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

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.

Evolutionary Bafflegab!

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