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.



Believe it or not, this kind of hoax is nothing new.


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).





1.        DESIGN



4.        BIOGENESIS










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!




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 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.




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.




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.


6)  DEAD ANIMALS (Fossils)


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.)




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.




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.




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!




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.


In Closing

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”!