Most of us
know National Geographic as the magazine we flip through at the doctor's
office. Renowned for its stunning
photography, National Geographic is one of the most highly esteemed periodicals
in the world. That is, until last November's issue featured a discovery hailed
as the best evidence to date for Darwin's so-called missing link." But what was supposed to be startling news
has turned out to be yet one more example of the scientific community peddling
fraud as scientific fact.
The discovery
was remarkable. Archaeologists in China
had unearthed a fossil of a half-bird/half- dinosaur. This fossil was proclaimed to be irrefutable evidence of a transitional
form between one species and another -- evidence that evolutionists have long
sought but never found.
Then the
truth came out.
In reality,
the Archaeoraptor fossil turned out to be the remains of two animals pieced
together. While some call it an honest
mistake, most now believe that it was actually an elaborate and deliberate
hoax. But why, you may ask, is the
scientific community so quick to embrace disreputable evidence? And why would an institution like National
Geographic fail to take steps to confirm the reliability of such an “amazing”
discovery?
The
answer? - - They're desperate.
You see, the
lack of any evidence for transitional forms is one of Darwinism's dirty little
secrets, and some scientists will do just about anything to keep it a secret -
even to the point of fabricating evidence.
In the 1860s,
Barnum's traveling circus featured the Cardiff Man, a petrified giant who was
proclaimed to be a human ancestor. Ten
years later, it was revealed to be a fraud.
The
best-known scientific hoax is the infamous "Piltdown Man," the name given
to the skull fragment of an apparent "ape-man" discovered in
1912. It was only after scientific
dating techniques were developed, more than forty years later, that scientists
recognized Piltdown Man as an elaborate scam.
In fact,
evolutionists have quite a track record for this kind of fraud. One of the most recent examples is the case
of the Peppered Moth. As described in
the book, How Now Shall We Live?, these moths supposedly changed color
with their environment, confirming the theory of natural selection. But it turns out that the evidence was faked
by a biologist who glued dead moths to the trees. And besides, what does a simple color change have to do with
species evolution?
But why
resort to trickery? Well, Darwinism, as
a theory, is full of holes, and the Darwinists are afraid of falling through
them. Darwinists hedge their bets because they know they can't win on the
merits of the argument, or of defined recognizable science, or of all the known
fossil records. What’s left is not
scientific theory but a philosophical commitment to naturalism. They start by denying the existence of the
creator God, and do whatever is necessary to make their case.
In the wake
of the recent debates over teaching “evolution” in Kansas, Christians have been
labeled as anti-intellectual Luddites.
But the truth is, it's the evolutionists who are running from the facts.
What our
friends and neighbors need to know is that we do not want to suppress teaching
about evolution. We simply want to
present all the facts. And
that’s good news for educators, too, because pasting things together belongs in
the art room, NOT the science lab.
The following
“Creation / Evolution” information is an excellent practical resource that
presents this “argument” as scientific data in laymen’s terms. Please make it freely available to all who
are interested.
The majority of the information in this paper was
collected by a registered Mechanical Engineer by the name of Bill Morgan. Bill is a lover of science, and the
“learning about science”. He has studied
the Creation vs. Evolution debate for several years and has released this material
to provide a clear, easy to understand case for Creation. This
case for Creation will be built using science.
Whether you are a Christian, an agnostic, or a convinced
atheist, you should check out the enclosed
information on this very important topic.
Every one has a right to believe whatever they want. However, it is a shame that many people
dismiss belief in God as 'unscientific,' or 'superstitious' without ever
hearing its case. This information has
been presented in many classroom settings and the common response is: "Why
haven't we heard this information before?"
Many people will say that this information has NOT been
heard before because it is unscientific and has no place in science education. Others will say it has never been heard
because the schools and media are biased against the conclusions that are drawn
by presenting Creation Science. You
should decide for yourself! Let’s
begin with some basic guidelines:
Do not believe a word
you are about to read until you listen to what is said, think about it, and
test it. Then decide for yourself if
you believe it or not. If you ever believe something simply because
someone told you to believe it, you have NOT been educated, you have been indoctrinated. But if a case is presented to you, and you
test it and find it to be valid, and then believe it, you have been
educated. Rarely is someone encouraged
to test the Theory of Evolution and dig into its details. But you are now being encouraged to test the
Creation model presented in the following pages. Test it against what the Theory of Evolution has to offer, and
then you decide what to believe. You
may discover that the common sense analysis of scientific data convincingly
supports Creation. Unfortunately too
many people have reached a conclusion on this subject based on emotion or peer
pressure, and not the scientific data.
Creation Model: What we observe today is the result of
intelligent design, intelligent planning and purpose. A designer and planner used means beyond the natural laws of
science (supernatural). Matter, energy
and life originated at a point in time and originated from a supernatural
source. Plants and animals are
offspring of parents of the same kind, they do not have a single common
ancestor. Plants and animals were
created instantly. Humans were created
instantly as humans (male and female).
Humans are not related to apes or other animals.
Evolution Model: What we observe today is the
result of chance events and long periods of time. There is no design and thus no designer behind anything in the
Universe. Everything originated by way
of natural processes subject to the natural laws of science over billions or
years. The idea of supernatural
intervention is rejected. Plants and
animals are offspring from a single common ancestor. (Note: a few evolutionists say God used Evolution. “Evolutionist” in this paper, implies those
who deny God's existence. However for
Theistic evolutionists, this paper intends to demonstrate that if God did use
evolution to create, there is no scientific evidence that He did).
WITH APOLOGIES TO DAVID LETTERMAN...FROM THE HOME OFFICE
IN HUNTINGTON BEACH . - . HERE ARE THE
TOP TEN REASONS THE CREATION MODEL IS A BETTER EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGIN OF
THE UNIVERSE AND THE CURRENT STATE OF THE UNIVERSE THAN THE EVOLUTION MODEL.
1.
DESIGN
2.
FIRST
LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
3.
SECOND
LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
4.
BIOGENESIS
5.
LIVING
ANIMALS
6.
DEAD
ANIMALS (FOSSILS)
7.
THE
THEORY OF EVOLUTION KEEPS EVOLVING
8.
CAUSE
AND EFFECT
9.
EXTINCTION,
NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
10.
LIFE,
THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN MATERIAL
QUESTION: IS THE UNIVERSE
DESIGNED?
Simple observation should reveal that the Universe is
clearly the result of intelligent design,
plan, and purpose. The Universe
is incredibly orderly and complex. This
is not the result of chance or natural events, it is the result of an
intelligent designer. Consider the
microscopic world of the atom with the precise mass ratio of the electron to
the proton, or consider the large domain of our solar system with the precise
masses and orbits of the planets.
Consider photosynthesis, human reproduction, hearts, lungs, livers,
kidneys, eyes, etc. The conclusion that
these complex systems are the result of an intelligent designer requires much
less faith than the idea it arose by time and chance. Think about the “units of life”
that come in pairs like eyes, ears, hands, feet, etc. – they are exactly
alike, but yet they are exactly reversed – an incredible design feature – and
the concept reproduces like a carbon copy.
We are not aware of any evolutionist literature that
offers an explanation of how complex organs & systems evolved. THINK!
How could something like human reproduction have evolved? How did half the population evolve male
systems, and the other half evolve female systems that work together so
precisely and in such incredible complexity to produce a baby? And the baby is not capable of producing
offspring until many years later when it is suitably able to care for them –
what an incredible design concept!
Mt. Rushmore, as you probably know, consists of the
facial images of four ex-Presidents on the side of a mountain. Suppose a tour
guide told his tour group that those faces are "the result of billions of
years of nature, such as glaciers, lightning and erosion." What would the tour group think? How long would the tour guide keep his
job? He'd be fired by lunch time and
his tour group would think he was insane.
Those images obviously required planning, design, and an artist.
Suppose an anatomy teacher at your school taught that
human faces are "the result of billions of years of nature, such as
mutations, natural selection, etc."
How long would this anatomy professor keep his job? Actually he would
feel very secure in his job and might even be promoted to Dean. The anatomy professor who teaches that the
human body appears to be the result of an intelligent design, is the one that
potentially would be fired.
Look at your computer. Suppose we tried to convince you
that a glass factory, a plastic factory, a metal factory, a paint factory, and
a silicon factory all exploded, started on fire and mixed together. The result of this explosion, chemical
reaction and time was your computer.
You would never believe it. Your
intellect and logic would cause you to passionately deny an explanation that an
explosion and mixing of chemicals and time could ever produce something as
functional and orderly as a computer.
Don't let anyone convince you that your body is the end
product of an explosion, the mixing of chemicals and time. Your body is
infinitely more complex than your computer.
That is because it was made by a very intelligent designer!
QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE GET HERE?
Ask the atheists to explain how they think the Universe
originated. Did all the energy and
matter in the Universe create itself by natural processes? The First Law of Thermodynamics states that
energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed. Atheist beliefs contradict this basic law of science. Creationists recognize that energy and
matter had a supernatural origin. This position does require faith, but it is
in conjunction with the First Law and thus requires less faith than the
atheist's position that it created itself from nothing.
Imagine that you could create a very special box. This box is sealed so that nothing can
enter it from the outside, and there is nothing inside the box to begin
with. If we came back to that box in 20
billion years, would there be anything inside of it? The First Law of Thermodynamics recognizes there will be nothing
inside the box. Matter and energy do
not appear from nothing. An atheist may
say that since this entire Universe came from self created matter and self
created energy, it is possible an entire Universe may exist in that box.
QUESTION: HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BECOME SO ORDERLY? HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BECOME CHARGED WITH SO MUCH USEFUL ENERGY?
Question
for an atheist.-..did all the energy and matter in the Universe increase in
complexity and order on its own? The
Second Law states that in a closed system (like the Universe, the earth is not
a closed system) over time, energy will become less available, systems will
become more disordered and entropy will increase. This Law explains that the Universe is running out of available
energy (energy that can do work, like the sun, coal, gasoline, etc.) The heat produced by burning gasoline is
energy...but it cannot do any work until it is harnessed. To believe the Universe originated as a
compact bundle of matter that expanded (Big Bang), and self created an orderly,
energy filled Universe, severely violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Creationists believe a supernatural entity, working
outside the natural laws of science gave order and available energy to the
Creation. This requires faith, but
much less faith than the belief that order and abundant energy appeared by
chance.
QUESTION: HOW DID
LIFE ORIGINATE?
Remember some of your Biology classes? Early in the semester the teacher taught you
that spontaneous generation was impossible (Spontaneous generation was a belief
that life originated from nonliving things). People used to believe that
bacteria could originate from broth, that rats could originate from garbage and
maggots could originate from rotting meat.
Over 130 years ago, Louis Pasteur conducted experiments that
demonstrated the folly of spontaneous generation.
Later in the semester your teacher taught you
evolution. Here is a quote from a
current Biology text book: “Life cannot arise by spontaneous generation from
inanimate material today, so far as we know, but conditions were very different
when the earth was only a few billion years old. In that ancient environment, the origin of life was evidently
possible and it is likely that at least the early stages of biological
inception were inevitable.” Campbell,
Nell; Biology, 1987, page 504. Do you
see what this author did? He admitted
spontaneous generation is impossible today, but he puts his faith in the belief
that the early earth had some unknown different conditions in order for life to
originate from inanimate material.
Statements similar to the one in Nell Campbell's text
are very intellectually dishonest. Any
person seeking scientific explanations to difficult questions should not accept
an explanation that clearly violates a law of science in order to uphold a
personal bias. Mr. Campbell knows
Biogenesis presents a very significant stumbling block to his pro-evolution
faith, since scientific (observed) knowledge tells us that life does not arise
from dead matter. When his text brings
him to explaining life's origin, what does he tell the students? He starts by telling them the truth, that
life does not arise from dead things today, but billions of years ago life
arising from dead things was "evidently possible" and
"inevitable."
Decide for yourself, but it appears that Nell Campbell,
when confronted with a scientific law that contradicts his world view (perhaps
atheistic), would rather violate the scientific law than acknowledge that
supernatural intervention is a possible explanation for the origin of
life. What Mr. Campbell wrote is not
education, it is not science, it is Nell Campbell's biased unscientific
opinion. You are encouraged, to decide
for yourself.
The “origin of life” question is covered in detail in
Dr. Mark Eastman's book "The Creator Beyond Time and Space". Many people think life was once created in a
test tube from chemicals and energy in the 1950's. This is known as the
Miner-Urey experiment (which is covered in detail in Eastman's book). Here is what actually occurred. They sparked
ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water, condensed it. and ran it through a trap
(do you think the early earth had traps and condensers? The samples had to be
isolated from the spark because a second spark would have destroyed any
molecules that were formed). The results of these experiments were mostly tar
and carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed. Amino acids may be called the building
blocks of life. But it is either gross
ignorance or a lie to say they created true life in this experiment. Life requires many things. Long amino acid chains make proteins, chains
in the proper order and shape. Millers
experiment did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never
has any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have chains of DNA or RNA been
produced, and never has a cell membrane been produced.
The faith that even one protein arose by chance is tremendous. Lets look at statistics. Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids, just like a train is made up of box cars. A chain of box cars makes up a train. A chain of amino acids makes up a protein. Humans have 20 different types of amino acids that make up our proteins, and the average human protein is 400 amino acids long. Remember, the exact arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk.
Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box
cars are made up of twenty different colors. The owner of the station tells you
he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the combination
of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in mind (and he didn’t
tell you his desire) he will fire you.
What are the odds that you will arrange the box cars in
the right order? They are the same odds
that the amino acids will align themselves by chance to make one functional
protein in you (the human body). The odds are 20 to the 400th power. This is the same as 10 to the 520th power,
(that is a 1 followed by 520 zeros)! You have better odds of winning the
California Super Lotto every week for 11 years, than the odds of one protein in
your body having the amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are
really much worse because the amino acids must be left handed, they must form a
chain "in series," no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are
wound up like a ball of yarn) is crucial, you need an oxygen free environment,
etc. And remember, this is for just
one protein. Your body has countless
trillions of proteins. The model that
reflects a brilliant designer (like God) making meaningful and useful proteins
requires much less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes.
QUESTION: IS CREATION OR EVOLUTION SUPPORTED BY WHAT IS OBSERVED IN LIVING ANIMALS?
The Creation Model predicts animals will reproduce after their own kind. The Evolution Model predicts that all plants and animals came from a common ancestor. What is observed every day with living animals? Your parents were human, your grandparents were human, etc. That is what is observed and recorded. Dogs make dogs, hogs make hogs, frogs make frogs, cats make cats, rats make rats (especially in New York), and bats make bats. Every birth since recorded time has supported the creation model. The foundation for science is observation. What is observed? The Creation model is what is observed, animals producing their own kind.
QUESTION: DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
Creation Model Prediction: The fossils will be as easy
to classify as living forms of plants and animals. There will be variation within forms, but no transitional
evidence of invertebrates to vertebrates, fish to amphibian, amphibian to
reptile, reptile to mammal. The
characteristics of the fossils will be stasis (stay the same) and sudden
appearance will prevail (no transitional forms).
Evolution Model Prediction: The fossils will show the stages through which one type of animal
or plant changed into a different type.
Fossils should show the in-between characteristics of presumed common
ancestors (a leg becoming a wing, a scale becoming a feather, etc.). They should show the stages through
which one type of animal or plant changed into a different type. A series of links would be expected to be seen in a multitude of
fossils. In reality, you should find
more “links” than actual species, given the time required to make the
transitions.
The next time you see a case made for a human ancestor, determine what the actual fossil evidence is, and then decide for yourself if the conclusions fit the data. Recently, from a piece of one shin bone, "scientists" told us what this "ancestor" looked like, how he lived, where he lived, and how long ago he lived. Decide for yourself if you think that a single piece of shin bone can objectively tell you that much information, or is it someone's imagination that takes an extremely small amount of data (one shin bone) and turns it into a human ancestor or a "missing link." (Remember, there is great variety within a species. A pro-football player has bigger thicker shin bones than a child, but they are both human.)
QUESTION: IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, WHICH THEORY DO YOU BELIEVE IN?
It is true that there are a couple of different Creation
theories circulating today. Some people
think God used evolution to create.
Some believe in two creations, (the Gap Theory). Both of these ideas are new, unbiblical and
unscientific (they do not comply with observable evidence). The literal account of Genesis is thousands
of years old and has not changed for thousands of years. It is also true that just because many
theories may exist to explain something, does not mean that every explanation
is false.
The general point of the Theory of Evolution is that
life originated as single celled organisms and over time became all the living
things we see today. Up to this point
all evolutionists seem to agree. The
science end of that conclusion is the mechanism. It is with the science end that the evolutionists disagree
vehemently with each other. Teachers
never told us that the "scientists" disagreed on the mechanism of
evolution. We have always been lead to
believe that the "scientists" agreed on how evolution occurred.
However, the students and the public are never informed
about these conflicts. It is similar to
a family fight being kept private.
However, the ramifications are so important, it is imperative that all
students should be properly informed.
Students should ask their instructor "Which Theory of Evolution are
you teaching?"
Remember, the “science of Evolution is the
mechanism”. Mechanism #1 was Darwin's,
also know as Darwinian Evolution or Gradualism, (think of "slow" evolution). Darwin proposed that animals evolved into
other animals by small, gradual steps.
There are two problems with this, no living evidence and no fossil
evidence (as previously discussed). And
why are all the species so distinct today with no in-between “specimens” of
some unknown future species currently in the development stage?
Many
evolutionists recognize this acute problem.
One of them is Stephen Jay Gould, a Professor of Geology at Harvard, and
perhaps the most prominent evolutionist in the United States. Dr. Gould and others are faced with one of
three choices to make regarding the empirical evidence:
1)
Hold
onto Gradualism, despite the lack of evidence to support it.
2)
Accept
the Genesis account, that an intelligent designer instantly created plants and
animals and these plants and animals would reproduce after their own kind.
3)
Reject Gradualism
and come up with a new theory.
What do you think they chose? If you guessed #3, you are correct. A new theory therefore arose.
This Theory is called "Punctual Equilibrium," a big long scary
phrase that means the changes happened too fast to be observed. If you inquire into this, be ready to be
"comforted" by the response: “You must understand...’fast’ in
Evolutionary terms can be millions (or even billions) of years." But don't lose focus. Whether these "fast" changes
occurred over one million or four billion years, they were still unobserved,
and are nowhere to be found in the fossil record. The foundation of science is observation. The “punctual equilibrium” camp admit there
is no observational evidence to support their belief. Their presupposed conclusion drives them to gloss over
observational evidence. They will not
allow anything, including evidence, to falsify their belief that the Theory of
Evolution is truth.
A third theory of Evolution is that God used Evolution
to create. These people have the same
science problems the atheists have...no observational evidence. They have even more problems if their God is
the God of the Bible. There are no
verses to support their belief. They typically will say Genesis is not literal,
and will try to explain that the
original Hebrew supports this.
Unfortunately for them, the original Hebrews took it literally and so
did hundreds of generations of Hebrew scholars after them. These people should not be so quick to twist
a clear message by interpreting what it says in Hebrew, when the Hebrew experts
would disagree with them. It appears
that peer pressure resulted in their conclusions more than an in-depth study of
the Hebrew language.
QUESTION: IS THERE ANY CAUSE FOR THE UNIVERSE, OR FOR YOU?
Cause and effect is the most basic scientific
principle. It is fundamental to all
branches of science as well as philosophy.
Cause and effect is the principle that an event which is observed, can
be traced to an event that preceded it.
For example, an observed event (an effect) could be a house, the cause
is a place to live. An observed event
could be a painting, the cause is beauty or expression. Creationists trace the entire Universe to a
"First Cause," God. Atheists
say there was not a "First Cause," for the Universe.
Isn't it curious that Evolutionary Scientists accept the
principle of cause and effect EXCEPT when it comes to origins? An Evolutionary Scientist would argue that
there was a cause for a chair, but not for a human being.
QUESTION: EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ARE FACTS, DO THESE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
Extinction does NOT support the Theory of Evolution –
extinction destroys evolution. It is
the path creation would predict. For
the “Theory of Evolution” model to have validity, it must attempt to
demonstrate that natural process produces new animals, and does NOT eliminate
existing animals. The Creation model has
validity when natural processes do not produce new kinds of animals. Extinction does not falsify the Creation
model. What do we observe? Many animal kinds becoming extinct, and no
new animal kinds emerging.
Lets look at the two models again and their
beliefs. Evolutionists believe life
started as one “animal” (like an amoeba) and favorable environmental conditions
produced a net gain of hundreds of thousands of new animal species! Creationists believe hundreds of thousands
of species were intelligently and instantly created at the beginning of time,
and unfavorable environments have reduced this number. Decide for yourself which model is more
logical and which model better fits observed events.
Natural Selection is a true concept. Natural selection makes good traits dominant
but does not produce new animal kinds.
Natural selection does not produce new species, families, orders, or
classes of plants and animals. Imagine
someone having 10 children in smoggy Los Angeles. Suppose eight of the kids have lungs that cannot filter the smog
effectively, and they do not reach an age where they can reproduce, but two
kids do have stronger lungs that allows them to reach reproducing ages. Their genes will be exhibited in future
generations. But that gene pool is
still in human beings. Natural
selection emphasizes the superior genetic characteristics in a population, but
it does not produce new animal kinds.
Survival of the fittest is a simplistic term that
everyone should admit is correct. The
term is simply an equation or a definition.
For example, it is equal to saying "bachelors are single
men." If you are a single man, you
are a bachelor. If you are a bachelor
you are a single man. Regarding
"survival of the fittest," if an animal is surviving, that means it
is fit for its environment. If an
animal is fit for its environment that means it will survive. If a plane load of circus animals is forced
to land in Alaska in the winter, the lions, elephants, zebras and giraffes will
soon be history. But the penguins and
polar bears will easily survive. That
is an example of survival of the fittest.
However, for validity to be given to the Theory of Evolution, the lions
would not die, but would immediately (over millions of years) begin producing new
kinds of animals, that can survive a harsh Alaskan winter. The problem is, if you are unfit, you die,
and you can't evolve when you are dead.
How can an organism with a life expectancy of a few
days, weeks, months, or even years, survive for billions of years while it
finally develops a reproductive system, only to discover that it now needs a
partner with which to mate (oops, now we must wait another billion years for
the right partner to come along). In
just a mere thousand years, “it” would have died and re-incarnated (or
something), dozens or hundreds of times and the billions of years has barely
begun!
QUESTION: DO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LIFE SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
Lets compare life to a computer. Computers must have proper hardware
(monitors, disk drives, keyboards) and proper software (information) in order
to operate. Likewise life at the
cellular level requires "hardware" (amino acids and nucleic acids) and "software"
(amino acids in the proper sequence to make proteins, and nucleic acids in the
right sequence to make DNA). Much could be written about the incredible
complexity of proteins and DNA and how unsatisfactory "chance and
time" are in explaining these origins.
THINK! For the
computer example, even if you had the proper hardware and the proper software,
would you have a functional computer?
No, because you need a source of power (life) for the system to
operate. Now lets look at life.
Suppose there was a dead dog lying next to a living
dog. How would someone who believed
only in the material world (Materialists deny the existence of anything
metaphysical) explain what the difference is between the dead dog and the
living dog? The unfortunate dead dog
has all the proper materials. It has
the proper hardware (DNA, proteins, organs, bones, etc.), and it has the proper
software (its DNA and amino acids are properly sequenced). But the dog is dead. Why?
Creationists maintain there is more to life than chemicals, energy and
biology. There is a metaphysical or spiritual side to life similar to the power
source of computers.
Again, please be reminded – you must decide for yourself when you read the following. However, if you look for these two "tricks," the Theory of Evolution will lose a lot of its perceived validity.
Be on the alert for the incredible faith the
evolutionist has in time. Time is vital
to their theory. Ask an
evolutionist how did reptiles become birds, and they will tell you it took
"millions of years." How did
fish become amphibians, "it took millions of years." Whenever you probe an evolutionist with
questions, they will quickly rely on time. Do not expect fossil evidence, and
biological answers. Instead, just a
hand wave and a tremendous faith in time.
But is their "time" explanation
satisfactory? No, it is a confession
that the processes they profess to believe in are thought to occur, but they
are not observed. The evidence was lost
in those eons of time. There are two explanations why there is no evidence for
fish evolving into reptiles: Either it never happened and thus there is no
evidence (Creation); or it did happen but the evidence is missing due to time
(Evolution). Does time lead to
increased complexity in chemical reactions or systems? No (see the Second Law of Thermodynamics). For a system to increase in complexity it
does not just need energy, it needs the proper type and quantity of
energy. If you put a leaf on a driveway
and expose it to the sun, it will dry up and whither, not become more complex.
Remember the fairy tales we heard as children like - “a long time ago, in a place far away
there was a frog. A princess kissed the
frog, and it instantly turned into a prince”.
In Biology, they informed us that a long time ago, in an unknown place
there lived an amphibian, and over millions of years the amphibian became a
mammal. The first story is a fairy tale
because a kiss turned an amphibian into a prince. The second story is taught as science because "millions of
years" turned the amphibian into a mammal. Supposedly, believing that time
(and not a kiss) can turn an amphibian into a mammal makes it
"science".
When someone asks you if you believe in evolution, do
not answer yes, and do not answer
no. Instead ask them "What do you
mean when you say evolution?"
Become aware of how the word "evolution" is used. What does the word "evolution"
mean? It simply means change. Does change happen? Absolutely.
If you changed your socks within the past month you could say you
evolved. But does that degree of change
support the Theory of Evolution? Lets
explore that thought.
In item #9 of the above list, we showed that natural
selection and survival of the fittest are a true phenomena. Change happens within species all the
time. But for the Theory of Evolution
to have merit there must be evidence for new species, families, orders,
classes and phyla. For example, teachers
will often say that evidence for evolution is the fact that people are taller
today than they were 500 years ago. Is
that evolution? Well it is change, but
does it support the Theory of Evolution?
No, because they were people then and they are people now, no species
change. Or a teacher will say that
England had many light colored moths and few dark moths when England was
unpolluted (due to camouflage advantages).
After England became polluted, the population of the dark moths
increased and the light moths decreased.
Is that evolution? Well, it is a
change in the population density, but it does not support the Theory of
Evolution because there was no species change.
You started with light moths and dark moths, and you ended up with light
colored moths and dark moths. If you
mention this to an evolutionist they will go to trick #1 and say over millions
of years that new kinds of animals will emerge.
Creationists often say they believe in micro-evolution
(change within a species) but not macro-evolution (one species becoming a new
species). Creationists may also say
they believe in horizontal evolution (change within a species) but not vertical
evolution (new species emerging). And
indeed these are observable changes.
As you ponder these thought provoking issues, keep your focus on consistency and reality. Try to think through a billion years and calculate how many life and death cycles would result in that period of time with just a single species if evolution was even remotely possible. To help equate the enormous expanse of a billion years, think of how long a billion seconds is (about 32 years = 1 billion seconds). Remember, all the body “systems” of all living things rely on all the other body systems in order to function and survive (i.e. a heart cannot exist without a lung, etc.). Neither will these “systems” function or survive if they are only partially developed – they all have SHORT time periods within which to fully develop in sync, and in parallel, according to their respective design. Add to this the incredibly complex DNA code, the hundreds of pairs of exact opposite body parts, the absolute need for “matching” reproductive organisms, and the list goes on. Now introduce this same random-chance design concept into our modern world of manufacturing and decide which works – (i.e. cars evolving or cars being designed and built to specs!) Isn’t it strange that the evolutionist thinks that everything we see and touch requires a designer/creator, except all the “living things”!