Category: Evolution vs creation debates

Evidence against evolution, Evidence for Creation, Evolution vs creation debates, ica stones, Youn earth evidence

The Incas were known for being far more advanced than anyone of that time. But to discredit the stones, the evolutionists took and made fun of their historic pictures that showed them doing all kinds of surgeries, just because they did not like the dinosaur pictures with men fighting them, or being killed by them. This is so they could categorizes all of the stones as fake. Again, basically denying the past history of Peru just to protect a theory.

Here are some of the Ica stones that bothered evolutionists that they felt a need to discredit them all (you can click on the thumbnails to load a bigger picture of the stones):

So just because there was someone making replicas of the original stones, does that make all the stones fake? Using that type of logic, just about every painting is now fake for the same reason. So all of this was just a lame attempt at covering up creation evidence to protect evolution.

If you use FireFox browser, when you click on the thumbnails and would like an even bigger picture to look at. Hold down the Ctrl key on your keyboard, and tap the plus sign (+) key. Each time you tap it the picture gets bigger. You tap the minus sign (-) key to get the opposite effect.

atheism a religion, Atheist extreme bias, Evolution vs creation debates
If you cannot question it it's not science it's propaganda.

According to the rules of how a theory works, it must “always” remain falsifiable. The minute it becomes unfalsifiable is also the same minute it’s no longer a theory. And when it’s no longer a theory, it has to become one of 2 things. Proven wrong, or what is considered an unchangeable law. In the video below you will see the attempt to make evolution an historical fact. Historical facts are not falsifiable.

Video

Notice in the video that she says that to have students “question” evolution is to mislead them. Then of course the Christian problem of challenging evolution is brought up. What I find ironic is that a real scientific theory would never compete with religion. Example: Does the theory of how electricity works compete with religion? The word weakness is being removed because it puts evolution into question. Then it’s brought up again, to question evolution is to mislead students. So basically historians can now enter the ranks of people who can prove evolution even though they generally don’t have any degrees in biology.

Next video is where a discussion is being held over evolution. Notice how the advocate, Eugene Scott, makes every attempt to say: If you question evolution you are basically stupid. And then what really is an eye opener is what she says about our kids in schools: I would question whether high school students are capable of evaluating high level science. Because according to Eugene Scott, you only being taught the basics. Why send them to school at all if they cannot learn how to evaluate? So basically instead of a high school student being able to make up his or her own mind, and test whatever they are taught. Instead they have to believe it. That’s not education, that’s indoctrination. In other words, you have to believe in evolution, with no questions asked. Let’s look at the definition of indoctrination.

Indoctrination: teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.

Video

Basically to teach someone a way to think and not be able to question it. So are our schools teaching mindless clones the doctrine of evolution? But what I find ironic is that evolutionists will use education and ignorance to say that people who don’t believe are uneducated and ignorant. But lets look at what happens to a person who is very educated and questioned evolution.

Video

Ben Stein graduated from Columbia University in 1966 with honors in economics and as valedictorian of the 1970 Yale Law School class. Now did his opinions matter when he is well educated? Nope.

Video

As this video illustrates, you are a fool, regardless of education, just because you disagree with evolution. And what funny is that this guy claims there is no such thing as Darwinism. I suggest you Google it: Darwinism (link) The reason the word Darwinism was made up in the first place was that there were different beliefs about evolution as it was being researched. Basically how evolution progression happened. So a separation was needed thus the word Darwinism was born. Then he brings up the Nobel Prize deal. Sorry, but ever since Gore and Obama got Noble Prizes, I have totally no respect for it. Scientist Dr. Raymond Damadian who invented the technology for the MRI. He was not been given a Nobel prize for his work, but as a slap in the face it was awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for their discoveries related to MRI instead. All because Dr. Raymond Damadian was a creationist. Reference: Wikipedia

So is the invention of the MRI worthy of a Nobel Prize or not? To further inflict insult, I can guarantee it will not be awarded until after he is dead. And If I were in Damadian’s family, I would reject it if they hold it until he dies. This goes along with the page I did on evolution being about conformism. Which by the way, the video above is a perfect example of.

So is evolution falsifiable? Not if:
1) It can no longer be questioned.
2) Naturalism remains the only thing science will investigate.
3) Indoctrination is the only way it will ever be taught.
4) And fear of character assassination, or loss of job because one does not conform to evolutionary beliefs. Basically using fear to spread their beliefs.

Every time I see a video, website, forum, or blog making fun of creationists, I laugh. You know why? It’s because it shows that when the evidence fails for evolution, character assassination is all that they have left. So ham it up, it only shows how lame evolution is that it would require a person to resort to such things. In fact, while I’m on this subject of how evolutionist “have to” act badly to prove their theory. Let’s see where their ideas to do this really came from… Saul Alinsky’s book on communism called: Rules for Radicals. Gives a point by point action in defeating your non-communist foe and be able to take over. See if any of these tactics look familiar.

7. Tactics

“Tactics are those conscious deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. … Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.” p.126

Always remember the first rule of power tactics (pps.127-134):

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

2. “Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat…. [and] the collapse of communication.

3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)

4. “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

6. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….”

8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.”

11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside… every positive has its negative.”

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

“…any target can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?’ When your ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the ‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target…’

“One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” (pps.127-134)

I find it ironic that almost every evolutionist resorts to these tactics during debates. Militant atheists are the worst and will train the wannabes by example. So is it really science they are promoting while using evolution as their tool, or is there another agenda? And all of these tactics make evolution unfalsifiable. Fear of having their beloved theory proven wrong requires such actions. if not. maybe one can post here and explain why?

DNA, Evidence against evolution, Evidence for Creation, Evolution vs creation debates

Evolutionist try to use the fused chromosome #2 argument for proving evolution. I will use their own video to explain from a man who “claims” to be a theist and at the end of the video will try to use guilt as to the reason you should believe as he does.

How close are the primate to one another,
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
Read More
www.youtube.com

1) Now notice that the whole argument is based on the assumption that evolution has already been proven. In other words, an implied absolute. This chromosome #2 has to support evolution and nothing else. That is what he is basically saying. But remember, “all” theories have to remain falsifiable.
2) He also bases the evidence on the assumption that the chromosome was apart at one time. How can he prove the chromosome was ever apart to begin with so that it could be fused? Only under the assumption that evolution is a true proven fact (implied absolute).
3) He then reads from a paper that agrees with him and his conclusion. Does words from a paper prove this?
4) And as usual, He cannot show us “any observable process” showing this happening, which by the way would make his claims empirical.
5) And at the end he sums it up as either God did it this way, or He’s lying. And if you believe God did not do it this way, then you are calling God a liar.
6) Also we have the placement difference of chromosomes between humans and primates. The chromosome #2 in humans they claimed fused is chromosome #13 in primates. This is details they leave out on purpose because their evidence is based more on selling the idea of evolution then proving it.The reason they left this out is because people who have a little knowledge about things would figure out that it’s more than a simple fusion taking place. It’s moving of information 20% (11 steps) away from where it originally was. So that’s a lot more change than what;s implied. This is why Ken Miller pushes so hard to close the deal in convincing the viewer by saying what he did in #5 example. Actual truth does not have to be sold, it prove itself on it’s on merits.

But let’s look at an example of what changing the number of chromosome can do. Down Syndrome (link) is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome. You see the evolutionists are betting that you won’t go do the research to find if what they claim about evolution is true. And what we find about doing anything with the chromosomes that is different from the norm causes all kinds of problems including death.

When the chromosome’s structure is altered. This can take several forms:

1) Deletions: A portion of the chromosome is missing or deleted. Known disorders in humans include Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome, which is caused by partial deletion of the short arm of chromosome 4; and Jacobsen syndrome, also called the terminal 11q deletion disorder.
2) Duplications: A portion of the chromosome is duplicated, resulting in extra genetic material. Known human disorders include Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease type 1A which may be caused by duplication of the gene encoding peripheral myelin protein 22 (PMP22) on chromosome 17.
3) Translocations: When a portion of one chromosome is transferred to another chromosome. There are two main types of translocations. In a reciprocal translocation, segments from two different chromosomes have been exchanged. In a Robertsonian translocation, an entire chromosome has attached to another at the Centromere – in humans these only occur with chromosomes 13, 14, 15, 21 and 22.
4) Inversions: A portion of the chromosome has broken off, turned upside down and reattached, therefore the genetic material is inverted.
5) Rings: A portion of a chromosome has broken off and formed a circle or ring. This can happen with or without loss of genetic material.
6) Isochromosome: Formed by the mirror image copy of a chromosome segment including the centromere.

Here are some examples: Rings (link)Prostate cancer (link). etc…

Chromosome instability syndromes are a group of disorders characterized by chromosomal instability and breakage. They often lead to an increased tendency to develop certain types of malignancies.

Reference: Wikipedia (link).

So basically there is not even one good example of changing Chromosome numbers. So the claim about Chromosome #2 is just a bunch of evolutionists desperate to prove a theory.

Atheist extreme bias, Evolution vs creation debates
This is an image that shows that Darwin was not the first person to think up that man supposedly came from animals. That this belief was a pagan belief that can be traced back to Egyptian times. They believed what animal you came from determined your race and status in life. So no Darwin was not the first person to think of evolution. He just told the idea and repackaged it as science.

If creation is true, why does God allow evolution to even exist?

Evolution is a tool God uses to separate the wheat from the chaff aka those who will commit, from those who will always find an excuse not to. Choice to choose things besides God, have been these since Adam and Eve.

This is a meme that compares the education of Moses to Darwin and it shows that the only degree that Darwin had was a degree in theology.

If people look hard enough, there is explanations for all things in God’s Word. Problem is, not one is really willing to take the time. This is why s many believers either fence sit on the faith, or allow their faith to be destroyed.

atheism a religion, Atheist history, Evidence against evolution, Evolution vs creation debates
This is a meme that talks about how evolution originated in Egypt because Pagan religion back then believe that man came from animals. So Darwin was not the first person to thank this up. Then it shows an image of Egyptians on a wall wearing animal headdresses which was the Egyptians form of evolution. And the image underneath that is the human evolution chart. Showing how similar it is. The Egyptians believe that the animal you come from determines your race and status in life.

The reason I ask this question is because quite often during debates there will be a atheist-evolutionist that will claim: I was a Christian and believed in creation until I heard about evolution. So the question applied is: If evolution is purely science, why did you have to quit believing in a God?

The logic behind the question is simple. Only religion can compete with religion. Only a religion requires conversion (non-belief to belief, or belief to non-belief). And only religion requires evangelism. Atheists go all over the web trying to convince people that evolution is true (evangelism). They put up websites, forums, and blogs with that same goal. They meet and discuss evangelism ideas. They even put up webpages to show how an atheist can ask questions to weaken ones faith so that conversion from one belief to another can take place (evangelism).

This is an image of a shark with his head sticking up out of the water and his mouth wide open showing his big teeth. And there's text on the image as if the shark could speak and it says, excuse me, did you know that Charles Darwin has a wonderful plan for your life? Of course this is a humor meme.

And the evolutionist goal is to convert every Christian to evolution. Don’t believe me? Look at the shirt pen you can buy on one of their sites:

Atheism conversion will lead to a belief in evolution. So even attempted conversions to atheism prove evolution is a religion. And here are some examples:

Wiki How to convert a Christian to atheism (link).Yahoo answers on converting Christian to atheist (link).Was Darwin the first to think up the idea about man evolving from animals?

This belief dates way back even before Darwin. Back to Egyptian time and Egyptian gods (link).Evolution in Egyptian religion

Other creation myths depicted creation as proceeding from out or primordial chaos, or from a primordial slime, which had eight elements, namely matter and space, darkness and obscurity, the illimitable and the boundless and the hidden and concealed). The annual flooding by the Nile, leading to new life, may lie behind this mythology.

1) Primordial chaos = Big bang.
2) Primordial slime = Abiogeneisis.

So basically, the idea of evolution is really a Pagan creation belief. This is why evolution competes with religion so well, because it is a religion itself. Now how did this idea, that has Pagan roots, get into Darwin’s head? Darwin had a degree in theology. Which means he had to learn about Pagan beliefs as well as the Christian ones. So he had that Pagan idea in his mind when he boarded the ship named the Beagle. He read Charles Lyell’s book on the geologic column. He then saw the animals on Galapagos Island and his new founded idea started to look like that it makes sense. Problem was, it still has it’s roots in Paganism. And pure science would in no way conflict with religion, but evolution does and the reason why is clear.

So here is what we have so far:

1) Evolution idea from animals to man can be traced back to Egyptian pagan religions.
2) Darwin had a degree in theology which means he knew about Egyptian Pagan religions.
3) A believer has to totally give up his belief in God to 100% believe in evolution. True science needs no conversion from religion.
4) Evolutionists and atheists, often surf the web trying to see who they can convert (evangelism) from the Christian belief.
5) Evolutionists often get together on blogs, forums, etc… To discuss ways to convert more Christians to evolution. Basically discussing evangelism among like minds in what can be considered a ministry for evolution.
etc…

The Theory of Evolution has all the earmarks of being a religion. No other non-evolution theory in science has this. Which tells us a lot.

Does the Bible mention evolution (indirectly) and the people who believe it?

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

Here is a list of some theories, and if they require a person to totally convert from God in order to believe them:

1. Atomic theory does not require conversion.
2. The Theory of Matter and Energy does not require conversion.
3. The Cell Theory does not require conversion.
4. The Germ Theory does not require conversion.
5. The Theory of Plate Tectonics does not require conversion.
6. The Theory of Evolution does require conversion to totally believe it.
etc…

Are any of those theories, besides evolution, currently being used to convert people?
Example: Does an atheist go to a blog or forum trying to use the Atomic theory to convert someone to atheism?

Atheist history, Evidence against evolution, Evidence for Creation, Evolution vs creation debates
This is a picture of Darwin with his finger over his mouth like he's telling people to be quiet, and there's no text in this picture.

While in debates, I often notice that evolutionists will:
1) Contradict themselves.
2) Get confused on what they believe.
3) Outright equivocate so they can always look right.
4) Move the goalposts for the same reason as above.
5) Change the definitions of words so that their theory will work (micro and macro are the samething).

Here is a video that is the perfect example. 2 teachers of evolution doing this.

So if you ever wondered why you (a creationist) can never seem to win a debate, this is why. You cannot come close to winning a debate when your debate opponent “changes their belief” every 5 minutes. And every person you debate that believes the same thing (evolution) contradict one another from debate to debate. The only way a creationists can counter this is to get all the references he can that explain each part of evolution to an exact. And when the evolutionists start moving goalposts, changing definitions, etc… You can whip out that reference and correct them.

Also evolutionists love to equivocate (lie on purpose). Either as a game to make you mad, or on purpose so they can always look correct. You can show them they are wrong, and because they can never accept correction from a creationist, they will continue in that lie as if you never said anything. A person who debates like this is not worth your time. Just point out their equivocation and back out of the debate. You cannot win anything with a person who will continually lie. Besides, when is the last time you found a liar that was interested in truth? As the Bible says: Do not cast your pearls (truth) before swine. Swine is used in that verse to relay that they would not know what to actually do with actual pearls. I won;t debate a person like this and will ban them from this blog for wasting my time and everyone Else’s.

My motto: If you want to debate evolution, debate it. If you have evidence, present it. If you have observable processes show us. The rest is a waste. And the sooner you the creationist realize this, the easier your debates will be. And you will know when to back out, and when to stay in. You will look much worse debating someone who has clearly shown they are not interested in truth.

Evidence against evolution, Evolution vs creation debates

I debate evolutionists quite often on a forum. And when I ask for the process of evolution of a certain organ, or species, I often often referred to animated videos as proof of evolution. And I am told this is proof of how it works. Now I work with flash animation. I know that animating what you cannot see is not proof because it requires you to use your imagination. Animating what has been seen and is considered “observed and documented animation”. An illustration of the observable. But as I show animated videos of evolution below, can you tell how much was actually observed? Yet this is considered by science to be an illustration of actual processes that can “never” be observed. Yet we are supposed to accept it as proof.

Video

Video

How much of the macro-evolution process was animated in each video? 100%, right? Macro-evolution will “always” have to be animated because there is no empirical evidence to support it. So why animate it? Well if you cannot prove it, and you need money to keep working at it, then you have to “sell” the possibility that it “might” have happened. So you sell your idea through animation. Which is a created virtual world of imagination that is if you are not animating what has been observed. So is macro-evolution observable? If it was, these videos, and others like it, would not be using so much animation to try and prove it or sell it to the masses.

Can any evolutionist provide empirical evidence for macro-evolution?

Aquatic life, Evidence against evolution, Evidence for Creation, Evolution vs creation debates, Nasa, Space

Most evolutionists will tell you that evolution is about life that “adapts to it’s ever changing surroundings”. But what if there were a life form that could change it’s surroundings to suite it’s needs? One that could actually control the weather so that the heat from the sun in the summer time won’t kill it. Is this possible? Yes it is. Meet plankton.

What clouds look like made by what plankton do. They are much whiter therefore reflecting more of the sun's rays back into space cooling the planet.

It’s almost hard to believe, but new NASA-funded research confirms an old theory that plankton can indirectly create clouds that block some of the Sun’s harmful rays. The study was conducted by Dierdre Toole of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and David Siegel of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).

The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. When they are bothered, or stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton’s cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and it changes into another substance called dimethylsulfide (DMS).

DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it reacts with oxygen, to form different sulfur compounds. Sulfur in the DMS sticks together in the air and creates tiny dust-like particles. These particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun’s harmful UV rays.

For years now scientists have been studying related processes in the lab, but this is the first time scientists have shown how variations in light impact plankton in a natural environment. The research was done in the Sargasso Sea, off the coast of Bermuda.

Previous research also found that the cloud producing compound peaks in the summer in the ocean, when UV rays are high, but plankton numbers are at their lowest.

“Plankton levels are at a minimum in the summer but DMS is at its peak,” said Toole.

In the warmest months, the top layer of the ocean warms as well. This heating of the top 25 meters (around 80 feet) creates a contrast with cooler deeper layers. The deeper layers hold many of the nutrients that plankton need to live on. Like how oil separates from water, the warmer upper layer creates almost a barrier from the cooler lower layers and less mixing occurs. Also, the shallow upper layer exposes the plankton to more UV light. Under conditions where there are low nutrients in the water and levels of UV light are high, plankton create more DMS.

DMS levels peak from June through the end of September. During the season, the study found that a whopping 77 percent of the changes in amounts of DMS were due to exposure to UV radiation. The researchers found it amazing that a single factor could have such a big affect on this process.

“For someone studying marine biology and ecology, this type of variation is absolutely incredible,” Siegel said.

The researchers were also surprised to find that the DMS molecules completely refresh themselves after only three to five days. That means the plankton may react to UV rays quickly enough to impact their own weather. Toole and Siegel were surprised by the lightning-fast rate of turnover for DMS. To give an example for comparison, when carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse gas and traps heat, it may last for decades. Toole adds that the cycles that break down DMS scream along at these very fast rates, even though overall amounts over the course of the year remain pretty stable with a slow increase over summer and a gradual decline over winter.

The next step for the researchers will be to see how much the added clouds from plankton actually impact climate. By figuring out how plankton react to light, scientists now have the information they need to use computer models to recreate the impacts of plankton on cloud cover. Since the white clouds can reflect sunlight back out to space, the researchers believe the plankton-made clouds may have some affect on global temperatures.

This is important in light of man-made greenhouse gas production that warms the planet, and ozone depletion that allows more life-threatening UV radiation to strike Earth.

“There is the potential that this cycle could slow global warming,” said Siegel. “But right now we have no idea of the size of it or even what it means.”

In order to measure how much plankton may alter the climate, computer models would need to simulate different scenarios. One scenario would show our climate without clouds due to plankton, and another would show the climate with the increased cloud cover. Then researchers could begin to compare the differences between each scenario.

The researchers add that this effect may help to slow or lessen climate change, but would in no way reverse the trend or stop it altogether.

The research took place in the Sargasso Sea, where a wide range ocean data has been collected since the 1950s. A 1998 study relying on data from this area contained a 1992 to 1994 time series that focused on the cycling of organic sulfur from DMS in the ocean. Siegel has also been collecting data of changes in sea surface temperatures over seasons, variations in both visible light and UV light in the water, and the relationships between these solar variations and DMS levels. All of these measurements have been taken from research vessels and buoys in the Sargasso Sea.

In the future, the paper’s
authors look forward to incorporating satellite data from NASA’s Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) mission into this line of research. SeaWIFS will provide comprehensive data on shifts in visible light reaching the ocean’s surface.

The study was funded by NASA. Studies of DMS have been funded by the National Science Foundation. The study appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters.

References:
NASA
Space Daily

Questions:
1) How does such an ability evolve?
2) What is the process of this type of so called evolution?

Also, is this the answer to Global Warming? According to link below, because of the ability of Plankton to make clouds, that we should grow it to cool the earth.
MSNBC

Why is plankton important? Click image to play Video.

This is an image that shows just one plankton life form. Plankton comes in many shapes. They are microscopic creatures.

5 reasons plankton is important to all life. Click image to play Video.

This is an image that is showing plankton.
Evidence against evolution, Evidence for Creation, Evolution vs creation debates

The Coccyx not only has nerves that go through, but several muscles in the buttocks area are connected to this. Including some that help you evacuate. So with it removed you would have some problems.

The evolutionists are trying to claim that the Coccyx (part of our tail bone) is left over from us evolving from Chimps. And that it has basically no function in our bodies. You can read more about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coccyx You will also notice their attempt to use this for evolution. In every instance you find this done on any site promoting evolution, you will notice that what muscles connect to the Coccyx are omitted. Leaving out known information like this is a planned deception by evolutionists. For why else do they do this? To sell to the masses what is not true. Giving only half of the information is lying. And in a court of law, withholding truth is breaking the law.

So when atheist bring this up, here are some memes you can use to show how stupid this idea really is.

Atheist history, Evidence against evolution, Evolution vs creation debates
This is an image that lists all the things that Darwin plagiarized from other people and took credit for and never gave credit to these people..

Was evolution written to combat the Christian faith?

Here is a letter from Charles Darwin to his son George:

P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write. I have lately read Morley’s Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks. I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs, & insists how easily a man may for ever destroy his own influence.

Reference:

Darwin Project