The Origin Of Life: Debunking First Fossils As Primitive!

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

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