The Apple Of God's Eye

June 23, 2011

For Evolutionists Only….

hollyforrestteaches.blogspot.com

Most creationists are guilty of the very thing they accuse evolutionists of doing: misinterpreting the evidence!

Actually, the commonly accepted religious concept of creation has changed little since medieval theologians insisted the earth is flat.

Only some six or so thousand years ago, according to this concept, God created “out of nothing” the universe and everything in it.

Not only does this idea overlook the actual biblical account of creation, it also represents a misinterpretation of the physical evidence to support a preconceived and erroneous notion.

One can only wonder how many educated people have rejected the whole idea of special creation merely because they have not heard the true biblical account. The biblical account of creation, as recorded in the first chapters of Genesis, is compatible with the entire body of provable, observable, measurable, recordable scientific data. What this means is that the physical evidence of and by itself does not require choosing between an evolutionary process on the one hand or belief in a universe that is only about 6,000 years old on the other hand. (more…)

Advertisements

June 20, 2011

Can You Believe Both The Bible And Evolution?

So many are saying today, “You can believe BOTH the Bible and evolution.” But this is emphatically not so! The Century Dictionary and Encyclopedia defines evolution as “opposed to creation” — the only PROOF of God. Huxley said it was “directly antagonistic to Creation,” adding, “Evolution makes it impossible to believe in the Bible.” And, we might add, the BIBLE makes it impossible to believe in evolution.

Sir Oliver Lodge said, “As taught by science, we learn that there has been no fall in man; there has been only RISE.” Another frank evolutionist, Carl Vogt, says: “Evolution turns the Creator out of doors.”

And yet, in high schools and colleges, many teachers and professors are teaching students that there is no conflict between the Bible and evolution. They teach that you can believe BOTH. Some try to teach that evolution was God’s METHOD of creation, and try to harmonize the first chapter of Genesis with the theory of evolution! This is merely crafty, cunning, lying deception, which is deceiving millions of students. They are then taught the “evidences” of evolution, they accept it, and soon become atheists before they realize it! (more…)

The Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution

Filed under: Evolution — melchia @ 9:46 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Editors Comment: This article came from The Philadelphia Trumpet, March/April 2002. It has hard facts about the improbability of evolution and should make a logical person think about the childish approach evolutionists take, despite the odds that they could be right.

——————————————————————-

archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com

Since random events within nature are supposed to be responsible for the spontaneous beginning of life and of all living things, let’s evaluate “randomness.” The tool used to evaluate randomness is the mathematical concept of probability.

The basic principle of probability is simple: If you have a coin with two sides, heads and tails, and toss it into the air, each side has a 50 percent chance of being on the top when the coin lands. This is the probability of a random event limited by two possible outcomes.

Now, imagine a pair of four-sided dice. The probability of any certain side landing in the bottom position when one of the pair is tossed is one in four, or 25 percent. Add the second of the pair, and there are 16 possible combinations (four times four). Add a third and there are 64 possible combinations (four times four times four). The probability of getting any certain combination in one toss of three dice would be 64 to one. The more possible combinations, the less the probability of any one specific result.

Evolution is hypothesized to occur when there is an alteration to the genetic material of a plant or animal, and the change produces offspring with a better chance to survive. In animals, the changes take place in the genome, the genetic material of the sperm or egg cells of a parent, and are passed on to the next generation. (more…)

May 25, 2011

The Impossibility Of Evolution

Filed under: Evolution — melchia @ 5:57 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

Editors Comment – Found this post at www.thetrumpet.com (2002 March/April Trumpet – print edition). It really puts into perspective the impossibility of evolution. It’s a must read for those searching for real truth.

—————————————————————–

Evolution vs. Creation

intelligentdesignfacts.com

Since random events within nature are supposed to be responsible for the spontaneous beginning of life and of all living things, let’s evaluate “randomness.” The tool used to evaluate randomness is the mathematical concept of probability.

The basic principle of probability is simple: If you have a coin with two sides, heads and tails, and toss it into the air, each side has a 50 percent chance of being on the top when the coin lands. This is the probability of a random event limited by two possible outcomes.

Now, imagine a pair of four-sided dice. The probability of any certain side landing in the bottom position when one of the pair is tossed is one in four, or 25 percent. Add the second of the pair, and there are 16 possible combinations (four times four). Add a third and there are 64 possible combinations (four times four times four). The probability of getting any certain combination in one toss of three dice would be 64 to one. The more possible combinations, the less the probability of any one specific result.

Evolution is hypothesized to occur when there is an alteration to the genetic material of a plant or animal, and the change produces offspring with a better chance to survive. In animals, the changes take place in the genome, the genetic material of the sperm or egg cells of a parent, and are passed on to the next generation.

In the human genome, there are four possible combinations of amino acids called nucleotides, but, instead of three dice, there are 3.2 billion nucleotides. The possible combinations would be four times four times four—repeatedly multiplying by four a total of 3.2 billion times. (more…)

April 23, 2011

“Lucy” Fallacy Based On Conjecture, Not Science.

Filed under: Evolution,Science — melchia @ 11:57 pm
Tags: , , , , , , ,

worshippingchristian.org

An “Institute For Creation Research” article which recently caught my eye was about a human-looking bone discovered in the Hadar Formation in Ethiopia, supposedly belonging to Australopithecus afarensis.

Australopiths are extinct apes known only from fossils. “Lucy” is the most famous example, and she was long thought to represent an evolutionary transition between ape-kind and mankind. The latest discovery is taken as additional evidence that human ancestors gradually morphed from tree-dwelling apes.

So what does this newly described bone actually prove? Well, nothing less than it looks just like a human fourth metatarsal. Its description, published in the journal Science, clearly showed that the foot bone is within the range of modern humans and does not match any metatarsals from living apes or show any hint of being ape-like.

In fact, the foot could not look like ours because prior finds showed that Lucy’s foot was actually configured like a hand, with a thumb-like big toe projecting sideways. A strange fact to be omitted, for sure, since this means their conclusion is based on mere speculation that the human-looking bone belonged to an ape. In fact, Lucy-like specimens have indicated characteristic flat ape feet with curved toes, not arched feet as the media have claimed.

If you will notice the picture in this article, it shows 20% of the bones we have found of a supposed Lucy. Now, is forensic science that good at creating facts from so little information? After all, it’s not like reconstructing a skeleton at a crime scene. We know what a modern person looks like, so filling in the missing pieces is so much easier. But in Lucy’s case, we don’t have the missing information. All we can really determine from the 20%  data we have is that the the long bones help us in in determining height and stature. The rest of the 80% we are told is conjecture, not real science.

So the question remains: Is one more bone singled out from a scrap heap of “greater than 370” individual bones the best evidence for an upright-walking ape? As the article stated, this bone has not proven that Lucy walked, but instead illustrates how improper science leads to flawed conclusions.

Read the complete article here – www.icr.org

March 28, 2011

Geology Reveals: Two Creations, Two Worldwide Floods

findingtruthmatters.org

Here is startling proof — from the Bible and geology — demonstrating not only two widely separated creations, but two world-wide destructions! Few have understood this astonishing truth!

Contrary to what millions have been led to believe — the true facts of science and the truth of your Bible agree! Theologians have long kept hidden this surprising truth. It conflicts with their theology. Atheistic professors have suppressed it. Science has refused to believe it.

Only a few understand where the key which unlocks the amazing geologic history of the earth is. It has been in the FIRST TWO VERSES OF YOUR BIBLE all these years — and you probably never noticed it.

The FOUNDATION of Knowledge

The very first truth revealed in your Bible is: “In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). This earth was created so perfect, so beautiful, that “the morning stars {the angels — Rev. 1:20} sang for joy” (Job 38:7).

Yet the very next inspired verse of your Bible reveals that this perfect earth was destroyed by a terrible catastrophe! Genesis 1:2 reveals, “And the earth was without form, and void.”

The original Hebrew word, which the King James translators translated “was” in verse two, ought to be translated “became.” It is so translated in Genesis 19:26, in Genesis 2:7, and in many other verses of the Bible. Turn to the example in Genesis 19:26. In this verse the same Hebrew word which is INCORRECTLY translated “WAS” in Genesis 1:2 is here CORRECTLY translated “BECAME.”

Notice, God warned Lot and his wife not to look behind as they escaped from the burning city of Sodom. Lot’s wife disobeyed this command and looked back longingly at the wicked city of Sodom, “She BECAME a pillar of salt” (v. 26).

Obviously, Lot’s wife had not always been a pillar of salt! But when she sinned, she became a pillar of salt.

In like manner, the earth wasn’t originally created a waste and in confusion! The correct translation of Genesis 1:2 from the original inspired Hebrew makes clear: “The earth BECAME without form, and void.”

This truth is further brought out when we note in Genesis 1:2 that the English “without form” was translated from the original Hebrew word “tohu,” which means “desolation” or “confusion.” Is God the author of confusion?

The Apostle Paul was inspired to write: “God is not the author of confusion” (I Cor. 14:33).

Isaiah said, “He {God} created it {the earth} NOT IN VAIN {“tohu” in Hebrew — that is, not in chaos and confusion} (Isa. 45:18). It BECAME that way! (more…)

February 12, 2011

Dinosaurs Before Adam: The Physical Proof Of Biblical Truth!

Filed under: Dinosaurs,Evolution — melchia @ 7:16 am
Tags: , , ,

ghostradio.wordpress.com

What do the facts of science and the Bible reveal about dinosaurs – about the earth before Adam? Why is evolutionary geology unable to account for the sudden extinction of dinosaurs? Here are the answers!

Did you know that once literally millions of dinosaurs and other creatures suddenly perished from the face of the earth? Why? How did it happen? Why are the scientists puzzled by this catastrophic “time of great dying?”

Evolution has no answers

The Bible answers all these questions. It reveals whether the earth is older than man – just what kind of world God created in the beginning.

But evolution has no answer to the sudden disappearance of dinosaurs. No answers to the almost complete change of both plant and animal life forms at the end of what scientists have dubbed the “Mesozoic era.”

Why is the present world fitted for man’s existence, while the world of the dinosaurs was unfit for human survival?

Suppose you visit a museum

Take a brief walk through any natural history museum. It will reveal a vast array of charts and fossils depicting the theory of organic evolution. geology, you will be told, provides evidence of a succession of life forms in the strata of the earth.

But does the record of the rocks really show this? Do the facts of science substantiate these “scientific” theories?

Furthermore, it is claimed, the earth is billions of years old and the fossil record – the aged bones, tracks and other remains of extinct animals and plants – proves that life has been evolving over millions of years.

Why have scientists reburied the facts only to resurrect them in the image of their evolutionary theories? This article explains why! (more…)

Neanderthal Man DNA Disproves Evolution!

Filed under: Evolution,Science — melchia @ 7:09 am
Tags: , , ,

Editors Comment: Once again, evolution is being shown as an amateurish attempt to discredit God. The following article from the Trumpet.com shows that DNA from Neanderthal man is so similar to humans, that the difference is insignificant. Seems Neanderthal man is nothing more than pre-flood humans with a lot more muscle than his modern, soft counterparts.

————————————————————-

johnberardi.com

After years of anticipation, the genetic code of Neanderthal “cavemen” is being decoded. And it is unraveling the theory of evolution. Apparently Neanderthals are a little more closely related to humans than expected. How close? Let’s just say that the man Aunt Thelma married may really be a “Neanderthal” after all.

According to a May 6 Science article, the Neanderthal genome sequencing is nearing completion. It is not complete yet, but what scientists have found so far is astounding: Humans and “Neanderthals” are practically identical at the dna code level.

The researchers used dna captured from the nucleus of cells found in three bone fragments from three different female Neanderthals found in Croatia. The scientists then compared the Neanderthal genome to the human at 14,000 protein coding gene segments that differ between humans and chimpanzees. In doing so, they looked at over 3 billion combinations of four key protein molecules.

What did the scientists find? Simply put: Neanderthals are human. There was virtually no difference between the two codes. The few differences they did find were so slight that researchers say that they are functionally irrelevant—and that if more Neanderthal genomes could be compared there might be no differences at all!

But that is not all the scientists found. The data suggests Neanderthals are as closely related to humans as Chinese are to Germans, or French to Javanese. Furthermore, the genetic material analyzed indicated that Neanderthals and humans interbred and produced offspring that interbred—and regularly.

Uncle Jed’s jutting eyebrow? Chalk that one down to dna passed down from generation to generation.

“Whatever our differences, they’re not in the composition of your building blocks,” reports Wired Science. The “Neanderthal genome shows most humans are cavemen.”

Did you get that? All those supposed pre-man, caveman bones are actually just plain old human skeletons.

It is a startling admission for evolutionists because it throws a monkey wrench into conventional evolutionary theory. (more…)

Anti-Evolution Quotes

Filed under: Evolution — melchia @ 6:50 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

“The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” – Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.” Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

“Nowhere was Darwin able to point to one bona fide case of natural selection having actually generated evolutionary change in nature….Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more nor less than the great cosmogenic myth of the twentieth century.” Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crises (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986) pp. 62, 358.

“I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science.” Søren Løvtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (New York: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422.

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.

“The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” Albert Fleischmann. Witnesses Against Evolution by John Fred Meldau (Denver: Christian Victory Publishing, 1968), p. 13.

“[T]he theory suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts…No one can demonstrate that the limits of a species have ever been passed. These are the Rubicons which evolutionists cannot cross…Darwin ransacked other spheres of practical research work for ideas…But his whole resulting scheme remains, to this day, foreign to scientifically established zoology, since actual changes of species by such means are still unknown.” Albert Fleischmann, “The Doctrine of Organic Evolution in the Light of Modern Research,” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute 65 (1933): pp. 194-95, 205-6, 208-9.

“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Louis Bounoure. The Advocate, 8 March 1984, p. 17.

“And the salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by
evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred.” Wolfgang
Smith, Teilhardism and the New Religion (Rockford., Ill.: Tan Books, 1988), pp. 5-6. Dr. Smith, taught at MIT and UCLA.

“With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.

“If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous.” R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p.

” `Creation,’ in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation.” Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903). 63.

“Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They
have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.” L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.

“What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,’ such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy.” R. Brady, “Dogma and Doubt,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982)

February 25, 2010

A Credible Religious Answer To Evolution!

Mankind has a long history of seeking God, but it now appears that human intellect is in a rush to eliminate Him. Supposed superstition, ignorance and fear is said to give way to intelligence in order that human civilization may be brought fully into being.

And no wonder. The gods of some nations have been carved by men’s hands out of wood, stone, or other existing material. The gods of some religions and individuals have been carved out of human imaginations and faulty human reasoning. Some have worshiped the sun, or other inanimate objects of nature. All these gods are merely the created—most of them formed and fashioned by man, therefore inferior to man.

But He who did the creating—He who brought everything that exists into existence, including all else falsely called God—He who created all matter, force and energy, who created all natural laws and set them in motion, who created life and endowed some of it with intelligence—He is God! He is superior to all else that is called “God.” He, alone, is God! (more…)

December 19, 2009

Darwin vs. Genesis: A Literary Smackdown

I recently came across an article in the Toronto Star, a Canadian (liberal) newspaper. The title was: “Analysis: Darwin vs. Genesis, a literary smackdown.” The writer, Stephen Marche, makes a comparison between the authority of the Bible vs. Darwin’s book. Darwin supposedly wrote a masterpiece  which has only peer: the book of Genesis, the only other book that explains all of nature in a few terse sentences.

Why the comparison in a mainstream paper? The 25th of November 2009 was the 150th anniversary of the publishing of Darwin’s “Origin of the species.” So the article, I suppose was timely, but it is the way it was written that surprised me.

Marche writes, “You can spot the difference in the quality of the writing from the very first lines of the respective books. The first line of Genesis – ‘In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth’ – is simply the best sentence ever composed: strong, active, concise, clear, complete and yet turgid with hidden depths.” He cites Genesis as being full of delicious wordplay, humour, succinct expression , health and strength and possessing “real character.”

This, he says is unlike The Origin of Species, which opens with a lead sentence stuffed with vagueness and weakness. “When on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species – that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers.”

Marche states, “this is a perfect model for what not to do with a lead sentence. Not only does it contain a passive construction, it is also a tissue of conditionals, stuffed with “seemed to me,” “some light,” and “one of our greatest.” The consequence of this, he states, is to lead the Kansas school board trustees and ex-U.S. Presidents to believe that there’s reasonable doubt about the ideas in The Origin of Species.” Therefore, he concludes, good writing matters.

Of course, he totally derails at the end of the article. He deftly hooks the reader with a little bit of reverse psychology, stating: “And so we are forced to the conclusion that, in almost every respect, Genesis is a better book than The Origin of Species, in the purity and intensity of its style, in its recognition of human realities” (Ibid). Then, the real depth of his beliefs are spewed out: “It’s just that Genesis is a pack of lies that has served the cause of bafflement for millennia, while The Origin of Species is true and has done more to liberate us from ignorance than any other book” (Ibid).

So ironically, Marche gives many reasons why the Bible is a superior literary read, yet, when coming to defend Darwin’s book, he simply makes a limp statement of conclusion. Having  painted himself into a corner, he doesn’t  realize his clever language only showcases his lack of spiritual substance.

The authority and power of the Bible is evident, showing that God’s word is truth (John 17:17) and “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness….” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Though powerfully packed with history, it’s also the only book on earth that has consistently revealed in advance what will come to pass. It reveals an amazing hope and potential for all mankind; one that reaches the furthest corners of the universe. In contrast, belief in “The Origin Of The Species” leaves us hopelessly stranded in the past, giving us no more hope than the animals we have supposedly evolved from. Perhaps there is a reason why God is the superior author?

December 12, 2009

Is Man An Animal?

Editors Comment: The following article is from the Trumpet.com and has some very interesting points to make regarding the distinction between man and animals. The author addresses the fact that man is a physical being, with a spiritual attribute and that of the whole man, the mind is the all important factor between him and animals. Science forgets that the body is merely the physical vehicle which the mind directs. With mankind, it is by thought; with animals, it is through instinct. Looking for the connection is simply grasping at the thin end of the straw. The article is well worth the read if you’re interested in the subject.

—————————————————————————————-

psycnet.apa.org

Science is exposing a shocking new truth, columnist Mark Morford declared this past summer: “In the wilds of nature, to not have some level of homosexual/bisexual behavior in a give

n species is turning out to be the exception, not the rule” (San Francisco Chronicle, July 1, 2009; emphasis his).

You know where he’s going with this. “[E]ither humankind is part of nature and the wanton animal kingdom, a full participant in the messy inexplicable glories of the flesh and spirit and gender play, or we are the aberrant mistake, the ones who are lagging far behind the rest of the kingdom ….”

Morford’s in-your-face arrogance is maddening. But he appears to have science on his side. “[A]s many as 1,500 species of wild and captive animals have been observed engaging in homosexual activity,” noted Scientific American in June 2008. “Researchers have seen such same-sex goings-on in both male and female, old and young, and social and solitary creatures and on branches of the evolutionary tree ranging from insects to mammals.”

Science, according to Morford and his ilk, has solved the contentious question of homosexual behavior in humans: Homosexuality is a scientifically proven, therefore irrevocable, fact of life. To oppose it is to oppose nature itself.

The truth, however, is not that simple. This argument—which is patent liberalism masquerading as objective science—is riddled with flaws.

Animal or Human?

Morford’s reasoning is premised on one of the most pernicious errors ever peddled by science. Canonized into scientific lore long ago, then pumped relentlessly by modern education into believing minds, this lie has been sold as undeniable fact, an irreproachable law of science. What is it?

That man is an animal.

Check any modern biology textbook—they all say the same thing. Humans, Homo sapiens, are classified as members of the animal kingdom. Scientists classify man this way because of similarities between the physical characteristics and workings of some animals and the physical characteristics and workings of humans.

What about the gargantuan—and, at least to scientists, inexplicable—mental differences? Animals don’t think or reason, write, read, listen to music (let alone compose it or perform it), drive cars, or understand mathematics and chemistry. They lack the mental capacity to do any of these beyond even the most rudimentary level.

Aren’t the extreme differences between the mind of animals and the human mind greater than the meager similarities between the physical makeup of humans and some animals? Of course. Yet rather than give us our own kingdom, scientists lob humans into the animal kingdom.

A Slippery Slope

The unqualified classification of man as an animal is founded on an error and ends in moral confusion, and, ultimately, social breakdown.

Consider Morford’s reasoning, borne of this error. Many scientists and intellectuals like Morford, using this as their premise, have moved far beyond merely studying the physical similarities between humans and animals. Today we have “advanced” to the point of actually studying the behavior of animals to determine what is normal and abnormal behavior for humans. Since, Morford says, animals the world over supposedly engage in homosexual behavior, he reasons it’s neither unnatural nor abnormal for humans to practice homosexuality.

Such reasoning is more pervasive than you might imagine. Regarding such human proclivities as promiscuous sex, single motherhood, even child rearing, leading scientists and intellectuals are actually looking to animals to determine what is normal behavior and what is not.

Tragically, this “progression” has resulted in the sweeping acceptance, even promotion, of animalistic behavior in human society!

Where does it end? Many animals practice cannibalism—does this mean human cannibalism is all right? Animals fight and kill each other all the time—does this justify fighting and murder among humans? Of course not, reasonable people would reply. Yet scientists and radical liberals use precisely this logic to justify homosexuality.

Increasingly, this reasoning is being used to undermine the traditional family. A growing contingent of anti-family, anti-traditional radicals argue that since no other animals possess the marriage institution, why should humans? Some, in an effort to undermine the traditional role of the human male, argue that while male animals are generally involved in conception, most never stick around to protect, provide for and educate their progeny—so why should men be any different?

Such pitiful reasoning exposes the absolute degeneracy of the human mind today.

Humans laud themselves for being smart and progressive. We can easily recognize the vast gap that separates us from other living creatures—the uniqueness of our intelligence, our culture, our ability to think and reason, and our countless impressive achievements. Yet despite these magnificently unique qualities, we willfully lump ourselves in with the dumb animals.

We possess the most powerful instrument on the planet: the human mind. It sets us miles apart from every other life form. Yet we look to animals—creatures devoid of any ability to think or reason, creatures driven by basic instinct—as a means of determining human morality and conduct, and establishing societal norms.

There is an explanation for such thinking: Mankind has been deceived into rejecting divine revelation from God!

We Have Been Deceived!

The classification of humans as animals, and the resulting justification of animalistic behavior among humans, goes beyond being illogical and perverted.

At its core, it is motivated by an evil spirit being who is determined to undermine and destroy the existence of God, the traditional “Christian” beliefs, morals and institutions that underpin many Western societies, and, most importantly, the incredible potential God has created within every human being.

Unsurprisingly, Morford, like many of the scientific surveys, failed to define how “homosexual behavior” was classified among animals. Animals do not have the varied and complex emotional make-up of human beings. Just because two bottlenose dolphins are seen briefly mounting each other, this does not make them homosexual. Did two squirrels wrestling make them homosexual? If the definition of “homosexual behavior” is as broad as it appears, then it’s no surprise the figures are so high.

And if animals are exhibiting homosexual tendencies, we would strongly challenge the notion that God made them to do so. God created this planet flawless, meaning it was created within the boundaries of His law. This is why, after six days of labor, God looked back on His handiwork and said it was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Just look at the way animals behaved in the Garden of Eden, before the curses associated with man’s sin entered the world (e.g. Genesis 2:19). Then look at the prophecies of how they will behave again once God’s Kingdom is established and those curses are removed (e.g. Isaiah 11:6-9). God did not make the animals wild, violent and bloodthirsty. They exhibit those qualities—as man does, sadly—because they are in the thrall of this world ruled by the devil (e.g. 2 Corinthians 4:4).

So not only are scientists stupidly looking to the creature rather than the Creator for their instruction in how to live (e.g. Romans 1:25), but they are studying and exalting a Satan-inspired perversion of the behaviors God intended animals to exhibit! “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (verse 22).

We ought to be looking up to the majestic throne room of God and gleaning instruction on how to live from the Being infinitely superior to us in morality, character and conduct. But this evil spirit, using science and other instruments, encourages man instead to turn our gaze downward into the world of brute animals—be they homosexual scarab beetles, or promiscuous dogs, or filthy baboons—for insight and instruction into human behavior.

Instead of relying on God’s Word, mankind relies on his own materialistic observations and classifies himself as little more than a brute beast aimlessly walking this Earth. Can’t we recognize the absurdity of such thinking?

The God Kind

The Bible explains in detail why God made man. It reveals our purpose for existence. It provides instruction on ideal human conduct. It shows our ultimate potential.

Consider God’s instruction in Genesis 1:26-27. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth …. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female created he them.”

Did you notice how clearly God delineates the human kingdom from the animal kingdom?

We’re just scratching the surface. In verse 25, God explained how He made each species of animal after its own kind, the “cattle after their kind,” and “every winged fowl after his kind.” But read verses 26-27 again: God made man after the God kind!

He didn’t just create humans as a separate kingdom higher than that of the animals; He created humans after the God kind, with a colossal potential that no animal can ever have. Notice what the late Herbert Armstrong wrote about this potential: “This revealed knowledge of God’s purpose for mankind—of man’s incredible awesome potential—staggers the imagination. Science knows nothing of it—no religion reveals it … and certainly higher education is in utter ignorance of it” (Incredible Human Potential).

If you’re weary of science and education forcing your gaze downward, it’s not too late to begin casting your gaze upward, into the realm of hope and truth, the realm overflowing with divine instruction and guidance. If you’d like some help, request, then study, our free book The Incredible Human Potential.

August 17, 2009

Note To Evolutionists: The Bible Supports Modern Science

Creation Of The Earth - www.examiner.com

Creation Of The Earth - http://www.examiner.com

God gave the Bible to man as the basis of all knowledge. Any “knowledge” contrary to the information revealed by God in his word is untrue.

But what about the scientists’ claim that the earth is perhaps billions of years old, and that the fossil record in the rocks proves their theory of evolution? Is there any truth in either of these statements?

The Bible nowhere tells us when the earth was created. However, biblical chronology reveals that man has been on this earth for almost 6000 years. How can we use this knowledge to understand the record in the rocks?

Genesis 1 the key

Using the facts of science, let’s compare them with the teachings of the Bible. In Genesis chapter one, the six days of creation are well known to Bible students. These were six literal days of 24 hours duration. Let’s examine the Bible’s account of events on these days and see what they reveal. We will dwell on animal and plant life mentitioned in the account and note the description of this new creation.

On the third day, God said “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so” (Gen. 1:11).

Now let’s examine the geology books again and discover what the facts of science reveal. We’ll find a direct correlation between the revelation of the Bible and the findings in the rock layers! Notice this admission:

“Suddenly, a rapid diversification and radiation of the flowering plants occurred. Seward called the upper Cretaceous ‘the dawn of a new era’ and Lasquereuz many years ago observed that ‘the flora of the globe has become modified as by a new creation.’There has been no adequate explanation for this apparently sudden modernization of the earth’s flora. The angiosperms appear in familiar form, not in small variety but in great numbers: of existing families and genera. It is this perplexing paradox which has obscured the origin of the angiosperms” (Principles of Paleobotany, William C. Darrah, page 219).

Here then is direct geologic confirmation of the scriptures. The plants described in Genesis 1:11 appear suddenly in the geologic record.

https:/.../bvghosting/garden/flora_fauna.html

https:/.../bvghosting/garden/flora_fauna.html

Gen. 1:11 would also include  the grasses of the field, the fruit bearings shrubs, vegetables, cereals, and the other seed and fruit bearing shrubs, which are known as angiosperms. Is it only coincidence that all these suddenly appear in the geologic record? Of course not!

There are many other “coincidences” when we compare the geological record with the Bible account of Creation in Genesis 1. The fifth day of creation saw the addition of fish and birds to the earth (Gen. 1:20-23). All geology books assert that fish have been on this earth long before man existed. If this is true, then why are fish included in the creation account in Genesis? Remember, the animals and plants in general, as described in Genesis, are those which are associated with man.

The plain truth is that when geology books mention fish in the Paleozoic Era, they are not generally referring to the fish which today populate the waters of the earth.

“Most of the modern families [of fish] and a few existing genera probably date from the Eocene {a sub-division of the modern era]” (General Zoology, Storer, page 610).

This is further substantiated by the following admission from the book “Creation by Evolution:

“In the following Cretaceous seas there were a few fishes that had the bony support of the tail as well formed as that of most existing bony fishes; indeed the reign of the modern thin-scaled bony fishes, completely adapted for rapid movement in water had begun, and the only subsequent changes where those which have given almost endless variety to this thoroughly efficient race” (page 131).

Thus, those fishes associated with dinosaurs did not have the thin scales of modern fish, but had hard enamel like plates. The modern fish which we have today, appeared at the time of Adam, as Genesis records and geological findings validate.

As we have already noticed In Gen. 1:20, the bird family was also created on the fifth day. However, this does not include the winged reptile – with wings, claws, teeth and long tail bone – which scientists named Archaeopteryx. It was not until the modern era that true birds appear

Modern types of birds, all toothless, appeared before the close of the Cretaceous, and in the Eocene [a division of the Cenozoic – the era of man] most of the present orders were represented” (Historical Geology, page 435).

Thus, modern true toothless birds definitely were not present before the Cretaceous Period which basically divides the world of the dinosaur from the world which existed after Adam’s creation. Here again, the findings of geology substantiate the teachings of the Bible!

On the sixth day, God created the cattle, and creeping things [insects], and the beasts of the earth after his kind” (Gen. 1:24). Modern classification of animals places the cattle and beasts in the class of Mammalia. These, as we have seen previously, are so characteristic of the Cenozoic (modern) Era that it has been rightly called “the age of mammals.”The curtain which rang down suddenly on the disappearance of the reptilian world, just as suddenly introduced the “age of mammals”- the creation described in Genesis :24-25!

Why the sudden change of life forms?

Something mainstream religion does not understand is that there is a time lapse which occurred between Gen. 1:1 and 1;2. The earth was created at an indefinite time – perhaps millions or even billions of years ago. Man however, has been on this earth only about 6000 years, as proven by biblical chronology and supported by the historical records of many nations.

Ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 tell of the time when the great archangel Lucifer – who ruled the earth before Adam’s creation – rebelled against his Creator and fought God’s loyal angels for control of the universe. In his rebellion, he led away one third of the angelic world (Rev. 12:4). Jude 6 tells us of this very same time. Satan did not want to remain on the earth as the angelic servant of God – even though the whole earth was then as beautiful as the Garden of Eden – but he became jealous and tried to take away the authority of God (compare Is. 14:13-14, and Jude 6). It was at this time that the archangel Lucifer became Satan.

This great battle for the control of the universe caused massive destruction upon the earth. Animals and plant life of the types that then lived were destroyed, rapidly buried, and fossilized. The earth became chaotic and void (as Gen. 1:2 is more properly rendered). Life was taken from the earth so that when God rebuilt the surface of the earth and created man and the many new life forms described in gen. 1 and 2, God commanded man to replenish – or repopulate – the earth (Gen. 1:28).

The word replenish literally means “to refill”and would not have been used if life had not been on the earth in an age before Adam.

The same word is used in Gen. 9:1 after the flood in Noah’s time had completely destroyed all animal life except that which survived in the ark. The earth had to be once again “replenished”at the time of Noah! Thus, this sin of the angels was therefore before the time of Adam’s creation. Remember, it was very soon after Adam’s creation that Satan tempted Eve (Gen. 3). Lucifer had alreadyfallen.

Remember also, that it was on the first day of creation – shortly before the creation of man – that the earth was without form and void (Gen. 1:2). The first six days recorded in Gen. 1 describe the surface of the earth being reformed out of a chaotic condition. Yet, Isaiah 45:18 plainly tells us that God did not create the earth in this condition of a void wasteland. The earth became chaotic at the rebellion of Satan BEFORE the creation of man.

The truth now becomes clear. The earth had been populated by various forms of plant and animal life before Adam. At the rebellion of Lucifer against the authority of God, the earth was thrown into chaos and a time of “great dying” and “time of trial” ensued. Many animals vanished from the earth at the end of the Mesozoic, never again to be found in the later rock strata. God did not give man a hostile reptilian world – filled with dinosaurs – to inhabit! Instead, He provided man with a special creation suited for man and his needs.

Present world for man

Let’s now examine more closely why many new forms of life appear in the Cenozoic Era with man. Gen. 1 & 2 will again provide the key. Notice the importance to man of these plants and animals in Gen. 1:11-12, that were created with man in this admission:

“They [the angiosperms, or our modern plants] supply nearly all the plant life for the mammals [which also, remember, appeared suddenly at this time] that now dominate all other life upon the earth. Angiosperms provide the nuts and fruits of the field, the grasses of the prairies, the cereals which furnish fodder and grain for man and his domestic animals, and all the vegetables and fruits that man has cultivated, to say nothing of the flowers that add so much pleasure and inspiration to human surroundings” (Historical Geology, page 336).

These plants did not inhabit Lucifer’s world before man because Lucifer and the angels did not need them. God not only created man, but He created with and for man a world suitable for him. Man could not have survived on the earth before this time.

In relation to sea life, notice this quote from the book Creation by Evolution:

“It is also interesting to note that the fishes which achieved these latest developments [thin scales] include nearly all those that are used as food by man today”(page 131).

As we have seen previously, the modern thin scaled fish – edible for man – appear in the Cretaceous rocks. Here again we see scriptures wholly backed up by the facts of science. Both the time elements of their appearance and their usefulness to mankind are again confirmation of God’s word.

The same is true concerning the true birds which appear in the Cretaceous rocks. Birds are very useful to man for food – as in domestic birds – and for holding a check on insects, weed seeds, and rodents. The beauty and song of birds were especially designed to please man’s senses. The flying reptiles of the pre-Adamic worlss would hardly appeal to man’s tastes or compare to the modern birds in usefulness.

The importance of mammals to man in immense – in the role of providers of food, clothing, and beasts of burden. The same could never be said of animals existing in the pre-Adamic world.

Dinosaur mystery made plain

In summary, we have seen how the Bibe does not tell us earth’s age, but does tell us that man has been on the earth about 6000 years. Before the age of man, the earth was filled with animals and plants which characterized Lucifer and his host. The great dinosaurs and other forms of Lucifer’s world were buried in vast fossil graveyards as a result of Lucifer’s rebellion. Later, just before God created man, the earth had to be made into a liveable habitation for him (Gen. 1 & 2. God created the animals and plants necessary for man during the six days of creation week.  Fossils of all plants and animals are , generally speaking, the result of Noah’s flood or other events which have occurred in the past 6000 years.

We have briefly seen how the two great divisions of life on this earth as recorded in the geological record coincide with the teaching of God’s word. There is no contradiction between the facts of science and God’s inspired revelation to man.

But mankind has rejected God from his knowledge and wishes to substitute his own theories for the goodness of God (Rom. 1:18-22, 28). The beginning of true knowledge comes only from a fear of God (Prov. 1:7).

Evolutionists – without God’s word as a guide – are “ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Tim. 3:7). Evolutionary scientists will continue to devise and discard one theory after another, but the true facts of science  – without distortion – will always agree with God’s word.

Source: Dinosaurs Before Adam, Ambassador College, 1963.

August 16, 2009

The Myth Of The Geological Time Scale!

Scientists say evolution is a very slow process. Therefore the evolutionist, in order to prove his theory, creates different “eons, eras, periods, epochs and ages” to allow for what he considers sufficient time for evolution to occur. However, these vast theoretical units of time allowed for in the geological time scale do not represent a succession of life forms in successive eras. The show instead, the relative order in which life died died during two great worldwide destructions – both which are mentioned in the Bible.

So called geological eras

Is This Time Scale Really Proof? - www.daviddarling.info

Is This Time Scale Really Proof? - http://www.daviddarling.info

What geologists label the “Cenozoic Era” is in reality the age of man’s existence on the earth. It is characterized by the abundance of animals and plants essential for human survival. Livestock and other mammals, and fish and fowl, which provide meat for man, are found buried in this strata.

Fruits, vegetables and grains are entirely missing from the pre-Adamic or “pre-Cenozoic” world. All edible food that is essential for man suddenly appears in the era scientists have dubbed “Cenozoic.” Even the atmosphere, the climate, the seasons and the modern topography – including the present limits of the oceans – are characteristic only of the Cenozoic era.

Our world, the so called Cenozoic, was re-fashioned from the shambles left after Lucifer’s rebellion against God. Fossils found in so called Cenozoic rocks are generally due to the rapid burial of life forms at the time of Noah’s flood (Genesis Seven & Eight) or other events since man’s creation 6000 years ago.

These Cenozoic deposits are found above other earlier strata laid down in a terrifying catastrophe that befell the world before man existed. The deposits of that earlier world end with the first “time of great dying.””

Mesozoic and Paleozoic eras

Fossil remains from the pre-Adamic world are found buried in a relative order – with the rocks on the bottom generally containing sea life – because the sea life was first destroyed and buried. Then later, as the terrifying destruction of life enveloped the land, the dinosaurs and other  land life forms were covered by heavy sediments from raging water. These last deposits of the pre-Adamic world, the so called “Mesozoic Era,” are termed “Cretaceous.” Some Cretaceous strata have been mislabeled and, in reality, belong in the Cenozoic, or age of man.

listverse.com

listverse.com

The Mesozoic world – the time before man’s creation – was so characterized by dinosaurs and other reptiles that  that scientists have rightly called it the  “Age of Reptiles.” Giant reptiles – some weighing up to 40 tons – not only roamed the land, but flew in the air, while yet others excelled the fishes in the sea. Gigantic insects filled the air. Giant tree ferns, horsetails, club mosses, cycads and conifers covered the face of the earth, creating vast forests unlike any we know today.

In that world were no true mammals, no fish with true scales, no feathered fowl, no grass, no grains or fruits for man. Man was not then in existence.

The so-called “Paleozoic” rocks – layers containing sea life – therefore do NOT represent a separate time apart from the Mesozoic. Paleozoic rocks merely contain the buried remains of sea life that was first to be destroyed consequent to Lucifer’s rebellion. The characteristic fossils found in Paleozoic rocks are ammonites, trilobites, sea scorpions, sharks and other inedible fishes. Many were giant varieties.

This was an entire world unfit for human habitation and enjoyment. All life was suddenly buried. Most life forms were never re-created when God re-formed the earth and made this world habitable for man (Gen. 1:2-31).

August 11, 2009

The Origin of Life: Why Complex Life Forms In "Lowest" Fossil Strata?

pigeonchess.com

pigeonchess.com

Can Evolutionists explain the sudden appearance of complex life forms in the “lowest” fossil strata?

Five Rejected Theories

Evolutionists claim their record is destroyed. Yet, true men of science among them have inadvertently given us the following facts. They list five theories for the lack of preservation of the life which they believe existed in the pre-Cambrian—then they take each in its turn and disprove it.

The question: Why are there no fossils in the pre-Cambrian rocks? They  answer with a theory and then give objections
which disprove the theory. Here are their theories and their objections.

Theory no. 1: All life was destroyed by the metamorphism of the rocks in which they occurred.

Objection: 90% of pre-Cambrian rocks are schists, gneiss and marble, distorted by heat and pressure, but the remaining 10% are not. The remaining 10% should contain fossils if evolution were true.

Theory no. 2 Life oniy existed in those areas which were metamorphosed.

Objection: This would be very fortunate for the theory of evolution but is most improbable due to the widespread occurrence of the unmetamorphosed areas which were certainly accessible to ocean life and thus ought to contain fossils.

Theory no. 3: The oceans were too acid for calcium to be used for shells and thus no trace of the animal was preserved.

Objection: The oceans were more likely fresh to begin with. Also, siliceous and chitinous skeletons could have been formed and preserved apart from the calcium requirement. Such types are found in the Cambrian rocks.

Theory no. 4:  There wasn’t enough calcium in the ocean for the animals to have shells.

Objection: Limestone layers 50,000 feet (?) thick were deposited in this early strata showing an abundance of calcium.

Theory no. 5: Life forms lived only in the upper zones of the ocean at first and had no hard parts.

Objection: Either they became lazy, grew hard parts, and being heavier settled to the bottom, or else they found the ocean bottom first, then became lazy in their new environment and grew hard parts. Thus the sudden appearance of fossils. Objections: For life to spend many millions of years in the uppermosr portions of the ocean without finding shore, shallow water or ocean bottom is nothing short of ridiculous. Even after accepting such an idea the problem remains as to why suddenly many forms of life should take on complete skeletons with no intermediate “evolutionary steps.” No transitional forms are found. Each species thus learned to develop its hard shell suddenly!

A great number of species occur together with hard shells in the lower Cambrian. All must have “learned” the secret of hard shell development simultaneously. Thus this fifth theory is also completely lacking in facts, logic and piain good judgment.

Why Men Can’t See

Thus at present scientists have left themselves without an explanation for the complex, numerous “advanced” life forms of the Cambrian rocks and the complete absence of life in the layer usually beneath it. In rejecting the Scriptural account ( Genesis 1 ) as evidence they find themselves without any explanation.

The correct conclusion you ought to have drawn from the evidence presented is that in the beginning life forms were created complex as we find them; then at a later date they were buried in the rocks by catastrophic upheavals of earth and water. They did not evolve to that complex stage as the evolutionary theory demands.

Since the days of Darwin, men have clung tenaciously to the theory he published but never proved, even to himself. Why? Because to believe otherwise would in the end lead to the acknowledgement of the Creator revealed in the Bible.

To acknowledge this Creator would be to consenr that certain obligations might be due Him. It would also put these educated men in the rather uncomfortable place of having a rival whose knowledge was as far superior to theirs as wisdom is to foolishness. Intellectual pride would have to vanish.

Man’s mind, the carnal mind he is born with, is enmity against God (Romans 8:7). It will not think rationally when faced with the Biblical facts proving the existence of a Creator who has revealed Himself to man through the scriptures.

Do you know the mystery of this little creature? Here is evidence that each creature produces after its own kind—that it doesn’t become a different, more advanced kind.

Sir Archibald Geikie, F.R.S., ardent evolutionist admits that though “Brachipod species of the genera Lingula are the oldest known molluscs . . . [they] are still represented by living species ¡n the ocean. They have persisted with but little change.during the whole of geological time, from the early Paleiozoic periods downwards, for the living shells do not appear to indicate any marked divergence from the earliest forms.” (From Geology by Geiki)

It is quite possible that had no Bible ever been written proclaiming the existence of our Creator, that the efforts of scientists in every field would have quickly discovered the facts of creation. Had no floods ever been described in the Scriptures, historians and archeologists alike would have discovered the evidence, reasoned correctly with it and arrived at the correct historical account of the earth. Geologists would have studied the fossil strata and held forth the truth to the world with fervor equal to that with which they now propagate the godless doctrine of evolution.

But the human mind is rebellious against God; it will not willingly subject itself to the law of God; neither will it acknowledge that a revealed history of the earth and life forms is correct. Evolution thus becomes the opiate of the atheist to distort his vision and keep him from seeing his God.

The carnal mind cannot accept God. It must cling to this “favorite belief” that life came into being by some slow natural process.

Where Is the Evolutionary Tree?

The roots from the tree of evolution disappear in our search for the evolution of life from dead matter. The stump vanishes when we ask for those “few, simple, primitive” life forms. The thirteen great branches, the 13 phyla into which all animals are classified, fade away when we find all represented in the earliest fossil strata. Even the smaller branches vanish when we see this Cambrian life “already evolved” into classes, orders, genera, and species.

It’s about time to ask where is the tree? The roots, ttunk and branches are gone. Only the twigs remain. Blood relation between individuals and many so called species of the Cambrian strata is certain. Further speculation is in the realm of philosophy, not true science. This tree of evolution is thus shown to be but a dream in the minds of men and like a dream it will disappear for them when their eyes are opened.

The Origin Of Life: Debunking First Fossils As Primitive!

sandwalk.blogspot.com

sandwalk.blogspot.com

Have scientists found evidence that life evolved from dead matter? Are the first fossils simple and primitive as the theory of evolution demands?

You and I are supposedly end products of an evolutionary process. This concept is taught as truth in almost all of our educational institutions today. But where is the proof? A single simple one-celled animal, it is said, happened into existence millions of years ago. Then, slowly, gradually evolution produced our present-day life.

Spontaneous generation plus evolution supposedly produced the myriad of complex living forms of today’s world. Dead matter became living matter; then living matter evolved. Proof is supposed to be found in geology. A study of the fossil strata, they say, reveals that in the “earliest” fossil deposits simple, primitive life is found.

“Later” strata contain increasingly complex life till we come to the uppermost layers in which are deposited man and present day forms of life. The proof of this theory is rather elusive as we shall see. We ought to examine the evidence before drawing any conclusion. Just how did life originate?

A Course Entitled “The Origin of Life”

One of the outstanding large universities of the Los Angeles area made the error of labeling a geology course, “The Origin of Life.” I say error, for when the topic came up in class, the professor expressed openly the wish that the course had been given a different name. Speaking frankly, this professor, a qualified scientist, said there was LITTLE OR NOTHING KNOWN ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE. This fact is important. The educators who labeled the course believed their professors capable of teaching a course on how life came into being. Yet the professor assigned to the course indicated that little or nothing could be said concerning the origin of life.

Will the conclusions of scientists concerning the origin of life disagree with the scripture?

Three Alternatives

Life does exist. No one questions this fact. Just where, when and how did it come into being? Let us examine the problem from a standpoint of hard, cold logic and apart from Biblical revelation. Evolutionists do not accept the Scriptural explanation.

To answer them properly, we must ex- amine their own conclusions and the facts upon which they are based. Present day theories will be considered one by one in the light of fact and logic alone. Error will be discarded. Will the pure science remaining agree with God’s revelation? We shall soon see.

Concerning the origin and existence OF LIFE on this planet three alternatives present themselves:

1 ) “Life has always existed.” This idea, scientists admit, is the weakest of the three. It is untenable because the earth has not always existed! In their estimation it has not been fit for life but for a portion of its estimated 3 to 5 billion-year existence. Some have suggested, “Perhaps life came to the earth from outer space, from the explosion of another planet in the remote regions of space. Spores of this primitive life might have been pushed along by radiation pressure from starlight or sunlight. Arriving on the earth they found an ideal place to propagate and evolve.”

Thinking logically, it is very unlikely that life could have come from another planet or from outer space. The chance of such an occurrence and possibility of life surviving such an ordeal is extremely remote. This idea does not answer the question of the origin of life. It merely attempts to avoid facing the question by putting it beyond the reach of investigation. The real question of the origin of life remains unanswered.

Since the material universe is admittedly not eternal, life had to come into being at some definite date in the past. Previously scientists had believed the earth to be young, the universe old. These last few decades have seen that idea discarded. The earth in their conclusion is now as old as the universe. Is it strange that that should agree with Genesis 1:1? “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”

2 ) “Life came into being by some slow natural process.” This is the favorite belief of the “educated” man of today. Scientists comment that this idea “can be presented plausibly” and that the arguments are “very convincing.” Yet the universal opinion of all scientists familiar with the field is that there is “no evidence that this has ever taken place or does at this time.”

Plausible presentations and very convincing arguments do not constitute proof. The truth of a matter cannot be determined by the cleverness or eloquence of the orator. Facts and logic (and, if they would accept it, revealed knowledge) alone constitute the basis of all material science.

3) “Life was suddenly created.” This of course implies a Creator. Since neither life nor the material creation has eternally existed, this Great First Cause would of necessity have existed from eternity. This theory thus postulates the creation of life forms by an eternally existing God who had life inherent in Himself.

Could men of science consider this as a possibility in their search for the origin of life? They have, and here are a few of their comments: “The idea is as good as any.” “Whether you care to accept the idea depends upon personal taste.” “It disposes of the very great difficulty of creating living matter out of inorganic {dead} matter.” “Much of our culture is based upon such a belief.”

Yes, our scientists do consider the possibility of life having been created. Re-Examine These Alternatives Consider these three alternatives again. The first is untenable. The second is COMPLETELY LACKING IN EVIDENCE. The third is listed by science as a possibility. To accept the third is to believe in a Creator. But atheists (men with a remarkable faith that there is no God) prefer the second. Not because of evidence of spontaneous generation of life but solely because they prefer the “no God” idea. To accept this second alternative is to have blind faith that there is no Creator.

The facts and logic are inescapable. An atheist is a man with false faith that his Creator does not exist. He has absolutely no evidence upon which to base his faith. The atheist “hopes” to find that evidence.

So far we have considered only how the first bits of life may have come into being. Have evolutionists erred in assuming that the first life to exist was primitive, one-celled animal life? Here is evidence and logic apart from Biblical revelation using only accepted facts and sound reasoning to test the theories presented in books on science.

We are going to search for evidence of these few, small, simple, primitive fossil specimens which supposedly are to be found in the first fossil stata. We are going to examine the foundation of the evolutionary theory. If the foundation is hypothetical the whole structure of historical geology based upon evolution will crumble.

The First Fossil Remains

Have evolutionists erred in assuming that the first life to exist was a primitive, one-celled type? The theory OF EVOLUTION would REQUIRE that in the earliest layer simple forms would be found, few in number, gradually developing step by step into present day forms. The evidence in this first fossil layer will have a great bearing on whether you may logically believe that God created bits of life and then spent millions of years watching them evolve into present day life. “Theìstic” evolutionists have apparently never considered these facts.

Here is the evidence from the first fossil layer, the Cambrian strata:

1) Instead of few forms of life, 455 different species are found. There are 100 genera of trìlobites alone. Of the 13 phyla (divisions) into which all animals are classified, various authorities state that 9, 12 or all 13 are represented. Thus instead of a few forms of life, evolutionists are forced to admit “a remarkable assemblage of animal remains.” The Cambrian layer is “just teeming with all kinds of fossils,” to use their own words.

2 ) Instead of simple forms of life as the theory of evolution would require, this first fossil layer contains such complex life as the chambered mollusks and the highly developed trilobite which has one set of legs for walking on the ocean bottom and another set for swimming.

” It is very interesting to observe that a complex mechanism, the compound eye like that of crustaceans and insects of the present day, was already developed even in the earliest Primordial times.” (Elements of Geology by Joseph Le Conte).

3) Instead of small specimens these so called “early” forms were often giants compared to “later” forms. The “ancient” trilobite, for instance, attained a length of 27 inches. Close modern representatives in appearance are the pill or sow bugs so common today where decaying vegetation is found. The trilobite, however, was an ocean dwelling creature.

4) Instead of “primitive” types a considerable number of them have identical or almost identical living representatives today. Perhaps the most widely known example of this is the muscular-jointed finfish called the crossopterygian found only in Devonian strata {3 “ages” later than the Cambrian) but also found alive today. Specimens have been caught in the waters off Africa much to the consternation of the proponents of evolution.

Rather than admit that something is radically wrong with their faith, they cover up by publishing detailed studies on the structure of the fish, showing how it (supposedly) became the ancestor of land life by changing its fins to the jointed condition and then to legs. The missing link between the fish and land animals is thus supposedly found alive in the ocean today. These first fossils are certainly not primitive.

5 ) Instead of natural deposition such as might occur along beaches or deltas today, the fossils of this Cambrian strata show evidence of having been buried alive by some sudden catastrophe. The “ages” required for a certain strata to form thus become a myth. It is obvious that these first fossils do not fit the “few, simple and primitive” pattern demanded by the evolutionary theory. But the proponents of evolution are not through yet. Hope springs eternal in the human heart and for the evolutionist there is always the “hope” that he may find his “proof.”

Pre-Cambrian Rocks

Suppose we follow the thinking of evolutionists one more step. They rationalize: Since evolution is true, the first life must be simple, and since Cambrian life is not simple, it cannot be the first life. The pre-Cambrian rocks, they contend, must hold the answer to the origin of life.

A thorough search of the pre-Cambrian rocks reveals the following facts: IN ALL ROCKS TERMED PRE-CAMBRIAN, the SUIT) total of fossils found amounts to a few worm burrows, one or two broken shells which may be brachiopods, some algae, fragments of sponge spicules and A LOT OF WISHFUL THINKING. The wishful thinking is that of evolutionists and the expression that of an evolutionist. How they wish they could find a fossil layer with a “few, simple, primitive” forms of life to establish their dogged faith in evolution. The pre-Cambrian layer fails to give them evidence.

The list of fossils for this layer is probably incorrect. Another source just as reliable, yet just as anxious to prove evolution, thought the term “The Agnostizoic” (meaning “we don’t know whether there was life during it”) would be quite fitting for this pre-Cambrian layer. In his opinion, the sample of algae he passed around to his class may or may not have been algae and he Spoke of the “NEARLY INSURMOUNTABLE PROBLEM of the sudden appearance of complex life IN THE CAMBRIAN ROCKS.”

The conclusion from these facts ought to be easy. In the Cambrian layer is complex life; in a supposedly earlier layer, a few fragments of the same thing or perhaps nothing. (Remember also that a layer is identified by the fossils in it and thus these fragments might be Cambrian. )

This complex life of the Cambrian layer were deposited over a long period of time, then life must have been suddenly created near the  beginning of the period, deposited quickly, a creation of complex life is still implied and a destruction by a flood is a certainty. But men of science struggle on without the scriptures to guide them.

The Lost Interval

Retreating from the facts, the evolutionist must now resort to theory to preserve his religion. We have come this far, we may as well continue in pursuit. All reason is dropped and rationalization takes over completely.

The evolutionist comes up with an idea. Since no life is found in some layers, which they therefore term pre-Cambrian, and complex life is found in the simplest layer they have discovered, supposedly an enormous period of time between these two layers existed. Names like “The Lost Interval” and “The Lipalion Interval” are given to make the case seem more authentic. The DESTRUCTION of the supposed RECORD of these intervals is termed the Kilameyen Revolution or the Penokeenan Revolution.

A perfect crime has been committed

The first fossil remains are in many instances IDENTICAL TO LIVING FORMS. In many cases these creatures were buried alive as if by some great catastrophe. Instead of a few simple primitive forms, myriads of complex creatures are found at the very bottom of the Cambrian strata. In the pre-Cambrian below, nothing or next to nothing is to be found. The few fragments found, even after the most thorough world-wide search, are identical with Cambrian fossils. They could more properly be called Cambrian fossils.

The problem for the evolutionist remains: Why has it been impossible to find a fossil layer -with but a few simple primitive organisms? An immense period of time is suggested between the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian strata. The “supposed” record is supposedly destroyed. But complex life forms appear suddenly in this Cambrian strata all over the world.

Was there ever an earlier record? How could such a world-wide record be destroyed? Think about it!

Source: Ambassador College, 1956

August 9, 2009

Questions On Evolution: Scientific Fact Or Science Fiction?

The origin of life is the least understood biological problem.

While acknowledging this fact, evolutionists go on to believe as an article of faith that life came into existence on this planet spontaneously from nonliving matter by chemical processes. They further accept as an article of faith that life progressively evolved by blind chance into the vast array of living things we see today. This belief is claimed to be “fact.” Those who do not accept this “fact” are ridiculed as ignorant and unscientific.

Is evolution scientific fact, or is it science fiction? The odds are fantastic against even very “simple” constituents of living organisms occurring by chance. And there is an even greater improbability of such constituents producing living organisms by chance.

In particular consider a protein consisting of a chain of about 100 amino acids. If all the known stars in the universe had 10 earths, and if all the earths had oceans of “amino acid soup,” and if all the amino acids linked up in chains 100 acids long every second for the entire estimated history of the universe, even then the chance occurrence of a given very simple protein would be extremely improbable.  As such, below you will find answered a number of the more common evolutionary counterarguments, as well as additional queries:

  • There may be many combinations of amino acids that would work. So the probability of their forming by chance would be much greater than that of a specific combination.

No scientific experimentation has shown that a different combination of amino acids could be substituted for a given protein and still perform exactly the same way. The marvelous complexity of the specific functions performed by the combination that does work in nature demands the correct sequence of amino acids to be present in each case. (We are aware, of course, that various proteins may be consumed and reassembled into other proteins by an existing living organism.)

A given life form requires specific combinations of specific molecules. Just any arbitrary random combination will not work. It is much like a combination lock. If you do not know the combination, you can spin numbers at random to try to open the lock. You may spin perfectly good numbers. They might even work on some other lock at some other time and in some other place. But if they do not open the given lock — the one you are trying to open — it does not do you a bit of good.

Now if you would calculate the probability of finding the right combination by random spinning, the probability depends only on the available numbers for the given lock. The probability has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not some other combinations may open some other locks.

  • If you do not specify which protein, we are therefore only dealing in possibilities not probabilities.

You should use the standard mathematical definition of probability as applicable to the problem under discussion. The probability of a given protein of 100 amino acids occurring by chance is 10-130. The fact that that a specific one was not identified is irrelevant. If it were a more technical article, a  specified complicated protein like hemoglobin, would be pointed out, and there would be used essentially the same line of reasoning. The point is that even the supposedly simplest components found in living things are actually very complex. Their existence cannot be explained on the basis of blind chance.

  • The experiments of Stanley L. Miller in the 1950s showed that the “primeval soup” of the sea would contain surprisingly large quantities of the building blocks of life: amino acids, nucleotides, etc.

Whether or not this is the case does not matter. In fact, we can be even more generous than Mr. Miller by giving each star in the universe 10 “earths” and each “earth” an ocean of “primeval soup” mixed to the evolutionists’ recipe. Nevertheless, it did not make the evolution of even one “simple” protein probable.

  • The fundamental building molecules are not proteins but DNA.

The attempt to use DNA in the synthesis of proteins only makes the situation worse for evolution. DNA is even more unlikely to come into existence by chance than protein is. It would be like someone claiming that a table of logarithms came into existence by being generated by a computer that, in turn, came into existence by chance.

  • Smaller self-replicating chains could form and progress in small steps to produce longer and longer chains.

There are a number of difficulties with such a model. First of all, scientists have not found any evidence of such occurring in nature. Second, even if it could occur, the probabilities of ending up with the right sequence, after all the small steps, would still be immeasurably small by essentially the same reasoning given in the article. Third, what would be the role or purpose of such intermediate chains? Why and how would they survive to produce more complicated chains? Certainly, there is no evidence of the existence of intermediate chains being somehow related to intermediate species.

  • Natural selection is an established theory. The hypothesis of Darwin has been confirmed by experimental work.

There is not necessarily a disagreement with this — up to a point. But natural selection can only explain the survival of the fittest. It does not explain the arrival of the fittest. 

  • Natural selection is adequate to explain the variety of living things we see today.

Even evolutionists do not make this claim. They require spontaneous generation and mutations (at the very least) in addition to natural selection.

  • But this does not rule out mutation as a mechanism for improvement when combined with natural selection. For example, a chess player might be competing against many opponents whose starting position is on occasion changed — slightly, randomly. Then it might be supposed that those opponents with the better starting positions are more likely to win. Suppose the losers drop out and the winners play many further games (dropping out only if they lose all games from the previous starting position, the chance of a random change continuing). Then might it not be reasoned that after much time, the starting positions in use might improve?

The analogy regarding starting positions in a chess game is interesting. The reasoning applied, however, is fallacious on several grounds. Even if the starting positions are being changed slightly, but randomly, there is no guarantee that an improved starting position that results in a winner one time will result in an improved starting position the next game. Quite the contrary, a small modification of an excellent starting position could conceivably be a disastrous starting position.

Moreover, the chess players are presumably intelligent beings. They perform at varying skill levels. So it makes no sense to attribute their characteristics to that of a blind chance mechanism of mutations and natural selection.

The theory of probability applies only to chance phenomena and not to deterministic phenomena. For example, it would be nonsense to ask the question: “What is the probability I will paint my house green?” There is no answer. If I want to paint it green, I will. If I don’t, I won’t. Similarly, the theory of probability cannot be applied to deterministic games such as chess or checkers.

On the other hand, the theory of evolution is based on the assumption that living forms came into existence from nonliving matter by chance. It is amazingly improbable that even the simplest constituents of living things come into existence by chance. This is a valid application of probability.

  • Mutations are like errors in the genetic code. It is this random error-making in the genetic machinery that furnishes evolution with the stuff of creative change.

No one is saying that mutations could not account for some changes in the structure or appearance of organisms. But mutations cannot produce genuinely new forms of life. While minor variations in appearance or structure might be produced by mutations, there is no evidence whatsoever that mutations produce the kind of quantum leaps required by the theory of evolution.

  • The fossil record clearly shows evolution has taken place.

The fossil record provides considerable evidence that evolution did not occur. Consider the facts. Evolution would require a fossil record that shows the gradual changing of one species to another with numerous transitional forms. But instead the fossil record shows broad gaps between fossil species for which there are no intermediate forms.

Note this startling admission of an evolutionist:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid” (Macro-evolution: Pattern and Process, Steven M. Stanley, page 39).

  • Scientists have created life. They made a simple organism that could eat oil spills in the ocean and then die out for lack of food.

Actually, these organisms were not created from nonliving matter. They were developed from existing living organisms through genetics. These genetic engineers have no more claim to creating life than a dog breeder does.

  • You are presenting to your readers the fallacy that science is a finished product and that whatever is speculative in science is therefore wrong.

You have probably all heard someone at one time or another say something like, “Science tells us that…”  and then they make some claim or other.  But science doesn’t tell us anything because it is a mechanism, a method, a tool.  Science doesn’t provide conclusions; humans do.  Those conclusions can be arrived at logically, honestly and accurately  or  irrationally, dishonestly and carelessly—that depends on the scientist.  The Scientific Method involves five steps:

  1. Observation – collecting data
  2. Hypothesis – forming a preliminary possible explanation of the data;
  3. Testing – test the hypothesis by collecting more data, using a control
  4. Results – interpreting the results of the test and deciding if the hypothesis should be rejected.  The hypothesis is rejected if the results contradict it, showing that it is wrong.
  5. Conclusion – stating a conclusion that can be evaluated independently by others using this same method.

After years of scrutiny, certain observed phenomena  (such as gravity)  become established as law.  The problem occurs when scientists usurp the name of science to make authoritative statements of philosophy.  Unfortunately, scientists are not always very clear as to when they are engaging in science, and when they are engaging in philosophy.  Philosophy  can be both reasonable and rational, but it is not scientific, by definition,  because it is not an observable phenomenon  in the physical world.

Many scientists cheerfully admit that they are speculating. We have no complaint with scientific speculation as long as such is truthfully identified as speculation. Evolutionists however do not admit that the theory of evolution is speculative. Instead, they palm off speculation as fact. In the March 23, 1981, issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, Rolf M. Sinclair, a physicist at the U.S. National Science Foundation, is quoted as follows:

“The fact of evolution is as incontrovertible as the fact that the earth is spherical rather than flat.”

The author and biochemist Isaac Asimov stated:

“Scientists have no choice but to consider evolution a fact” (“The Genesis War,” Science Digest, October, 1981, page 85).

“Having the fact of evolution before us … ” (ibid., page 85).

“Evolution is a fact … ” (ibid., page 87).

Honestly, does that sound like speculation to you?

  • Your acceptance of God’s existence is not based on rational thinking. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines faith or belief in God as a “belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”

A dictionary is not an arbiter of truth. Actually, dictionaries give several definitions of faith. Not every dictionary definition of faith demands the exclusion of logic, reasoning or material evidence. True faith, the kind of faith spoken of in the Bible, is not a blind, superstitious, illogical faith. It is a faith based on “evidence of things not seen” and is in harmony with logic, reason and the factual world.

  • Where did God come from? Since the creator of the universe would have to be more “complicated” than the universe itself, the probability of God coming into existence by chance would be less than the probability of the universe coming into existence by chance.

This is a popular argument. It has two fundamental flaws.

First of all, an Eternal Being does not need to come into existence, since he has always existed. It makes no sense to ask: “What is the probability that a Being, who always existed, came into existence?” The question is inherently contradictory.

Second, eternal existence is not a chance phenomenon. Someone or something either always existed or did not always exist. No probability is involved. For this reason we cannot apply probability to questions such as, “Does God exist?” or “Has the universe always existed?” 

  • Why could not God have chosen to use evolution to produce life forms we see in the world?

Where does a 500-pound gorilla sit? Wherever he wants. How did an Eternal God create life? Obviously, however he wanted! Would a superintelligent, superpowerful Divine Being use a chaotic, random, haphazard process such as evolution to create life?  Here is a quote the eminent scientist Sir Fred Hoyle:

“The thought occurred to me one day that the human chemical industry doesn’t chance on its products by throwing chemicals at random into a stewpot. To suggest to the research department [of a chemical corporation] that it should proceed in such a fashion would be thought ridiculous” (Engineering and Science, November, 1981, page 12).

This leading scientist, who would have liked to believe in evolution and who was seeking the origin of life in the blind forces of nature, finally had to conclude:

“A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question” (ibid., page 12).

What about you? Do you believe that “simple” life forms came into existence by blind chance in a cosmic chemical stewpot? Do you further believe that such simple living things gradually developed such marvelously intricate structures as hearts, lungs, eyes and brains through “random errors in the genetic code”?

The physical evidence from the factual world leads to only one conclusion — living things had to be planned, designed and created by a Supreme Being!

  • Could A Simple Protein Not Form By Chance?

Proteins are essential molecules for the existence of physical life. Protein molecules consist of chains of chemical compounds called amino acids. A relatively simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 amino acids.

Suppose we have a “soup” full of amino acids. We want these acids to link up at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there?

There are on earth 20 different types of amino acids available to form proteins. If we wanted a chain of two such acids, there would be 20 possibilities for the first acid and 20 for the second — or 20 x 20 =400 possibilities. If we wanted a chain of three such acids, there would be20 x 20 x 20 = 8,000 possibilities.

For a protein consisting of a chain of 100 acids, therefore, we have 20 x 20 x. … x 20 = 20100 possibilities. But 20100 is approximately equal to 10130, that is, 1 followed by 130 zeros. So we have 10130 possibilities, but only one combination is the right one for a given protein.

Is it reasonable to believe that such a protein could have formed by chance during the history of the universe? The odds against such an event are beyond astronomical.

Source: The Plain Truth, 1983

Eye Opening Proof: Evolution Did Not Occur!

“That…eye…the human eye,”complained one science writer while attempting to justify the theory of evolution. How can anything so intricate and complex as the human eye, he asked, have evolved? He posed the question, but he could give no adequate answer. The best he could do for his readers was to make a hazy suggestion as to how he thought evolution “could have”occurred.

Charles Darwin himself struggled with the eye problem. He wrote in a private letter of a time when “the thought of the eye made me cold all over”(Letter to Asa Gray, April 3, 1860).

In his work, “The Origin Of Species,”Darwin conceded: “To suppose the eye with all its imitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”

Absurd indeed! There is no way to account for the existence of such an engineering marvel as the human eye by a slow process of chance natural selections. All of the vital parts of the eye have to be present and functioning if sight is to be possible. Nowhere in nature can there be found developing non-working eyes. Even the so called primitive eyes of lower life forms are complete and able to perform exactly as designed. Their intricacy varies from that of their human counterparts only by degree.

Consider for a moment, how marvelously made are the masterpieces through which you are now reading this. The part of the eye that is visible is only a portion of a gel-filled globe set in a protective socket of the skull. Enclosing the gel are three major layers of tissue. The tough fibrous outer layer is the sclera. What is seen in front as the white of the eye is part of this layer. Also part of the sclera is transparent covering (cornea) over the opening or pupil of the eye.

Just inside the sclera is a layer of blood-vessel rich tissue. And within that is the layer known as the retina, upon which images are formed much as they are formed on film in a camera.

Light enters by way of the pupil and passes through an adjustable lens that focuses the light rays onto the retina. The human retina contains some1.3 million light-sensitive cells – the rods and cones, so named because of their shapes. Different ones of these cells react to different luminous intensities and colours. These cells pick up the light stimulus and translate it by a photo-chemical process into nerve impulses that travel to the brain. The impulses become vivid, colourful, moving, three dimensional mental images capable even of being stored for future recollections.

The eye is an incredibly intricate mechanism. Just how complex can be realized by checking a reference work such as the Encyclopedia Britannica, where in the 15th edition, a discussion of the eye and sight fills more than 34 pages. The highly diversified and specialized parts of the eye – the muscles, ligaments, tissues, fluids, canals, nerves, pigments, blood vessels – all work together to produce sight. This complex organ could not have developed gradually to fill a creative need.

If the entire eye were present except for the lens, the eye would not work. If it were all there but the retina, there would be no sight. All the vital parts have to be in place or the eye is useless. This is a real problem for evolutionists, since the theory of natural selection holds that creatures evolve only what is of immediate benefit.

In other words, evolutionists themselves must admit that animal life forms cannot blindly look two generations, three generations or more into the future, contemplate needs, establish goals and work towards them. Evolution cannot plan ahead. It lacks the foresight.

The arrangement of creatures in the so-called evolutionary tree simply does not show a long, slow development of the eye, with splendidly working mechanisms, interspersed with transitional-phase, non-functioning, defective eyes. Each creature has been given eyes which perfectly satisfy its needs.

An oyster doesn’t have to be able to watch TV in order to survive, but it does need to be able to detect passing shadows. So it has been given small, sensitive spots which can detect changes in the intensity of light. They may be called “simple,”but the oyster’s sensitive spots are complete. They work and fulfill the oyster’s needs as is proved by the fact that oysters are a thriving species.

Nor can all eyes in smaller lifeforms be called “simple.” According to the evolutionary concept, one would not expect a small tropical minnow like anableps, for example, to have the uniquely complicated eyes it has. it actually has what amounts to four eyes, because each of its two apparant eyes has two separate corneas and two separate retines. As the anableps swims along the surface of the water, one section of each eye looks up with a special flattened lens suitable for viewing in the air, while the other section peers down into the water with an oval lens such as other fish have. A true engineering marvel.

It is impossible to account for the eyes of any creature great or small by a process of Darwinian evolution. It is equally impossible to explain them by blind, random mutations, quantum leaps or any other humanly devised theory. It took the great creator God to skillfully design and make the eye.

As the scripture says: “…he that formed the eye, shall he not see?…he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know? The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man (like the evolutionary theory), that they are vanity”(Ps. 94:9-11).

The marvelous human eye is God’s workmanship. The evidence is obvious and there for all to look at. But, as has often been said, there is none so blind as he who will not see.

Source: The Plain Truth, August 1983

June 24, 2009

Evolutionists Versus Creationists: Who Has The Truth?

2Evolutionists and creationists are at it again! Each claims to have the answer to the puzzle of creation. But does either represent true science or true religion?

Evolutionary doctrine is deeply ensconced in today’s schools as a legitimate part of most science classes. It is no longer presented as an unproven idea or theory. It is presented as fact. When children go to school they are usually taught the theory of evolution as the only intelligent answer to existence. Virtually all science teachers speak about it as dogmatically as though they saw evolution happen. Class instruction is done so effectively that students generally are embarrassed to admit before their peers that they still believe in a Creator God.

But what if creation were taught in schools? Which version would be taught? Could creationists agree on the exact version to include in the school curriculum?

Liberals, calling themselves theistic evolutionists, consider the Genesis account symbolic or allegorical. They would insist that God brought about the creation through the process of evolution.

Fundamentalist groups, often called scientific creationists, are in the forefront of a crusade to free school children from the evolutionists’ firm grasp. They would teach that all creation, including the sun, moon and stars, took place very recently — hardly more than six or seven thousand years ago. They seek scientific evidence to show that the fossil beds and fossil bearing strata were nearly all laid down during a Flood in the historic past. They contend that life forms were separated and arranged into sequential layers by the water’s turbulent action.

The real beginning

However, the Bible teaches that creation took place anciently — “in the beginning.” That when the creation first appeared the angels were so enthralled with its magnificence they “sang together and … shouted for joy” (Job 38:7). That God placed an archangel on earth to administer God’s government in love and concern. He rebelled (Ezek. 28:15-16). Destruction came to the earth. Then God’s Spirit moved upon the face of the waters (Gen. 1:2) and God began to recreate today’s realm. This time he gave mankind (rather than the angels) dominion over the physical creation.

It is obvious that no single version of creation will satisfy this world’s differing religious groups. So, even if creationists were given equal forum with evolutionists, what version would be taught? Even if a compromise could be worked out, who could be trusted to teach it convincingly enough to compete successfully with evolutionary teachings?

Roles Reversed

The problem that we face in education today is just the reverse of that which men faced a few centuries ago. At that time the church sat above the government in matters of education. Few dared to teach anything contrary to the religious dogma because of its backing from the civil government! When discovery or experimentation uncovered facts that were contrary to traditional teachings, the church not uncommonly vigorously repressed them.

When men were finally freed from that oppression in the pursuit of truth, the liberated world assured itself that it would not again come under such bondage. Educational institutions that were once part of the church became a part of the state. It is under state control that most schools now carry out the mandate of teaching future generations what the adult society considers the ideals of life.

The doctrine of evolution, timidly suggested by Charles Darwin, came just at the right time. It was seized upon and promoted beyond Darwin’s wildest dreams. It became instantly popular and has continued to grow in influence simply because it was the nearest thing to a plausible explanation of creation without a creator.

Interpreting the will of the adult generation to be the desire to be free of hindrance from doing what they want to do, educators feel safe only in taking the evolutionary approach. By denying God’s role in creation, freedom to do as one pleases seemed complete. But, there remains a problem. How can one explain the evidence of God’s creation without the Creator?

This is why not all scientists are evolutionists. A significant number of scientists now acknowledge that the magnificent, intricate universe is so extremely well organized and complex that it requires a supreme designer and sustainer in order to exist. Some freely admit that the God of the Bible is the only intelligent answer. A few even worship him in truth.

The question then becomes, not whether to include religious views of creation in the classrooms, but whether evolution should continue to be taught as a scientific theory of origins. Evolutionists know that the question of origins lies outside of the scope of natural science.

You Must Choose!

If you believe evolution, you must believe that man has no ultimate purpose in the universe. But if you believe in creation, you have a unique choice. You can believe you were created to spend eternity in idleness and ease in heaven, or that you were created for a grand purpose — of becoming a son of God (Heb. 1:1-5, 2:6-10, Rom. 8:29). Most creationists thoughtlessly assume the former view. They do not know we humans were born to become sons of God and that our creation is not yet complete!

We are created in the form and shape of God, but out of matter. We are not yet spirit. Before God will complete our creation and give us eternal, spiritual LIFE from his very own person, we must develop godly CHARACTER. Or we would not be fit to be his sons. This is what human life is all about! Evolution knows nothing of it. Most creationists are blinded by their false ideas of Christ and his message and have not understood it.

God cannot create righteous, godly character by fiat. This has been demonstrated by the creation of angels. God created angels as perfect spiritual beings, but some turned sour and chose to do evil (Ezek. 28:14-16, Rev. 12:3-4). Chief among them was the archangel Lucifer.

We humans were created as fleshly beings and given TEMPORARY physical life so that if we turn sour we will not live forever as evil beings. This physical life was made to ebb away and our bodies to grow old and die.

It is in this physical state of existence that God works in a chosen few, now, to build the type of character that is required of sons of God. We have our part, choosing God’s ways and his laws, striving against temptation and resisting the devil and the practices of this world. This, if you please, is the tree of life of Genesis 2:9 and 3:22 that Adam and Eve rejected.

Only those whom God now calls and works with can enter the process of further creation. When God calls us he sets before us the same choice as he set before Adam and Eve. He says to us just as clearly as he said to ancient Israel: “I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live” (Deut. 30:19).

You cannot create righteous character within yourself by yourself. God must do that in and through you by his Spirit, which is his very nature. You must become willingly and wholeheartedly oriented toward God, like clay in the hand of the Master Potter (Isa. 64:8, Jer. 18:1-6, Rom. 9:20-21). You must TRUST him to shape you into what he decides. You cannot start until the Potter singles you out and begins to deal with you.

Only then, if you become soft and pliable through the addition of God’s Holy Spirit, can you begin to be shaped into the CHARACTER of God. If you turn away, to remain lumpy and hard, he will cast you aside and work with other clay.
The ways of God are outlined broadly by the Ten Commandments and are enlarged upon throughout the rest of the Bible. The example of how to live by them successfully and perfectly was first demonstrated by Jesus Christ (I John 2:6), who blazed the trail for all who henceforth will live God’s spiritual way.

When This Truth Will Prevail

One day truth will be taught in all schools. It will be God’s truth as recorded in the Bible. Not false religions of men. It will be truly scientific. It will acknowledge not only the Creator but his laws and his authority. It will teach us all that there is to know about the creation around us; how and why it was put here, and what our role shall be according to God’s exciting plan and purpose.

In that day enlightenment will be so complete that it will make today’s knowledge explosion seem like the popping of corn by comparison! Here’s how it will be brought about:

When Christ returns to the earth to bring the whole world peace, he will come to set up the kingdom of God. It will be a world-ruling empire and Christ will be its “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:6, 16; 20:4). When forced to think about God’s perfect laws of love and happiness, people will become more enthralled with life than they have ever imagined that they could be.

Stubborn evolutionists, confused creationists — and all men alike — will be ashamed that they strove so hard to deny God’s way while they clung to their own folly. What a wonderful day that will be!

Source: The Plain Truth, February 1983

June 1, 2009

Evolutionary Bafflegab!

tutor2u.net/blog

tutor2u.net/blog

For too long the creation versus evolution controversy has revolved around points of secondary importance. It’s time to get to the heart of the matter!

Most “creationists” are guilty of the very thing they accuse evolutionists of doing: misinterpreting the evidence!

Actually, the commonly accepted religious concept of creation has changed little since medieval theologians insisted the earth is flat. Only some six or so thousand years ago, according to this concept, God created “out of nothing” the universe and everything in it.

Not only does this idea overlook the actual biblical account of creation, it also represents a misinterpretation of the physical evidence to support a preconceived and erroneous notion.

One can only wonder how many educated people have rejected the whole idea of special creation merely because they have not heard the true biblical account. The biblical account of creation, as recorded in the first chapters of Genesis, is compatible with the entire body of provable, observable, measurable, recordable scientific data. What this means is that the physical evidence of and by itself does not require choosing between an evolutionary process on the one hand or belief in a universe that is only about 6,000 years old on the other hand.

What the Bible Really Says

Where most “creationists” err is that they assume the Bible places the creation of the universe at a point in time about six or so thousand years ago. The Bible, however, says nothing about such an idea.

Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Those words describe a complete episode in the prehistory of the universe. There follows a time lapse of indefinite length between this verse and the verse that follows — a time lapse that may well have spanned multiple millions of years as measured by scientists using radiometric dating methods. The Bible does not describe this period in great detail, nor reveal how long it lasted.

As verse two of Genesis 1 opens, we are confronted with a totally different scene. We now see an earth that had come to be in ruins, in darkness and covered with water. Some great disaster had befallen the earth.

The English word was in this verse is better translated “became” or “came to be.” “Now the earth became without form, and void; and darkness came to be upon the face of the deep.” (See the New International Version rendering and footnote.)

This revelation of earth’s history is important because the second major error most creationists make is to attribute the near totality of earth’s strata to a flood in Noah’s day. They overlook the physical evidence of events, including flooding, before and up to the climax of Genesis 1:2!

From verse two the Genesis account goes on to describe a recreation, how God reshaped and refashioned, nearly 6,000 years ago, the already existing, but now desolate earth. The Bible thus reveals an earlier period for the earth and its original inhabitants long before man was created.

Why Evolution Then?

Many evolutionists have taken for granted the false explanation of the Bible. They have therefore concluded that the written biblical record of creation could not be true. Having carelessly set aside the biblical account, educators and scientists were left with no choice but to believe in some form of evolution and to interpret all physical evidence accordingly.

One highly celebrated proponent of evolution who totally rejects the traditional — and false — explanation given to the Genesis record of creation conceded in private, “The evolutionary explanation may not be complete or compelling but nothing else is possible.”

In other words, the evolutionist, after he has left the Creator out of the picture, because he found the traditional interpretation of Genesis to be in error, has no choice but to try making evolution work. As this well-known author remarked, “no alternate explanation to evolution is possible.”

Evolutionists are stuck with evolution. This, in spite of the fact that they cannot adequately explain the mechanism by which evolution is supposed to have taken place. There are all those gaps in the “evolutionary tree.”

Oh, there have been attempts to fill those gaps- — with a measure of wishful thinking. Charles Darwin, for example, wrote in The Origin of Species that “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true [he doesn’t sound convinced!], such must have lived upon the earth.”

“Must have”? But where? When? Who has found the proof that this “inconceivably great” host of intermediate species existed? Where are all those missing links that “must have” lived on earth? One hundred years after Darwin this essential proof is embarrassingly absent!

Even a sizable number of evolutionists have come to accept that “transitional links” will never be found. But since they are aware of no plausible alternative to evolution that would involve God, the Creator is kept out of the picture. In an effort to bridge the gaps in the biological record, as revealed in geology, the idea of “punctuated evolution,” or evolution by leaps, has attracted recent interest. If, however, a long, slow process of evolution has failed to leave a credible record, it is certain an evolution-by-leaps has left even less of one.

Some seek to get around the difficulties in the evolutionary concept by resorting to a form of theistic evolution. This brings God into the evolutionary process. But only far enough to get evolution over the rough spots like the origin of the first living cells, missing links and other such troublesome problems. It is merely another effort to interpret the physical evidence without giving God the credit.

Not that the Bible is specifically a science textbook. It is not. But where the Bible speaks on scientific matters, it is in harmony with the facts of science.

Correctly understood, the Genesis account renders totally unnecessary any attempt to explain the physical evidence in evolutionary terms. Consider a couple of the popularly cited “proofs” of evolution and see how easily they fit into the biblical account of creation.

Evolutionary science places heavy emphasis on comparative embryology. So what if the embryos of humans, chickens, pigs and turtles look similar at certain stages in their development? That’s no problem. One Designer designed them all. Why wouldn’t there be similarities? Why wouldn’t there be a repetition of themes just as individual buildings by the same architect or different models of automobiles made by the same company may have similarities? Most houses and most automobiles look similar in the early stages of manufacture. So it is with embryos. A pig embryo, however, never becomes a chicken. Nor a chicken a turtle. Nor a turtle a human. Each reproduces after its kind.

But what is the origin of the different “kinds” with their individual characteristics? Evolutionists have derided creationists for continually citing examples of the “wonders of nature.” But such chiding does not answer the question: How can the design evident in the “wonders of nature” be explained? The skill of the garden spider in building its web, the interdependent partnership between certain insects and flowers, the deadeye accuracy of the archer fish, the entertaining antics of dolphins and seals, the agile trunk of elephants, and man himself — an assemblage of 30,000,000,000 living cells functioning harmoniously, capable of thought, of emotion, of expression, able to split atoms he cannot see or to construct immense edifices — these and incalculable numbers of other “wonders” cannot be rationally accounted for by a blind, purposeless, unintelligent, time-and-chance process of evolution.

The subject cannot be avoided. Nor can the conclusion: Design demands a Designer!

What about the “survival of the fittest”? Which schoolchild has not read about the light-colored moths and the dark-colored moths on the tree trunk? The light-colored ones, if more conspicuous, are quickly eaten by birds. The dark moths survive because they are less visible.

“See?” proclaim the evolutionists, “survival of the fittest.” And indeed it is. The principle of survival of the fittest does have a place in the natural scheme. But it does not bring about a change from one life form to another! It does not explain the arrival of the fittest. It merely helps determine the survivability under given conditions of varieties naturally occurring within the boundaries of each Genesis kind. The dark-colored moths do not become something else. They are still moths. And so they shall ever be.

These are two of the primary proofs given for evolution. And yet, as these examples illustrate, the physical evidence of and by itself does not require an evolutionary explanation. In order to fit into the concept of evolution the physical evidence must be interpreted according to evolutionary thought. It is not the evidence itself that is even the central issue in the creation versus evolution controversy. It is the interpretation of that evidence that is the crux of the whole matter!

In other words, the evidence used or discovered by evolutionists does not pose a problem for creationists who understand the true biblical account of creation.

Seeing the Facts Clearly

Interpretation of evidence is one thing. There is unfortunately, however, another factor sometimes at work: lack of candor. The marvelously complex human eye could not have evolved from “primitive” eyes, yet evolutionists still obscure the facts.

They say eyes in existence today range all the way from light-sensitive spots near the heads of some animals, to indentations, to indentations with a membrane, to lens-like membranes, to everything up to humans. So far, so good. This is evidence. It is true. No creationist would deny it.

Now comes the interpretation! The evolutionist takes the quantum leap and takes for granted that evolution has occurred, by believing that all the various stages in the evolution of the eye still exist today. But that is only one way of interpreting the evidence. That is not proof. A creationist could just as easily say that “all the various kinds of eyes God created still exist today.”

But then evolutionists cloud the issue even further by looking at [all the varieties of eyes in] the living world, to see how something as complex as the eye could evolve.

But here’s the problem! “Could evolve does not mean it “did” evolve that way.” Evolutionists cannot claim that if you line up all existing eyes in the living world in order of complexity, from the light-sensitive spots to the human eye, that the arrangement would show how the eye evolved? That would be laughable!

Why? Because if you line up all living creatures in an order based solely on the complexity of their eyes — from simple eyes to complex eyes — the position of the creatures themselves in such a lineup would be out of conformity with the “evolutionary tree.”

Such a common statement then, that by looking at all the different eyes “we can easily see how something as complex as the eye could evolve” implies what evolution itself cannot support. Yet this type of reasoning — even in textbooks — misleads many people.

When all is said and done, we are still left with the question, how did the different eyes develop if they were not created?

The Creator’s Credentials

The realm of the physical sciences confines itself to what can be experimented with, observed, measured and weighed — the physical, material universe. While many scientists — including evolutionists — may allow for the possible existence of God, most freely admit they do not allow belief in the spiritual to affect their theories. They pride themselves in their powers of inductive reasoning. But they leave out data from an entire dimension — the spiritual. Why? Because they cannot quantify it — measure it. There is, then, a built-in antisupernatural bias in most scientific reasoning.

It is no wonder science never even claims to have the truth! Rather, its avowed goal is only to find a closer approximation to “truth.” Significantly, the Bible describes as one of the characteristics of our times that some would be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (II Tim. 3:7).

Jesus Christ promised his followers, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). He meant spiritual truth, certainly. But not exclusively. He also meant truth concerning even a physical matter that affects one’s worship and perception of the true God.

Where science sticks to the facts in areas such as chemistry, physics or mathematics, there is no argument. But when human beings depart from strict observation and measurement of physical laws and begin to theorize and interpret evidence erroneously, when they ignore an entire dimension of evidence — the spiritual — when they seek to take away the credentials of God the Creator and Lifegiver, then it is they who have encroached upon the realm of the spiritual, and not vice versa!

The credentials of the true Creator God set him apart from all gods. One day the apostle Paul confronted a crowd of idolators and admonished them to worship the real God. Which one? The “living God, which made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein” (Acts 14:15). That is how God is identified.

On another occasion Paul was standing amid lifeless idols worshiped in ancient Athens. But Paul didn’t worship those gods. He worshiped the real God. How did Paul identify this one true God and distinguish him from gods humans had made? Listen to Paul! “God that made the world and all things therein … he is Lord of heaven and earth …” (Acts 17:24).
The theory of evolution attempts to strip the Almighty Creator God of those credentials, making him little different from impotent idols, the works of men’s hands!

To demonstrate God is the Creator, we don’t have to produce lengthy volumes detailing all the proofs. The evidence is already available. It is everywhere. It is beneath our feet, in stratified deposits. It is all around us, in everything we can see, hear, touch, taste and feel. It is above us, stretching out incalculable numbers of light years into space. It has been gathered by geologists, biologists, paleontologists, astronomers. It has been written up in countless volumes. One needs only to separate erroneous interpretation from measurable facts.

Whereas scientists who acknowledge God as Creator can look at the physical evidence and see God’s handiwork — brilliant, imaginative, colorful, sometimes even humorous — evolutionists look at the same evidence and try to construct a workable godless theory. Those who understand the true account of creation simply give God credit for his workmanship and marvel at what he has done and at the ultimate purpose of life; evolutionists have to contend with an idea whose mechanism they cannot explain and which is purposeless.

It all boils down to a matter of rejecting the false and unscientific, traditional explanation of creation and accepting the true biblical record of creation (this makes all the evidence explainable), or rejecting God as Creator (in which case faith in some form of evolution, with all of its difficulties, is the only — and erroneous — alternative).

Why not look at all dimensions of knowledge — including the most important?

Source: The Plain Truth, November/December 1983

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.