If you have not read Stories Versus Truth, you may want to read that before reading this.

Since the actual geologic column disproves the molecules-to-man evolution conjecture / fabrication some Evolutionists came up with the idea to fabricate a misrepresentation of the geologic column. (Only 1% of the Earth's surface has all ten Phanerozoic systems. At to that the fact that this supposed column should be 100-200 miles thick if the Billions-of-Years assumptions are correct. It is less than 10% of this thickness in the best example.) Now, their newly created fictitious column fits the hypothesis of evolution to a T. They make up a fake column that exists nowhere, and they claim that the fake column proves evolution. Evolution isn't science and must rely on flimflam to protect the salaries of the defenders of evolution. They put a cartoon of their fake column in all the text books. I suppose, they wanted it to exist somewhere, so now it does. It exists in the textbooks and in the textbooks only.

It's in the books. Check it out! It must be true.

And after all, who would challenge a professor? No one wants to flunk out of school. So a lot of students fold. They have been folding for many years. As a result of this, most people learn a new kind of ethics. They say, "Yes, I see the column and I bow to your cartoon." This ethical standard has self-interest at its center. If I want to pass the class, then I have to bow to the ignorance. So, they are educated into ignorance and also into a lack of ethics.

I wonder why we are having such ethical problems among business and government leaders lately. Don't you wonder, too?

Once someone has earned a degree, they've made an investment of time and money. Challenging the professors now would invalidate the degree and all the money spent, or at least make the degree's value more questionable. Not too many people want to do that after spending all that time and money. One of the things that evolutionists have in their favor is all this human self-interest.

There is no compelling evidence that molecules-to-man evolution actually happened or even that it could possibly happen. Evolution is merely a series of scientifically impossible stories. The stories of evolution violate many of the basic laws of science such as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. We observe adaptations and mutations, but we also observe the limits of adaptation and the fact that no new information is ever added by adaptation and mutation. (Read Without Excuse by Werner Gitt, a description of the scientific Laws of Universal Information. See also: Information Theory Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4. Here is another interesting article.) More is constantly being learned about information and about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Evolutionists tend to hide in the weeds of the unknown with an argument from ignorance: "If you can't prove, by empirical science, that evolution is impossible, then it happened." By empirical science alone, we can only prove probabilities. The probabilities show the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story to be a bazaar hypothesis, a story that is so improbable that it should not be considered. However, empirical science is not a tool that can prove anything to be true or false absolutely. For absolute proof, we have revelation. God says that He created everything. He is the One Who enforces the laws of nature. He is the One Who will judge all of us in the end. We know that because we know Him presonally through the indwelling Presence of Jesus Christ and the moment-by-moment instruction of the Holy Spirit.

We observe that great volumes of information would have to be added in order for molecules to man evolution to take place and we see that this would be impossible. Adaptation uses information that is already in the genetic code, so no new information is added. We now know that most mutations are nearly neutral, but that they accumulate to become problematic. Mutations lose genetic information, and much of this loss is through errors in the genetic code. The so-called beneficial mutations are also losses to the information contained in the genetic code. Evolution has a troubling information problem.

A typical response to this is for an evolutionist to point out some instance where forensic evidence can be used to show a logical conclusion based on evidence that an event took place even though the event itself cannot be repeated. Examples include a theft or a dog doing damage while you were away. These are straw man arguments in that they misrepresent what was just said in the previous paragraph. We have observed that people can steal and we have seen dogs do damage. We know that these things are possible and we can actually do experiments to repeat the processes and show that the evidence that was left behind is consistent with the evidence left behind by our experiments in theft or dog damage. No one, on the other hand, has ever observed or done an experiment in which DNA was created from chemicals or DNA assembled itself into a living cell or a fish turned into a lizard or a lizard turned into a human being. They have tried and they have lied about the results of trying, but no one has ever observed these impossible claims. Evolution is simply a story that requires that scientists must ignore all the evidence that would refute the evolutionary story and they must interpret the results of their science through the distorted lens of evolution.

What would you do if every bit of evidence pointed to the fact that you were making a terrible error and that your whole life was built, to some extent, on that error?

Would you deny all the evidence? You might.

Would you change what you are doing? You might.

Everyone is wrong sometimes. We are all wrong about something all the time, but different people react to their errors in different ways.

What are you going to do?

Evolution isn't science.