The Frauds of Evolution #13: OOPARTS — “Out of Place” Artifacts, or One More Reason Why the Evolutionists’ Dating Scheme is a Fraud, Part A

by / July 30, 2016

continued

“(T)o a large extent people have not questioned the theory [of evolution] quite as thoroughly as they should have done. They’ve not bothered to deal with the anomalies that have arisen in the evidence. And quite naturally, when anomalous evidence has been discovered, scientists have tended to put it to one side, to think ‘Well, when our overarching theory is extended in the future it will ultimately be able to explain this.’ The trouble is that the anomalies have been building up, they haven’t just been swept under the carpet. There’s now a mountain of them and the mountain is threatening to topple over and swamp the theory completely.” —Richard Milton from the YouTube video, “Forbidden Science – Shattering the Myths of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”

If you look at the world, as evolutionists do, from an upside-down, inside-out and backward perspective, the reality of “out of place artifacts” such as man-made objects found in supposedly “2.8 billion years old” pre-Cambrian rock, such as the artifact in our featured image above (!!!, more on that in Part B) and many other “anomalies” of this nature, is a complete inexplicable mystery. Excuses and rationalizations must be made by evolutionists for the existence of such “anomalies.” Or, better yet from the evolutionists’ perspective, ignore and censor such things and keep them out of public view, and hope they go away. After all, we would not want the general public to get the wrong impression about the geologic strata and the objects and fossils in them!
On the other hand, if you look at the world, as creationists do, from a right side up, inside on the inside-outside on the outside, and face-forward perspective, such “anomalies” are not anomalies at all. They are perfectly consistent with a global flood scenario as reported in the book of Genesis. You understand that the academic evolutionary “orthodoxy” regarding the immense age of the earth is a fraud maintained by an exceedingly intolerant religious fanaticism. You can only fail to get this point if you do not understand that Naturalism is a religion, a faith, founded upon unproven and unprovable philosophical presuppositions and that its two major dogmas—atheism and evolution—are religious articles of faith. To fail to understand this point is to completely fail to understand the entirety of the creation-evolution controversy and evolutionary propaganda. It is this underlying religious faith that perpetuates the twin fairy tales of evolution and an ancient earth.
Yes, the academic establishment, as it currently exists, is under the control of religious fanatics. If you think “fanatics” is too strong a characterization, then just watch Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed” and read Jerry Bergman’s thesis “Censorship of Information on Origins.” We have a self-appointed Inquisition in place in academia and they are determined to excommunicate all unbelievers in their religion from academia and suppress and censor all information and data at odds with the faith of Naturalism. In the evolutionists’ scheme of things, there is no room whatsoever for reasoned and scholarly examination of these matters. This is taboo. Atheistic Naturalism must be presupposed at every step. In true and indeed devout idolatry, evolution and an old earth are accepted as a matter of a priori fervent faith and it is regarded as a kind of blasphemy to question or challenge that faith.
But there I go digressing again and I haven’t even started!
For those of you who count yourselves as young earth creationists, I would like to introduce you in this article to a name many of you may not be familiar with,–but first, a couple preliminary miscellaneous observations. You may find this kind of rambling and stream-of-consciousness-like, but bear with me.
I know some of you seldom venture outside of strict biblical creationist literature and visual productions. I know time constraints play a role in this restriction, but on the whole many creationists feel that reading the polemics of evolutionists is simply a waste of time when you can go straight to creationist scientists’ literature or websites and get the full and truer picture on an issue. And there is certainly a lot of truth to that. Personally, I get a lot out of reading evolutionist literature, though probably not in a way intended by the authors. One thing I have discovered reading evolutionists’ literature is that it is by no means only creationists who have problems with evolution. Evolutionists have problems with evolution. By that I mean that there is virtually not a single specific point of contention that creationists have raised with evolutionists that some evolutionists have not also raised with other evolutionists. They may all be committed to the basic tenet of evolution but disagreement exists on practically all the particulars.
Despite the pervasive media propaganda which would lead us to believe that the “science” (actually pseudoscience) of evolution constitutes a unified Darwinian front, there is a veritable cornucopia of strife among evolutionists themselves about whether this or that particular fact supports evolution or not, or whether a particular fact is even relevant to the issue. (The “feathered dinosaur” fraud we looked at in my last couple of posts is but one example among many.)
Moreover, there are uncountable admissions among evolutionists that particular facts, or an array of facts, tend to argue against evolution, but the evolutionists are sure that these weaknesses in the hypothesis will someday be found to have explanations. The complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record is another such example–to which some evolutionists respond that the fossil record is incomplete, while other evolutionists will say, Well, no, the fossil record is really quite comprehensive but the “bursts” in evolution happen in small isolated populations over relatively short periods of time and so we don’t see the transitions in the fossil record. Examples of these dichotomies of interpretation among evolutionists could be multiplied extensively. Same data–different interpretation. A whole book could be compiled of statements from evolutionists refuting evolution. (Come to think of it, a whole book was compiled from statements from evolutionists refuting evolution by Henry Morris, titled, “That Their Words May Be Used Against Them.”)
Extreme specialization among scientists also causes problems. Evolutionists who are experts in geology, for example, will admit the problems found in geology that argue against evolutionary hypotheses. Evolutionists who are experts in biochemistry will admit the problems found in biochemistry that negate evolutionary hypotheses. Evolutionists who are experts in genetics will admit the problems genetics poses to evolutionary hypotheses, and so forth. The evolutionary scientists who don’t specialize in a particular field will tend to remain silent about the contra-indications from other disciplines and quote other “authorities” to whom they defer without doing their own thinking and simply parrot the “party line.” I am of the opinion that many scientists “can’t see the forest for the trees” because of extreme specialization and that educated laity are often able to have a better “bird’s eye view” of the controversy.

 

OOPARTS

The name I told you about above that I want to introduce you to is Michael Cremo. Michael Cremo may be regarded as the “King of Out-of-Place Artifacts,” known by the acronym of OOPARTS. Cremo has published a book on the subject, or actually two books, a 914 page “monster,” titled Forbidden Archaeology, and also The Hidden History of the Human Race, the second book being a 300+ page condensed edition of Forbidden Archaeology. Cremo’s book is must reading for anyone who wants to have a well-rounded education regarding the creation-evolution controversy. Consider this unintentional endorsement of the book from Richard Leakey, son of Louis Leakey: “Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool. Sadly there are some, but that’s a part of selection and there is nothing that can be done.” If “Consider the source” is a valid principle in determining the value of a book, then assuredly Richard Leakey’s words are a resounding endorsement of Cremo’s book. I say again, consider the source. Cremo certainly must have found immense encouragement from words such as this coming from Richard Leakey. I know I would have.

Creation Club Forbidden Archaeology Book Image Michael Cremo

The reader should understand up front that Cremo is not a scientist, but he has certainly established himself as a competent scholar and a relentless researcher, and he deserves all the respect due to any serious scholar. To say that Cremo’s book is “pure humbug” is, to be blunt, simply an idiotic statement, completely emotionally based, and no surprise coming as it does from Richard Leakey. (Cremo is actually the co-author of the book with Richard L. Thompson, who has a Ph.D. in mathematics.) Nor is Cremo a Christian. He is more of a Hindu. Cremo’s basic thesis is that modern human beings such as ourselves have been around for a VERY long time, maybe for multiple millions, even hundreds of millions of years—and he has a lot of archaeological and geological evidence to back up his claim. This claim is, of course, based upon certain built-in presuppositions. Per Cremo:

 

“In this book, we take the modern system of geological ages…for granted. We use it as a fixed frame of reference for our study of the history of ancient humans and near humans. This is for convenience. We acknowledge that our findings might require serious reconsideration of the geologic time scale.”—pg. 4, The Hidden History of the Human Race, emph. supp.

Creation Club Hidden History of the Human Race book image Michael CRemo

This is masterful polemics on Cremo’s part. He knows very well that the Darwinian academic establishment, the Great Darwinian Propaganda Machine, is wedded (no divorce allowed) to deep time assumptions. And that suits Cremo just fine. Cremo has his own ax to grind and he intends to use the evolutionists own most fundamental time assumptions regarding geological strata against them–and he has amassed an extremely impressive array of data to do so, Richard Leakey’s nonsense notwithstanding.
Now, let me make it plain to anyone not familiar with my other writings. I do not believe the a priori, deep time presuppositions of the evolutionary establishment, and I doubt Cremo really does either. But the Darwinian, evolutionary establishment runs the academic show, so Cremo says essentially, “Ok, fair enough, let’s start there and see where that leads us—with ALL of the evidence and artifacts taken into consideration.” Ah, but THAT is “the rub,” as they say, for evolutionists. Evolutionists absolutely insist on being highly SELECTIVE in the data and information that can be considered. Cremo says “Not fair or reasonable, ALL of the evidence should be considered” and I agree with Cremo.
Since the evolutionists absolutely will not consider ALL of the relevant data, Cremo parades it out for them, one by one, example after example. Cremo enumerates, if I counted correctly, about 72 separate examples of “anomalous” finds, or groups of finds, of man-made objects and completely modern human skeletons or parts of modern human skeletons found in rock strata which, according to “orthodox” evolutionary timelines, is many, many millions of years old, or even billions of years old. As the saying goes, “There’s something wrong with this picture!”

God is truly in the details!
We will continue this article in the next installment, Part B,  of this series.

The following two tabs change content below.
Tom Shipley

Tom Shipley

I am a former atheist and evolutionist during my college days; came to faith in Christ at the age of 20; regard my pro-creation activities as part of the work of the kingdom of God; believe that a very tough, strident and unapologetic stance against evolution is called for though I may soften my tone if and when Mark Armitage and David Coppedge, fired for their creationist beliefs, are given their jobs back. Articles copyright Tom Shipley. All Rights Reserved.

Your Commment

Email (will not be published)