Forbidden Science – Shattering the myths of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

This video is posted by UFO TV on you-tube.

From the description:

Uploaded on Nov 8, 2010

Journalist and Researcher Richard Milton presents a case that what we have been taught about Darwin’s theory of evolution is totally wrong and that this most fundamental belief with respect to human origins should be completely re-evaluated by main stream scientific and academic institutions. Author of the book “Shattering The Myths of Darwinism,” Richard Milton does not represent the Creationist movement either. He simply states, that Darwin’s theory of evolution does not stand up to logical scientific scrutiny. Get the facts in this original uncut interview that was filmed for the production of the NBC Special Documentary “The Mysterious Origins of Man – Rewriting Human History,” 

The Mysterious Origins of Man – Rewriting Human History – NOW on DVD in a New Extended 3-DVD Special Edition – LOADED with Bonus Features and Interviews, Not Shown on TV. – Cat# U664 – Go to http://www.UFOTV.com.

This video covers a good bit of ground in 30 minutes.  It’s a series of cuts from an interview with Richard Milton on the sheer lack of evidence to support Darwin’s ideas of evolution from one species to another by the process of natural selection over long periods of time.  Can a bear evolve into a whale?  At one time, Darwin thought so.  But, according to Milton, Darwin recanted that idea in later printings.

Here’s what Milton basically says:

He begins with artifacts.  radioactive dating techniques, thought to be very accurate, but many doubt the accuracy of radioactive dating.  “These doubts have been ignored by the scientific community.”

Is coal formed very slowly?  There is evidence that coal can form quickly through pressure.  Pressure can generate coal in a relatively short period of time.  Some types of rock can be formed very quickly.

“The rate that coal is formed is very controversial.  The conventional idea is that coal is formed very slowly, over millions of years and basically, its age that determines the formation of coal.”

There is quite a bit of evidence in the field that coal might be produced by pressure alone.

“For example, modern timber pilings of bridges have turned into a low rank of coal.  The Ohio coal seem in the United States, the rank of coal increases as the coal goes further and further underground, there as the pressure increases.”

“Now if coal can be produced relatively rapidly, what about the other rocks on the earth’s surface, perhaps they could form rapidly as well.”

“This is one thing that orthodox geologists wouldn’t accept.  And, yet there is mounting evidence that some types of rock can be formed very quickly in catastrophic conditions.”

“The effect that this has on our picture of the age of our earth is that the earth could conceivably be younger than 4 and 1/2 billion years that it’s customarily taken to be.  And, if that’s the case, then there’s been much less time available for life to evolve.  And, the Darwinian mechanism, which requires billions of years to work is looking far less probable.”

There are many methods of dating that have been suggested over the last 50 years or so that don’t rely on radioactive techniques, and some of which have suggested that the earth could be younger than we think.

“For example, meteoric dust comes into the atmosphere every year at quite a substantial rate.  Now, if the earth really were Four thousand five hundred million years old, there would be millions and billions of tons of meteoric dust on the earth’s surface.  And the dust is very easy to identify because it has 300 times more nickel content than terrestrial dust does.  But, this dust isn’t present.  It’s been suggested that it’s been swept into ocean and incorporated into ocean sediment.  But of course, the ocean sediments are available to us in the form of the sedimentary crusts that have been posited all over the earth and there’s no sign of the meteoric dust there either.”

The lack of meteoric material on earth would suggest that the earth is younger than is presently thought.

The chief radioactive method that is used to date the earth is the uranium method, uranium radioactive mineral turns into lead over a long, long period of time.  You measure the amount of uranium in earth’s crust, you measure the amount of lead.  That tells you how old the earth is, according to conventional science.   The figure that you arrive at with the uranium to lead technique is 4 and 1/2 billion years.

But, uranium also turns into another substance, a distinctive form of helium, radioactive helium.  In fact,  practically all of the radioactive helium in the atmosphere has come from radioactive decay.

Now, if this method were reliable, if you measured the amount of helium in the atmosphere, it would give you the same age.  In fact, it doesn’t give you an age anything like that, it gives you an age, just a couple of hundred thousand years.  That uranium dating techniques are unreliable for dating the age of earth.

Why would they choose the 4.5 billion years over the couple of 100 thousand?  And, the answer to that is, in order to make Darwinism work, you have to have billions of years of time for natural selection to take place in.  So, Darwinism is inconceivable as a mechanism for evolution without the 4.5 billion year time-span.

Critics have attacked my book, alleging that I think the earth is only 10,000 years old.   I don’t say that, but I say that with the current techniques of dating the earth are so unreliable that it’s hard to say with any accuracy how old the earth is.

It is conceivable that materials on earth could be 4 and 1/2 billion years old, but that doesn’t tell you the date of the formation of the earth.  The earth could have been formed much later than that.

Darwin’s theory of Evolution is essentially a theory about time… To change from single celled organisms to apes and humans would take a very long time.

The key problems with Darwin’s theory are that there isn’t really solid empirical evidence.  It’s conjecture on conjecture, supposition on supposition, very rational but still conjectures.

It’s ironic that Darwinists have acted this century like the theory is conclusive, but there is no conclusive evidence of Darwinism.  It seems solid, but once you begin to investigate, the evidence just melts away. Still, the dominant idea is that Darwin’s theory is basically in place and there are only a few gaps still and we’ll fill those later.

The most famous example of myths about Darwinism that’s taught in schools is the pepper-colored moth, which lives in Britain and was darkened between 1850 and 1900, when the trees were darkened by factories spitting out atmospheric pollution.  The moth changed from a light color to a dark color so it could remain camouflaged from birds on the tree trunks, or so it was thought.  It’s been described as “industrial melanomism”.  It would have been an incredible thing to find evolution and natural selection taking place within a lifetime.

But, there’s another explanation.  Originally, you had lots of light colored moths and a few dark colored moths, and the light colored moths died off because birds ate them when trees turned dark, leaving the dark moths to flourish in the darkened trees.

This doesn’t explain the mechanism that could change one species into another species, and that is what evolution is all about.

“In the first edition of his book, Origin of the Species, Darwin made an interesting observation, that he could see no difficulty in a race of bears taking to the water, becoming completely aquatic in their way of life and ending up looking like creatures, as he said, ‘as monstrous as a whale.'”

In other words, a bear can turn into a whale given enough time, over millions of years through natural selection.

In later editions of his book, he removed this claim.  He thought the better of it.  But, the idea that a bear could turn into a whale is the whole core of Darwin’s theory.

“So, when he removed that example, he was removing the very essence of his book.”

The idea of evolution has been exported into many other fields.

“Darwinists today, who are absolutely certain and rigid in their mechanistic, reductionist view, life is simple, just a matter of chemistry and statistics.  I can’t help thinking that Darwin would have been horrified to see the theory that bares his name today.”

“The majority of people feel that there is some form of direction in life.. For example they do have a moral conscious.”

They feel that they have a freedom of will to act and that, “They’re not just simply prisoners of genetics and statistics, that one person can make a difference.”

Some people feel that the failure of Darwinism to appeal to the people is also a failure of it as a science.  We as a community employ science to do our difficult thinking for us, to explain the world to us.  People want a naturalistic theory.

Darwinism and creationism can co-exist because Darwinism doesn’t exist.  It doesn’t offer an explanation as to how life originated.  Darwin wrote in a letter that life started in a puddle.. but, no scientist has been able to synthesis being from non-being.

Is there evidence for a Biblical flood.  There is evidence of a flood in city of UR, human artifacts, clear evidence of a Biblical flood.  Creationists say the flood covered the entire world.  It’s an interpretation of the physical evidence.

My interest was in geology which made me question the evidence.  But, when I published my book, I was accused of being a “hidden creationist”.  I was called stupid.  They found it impossible to believe that someone wouldn’t see Darwinism as true.

Darwinism has worked into our thinking so there is no alternative theory.  There’s a fear of the  unraveling of the whole of science.

There is a certain amount of weak natural selection but it cannot account for the origin of species.  It could account for a light moth and a dark moth.

On every continent, there are beds of millions of animals bones.

In America, the white buffalo were killed over a short period of time.  But, the bones were eaten by scavengers, not turned into fossils.

The exhibits in the museums say, yes we are related to the apes.  But, it’s an interpretation.  For, example Lucy, whose supposedly half and half.

The commission that tried Galileo refused to look through his telescope, to look at the evidence that would have told them that he was quite right.

“Let me give you a really good example of scientific rejection.  It’s meteorites.  In the 18th century, science declared that meteorites didn’t exist, they were completely unreasonable.”

Antoine LaVoisier, regarded as the father of modern chemistry said that stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky.

“And, museums all over Europe were compelled to throw away all of their meteorites as superstitious relics of the past.  As a result, you won’t find any meteorite in any museum anywhere in the world that’s older than about 1800, except one huge one that fell in Germany that was just too big to get rid of.”

One of the premises of Darwin’s theory is that an animal, if it lives long enough can turn into another species.  Now, this idea is contradicted by every plant and animal experiment conducted in the last 500 years.

“Every animal and plant breeder knows that there is a limit to the extent to which an animal or a plant can be changed.  Ultimately, the line becomes sterile or it simply reverses to the original type from which you’ve selected.”

“It’s even been given a name.. Genetic Homeostasis.”

“That simply means that there’s a barrier beyond which evolution cannot pass.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s