Hope you enjoyed that cartoon, because when is comes to evolution that's all you get drawings in a deceptive order to get you to believe a lie. If you watch the cartoon and thought it depicted what evolution is. Ask yourself "Where did the information come from? What prompted it to begin" Where's the reproduction process?"

When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

When, where, why, and how did

a. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

b. Single-celled animals evolve?

c. Fish change to amphibians?

d. Amphibians change to reptiles?

e. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?

Homer lived for billions of years?

While your working on that let me show you the truth of matter. EVOLUTION IS A LIE AND YOU FELL FOR IT MORE THAN ONCE!

As a child we were taught fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. If you still believe in evolution let see how many times you've been fooled.

Stanley Miller

Textbooks include Stanley Miller's experiment as an example of how early life could arise contrary to the law of biogenesis. However, his experiment did nothing of the sort. Stanley Miller was the first to show that in a simulated early earth atmosphere (which is not considered valid today), amino acids could naturally form. Though his experiment was herald as a break through in evolutionary discoveries, and some claimed that life had, indeed, been created in the laboratory, Miller had done nothing more than demonstrate that in an intelligently designed and carefully controlled experiment it was possible to produce amino acids. This is hardly spectacular since high school students do this all the time in chemistry class. What excited people about Miller’s experiment was that he did this in what was supposed to be conditions similar to the early earth. The atmospheric model he used at the time has since been abandoned. Upon closer examination of his experiment, one discovers that Miller’s results showed that the evolving of life was not possible.

Sidney Fox

Another experiment often found in textbooks is Sidney Fox's polymer formation, the second step in the progression from non-life to life. Like Miller's experiment, Fox's experiment shows that life could not arise by chance. Polymers are complex molecules made of long chains of monomers. There are four major kinds of polymers found in living cells: (1) proteins made of amino acids, (2) carbohydrates made of sugars, (3) lipids made of glycerol and fatty acid chains, and (4) nucleic acids made of nucleotides. His experimental procedure also showed the improbability if not the impossibility of forming proteins in natural, chaotic conditions suggested to have occurred in the early earth. In order to produce proteins, Fox discovered that he had to heat the proteins to 175° in dry conditions for not less than two hours and not more than four prior to dissolving them in hot water and subsequently immediately cooling the products in cold water. The required timing and involvement of changing conditions more than suggest that such occurrences would not happen naturally. Rather than support the evolution model, Fox’s experiment showed that supernatural creation is the most reasonable and preferred explanation for the origin of life.

Homology

Evolutionists presume that similarity among organisms suggests genetic relationship. However, as comparative anatomist Michael Denton points out, this reasoning is not always applied.

“But the hind limbs of all vertebrates also conform to the pentadactyl pattern and are strikingly similar to the forelimbs in bone structure and in their detailed embryological development. Yet no evolutionist claims that the hind limb evolved from the forelimb, or that hind limbs and forelimbs evolved from a common source.” There is no doubt that in terms of evolution the fore- and hind limbs must have arisen independently, the former supposedly evolving from the pectoral fins of a fish, the latter from the pelvic fins. Here is a case of profound resemblance which cannot be explained in terms of a theory of descent.” Whatever the ultimate explanation for this remarkable pattern turns out to be, there seems little intellectual satisfaction in attributing one case of correspondence to evolution while refusing it in the other" (M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1986, pp. 151 & 153). The question to ask is whether homologies are the basis for concluding genetic relationship or if the theory of evolution is the basis for concluding that genetic relationship is evidenced by homologies. Obviously, evolutionists pick and choose features they deem consistent with evolution.

The Peppered moth

Dr. Kettlewell published results from his 1955 experiment on natural selection in peppered moths in Birmingham, England concluding that, "birds act as selective agents, as postulated by evolutionary theory," and that industrial melanism was "the most striking evolutionary change ever actually witnessed in any organism."

Peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection; but the pictures were fraudulent and the moth were simply glued on the trees.

Haeckel's Fraud

Haeckel supplied drawings as evidence of his “scientific law,” which can still be found in textbooks to convince students that evolution is a fact. The truth is, Haeckel’s drawings are wrong. Worse yet, they were intentionally created to mislead viewers to “see” what Haeckel believed to be true.

Haeckel falsified his drawings to depict the appearance of ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny.

This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.” (Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), August 11, 1997, p. 14).

“To support his theory, however, Haeckel, whose knowledge of embryology was self-taught, faked some of his evidence. He not only altered his illustrations of embryos but also printed the same plate of an embryo three times, and labeled one a human, the second a dog and the third a rabbit ‘to show their similarity” (Bowden, Malcolm, 1977, Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? Bromley, England: Sovereign Publications).

There is too much fraud stay tuned for part 2

http://mbbc.us/creation/evolution/shame1.htm

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter17.php

http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm