Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: What are some easy to remember facts that aren't convenient for evolutionists?  (Read 1699 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cryptinox

  • Supporter
  • ***
  • Posts: 1168
  • Reputation: +251/-92
  • Gender: Male
I want some fast facts I can remember to use whenever I hear someone promote evolution or the Earth being millions of years old nonsense
I recant many opinions on the crisis in the Church and moral theology that I have espoused on here from at least 2019-2021 don't take my postings from that time as well as 2022 possibly too seriously.

Offline Thed0ctor

  • Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 151
  • Reputation: +39/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I want some fast facts I can remember to use whenever I hear someone promote evolution or the Earth being millions of years old nonsense
    Like Bp. Sandborn said "They literally believe in princess and the frog"


    Offline DigitalLogos

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 8304
    • Reputation: +4718/-754
    • Gender: Male
    • Slave to the Sacred Heart
      • Twitter
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Transitional fossils. There aren't any. At all.

    Or, you could point to the fact that a wing is either a wing or it isn't a wing, there is no in-between. And those which would possess such a deformity would die off.

    The most effective are that of form/essence, if someone has a little philosophical knowledge. A dog is a dog and only produces dogs, it never turns into a cat or a lizard, because then it would cease to be a dog.
    "Be not therefore solicitous for tomorrow; for the morrow will be solicitous for itself. Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." [Matt. 6:34]

    "In all thy works remember thy last end, and thou shalt never sin." [Ecclus. 7:40]

    "A holy man continueth in wisdom as the sun: but a fool is changed as the moon." [Ecclus. 27:12]

    Offline SimpleMan

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5048
    • Reputation: +1980/-246
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Transitional fossils. There aren't any. At all.

    Or, you could point to the fact that a wing is either a wing or it isn't a wing, there is no in-between. And those which would possess such a deformity would die off.

    The most effective are that of form/essence, if someone has a little philosophical knowledge. A dog is a dog and only produces dogs, it never turns into a cat or a lizard, because then it would cease to be a dog.
    I know there are a lot of problems with the Dimonds, but in the video Creation and Miracles --- an excellent resource! --- our friend Brother Michael points out that similarity of design and function between certain aspects of species does not necessarily denote a common origin, but points more towards a common designer.

    Word to the wise, if you are homeschooling and want to use a secular text, the Holt Life Science book presents such a weak case for evolution, that I have to suspect it is deliberately denatured to make the text palatable to conservative school boards and state departments of education, maybe such as Texas, eh?  I have been able to take that text, and while using it, and being able to docuмent with written work and tests that we have been using it (in case we would ever be called upon to defend our homeschool, grading, etc.), you can poke holes straight through their treatment of evolution.  I told my son that it would take more faith to believe in evolution, than to believe in creation!

    Holt has outstanding CD-ROM-based resources, all the exercises and tests you could want, it is totally "turn-key".  We used the Apologia Press Understanding Creation series for chemistry and physics, but I find the Charlotte Mason approach kind of puerile and low on solid scientific facts.  We will find better texts for the remaining high school grades.  And it comes with no resources, you have to make your own or rely on free-standing online sources.

    Offline StLouisIX

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1351
    • Reputation: +1015/-116
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Blood tissue has been found in the remains of supposedly “long-extinct” creatures like Tyrannosaurus Rex:

    https://www.icr.org/article/more-trex-soft-tissues/

    This makes no sense if you believe that animals like this actually died out 65 million years ago, because the half-life of organic matter is supposedly 1 million years. Apparently the establishment has tried to explain that by saying that there just happened to be a lot of iron in the blood that enabled this preservation, but I find that utterly ridiculous. 

    A great article from the Kolbe center that mentions this find and shows how faulty carbon dating really is: 

    https://www.kolbecenter.org/question-of-time/


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3923
    • Reputation: +3105/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • I want some fast facts I can remember to use whenever I hear someone promote evolution or the Earth being millions of years old nonsense
    It was Charles Lyell (1797-1875), Adam Sedgwick, Sir Roderick Murchison and many other like-minded men of the Geological Society of London, founded in 1807, who first proposed the Earth itself was formed over long ages. Once Kant and Laplace’s 1755-1796 theory of an evolved solar-system took hold in mens’ minds, it became crucial to produce some ‘proof’ for long-ages just as it was necessary to produce ‘proof’ for heliocentrism. The uniformitarians did this by using the layers of sedimentary rock strata found all over the Earth.

    The uniformitarian theory is based on the layers of sedimentary rock found all over the world being laid down during different ages.

    ‘Sedimentary rocks form by an accuмulation of layers in a variety of environments such as the sea floor, lake or desert. The sediment will eventually consolidate to become rock strata (layers). Generally, the lowest layers are older than the upper layers and any plant or animal remains they contain will be older [and more evolved], as will any minerals that were formed during or soon after the deposition.’

    Is that a fact now? Well, experiments conducted at the University of Colorado by sedimentologist Guy Berthault between 1985 and 1990 have shattered all conceived assertions that sediments were laid down one layer on top of another throughout time. In fact, Berthault, testing sedimentation with sediments in moving waters, found sediments are laid down in a sideways motion, so that the bottom strata of deposits, always considered the oldest according to that ‘science,’ can well be younger than the top strata further back along the path of any deposit. Berthault’s tests offered scientific evidence that showed the long-age sedimentation geology of Lyell and others used by Darwin for his evolution is no longer feasible. The sedimentologist’s sideway findings were published in his book Principles of geologic dating in question  and then in the French scientific review Fusion. Here below is how Peter Wilders describes how the ‘scientific’ world reacted.

    ‘First was the classical and normally most effective tactic of silence. By not replying to the docuмentation sent to them, the Geological Society, in this case that of France, blocked all dialogue on it. The author of the experiments countered their tactics by sending a copy of the scientific journal to all the 1,200 or so active members of the society. In this way, everyone in the geological community in France was made aware of the experiment results. The society retaliated by attacking the experimenter from authority, i.e., they claimed that all the geologists for three centuries could not be wrong; therefore, the evidence could be safely ignored. The success of such a method depended upon the geologists being united. Most were, but a few responded independently saying they were interested… Supportive geologists fearing for their credibility and, therefore livelihood, wait in the wings.’

    Wilders goes on to say that the final rejection of Berthault’s evidence came from the Galilean Catholic hierarchy as might be expected. They placed a letter in the Geological Society’s half-yearly newsletter and, giving no heed at all to the empirical evidence supplied by Berthault, they accused the scientist of ‘pseudoscience and creationism.’ ‘By attacking his personal credibility, they knew that most geologists would not take his work seriously’ wrote Wilders.

    Offline Matthew

    • Mod
    • *****
    • Posts: 33020
    • Reputation: +29326/-601
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No transitional fossils have been found. No missing links -- between ANY species. Darwin thought they would be found eventually -- little did he know that a couple hundred years later, STILL nothing.

    Another inconvenient truth: they used to think cells were about as complex as a bowl of jell-o. Little did they know they were little universes in themselves. Now that we know how complex DNA is, and the interior of cells are, there is NO excuse to believe in evolution.
    Want to say "thank you"? 
    You can send me a gift from my Amazon wishlist!
    https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

    My accounts (Paypal, Venmo) have been (((shut down))) PM me for how to donate and keep the forum going.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3923
    • Reputation: +3105/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Then there are Radioactive Halos Cryptonox

    Such an evolution and rock formation, of course, would have to include aspects of atomic radiation left behind in certain rocks, but that science did not begin until 1895. It seems that there is radioactivity going on within certain rocks and it leaves behind evidence of this activity and decay. As one would expect it is a complicated science and is of course used to age the Earth at billions of years old, just like the layers of sediments themselves and the fossils found in them are used by the evolutionists to convince all it took millions of years to happen. Well, just as we had a Berthault who investigated the Earth’s sediments, the nuclear science of rocks had its man who investigated the history of radiation in them. His name is Robert Gentry (1933-2020) and he wrote up his findings in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery in which he also tells us of the rejections he received from the ‘expert’ scientists in his field, exactly the same response Berthault experienced. In 1962, when he first proposed that he do a thesis on earlier investigations of the radioactive history of rock as his PhD, it was rejected on the basis that that science had already ended and any find other than established would challenge years of evolutionary findings. Such was Robert Gentry’s determination to do the retesting; he began it in his own premises, with his own money, whereas he said, many millions of taxpayers’ dollars were given to the evolutionists to pursue their propaganda there was no funding for something that might contradict their findings. So how does one go about dating a piece of granite? You crush it, he said in his lecture, found in his website below,  do some chemistry on it, and extract chemical elements out of it like uranium, an active radiation, and examine the halos left after activity.

    Radioactive halos left behind in rocks    www.halos.com

    To make a long story short, Gentry found halos in certain rocks like granite that were instant, with little or no time in their decay. In other words, he said, it was God’s marker, left behind when He created rock instantly, to thwart the evolutionists God knew would eventually try to eliminate Him from His Creation. Needless to say, because his findings made the radioactive Earth-ageing business redundant, they gave him hell. Nevertheless, he challenged all of them to try to prove his instant creation wrong, which none could do. Now whereas Gentry’s find does not age the Earth scientifically, it prevents the evolutionary science from using rock formation as billions of years old.


    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3923
    • Reputation: +3105/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘And the flood was forty days upon the earth, and the waters increased, and lifted up the ark on high from the earth. For they overflowed exceedingly: and filled all on the face of the earth: and the ark was carried upon the waters. And the waters prevailed beyond measure upon the earth: and all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. And all flesh was destroyed that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beasts, and of all creeping things that creep upon the earth: and all men.’ (Genesis 7: 17-21)

    Now consider examples of sedimentation found worldwide, some above and below the lie of the land. Of special note are the mountains of deposits found worldwide, often depicted on Google. For these mountains of sedimentation to occur, the waters had to be higher than the existing mountains worldwide. The evidence then shows a world-wide flood.

    Then there is the Mount St Helens volcano eruption in Washington State in 1980 (third right picture above). In a matter days and weeks, layer after layer of lava lairs formed in front of the scientists studying the explosion. This demonstrated that the supposed millions of years necessary to lay down such formations are not necessarly a true fact of science.

    After churchmen fell for heliocentrism in 1820, an evolved one by then, and a heliocentric meaning Bible, churchmen then had to go along with the 'science' that showed a long ages Earth. Soon we got the following:

    In his 1913 book Galileo and his Condemnation, the Jesuit Fr Hull (1863-1952) gives us a demonstration of the propaganda used and the history of how the modernists made Noah’s Flood conform to the ‘advancement of science.’

    ‘Down to a generation or two ago it was the general belief of Christians that the deluge of Noah covered the whole Earth, and that it is so described in the most explicit terms in the Bible. Certain new considerations, mainly drawn from geology, led specialists to the contrary conclusion that the deluge was by no means universal, but was a comparatively local phenomenon; widespread enough to cover the area occupied by mankind at that time, but not much more. This view at first found considerable opposition in theological circles; partly because the restriction of the area of the flood was not as yet demonstrated beyond question, and partly because it ran counter to the literal text of the Scripture as universally understood by its interpreters. Fortunately, the view did not attain such sudden publicity as to cause a widespread sensation, and so no crisis arose. The partial-deluge-view gradually came to look more feasible, and the possibility of interpreting Scripture accordingly became more evident. The new view gradually filtered down from learned circles to the man in the street, so that nowadays the partiality of the deluge is a matter of commonplace knowledge among all educated Christians, and taught to the rising generation in elementary schools.’

    How could local-floods, river sediments, sea sedimentation etc., result in such fossil-containing mountain layers at such heights in many countries of the Earth? ‘Local’ waters could not reach such heights as common sense will tell you. But a global flood as depicted in Genesis and Chinese history could have caused such mountains of sediments found worldwide. It tells us of a deluge of rain and months of waters bursting from under the Earth causing separations of lands and mountains to form world-wide before receding and leaving behind the landscapes and mountain high rock-forms as we now find them.Alas, 100 years after Fr Hull, we find the global Deluge depicted in Catholic Bibles not only as local, but that not all people were drowned:

    ‘Deluge. The great flood which covered the whole land or region in which Noe lived (Gen. 6:1-9:19). God sent this flood to destroy all men in this region because of their wickedness. Noe and his family alone were spared (Gen. 6:1-8). Scriptural scholars say that the flood did not necessarily cover the whole Earth as we know it today; some even hold that it not necessarily destroyed all the people on the Earth.’ ----- The Holy Bible: The Catholic Press Inc. Chicago, 1951.

    So much for the dogma: ‘no salvation outside the Catholic Church (the Ark).

    Why then, according to Genesis, did God tell Noah to build a massive Ark over many years, a barge, the dimensions of which are recorded in Genesis and known by modern shipbuilders to be the perfect dimensions for its purpose, a barge bigger than any modern cruise ship, just to spend a year afloat on a local flooded plain the size of a large lake when he and his family could have simply moved with horse and cart to a dry region in the same way as Moses was advised to move out of Egypt to save his people? Moreover, why did Genesis tell us Noah took so many animals, birds etc. in the Ark to preserve such kinds on Earth after the waters receded? If there were ‘regions’ that were not flooded, then surely the animals and birds on them would have made God’s order to Adam totally unnecessary.



    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4129
    • Reputation: +2431/-528
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In his 1913 book Galileo and his Condemnation, the Jesuit Fr Hull (1863-1952) gives us a demonstration of the propaganda used and the history of how the modernists made Noah’s Flood conform to the ‘advancement of science.’

    ‘Down to a generation or two ago it was the general belief of Christians that the deluge of Noah covered the whole Earth, and that it is so described in the most explicit terms in the Bible. Certain new considerations, mainly drawn from geology, led specialists to the contrary conclusion that the deluge was by no means universal, but was a comparatively local phenomenon; widespread enough to cover the area occupied by mankind at that time, but not much more. This view at first found considerable opposition in theological circles; partly because the restriction of the area of the flood was not as yet demonstrated beyond question, and partly because it ran counter to the literal text of the Scripture as universally understood by its interpreters. Fortunately, the view did not attain such sudden publicity as to cause a widespread sensation, and so no crisis arose. The partial-deluge-view gradually came to look more feasible, and the possibility of interpreting Scripture accordingly became more evident. The new view gradually filtered down from learned circles to the man in the street, so that nowadays the partiality of the deluge is a matter of commonplace knowledge among all educated Christians, and taught to the rising generation in elementary schools.’



    I've never heard this name, but this Fr. Hull sounds like a modernist. It is pure modernism to deny the Flood and claim it only covered part of the earth. And yes, he is right, such an idea would rightly have been considered heretical for the entire history of the Church before the 20th century. It is contrary to Scripture, and contrary to the unanimous interpretation of Scripture by the Fathers, who all taught that the Flood covered the whole earth, as the Bible says it did.

    Offline cassini

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3923
    • Reputation: +3105/-275
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • I want some fast facts I can remember to use whenever I hear someone promote evolution or the Earth being millions of years old nonsense

    For their evolution of the living to happen a first cell must evolve in the ‘pre-bionic soup,’ that is, the potpourri of star-dust and certain chemicals produced by the ‘Big Bang.’ Now it is one thing proposing such a unit as a cell evolved from a mixture of inorganic matter, another for it to acquire its ‘vitalism’ or life in order to function. The source and cause of animation; be it flora or fauna, lies totally outside the realm of human science. Try as they did, do and will, they will never give life to non-living matter for that ability belongs solely to God. As Louis Pasteur said, you can only get vitalism in something already living.

    As for this living cell itself, well first it must have a NUCLEUS. This is the control centre needed in the heart of the organism and operates the cell through complex molecules of NUCLEIC ACID (DNA) and the GENES that make up those molecules and act as the units of heredity. Each of these carries the code for some characteristic of its natural form. This code is spelled out by hundreds of smaller units called NUCLEOTIDES that are arranged in highly specific sequences within the gene. Now these genes are constructed in strings called CHROMOSOMES and are strung in precise and specific sequences. In the human cell there are 46 chromosomes arranged in paired arms, twin arms. In the nucleus of any cell the chromosomes contain the already coded blueprint for structuring the body. A MEMBRANE encloses the cell, structured so as to allow certain chemicals only to pass through it. Inside this is a fluid called CYTOPLASM in which countless bodies carry on the life-lasting business of the cell. An OUTER-MEMBRANE encloses and protects the cell; it in turn allowing only certain materials to enter or leave by a method unknown to science. Inside the cell there is an ongoing production of PROTEINS. Each type of protein is determined by a code in the gene. An ENZYME is triggered which examines the gene and builds an RNA-MOLECULE in the image of the blueprint. When this is completed, it receives a signal to stop. This RNA brings the message to the cytoplasm where it is held by one of many RIBOSOMES that are so complex as to defy scientific comprehension. These build up the protein by linking various AMINO ACIDS in the specific sequence of the blueprint. For this, TRANSFER-RNA catches amino-acids, each using special enzymes. Each of the mechanisms of the evolving cell would need a computer to regulate, for even the simplest cell contains several thousand kinds of proteins and many billions, yes billions, of each of those kinds. The data contained within any first cell at its emergence from the evolutionary stew-pot would be equivalent to a 50 million telephone number, or the amount of information needed to monitor every traffic light change in the world.   

    How then did the first evolving cell survive? Can anything survive without nutritional intake? What part of any creature evolved first from that first cell? In fauna, which organ evolved first, the brain, the heart, the kidneys, the spleen, the glands etc? Which system of a body evolves first, its blood and veins, its circulatory system, its digestive system, its endocrine system, its respiratory system, its nervous system, its immune system, its lymphatic system, its muscular system, its skeletal system, its urinary system, its reproductive system? Can one essential part of a living creature exist without the others? Then there is the fantasy of further evolution, the ability to change in so many ways. Take for example an eye, the ability of anything that sees to see. What an amazing organ, structured to take in images, light and darkness, colour and shapes, and pass on such images to the brain whereupon the creature can ‘see them.’ Did the ability to see evolve, and if so, was it by chance? If anybody believes the ability for a creature to see came about by chance evolution then they are intellectually redundant, they have lost control of their thinking ability. And that is what even debating the subject of natural evolution is; indulging in absolute nonsense, simple nonsense. And that is why Charles Darwin skipped the impossible bits and his theory began with an already evolved creature or creatures ready for further evolution. But even this illusion had problems. You see if all these evolving creatures once existed then the fossils found in the sediments should be able to verify this progress. But in his time, no such billions of evolving fossils had been found. Darwin knew this and hoped they would be found eventually. Indeed, he said his theory depended on finding them. This we know did not happen.

    ‘In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions… these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.’


    Offline Yeti

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 4129
    • Reputation: +2431/-528
    • Gender: Male
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ‘Deluge. The great flood which covered the whole land or region in which Noe lived (Gen. 6:1-9:19). God sent this flood to destroy all men in this region because of their wickedness. Noe and his family alone were spared (Gen. 6:1-8). Scriptural scholars say that the flood did not necessarily cover the whole Earth as we know it today; some even hold that it not necessarily destroyed all the people on the Earth.’ ----- The Holy Bible: The Catholic Press Inc. Chicago, 1951.

    Yikes, this was in the early fifties??! i guess you could say it's not advocating that position, only saying that some (heretics) believe it.

    I'm fairly sure it's heretical to say that not everyone was killed in the Flood (aside from Noe, etc.), since Scripture says that explicitly and repeatedly. Ladislaus, would you qualify that error as heretical?