Charles Darwin recanted the Theory of Evolution on his deathbed.

This would be the ultimate comeback for any who are troubled in any way by the Theory of Evolution. What could be more damming evidence against Darwinism than the professions of Darwin himself? Well, the story that he recanted his evolutionary convictions is a dubious one.

Writes Recent-Creationist Dr. Jonathan Sarfati:

“[The Darwin Recanted Story] is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him, even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked the evolutionary theory.” (Sarfati, Jonathan Refuting Evolution 2, USA: Master Books, October, 2002, p.213.)

Also Hank Hanegraaff, another staunch opponent of the Evolution Theory and Conservative Christian, agrees:

“First it should be noted that whether Darwin did or did not renounce evolution does not speak to the issue of whether evolution is true or false…James Fegan was correct in calling the Darwin legend ‘an illustration of the recklessness with which the Protestant Controversialists seek to support any cause they are advocating.’”(Hanegraaff, Hank The FACE that Demonstrates the Farce of Evolution, Nashville: Word Publishing, 1998, p.124)

So in conclusion, two leading members of the Creationist Movement acknowledge that the story about Charles Darwin recanting Evolution is just that: a story.

If we came from apes then they should not still exist.

Below is an online article from the Answers in Genesis, arguably the most influential and prolific Young-Earth Creationist Organization. They acknowledge the Bible as infalible and state as part of their mission statement being that of defending it from the very first verse.

"In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this 'pussyfooting,' as he called it. He said, 'In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.'

However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

It’s important to note that allopatric speciation is not the sole property of evolutionists—creationists believe that most human variation occurred after small groups became isolated (but not speciated) at Babel, while Adam and Eve probably had mid-brown skin color. The quoted erroneous statement is analogous to saying “If all people groups came from Adam and Eve, then why are mid-brown people still alive today?”

So what’s the difference between the creationist explanation of people groups (“races”) and the

evolutionist explanation of people origins? Answer: the former involves separation of already-existing information and loss of information through mutations; the latter requires the generation of tens of millions of “letters” of new information.

Answers in Genesis article found here

Noah's Ark has been found by Noah's Ark Ministries in Turkey

An evangelical group has claimed recently that they found the remnants of the Ark Noah used to survive the great flood. Granted the Bible is the final authority on all matters it touches upon and therefore if there was a great flood with an ark it must be true. That being said, this find being the specific ark that weathered the flood is a matter of dispute. Enter Answers in Genesis, a recent-creationist organization that has expessed doubt over the accuracy of the find. Below are statements written by them regarding Noah's Ark Ministries' alleged find.

"...this isn’t the first time Noah’s Ark has been 'found,' in one way or another. Just a few years back, for example, a team led by Bob Cornuke discovered mysterious structures in northern Iran that looked like wooden beams (although he clarified that the site was only deserving of further research). Both non-creationists and creationists concluded the structures were of geologic origin. Years earlier, a team led by Ron Wyatt claimed more confidently to have found the Ark itself, though that find, too, came under critique from other Christians who believe the biblical account of the Flood."

"'Yes, we believe in Noah’s Ark, and if found it would be one of the greatest archaeological findings of our day—but . . . [w]e have to remain skeptical,' [Answers in Genesis president Ken Ham] said. Ham also pointed out that Genesis 6:14 indicates the wood of the Ark was coated with pitch, but there appears to be no such discoloration in photographs of the find; further, the presence of straw—presumably interpreted by the discoverers as more than 4,000 years old—as shown by another photograph seems suspicious."

"Our hope is that Noah’s Ark Ministries International will not be secretive with the supposed Ark’s location and restrictive of access to the find, in which case we must continue to be highly skeptical and seriously consider the possibility that a fraud has been perpetrated on Noah’s Ark Ministries International by its Turkish partners."

Full story found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/05/01/news-to-note-05012010, accessed May 17th, AD 2010.