|
|
|
Myths 'n Facts #1 by Steve
|
|
|
|
For even though they knew God they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but became futile in their speculations... Romans 1:21a
|
|
|
|
|
|
Caution: Don't read this article if you prefer to believe in myth.
|
|
|
|
Myth: It is scientific to believe that man evolved from lower forms by natural processes.
Probably one of the most widely held ideas regarding origins today is that all living things evolved naturally from lower forms of life into higher more complex forms. This part of the theory of evolution is called macroevolution. Since science has been traditionally defined as knowledge which can be known by repeatable observation and testing, it should trouble today's evolutionists that their beliefs are not supported by those methods, but rather are based only upon assumptions. In order for any theory to be considered a scientific theory it must be possible for a scientist somewhere on the face of the Earth to conceive of an experiment to test that theory (such that if the experiment were to fail, the theory could be seen as wrong). When that is not possible, the theory is said to be untestable. No experiment, however, can be conceived to test something that is not happening today. Evolutionism, therefore, cannot be properly called a scientific theory. It is, rather, a belief system. It should also be obvious to any observer that all well-designed complex things in our world have a natural tendency toward decay. This is dictated by a known law of Physics called the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" and it is one of several reasons why evolutionary processes cannot occur today, and in fact, have not been observed in all of recorded history.
One may then ask, if evolution can't be proven with scientific experiments, then perhaps it can be verified by other means, such as a careful study of the fossil record? Darwin once stated that "if evolution is true, the best evidence for it should be in the fossil record." In Darwin's day the fossil record had not yet been well studied. Today, however, about 150 years later, that is no longer true. The fossil record has been well characterized. So the critical question should now be, what does it show us?
There are, of course, two possibilities, and only one will fit the fossil evidence: 1. The Creation Model. If this model is correct then we should expect that the fossils of all created kinds appear fully formed in the fossil record with obvious gaps between the different clearly distinct kinds and with no transitional forms or links between them. 2. The Evolutionary Model. If this model is correct then we should expect that there should be multitudes of gradual variations of fossils with connecting links and transitional forms between various types that continuously changed by natural processes over time.
We can now compare the fossil record for the major categories of life forms against the predictions of the two models. Quoting from Dr. Michael Denton's book, "*Evolution: A Theory in Crisis":
|
|
|
"It is still overwhelmingly true, as it was in Darwin's day, that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record....
The story is the same for plants. Again, the first representatives of each major group appear in the fossil record already highly specialized and characteristic of the group to which they belong.... Like the sudden appearance of the first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks, the sudden appearance of the angiosperms is a persistent anomaly which has resisted all attempts at explanation since Darwin's time....
The same pattern is true of the vertebrate fossil record. The first members of each major group appear abruptly, unlinked to other groups, by transitional or intermediate forms. The pattern repeats itself in the emergence of the amphibia.... Again, however, each group is distinct and isolated at its first appearance and no group can be construed as being the ancestor of any other group....
The virtual complete absence of intermediate and ancestral forms from the fossil record today is recognized widely by many leading paleontologists as one of its most striking characteristics,... The fossils have not only failed to yield the host of transitional forms demanded by the evolutionary theory, but nearly all extinct species and groups revealed by paleontology are quite distinct as they burst into the record,...
It would be pointless to continue citing examples to illustrate the discontinuous nature of the fossil record. Anyone who doubts the reality of the gaps may either take the word of leading paleontologists or simply open one of the standard works on paleontology such as Romer's Vertibrate Paleontology, or Schrock and Twenhofel's Invertibrate Paleontology.... Even a cursory glance clearly shows that profound and undoubted discontinuities do in fact exist.
There is no doubt that as it stands today the fossil record provides a tremendous challenge to the notion of organic evolution...."
|
|
|
|
Well there you have it. The evidence clearly agrees with the Creation model and is hostile to the Evolutionary model. One wonders how such an unscientific belief system has taken over in our contemporary society. One of the best kept secrets of evolutionism is that the belief system is faith-based, and that its assumptions are unprovable. That in itself does not prove it wrong, but neither does it conform to the laws of physics, probability, or what Darwin thought would be the best evidence - the fossil record.
Your questions and comments welcome, Steve Chaikin,
* Quotes from Chap 8, The Fossil Record. Dr. Michael Denton is an Australian medical doctor and scientist who has lived in London and Toronto and is currently doing biological research in Sidney. He is not a Creationist.
|
|
|
|
Myths 'n Facts #2 by Steve
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Romans 5:12
|
|
|
|
Caution: Myth in America's Christian high schools
|
|
|
|
Myth: There were millions of years of death and suffering before man appeared.
The following is an email excerpt from one of Linda's readers:
I cannot even begin to describe how overwhelming it is for me to attend a Christian high school, and yet be educated in the "theory" of evolution as though it is indeed factual! When I voiced my opinions to many of my friends on the creation, they nearly went into shock, then bombarded me with questions as to how I could refuse to believe something when the "facts" are clearly there in front of my face. I couldn't, and still can't, believe that they could refuse to recognize the lack of facts supporting their decision. One of the questions I get the most: "Well, if you don't believe in evolution, how do you explain dinosaurs?" How do those topics even relate?! That I may never understand. Anyway, I was beginning to think that no one besides my family didn't believe in evolution.... C.S.
|
|
|
|
Response:
I am sorry to hear that your Christian high school is compromising on the book of Genesis. I highly commend you for taking a Biblically correct stand. When the Sadducees (who said there was no resurrection) questioned Christ, He told them that they did not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God. The same is true today of those who teach the scriptures but, deny that God created all things by supernatural means that are not occurring today (remember God ceased from His creative work on the seventh day).
Evolutionists typically say that the process that produced the different kinds of living things was by mutations that were filtered by survival of the fittest (death of the unfit) which had been going on for millions of years before Adam evolved. A Christian school should know that Romans 5:12 says there was no death before man disobeyed his Creator, that death came by Adam's sin. If so, how can Christians teach millions of years of death before Adam showed up? And remember, God said several times in Genesis, "and behold everything that He had made was very good." Does that sound like millions of years of death and suffering? Is that the way a God of love would make animals and man? Only the Bible has the reason for the presence of death and suffering in a fallen world. It is the result of man's sin and rebellion. This rebellion is demonstrated by man failing to keep precious in his heart a love for the truth.
Consider the foundational premise for the notion of organic evolution: The order and complexity present in living things can be explained by random naturalistic processes without the need for any intelligent supernatural intervention. Two things should be obvious about this statement. The first is that it is only an assumption, you either accept it or you don't. The second is that there is nothing inherently scientific about it. Remember the definition of science: Information that can be known by repeatable observation and testing. This premise cannot be verified by any scientific experiment conceivable by man.
Consider, however, what this statement implies about the Creator who is revealed to us in nature, in our God-given consciences, and in the Bible: 1. Either God does not exist, or, 2. If He does exist, He was not involved in the creation of living things. How can a theory that implies such be taught as fact in a Christian school?
You also said your fellow students mentioned dinosaurs as a "proof" of evolution. Your statement about relevance was correct --The past existence of those extinct creatures is no more an evidence of evolution than elephants or alligators or any of a number of well-designed creatures that are lacking a host of fossil linkages demanded as evidence of an evolutionary origin.
When the students at your school say the "facts are staring you in the face," ask them if they can recognize the difference between facts and speculations. Make them have to think. Ask them if there is any one single thing that they know about evolution that is true? Ask them why the Cambrian rock strata (the lowest strata with fossils) shows billions fossils of highly complex life forms with no signs of gradual development from lower forms. Ask why evolutionists for many decades included the false idea of Embryonic Recapitulation (as well as Ernst Haeckel's doctored sketches) in school textbooks. Ask why Dr. Debois, the discoverer of the Java Man skull cap and femur, concealed for thirty years the fact that he found human skulls at the same level. Ask why evolutionists were fooled for forty years by a college student hoax played upon their professor that the "experts" called Piltdown man, and how could Nebraska man have turned out to be nothing more than a pig's tooth? Ask them about the circular reasoning used in dating: fossils are dated by the rock layers they're found in, rocks are dated by the fossils they contain. Ask if they know what assumptions are used for radiometric dating? Ask if the atmospheric concentration of carbon 14 in the past was constant, greater, or less? Ask if they know the maximum number of years carbon 14 dating can be dependably used for? Ask them why evolution never happens today? Ask them why they do not have all sorts of deformities that may randomly and accidentally become something useful in another 5000 years?
If your fellow students say that evolution is happening today--but just very slowly, tell them that they are confusing genetic variation for evolution (You can hardly blame the students for this confusion because evolutionists incorrectly call it "microevolution."). God said His creatures would produce after their kind--not produce carbon copies. All creationists should believe in genetic variation. Why are we not identical to our parents? Why does a family with fourteen children have none that are alike? Why was Essau so different than Jacob? Why are there different races (or more correctly--ethnicities)? We know that foxes and beagles, wolves and great Danes, all came from one created dog kind. That is genetic variation, and it demonstrates the tremendous range of information that our Creator placed in the DNA molecules of all the created kinds (much more information than would be needed just to make carbon copies). Evolutionists, however, will tell you that those small changes lead to big changes that make new organs and structures. Not so, because variation (sometimes punctuated by: survival of the fittest, environmental pressures, selective breeding) has no way to put new information into the genes which was not already present in the original kind. In fact, as was demonstrated by Mendel's work in genetics around the year 1850, selective breeding tends to reduce information, because selective breeding can permanently eliminate information that was once present in the gene pool of the created kind.
Evolutionists have been telling our students that all change is evolution--this is a great error.
A note of encouragement:
"For since by man came death, by man came also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor 15:21-22
Your questions and comments welcome, Steve Chaikin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|