5.) LIVING ANIMALS
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.
6.) DEAD ANIMALS (Fossils)
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.
CHALLENGE:
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.)
7.) THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION KEEPS EVOLVING
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.
8.) CAUSE AND EFFECT
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.
9.) EXTINCTION, NATURAL SELECTION and SURVIVAL of THE FITTEST
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!
10.) LIFE? THERE IS MORE TO IT THAN MATERIAL
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.
TWO "TRICKS" EVOLUTIONISTS USE TO MAKE THEIR THEORY APPEAR TO BE SOUND
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.
TRICK #1
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".
TRICK #2
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”!
