was to be depicted as a curved-looking dazed, hairy ape. We now know that this erroneous reconstruction was based on a fossil skeleton severely deformed by a disease. Since then, many fossils have been found Neanderthals, who confirmed that he was not very different to modern man. In his book Ice, Fred Hoyle says: "There is no no evidence indicating that Neanderthals were somehow inferior to us ".51 The illustrations in more recent Neanderthals have therefore taken a more modern look.

35 Another type of fossil that is often encountered in the literature is the man of Cro-Magnon. It takes its name from the village in southern France where for the first time they were found the bones. These specimens were "so indistinguishable from those of today that even the most skeptical had to admit that they were human," says the book Lucy.52

36 It is clear that there is no basis for believing that they existed "ape-men ". Men have all of the creation of a separate and distinct from any animal. They reproduce only after their kind. So it is today and always has been. All of the ape-like creatures lived in the past were nothing but monkeys, apes or not, men. And the fossils of ancient men who are slightly different to modern man is simply a proof of the diversity existing within the human family, just as today there are many varieties that live side by side. There are men who are over two meters and there are the pygmies, with skeletons ranging in size and shape. But they all belong to the same "species" human, not some "species" animal.

Che dire della datazione?
37 La cronologia biblica indica che dalla creazione dell’uomo a oggi sono trascorsi circa 6.000 anni. Come mai, allora, spesso si legge di età molto più antiche attribuite a fossili di tipo umano?

38 Prima di dire che la cronologia biblica sia in errore, si deve tener presente che i metodi di datazione basati sulla radioattività sono stati oggetto di dure critiche da parte di alcuni scienziati. Una rivista scientifica ha parlato di ricerche indicanti che “le età calcolate in base al decadimento radioattivo potrebbero essere errate non solo di qualche anno, ma di ordini di grandezza”. E ha detto: “L’uomo, anziché essere sulla terra da three million and 600 thousand years, perhaps there is only a few thousand years ".53

39 An example of the 'clock' radiocarbon. This method is based on radiocarbon dating was developed over two decades by scientists around the world. It was welcomed as an accurate method for dating artifacts dating back to remote periods of human history. But later was held in Uppsala, Sweden, an international conference of experts - including radiochemical, archaeologists and geologists - to compare the results. According to the report of the conference, the fundamental assumptions on which they were based measurements are more or less unreliable. For example, scoprì che la velocità con cui il carbonio radioattivo si forma nell’atmosfera non è rimasta costante nel tempo, e che questo metodo non è attendibile se si datano oggetti anteriori al 2000 a.E.V. circa. 54

40 Si tenga presente che le testimonianze veramente attendibili dell’attività dell’uomo sulla terra non sono espresse in milioni di anni, ma in migliaia di anni. Ad esempio, nel libro Il destino della Terra si legge: “Soltanto sei o settemila anni fa . . . è nata la civiltà, che ci ha permesso di edificare un mondo comune”. 55 La storia dell’uomo: gli ultimi due milioni di anni afferma: “Nel vecchio mondo, la maggior parte delle iniziative che condussero the agricultural revolution was made between the 10000 and 5000 BC. " She also says: "Only in the last 5,000 years, man has left no written records of his life" .56 The fact that the fossil record evidence for the sudden appearance of modern man on earth, and that historical records are reliable for recent admission , is in harmony with biblical chronology relating to human life on earth.

41 In this regard, note what he said in Science the nuclear physicist and Nobel laureate W. F. Libby, one of the pioneers of the radiocarbon dating method is based on: "The research to develop the method of dating was done in two stages: dating, respectively, specimens of prehistoric and historical periods. Arnold [an employee] and I had our first surprise when our advisors informed us that the history goes back only 5,000 years ago. . . . You read statements that this or that civilization or archeological site has 20,000 years. We learned in a rather abrupt that these figures, these ancient times, are not known with accuracy '.57

42 Reviewing a book on evolution, the British writer Malcolm Muggeridge spoke of the lack of evidence supporting evolution. He observed that multiplied the speculation, saying: "In comparison, the Genesis looks pretty serious, and at least has the merit pay to what actually know about human beings and their behavior. " He added that the unfounded attributions of millions of years evolution of man "and the sudden jump from one skull to another that can not seem to be wholly fanciful to anyone who is not dominated by the myth of [evolutionary]." Muggeridge concluded: "Posterity will marvel indeed, and I hope I find it very funny that a theory so incoherent and unconvincing so easily have taken hold on the minds of the twentieth century and has been applied so widely and with so little policy "

All Of Terkoiz Stick Fight Animations

9 - our majestic universe


for thousands of years the man observes admired the starry skies. In a clear night, stars appear as the beautiful jewels sparkling in the blackness of space. Even a full moon night has a special charm.

2 Those who reflect on what they see often ask, 'What's up there in space? How is it organized? You can find out how it all began? ' The answer to these questions would certainly better understand why the earth came into existence with all his human life, animal and plant, and what the future may have in Serbia. 3

Many centuries ago it was thought that the universe was formed by a few thousand stars visible to the naked eye. But now, with powerful tools to scrutinize the skies, scientists know that the universe is much, much larger. In reality, what has been observed is much more impressive than anyone could imagine. The human mind is bewildered in front of the immensity and complexity of the universe. Observed as National Geographic magazine, that man is learning about the universe "Leaves him stunned" .1

Immensity
4 In recent centuries, astronomers were scanning the sky with telescopes noticed rudimentary formations nebulous, indistinct contours. They thought they were gas clouds close to us. But in the twenties, with the entry into operation of the largest and most powerful telescopes, it was discovered that these "gas" was something much more vast and interesting galaxies.

5 Galaxies are huge clusters of stars, gas and other substances that rotate around a central core. University were also called islands, because each is in itself a universe. Take for example the galaxy in which viviamo, la Via Lattea. Il nostro sistema solare, cioè il sole, la terra e gli altri pianeti con le relative lune, appartiene a questa galassia. Ma ne è solo una microscopica parte, perché la nostra galassia, la Via Lattea, contiene più di 100 miliardi di stelle! Secondo alcuni scienziati questo numero dovrebbe essere almeno di 200-400 miliardi. Uno scrittore scientifico addirittura dice: “Nella Via Lattea potrebbero esserci dai cinquemila ai diecimila miliardi di stelle”.2

6 Il diametro della nostra galassia è tale che, viaggiando alla velocità della luce (299.792 chilometri al secondo), ci vorrebbero 100.000 anni per attraversarla! Quanti chilometri sono? Ebbene, dato che la luce percorre circa novemilaseicento billion (9.600.000.000.000) kilometers per year, multiplied by 100,000 and you have the answer: our galaxy, the Milky Way, has a diameter of about 960 million billion (960.000.000.000.000.000) miles! It seems that the average distance between stars in the galaxy is about six light years, or about 58 trillion kilometers.

7 For the human mind is almost impossible to conceive of similar size and distance. Yet our galaxy is only the beginning of what is in space! There is something even more amazing: so many galaxies have been identified which are considered "are common as the grass in a meadow" .3 Nell’universo osservabile si trovano circa dieci miliardi di galassie! Ma ce ne sono molte altre che si trovano al di là della portata dei telescopi attuali. Alcuni astronomi calcolano che nell’universo vi siano 100 miliardi di galassie! E ogni galassia può contenere centinaia di miliardi di stelle!

Ammassi di galassie
8 Ma c’è dell’altro. Queste imponenti galassie non sono sparpagliate qua e là nello spazio. Di solito sono disposte raggruppate in ammassi ben definiti, come acini in un grappolo. Migliaia di questi ammassi galattici sono già stati osservati e fotografati.

9 Alcuni ammassi contengono un numero relativamente limitato di galassie. Per esempio, la Via Lattea is part of a cluster consisting of a dozen galaxies. Within this group there is a local galaxy "close" in a clear night you can see without a telescope. It is the Andromeda galaxy, which, like ours, is shaped like a spiral.

10 Other galaxy clusters are composed of tens, hundreds or even thousands of galaxies. One of these clusters contains, apparently, 10,000 galaxies! The average distance between galaxies within a cluster can reach a million light years. But the distance between a cluster of galaxies and the other may be a hundred times greater. And there is even reason to think that the clusters themselves are willing into "superclusters", as the grapes on a vine. What immense proportions and wonderful organization!

organization similar
11 Coming to our solar system, is another splendid example of an organization. The sun, which is a medium size star, is the "core" around which the second precise orbits the earth and other planets with their moons. Year after year, rotating with a mathematical precision that astronomers can accurately predict where you will find at any future time.

12 Looking to the infinitely small - atoms - we find the same accuracy. The atom is a marvel of order similar to the order of the solar system. It consists of a nucleus in which there are particles called protons and neutrons surrounded by electrons orbiting tiny. All matter is made of these building blocks for construction. What makes a substance differ on the other is the amount of protons and neutrons in the nucleus and the quantity and arrangement of electrons that go around. All this with an order so perfect that all the constituent elements of matter can be arranged in regular succession according to the number of building blocks which make up.

What is behind this organization?
13 As we have seen, the size of the universe are truly stunning. The same goes for the wonderful way in which it is organized. Infinitely large to the infinitely small, from clusters of galaxies to atoms, the universe is characterized by a superb organization. Discover magazine wrote: "we noticed with surprise the order, and our physicists and cosmologists continue to identify new and surprising ways. . . . We used to call it a miracle, and yet we are led to regard the entire universe as a wonder ".4 This ordered structure is emphasized by the word itself is commonly used in astronomy to describe the universe: “cosmo”. La definizione che ne dà un dizionario è: “L’intero universo . . . considerato un tutto armonico e ordinato”.5

14 L’ex astronauta John Glenn menzionò “l’ordine dell’intero universo” e il fatto che le galassie “viaggiano in orbite prestabilite l’una rispetto all’altra”. Dopo di che chiese: “Può essere avvenuto tutto per caso? È stato per un evento accidentale che un insieme di relitti galleggianti abbia improvvisamente cominciato a stabilire queste orbite di propria iniziativa?” Glenn concluse: “Non posso crederci. . . . Qualche Forza deve aver messo tutto questo in orbita e ve keeps ".6

15 In fact, the universe is arranged with such precision that humans can rely on celestial bodies to calculate the time. But any precision timing is obviously the work of a systematic mind have the capacity to design. A systematic mind can design can not exist if not an intelligent being. What about the structure much more complex and precision that characterize the entire universe? This also does not indicate the existence of a designer, a manufacturer of a mind, an intelligence? And you have some reason to believe that intelligence can exist without personal identity?

16 can not escape: an organization requires an extraordinary extraordinary organizer. In our experience we have never seen the organization producing the event. On the contrary, all experience teaches us that everything must have had organized an organizer. Each machine, computer, building, or even a pencil or a piece of paper, is the product of a builder, an organizer. The far more complex and amazing organization of the universe logically must have also requested an organizer.

Every law requires a legislator
17 Furthermore, the entire universe, from atom to galaxy, is governed by specific physical laws. For example, there are laws that regulate the heat, light, sound and gravity. The physicist Stephen W. Hawking said: "The more we look at the universe, the more we discover that it is not at the mercy of the arbitrary but obey precise laws that operate in various fields. It seems very reasonable to assume that there may be some unifying principle in the sense that all the laws is vested in some higher law ".7

18 The missile expert Wernher von Braun went further, saying:" The natural laws of the universe are so clear that we have no difficulty building a spaceship to go to the moon and can time it for the flight with an accuracy of a fraction of a second. These laws must have been set by someone ".8 To be able to put a missile into orbit around the Earth or the moon, scientists need to respect these universal laws.

19 When we think of the laws, we recognize that emanate from a legislative body. Behind the placement of a road sign to "Stop" is certainly a person or a group of people who have established that law. What about all the laws that govern the material universe? These laws designed carefully prove the existence of a highly intelligent legislator.

The organizational and legislative
After 20 aver menzionato tutti gli straordinari esempi di legge e ordine così evidenti nell’universo, Science News ha osservato: “La contemplazione di queste cose infastidisce i cosmologi perché sembra difficile che queste condizioni particolari e precise possano avere avuto un’origine casuale. Un modo di affrontare la questione è quello di dire che il tutto sia stato progettato, e attribuirlo alla divina Provvidenza”.9

21 Molte persone, fra cui tanti scienziati, non sono disposte ad ammettere una cosa simile. Ma altre riconoscono ciò che i fatti continuano a sottolineare: l’esistenza di un’intelligenza. Riconoscono che le immense proporzioni, la precisione e le leggi esistenti in tutto l’universo could never occur by chance. All these things can be attributed to a higher mind.

22 This is the conclusion reached by a biblical writer said about the physical heavens: "Raise your eyes high up and see. Who created these? One who is bringing forth the army even number, all calls to even name. " The "One" has spoken of "the Creator of Heaven and the Great that relaxes them." - Isaiah 40:26, 42:5.

Source
The 23 universal laws governing matter exists. But where did all the matter? In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan said: "At the universe there were no galaxies, stars or planets, life, or civilizations. " Sagan defines the transition from the current universe was "the most impressive transformation of mass and energy that we had the privilege of seeing"

.10 24 This is the key to understanding how the universe can come into existence: must have been a transformation of energy and matter. This relationship was demonstrated by Einstein's famous formula, E = mc2 (energy equals mass to the speed of light squared). This formula shows, inter alia, that the matter can be obtained from the energy, as well as the matter can produce an enormous quantità di energia, cosa quest’ultima dimostrata dalla bomba atomica. L’astrofisico Josip Kleczek afferma: “La maggioranza e forse tutte le particelle elementari possono essere create dalla materializzazione dell’energia”.11

25 L’evidenza scientifica indica quindi che una fonte di energia illimitata possederebbe la materia prima per creare la sostanza dell’universo. Il già citato scrittore biblico fa notare che questa fonte di energia è un’intelligenza vivente dotata di personalità, quando dice: “A motivo dell’abbondanza dell’energia dinamica, essendo egli anche vigoroso in potenza, non ne manca nessuna [con riferimento alle cose o corpi celesti]”. Therefore, from the biblical point of view, behind the event described in Genesis 1:1 there was this unlimited energy source: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

A chaotic start as
26 In general, scientists now recognize that the universe indeed had a beginning. Among the main theories that seek to explain these initiatives is the so-called "big bang" (big explosion). "Almost all the recent discussions on the origin of the universe are based on the theory of big bang," says Francis Crick.12 With reference to this "cosmic explosion," Jastrow says: "What was really the moment of creation ".13 But, as recognized by New Scientist astrophysicist John Gribbin, although scientists" prevail in the vast majority can describe in detail "what happened after that" moment ", what determines "the instant of creation remains a mystery." And, on reflection, he added: "After all, maybe it was really God to do so" .14

27 However, most scientists are not willing to attribute this to God "moment." So usually allege that the explosion had to create chaos, like the explosion of a nuclear device. But this kind of explosions never produce a higher level of organization? The bombs that fall on the city during the war may produce beautiful buildings, roads and road signs? On the contrary, these explosions cause devastation, disorder, chaos and disintegration. And when the kind of nuclear explosive device, the disorganization is total, as they experienced the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

28 A simple "explosion" can not therefore have created our universe with its majestic structure, its laws and its order overtime. Only a powerful organizer and legislator could drive the powerful forces at work in such a manner that an organization derived e delle leggi così meravigliose. L’evidenza scientifica e la ragione forniscono quindi un solido sostegno a questa dichiarazione biblica: “I cieli dichiarano la gloria di Dio; e la distesa annuncia l’opera delle sue mani”. — Salmo 19:1.

29 La Bibbia pertanto risolve problemi che la teoria dell’evoluzione non ha chiaramente affrontato. Anziché lasciarci all’oscuro su quel che c’è dietro l’origine di tutte le cose, la Bibbia ce ne dà la risposta in modo semplice e comprensibile. Conferma le osservazioni della scienza, come pure le nostre, secondo cui nulla viene all’esistenza da sé. Sebbene non fossimo personalmente presenti quando l’universo fu creato, it is evident that he must have had an excellent manufacturer, as the Bible says: "Every house is built by someone, but he that constructed all things is God." - Hebrews 3:4.

What Kind Of Hair Does Lala Wear

8 - Mutations: a basis for evolution?


There is another difficulties that the theory of evolution has to overcome. How the evolution took place? What is a fundamental mechanism that is believed to have allowed a life form to evolve into another? Evolutionists call into question a number of changes within the cell nucleus. Among these are the most important changes "accidental" these mutations. It is thought to be responsible for these mutations in particular genes and chromosomes of the sex cells, since their changes may be transmitted to offspring.

2 "mutations. . . are the basis of evolution, "says World Book Encyclopedia.1 The paleontologist Steven Stanley called the changes "raw material" of evolution and the geneticist .2 Peo Koller said that mutations are necessary for the evolutionary process ".3 3

But evolution is not good for any mutation. Robert Jastrow points out the need for "a slow accumulation of mutations beneficial" .4 And Carl Sagan adds: "The changes - sudden changes in heredity - are reproduced faithfully. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that promote the survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of life form in the other, The origin of new species ".5

4 There is also those who argue that the mutations may help to explain the rapid changes postulated by the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium." Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman said: "The revisionists believe that the evolution of mutations in important regulatory genes may be just the hammer drills are necessary for their genetic theory of 'quantum' evolution by jumps." But the British zoologist Colin Patterson said: "Speculation has free rein. We know nothing of these key regulatory genes ".6 But apart from these speculations, it is generally believed that the mutations responsible for the alleged evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

5 What causes mutations? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they can also be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. How often do they occur? The cell's genetic material is reproduced with remarkable fidelity. Relatively speaking, in proportion to the number of dividing cells in a living, mutations are not very frequent. As noted by the Encyclopedia Americana, reproduction "of DNA strands that form a gene is remarkably accurate. Copying or transcription errors are rare incidents ".7

helpful or harmful?
6 If one of the mechanisms of evolution is represented by beneficial mutations, what percentage of them are these? On this point there is complete agreement among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan said: "Most of them is harmful or lethal" .8 Peo Koller said: "The majority of mutations are deleterious to the individual carrying the mutant gene. The experiments revealed that, for any useful or beneficial mutation, there are many thousands harmful ".9

7 Therefore, excluding the mutations" neutral ", the number of those harmful than a thousand times that of the presumably beneficial mutations. "It's normal to be so when in any highly organized structure changes occur accidentally," says the Encyclopædia Britannica.10 for this are attributed to mutations in hundreds of related illness in genetica.11

8 Given the nature of harmful mutations, recognizes the Encyclopedia Americana: "The fact that the majority of mutations is harmful to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the idea that mutations provide the raw material of evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of malformations and monstrosities, and rather than a constructive process, the mutation appears to be a destructive process ".12 Whenever mutant insects were put to compete with normal ones, the result was always the same. G. Ledyard Stebbins said: "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated" .13 They were not able to compete because it did not constitute an improvement, but degenerate forms and disadvantaged.

9 In his book, The Wellsprings of Life (The source of life), the science writer Isaac Asimov admits: "The majority of mutations are worse." But then he says: "In the long run, no doubt, the mutations allow evolution di progredire e svilupparsi”.14 Ma è così? Un qualsiasi processo che provocasse danni più di 999 volte su 1.000 sarebbe ritenuto benefico? Volendo costruire una casa, vi rivolgereste a un costruttore che, per ogni lavoro fatto bene, ne facesse migliaia di altri male? Se un automobilista prendesse migliaia di decisioni sbagliate per ogni decisione giusta, andreste in macchina con lui? Se un chirurgo commettesse migliaia di errori per ogni intervento riuscito, vi fareste operare da lui?

10 Una volta il genetista Dobzhansky disse: “È difficile che un incidente, un cambiamento casuale, in un meccanismo delicato lo migliori. È improbabile che infilando una bacchetta nel meccanismo di un orologio o in un apparecchio the radio is made to work better ".15 So ask yourself: Is it reasonable to believe that all the cells, organs, limbs and processes that are extraordinarily complex in living have been built by a mechanism breaker?

mutations produce something new?
11 If all mutations were beneficial, they could produce something new? No. A mutation can only determine the variation of a feature that already exists. Produces variety, but never something new.

12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives the example of what could happen thanks to a favorable mutation: "A plant in an arid area could have a gene mutant that makes you develop larger and stronger roots. The plant would be more likely to survive compared to other plants of its species, because its roots can absorb more water ".16 But it appeared it might be something new? No, the plant is always the same. You are not evolving into something else.

13 Mutations can change the color or texture of the hair of a person. But the hair remain hair. Do not you ever turn in pens. Mutations can change the shape of a hand, producing abnormal fingers. Sometimes it can also take a hand with six fingers or some other malformation. But it is always a hand. Never becomes something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor ever will.

experiments with Drosophila
14 With regard to mutations, few can match those experiments performed extensively on the common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Since the early twentieth century, scientists have exposed millions of these insects to X-rays This has increased the frequency of mutations over one hundred times normal.


15 After all these decades, what were the results of experiments? Dobzhansky, I will mention one: "The well-defined mutants Drosophila, the subject of much research in classical genetics, they are almost without exception, lower vitality, fertility and longevity to the insect free normal "17 Another result was that the mutations have never produced anything new . The fruit flies showed defects in the wings, the legs, body and on the other kind, but always remained fruit flies. And, coupling between their insect mutants, it was found that after a certain number of generations, began again to be born normal fruit flies. In nature, these normal fruit flies have finally got the better of the weaker mutants, surviving and perpetuating the Drosophila in its original form.

16 The hereditary code, DNA, has the unique ability to repair their genetic damage. This contributes to the preservation of the type of organism that is encoded. An article in Science magazine Le talks about how "the life of each body and its continuity from generation to generation" are secured by "enzymes that continuously, repair genetic lesions. The article states: "In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce a response in emergency situations which are synthesized greater amounts of repair enzymes"

.18 17 In the book Darwin Retried, the author recounts the following about the late and esteemed geneticist Richard Goldschmidt: "After observing for many years, Drosophila mutations, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, to his disappointment, were so hopelessly small that even if one item had taken place one thousand mutations, there would still have been no new species ".19

The Biston betularia
18 texts in the evolutionary Biston betularia (also known as a butterfly "geometry of birch trees") of England is often cited as a modern example of evolution in action. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia says: "This is the most dramatic evolutionary change that man has ever been observed "20 Jastrow, in his book" Red Giants and White Dwarfs, having recalled the torment of Darwin for not being able to demonstrate a single case of evolution of species, he adds: "If she had known had at hand a sample that would provide proof that he sought. It was an extremely rare event ".21 The case in question was of course one of the butterfly above.

19 What happened to Biston betularia? At first, the lighter varieties of this butterfly was more widespread than dark. The variety is clearly confused with the better light color of the trunks of trees and was therefore more protected dall'insidia birds. But later, after years and years of industrial pollution, the trunk of the trees became darker. Now the light color of the butterflies had become a danger, because the birds to determine more quickly and to eat. Consequently, the darker variety of Biston betularia, considered a mutant, survive more easily because the birds had difficulty in identifying the trees blackened by soot. The darker varieties soon became the dominant one. But the 20

Biston betularia was perhaps evolving into some other kind of insect? No, it was always the same butterfly, just a different color. Therefore, the British medical journal has criticized the On Call use this example as alleged proof of evolution, saying: "This is an excellent demonstration of the role of mimicry, but, since it begins and ends with butterflies without seeing the formation of any new species, is quite irrelevant as a evidence for evolution ".22 21 The

Biston betularia incorrect assertion that is evolving is common to several other cases. For example, since some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, some people talk about evolution in action. But the germs more resistant germs are always the same: it is evolving into something else. And he acknowledges that the change could be determined non da mutazioni, ma dal fatto che alcuni germi erano immuni fin dall’inizio. Quando gli altri sono stati uccisi dai farmaci, quelli immuni si sono moltiplicati acquistando il predominio. Il libro Evoluzione dallo spazio dice: “Dubitiamo però che in questi casi possa trovarsi qualcosa di più della selezione di geni già esistenti”.23

22 Lo stesso processo può essersi verificato anche nel caso di certi insetti risultati immuni a determinati insetticidi. Questi veleni o uccidevano gli insetti con cui venivano in contatto o risultavano inefficaci contro di loro. Gli insetti morti non potevano ovviamente sviluppare alcuna resistenza al veleno. La sopravvivenza degli altri poteva significare che erano immuni già dall’inizio. Questa immunità è un fattore genetico presente in certi insetti ma non in altri. In ogni caso, gli insetti rimanevano della stessa specie. Non si evolvevano in qualcos’altro.

“Secondo la loro specie”
23 Ancora una volta le mutazioni confermano quanto formulato nel primo capitolo di Genesi: I viventi si riproducono solo “secondo la loro specie”. La ragione è che il codice genetico impedisce alla pianta o all’animale di discostarsi troppo dalla media. Può esserci un’ampia varietà (come si vede, ad esempio, fra gli uomini, fra i gatti o fra i cani), ma non fino al punto che un organismo vivente possa trasformarsi in un altro. Ciò è confermato da all experiments on mutations. It also confirmed the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from other life and the body pre-existing parent and its progeny are the same "species."

24 This is also confirmed by controlled breeding experiments. By crosses, the scientists tried to produce continuous variations in different animals and plants. They wanted to see if over time could produce new forms of life. What was the outcome? The regular On Call reports: "Experts in the field of controlled reproduction usually found that after several generations reaches an optimum beyond which further improvements are impossible, and that si è formata nessuna nuova specie . . . Anziché sostenere l’evoluzione, quindi, le tecniche di riproduzione controllata sembrerebbero smentirla”.24

25 Più o meno la stessa cosa fa notare la rivista Science: “Le specie hanno in effetti la capacità di subire lievi modificazioni nelle loro caratteristiche fisiche e d’altro genere, ma questa capacità è limitata, e a lungo andare si riflette in una oscillazione intorno a valori medi”.25 Pertanto ciò che i viventi ereditano non è la possibilità di continuare a cambiare, ma, piuttosto, (1) stabilità e (2) un campo di variabilità limitato.

26 Il libro Molecules to Living Cells (From molecules to living cells) and then says: "The cells of a carrot or liver of mice stably maintain their identity and organ tissue after several cycles of reproduction" .26 And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution (Symbiosis in the evolution of the cell ) says: "All life. . . you play with incredible fidelity ".27 Even Scientific American noted:" The living differ greatly in shape, but this is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs are pigs, and the oak trees remain oak one generation after another. " 28 And a science writer observed: "I always bring roses roses and never camellias. And the goats give birth to kids, lambs ever. " Mutations, he concludes, "can not explain evolution as a whole, that is why there are fish, reptiles, birds and mammals" .29

27 The variability within the species helps to explain something that helped form the hypothesis evolution in the minds of Darwin. When he was in the Galapagos, Darwin observed the finches. These birds were descended from those of South America, where it apparently had migrated. But presented with curious differences, for example in the form of the beak. Darwin interpreted it as a case of evolution in progress. But in fact, was merely one of many Examples of varieties within a species, genetic structure allowed by the individual. The finches were still finches. Were not transformed into something else, nor would never do. 28

What Genesis says it is therefore in full harmony with the scientific facts. When you plant the seeds, they produce only "after their kind", so that you can plant a garden, some of the dependability of this law. When a cat gives birth, children are still kittens. When humans become parents, and children are always human beings. There are variations in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the species. I personally have never seen anything different? Nor does it happen to others.

are not a basis for the evolution
29 The conclusion is clear. Regardless of their quantity, accidental genetic changes can not turn into another living species. The French biologist Jean Rostand once said, "No, I just can not convince me that these 'slips' genetic have been able, with the help of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time on evolution , to produce the entire world, with its profusion of forms and its structural improvements, its extraordinary 'adjustments' ".30

30 In modo analogo, il genetista C. H. Waddington disse a proposito delle capacità attribuite alle mutazioni: “Questa è in realtà la teoria secondo cui, partendo con quattordici righe qualsiasi in inglese coerente e cambiando una lettera alla volta — conservando solo quelle parti che hanno ancora un senso — si finirà per comporre uno dei sonetti di Shakespeare. . . . mi sembra una logica folle, e penso che dovremmo poter fare di meglio”.31

31 La verità, come dichiara il prof. John Moore, è questa: “Se rigorosamente esaminata e analizzata, qualsiasi asserzione dogmatica . . . secondo cui le mutazioni genetiche siano la materia prima of any evolutionary process involving natural selection is the expression of a myth. "



. . . The logical conclusion
Putting evolution and creation in comparison with reality, it is not clear which of the two corresponds to the facts and what they are up against? Both the testimony of the living world that those in the fossil record on life forms existed long ago lead to the same conclusion: life is created, not evolved.

Life is not therefore have originated in some unknown "soup" primordial. Men do not come from apelike ancestors. The many forms of life were instead created as distinct families. Could multiply each giving rise to a great variety within their own "species" but could not cross the boundary that separates one species from the other. This boundary, as is clearly seen among the living, is guaranteed by sterility. And the separation between the species is assured by the genetic code of each characteristic.

But, in addition to the correspondence between reality and predictions based on the schema creative, there are many other evidences of the existence of a Creator. Think of the extraordinary complexity of the project and the things that are on earth and in the rest of the universe. These also prove the existence of an Intelligence supreme. In later chapters we will examine some of these wonders, the majestic universe to the complex structures of the microscopic world.