|
Morgan Books
EVOLVING EVOLUTION
EVOLVING EVOLUTION
A LOOK BACK AT MY SCHOOL DAYS
By Amos Morgan
EVOLVING EVOLUTION
Copyright © 2008 By Amos Morgan
Do not duplicate without permission
EVOLVING EVOLUTION
INDEX
EVOLVING EVOLUTION
CHAPTER I
Introduction
It has been a very long time since I began public school. Now my hair is partly
gray and partly missing. But I still remember some of the things taught me as
I grew up back then. Later, when my children began high school, I decided to
make a serious study of evolution. In high school I had simply dismissed evolution
as not being true because it contradicts the Biblical account of creation, but
now I wanted to know more of what evolution stood for and what were its foundations.
I did not want to appear ignorant or dismissive to my children and their peers
in school. The experience from which I am writing is dated, partly from my high
school years and partly from my investigative search when my children began
high school, yet it is relevant because science expands, but it does not change
or reverse. All the math, chemistry, and science I learned so many years ago
is still relevant. Let me share some of those memories of evolution with you.
Back to Index
CHAPTER II
The Fossil Record
One of my high school science teachers explained how that evolution, unlike
religion, was based upon scientific study. Religion, he explained, began as
myths during man’s earliest quests for answers to the question of where
did I come from and how did I get here. It is interesting to some degree that
during my lifetime probably half of the theories taught me about evolution science
have been abandoned while nothing at all has changed in the Bible my mother
read to me as a child.
Probably the best ‘proof’ of evolution during my school years consisted
of an explanation of the evolution of the “Three-toed horse.” Each
stage of development of the horse from a small three-toed animal to the present
horse represented a time period in the evolutionary history of the earth. Later
findings of the skeletonal remains of two different stages of evolved horses
buried in the same volcanic ash and evidently on the same day made it better
to drop the three-toed horse theory. But this neither proves nor disproves evolution
from a purely scientific prospective, so let’s do the math.
Nonlinear progression is a well-defined mathematical subject. An introduction
to one kind of nonlinear progression begins with a question. “Would you
accept a job for one month’s duration working eight hours a day, five
days a week if the starting pay was one penny per day but each day the pay doubled?”
Just hope that you have enough time to do the math before you have to answer
the question. In the first week you would earn only $0.31 for the entire week.
Not a good deal huh? But during the fourth week you would make over ten thousand
dollars for that week alone. Any takers now? That is one kind of nonlinear progression.
Evolution supposedly began when some dust washed into a puddle of water on
a sterile earth and accidentally sprang into life and formed a cell with DNA
inside its nucleus. From that beginning it evolved into simple life forms, then
into worms, then into fish, then into amphibians, then into reptiles, and then
into warm-blooded animals. Charts showing this evolution resemble a tree. There
is a single trunk that branches out as it grows. This branching out is nonlinear
progression. It all began as a single cell and presently has evolved into more
than a million species according to that story.
Two important facts are evident here. First, we still have single celled animals,
worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and warm-blooded animals. No one disputes
that. Secondly, to get from one to more than a million species, we would have
nonlinear progression. Hopefully no one disputes that. So what does that prove?
It proves that about half of all the transitional life forms that ever existed
on earth are alive now. It proves that we do not need to look under rocks and
dig holes in the earth to find them. There are several different ways of estimating
the number of living transitional life forms in existence today, but a conservative
estimate, allowing for some extinctions and for varying rates of progression,
we should expect at least one in ten, (100,000 of the more than a million living
species) to be transitional. They are out there in the bushes, folks, just go
find them. We should see foxes evolving into coyotes and coyotes evolving into
wolves. We should see deer evolving into elk. We should see house cats evolving
into panthers. We should see pigs evolving into hippos. We should see goats
evolving into cows. On the other side of the coin lets examine some of the well-known
examples of fossils claimed to be transitional life forms.
The afore mentioned three-toed horse has been disproved. Additionally, that
story included no transitional life forms at all; just (co-existing) animals
of different species arranged in order of size (i.e. compare fox to wolf evolution.)
Java man is another example of a discarded story. He was solid proof of evolution
during my school years, but has since been shown to consist of a plaster skull
with bits of bone from both man and animals embedded in the plaster.
Neanderthal Man also evolved during my school years. He began as more ape than
man and walked in a stooped-over fashion showing that indeed he was evolving
from ape to man. Now it is a mixed hodge-podge of stories. Some have dropped
the name but still show him (as an evolving ape-man) in the line-up of predecessors
of man, but without using his name. The truth; if we are modern man so is Neanderthal
Man. One of my sons brought home his high-school science workbook. It told how
the last living Neanderthal cowered in his cave while our ancestors, being more
aggressive than he, invaded his cave and clubbed him to death. Science? No,
fiction taught in a science classroom in order to promote evolution beliefs.
It must have been the best science available for that subject.
A few transitional fossils have been imported from China. They prove the skill
and patience of the craftsman who assembled them, but most of them have been
shown to consist of two fossils skillfully blended to make a composite that
would sell to evolutionists.
Lucy offers no help at all in promoting evolution if we stay with the facts.
Her hands and feet have been swapped out and her face has been given a human
look, but just as in the case on Neanderthal Man, the deciding factor is a bone.
This bone is slightly more like a tree monkey’s bone than the bone of
an ape. Deformed bones made Neanderthal Man sub-human. But he really is a modern
human, not sub-human. If you go to a championship ball game, you can see him
there in the bleachers, but you may not recognize him due to all the bad press
he has been given. A single deformed bone made Lucy an evolving human also.
But not really. The point here is that about half of all the transitional life
forms that ever lived are alive today but evolution, claiming to be science,
stumbles from one fraud to another looking for a single transitional life form
and all the time avoiding science and math and the approximately 100,000 living
transitional life forms, providing such ever existed. They refuse the math.
The National Academy of Science has an answer for those who question their
fossil record of human evolution. Rene Sanchez, writing for the LA Times-Washington
Post Service, stated, “The National Academy of Science said Thursday (4/9/98)
that evolution must be a vital part of science instruction and that lessons
on creation do not belong in those classes.” “In its new guide,
the National Academy of Science stresses to teachers that the scientific consensus
on the theory of evolution is “overwhelming.” “The guide,
which is more than 140 pages long, also presents teachers with questions that
are commonly asked by those who doubt evolution. Then it attempts to refute
each of the questions thoroughly.” “The guide asks, for example,
[If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?] It then proceeds to
explain that humans did not evolve from modern apes, but the two share a common
ancestor, a species that no longer exists.”
Sanchez accepted the explanation that “humans did not evolve from modern
apes, but the two share a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists”
as thoroughly refuting the question. How could that be? Statistically, if there
are no living transitional life forms, there is no probability of the existence
of fossilized transitional life forms and many years of searching have confirmed
it to be so, with only deceptions and frauds to show for it. That statement
by the National Academy of Science includes no science at all, instead it is
a statement of evolution belief that is supported only by belief in evolution.
The guide appears to serve as a teacher’s guide on how an adult can win
an argument with a child. Of the dozens of claims of findings of fossilized
transitional life forms, I can recall none that endured independent investigation.
Seth Borenstein writing for The Associated Press is quoted on page A15 of the
Thursday, August 9, 2007 edition of The Oregonian, a Portland newspaper, as
saying, “The discovery by Meave Leakey, a member of a famous family of
paleontologists, shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the
same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of early human evolution
– that one of those species evolved from the other.”
The expression “Straight from the horses’ mouth” is derived
from an awareness that science must rely on proof, not consensus, as was the
case with alchemy, the predecessor of science. We do not need a consensus to
decide if 2 + 2 = 4, we can experientially prove it. If we could find even 10,000
living transitional life forms (1 %) we would not need to rely on a consensus
based on a few deteriorated, deformed, fragmented fossils remains which have
been age dated as millions of years old by self reliant age dating methods;
methods that take contemporary species and assign them to ancestor/descendant
relationships. We have already demonstrated that if transitional life forms
existed at all, a great many of them would still be alive today just as there
are many one celled animals, worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and warm-blooded
animals.
Back to Index
CHAPTER III
Age Dating
Transitional life forms is not the only area where evolution is in conflict
with science and math. Age determination is another area of conflict. Let’s
briefly examine a few methods of age dating, one primarily used to date fossils
and rocks, another that is applied to dating rocks and the earth itself, and
finally carbon-14 age dating.
The Geological Column represents a core sample of sedimentary rocks taken from
the earth. Sedimentary rocks at the bottom of the column would be those first
laid down when the earth was young. Here it is that the simplest life forms
would be found imbedded in those rocks. At the top of the column would be the
most recent sedimentary rocks and the most advanced fossils would be found imbedded
there. In my time, high-school science textbooks explained that we could age
date the rocks by the fossils contained in them, and that we can age date fossils
by the rocks in which they were found. There was a noticeable distinction however;
these two self-reliant statements never appeared on the same page. Typically
one subject was discussed in one chapter and the other in another chapter. Still,
both statements were put forth and they constitute a violation of a basic premise
of science that nothing may depend upon itself for proof. You cannot tell the
age of a fossil by the age of the rock in which it is found if you tell the
age of the rock by the fossils found within it. This seems so basic that no
one should be tricked by it even when the two statements are separated by chapters
and are on different pages.
Still further complicating the belief in the Geological Column, used to age
date fossils and rocks, is the fact that it exists only randomly in nature.
For each example of sedimentary rocks where fossils are arranged from simple
on bottom to complex on top, there are many more where the arrangement is not
in that order. Indeed finding a place where you can dig down and find increasingly
simple fossils is a rarity. This is an example of evolution proof by random
occurrence. A common sense approach would tell us that somewhere today, simple
life forms are settling to the bottom of a lake and becoming imbedded in the
sediment. It would tell us that somewhere else the bones of larger animals are
being washed into a ravine and being buried there during rainstorm run-offs.
So then the kinds of fossils imbedded in sedimentary rocks tell us where, not
when, their remains settled. Belief in the existence of a geological column
relies more heavily on faith than on science.
Our next subject is a bit more complex, but we will try to avoid the heavy
stuff. If you wanted to measure the amount of salt in seawater and had gone
to the ocean and gotten a bucketful of seawater, how would you react to an assertion
from me that the results of your test would be invalid unless you first placed
the bucket of seawater in a freezer and collected ice crystals that formed at
the rim of the bucket and melted them and limited your test to those melted
ice crystals? Hopefully you would recognize that during formation of ice crystals
a part of the salt would be exuded from the ice crystals, so the sample of melted
ice crystals actually would contain less salt than the ocean water from which
it came. Removing ice crystals from a larger sample yields a sample that is
no longer viable; it has been altered.
Sometimes called radiogeological or radiometric dating and sometimes called
uranium or thorium dating, these methods measure the ratio of the amounts of
‘parent’ to ‘daughter’ isotopes in an earth sample as
a measure of the time it has been decaying, that is, of its age. Now enter the
experts who tell us that you cannot get a correct reading from a shovelful of
dirt. You must first find certain crystalline rocks that contain only trace
amounts of the radioactive materials and limit your tests to them. Some rocks
contain more than one pair of radioactive parent-daughter isotopes. You will
notice that results between two different parent-daughter isotopes in the same
rock do not agree as to the age of that rock. But of course. What did we expect
when we limited our samples to crystalline rocks. This means that since the
numbers do not agree, ultimately you shuffle the numbers around until they match
what you want them to be. This shuffling of numbers is called ‘graphing
techniques.’ If we were scientist, we would discard that method, not swap
results until we found the one we had forecast. That is evolution faith, not
science. But even if we resolve those issues, we still have a major problem.
I do not know the author, but someone has likened earth age dating by radiometric
dating methods to a situation where you have a candle that has been designed
to burn at the precise rate of one inch per hour. The candle now burning is
exactly seven and three-eights inches tall. How long has it been burning?
Again, during my school years, we were taught that the earth had been ‘thrown’
out from the sun. Now that idea itself has been thrown out and I am not sure
just what the current idea may be, but in any event the substance of the earth
is older than the earth itself according to evolution theory. With that in mind
we have three questions;
- Were crystalline rocks formed before, during, or after the earth was formed?
- Did radioactive decay begin before, during, or after the earth was formed?
- What was the ratio of the amounts of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’
isotopes in the substance of which the earth is made before, during, and after
the earth was formed?
We see little groups of specialists working in little isolated clusters of
intensive research on their specialty while ignoring these basic questions.
The ratio of the amounts of ‘parent’ to ‘daughter’ isotopes
in a crystalline rock can give us no meaningful idea about the age of the earth
if we consider its unknown source, composition, origin and the possible unequal
exclusion of ‘salts’ during the process of crystallizing. And besides
all that, we already know the results are random, that is, no two of them agree.
The methods and minerals currently used are somewhat different than those used
during my studies, but we notice the same general rules apply. First you draw
the curve then plot the points so they fall on the curve.
Carbon dating with carbon-14 offers a completely different set of circumstances.
It is capable of yielding quite accurate age data when used correctly. And what
does ‘used correctly’ mean? With carbon dating we measure what is
not there and that restricts its application somewhat. Also the amount of carbon-14
as a percentage of all the carbon on earth has not been constant throughout
earth’s history. Anyway, if what is not there is due only to radioactive
decay, then we can relate lack of radioactivity directly to age. If what is
not there is due to causes other than radioactive decay, then we may not relate
lack of radioactivity to age. The process of fossilization of bones and petrifaction
of wood is a process wherein silicon compounds replace the carbon within the
wood or bone. Carbon-14 comprises much less than one percent of the carbon on
earth and is heavier than carbon-13, which comprises approximately one percent
of the total carbon on earth, or carbon-12, which comprises about ninety-nine
percent of the carbon on earth. Atomic numbers and atomic weights of various
isotopes of an element are somewhat related, so carbon-14 is the heaviest carbon
isotope. During the process of fossilization and petrifaction, the heavier-than-carbon
silicone compounds preferentially replace carbon-14, heaviest of the carbon
isotopes. What this means in practical terms is that once the process of fossilization
or petrifaction has begun, carbon dating is no longer meaningful. The legs of
a fossilized animal may differ by thousands of years in age when using carbon-14
age dating. You cannot start a fire with petrified wood and neither can you
carbon-14 age date it in any meaningfully way.
Back to Index
CHAPTER IV
Definitions
Some confusion has resulted from claims and counter claims about science, evolution,
and faith believers. It is the intent of this paragraph to define evolution
and science and faith in terms of content for the purpose of a better understanding
of the differences.
- Religion is faith based. By faith I believe the Bible is true, therefore
I do not require proof. If you could prove it, I would not believe it any more
surely because of that proof. Additionally, if you could supposedly disprove
it, I would believe it no less. Notice that by using the word ‘supposedly’
I am demonstrating that which I am saying; you cannot disprove it to me. My
faith is stronger than any argument you could make. Does that surprise anyone?
It should not. That is what this discussion is all about. By faith we cling
to that in which we believe against all odds. It is human that we decide what
we want to believe and then believe it whatever that belief may be.
- Science is a study of things that can be independently and consistently demonstrated
and proven. It may not rely upon itself for proof. The old parental cliché,
“Because I said so” may not be used in science. Therefore any subject
whose proof depends upon itself may not be classified as science. Instead, it
is faith based. In baseball you get three strikes before you are out. In science,
a single disproof is sufficient to set aside any theory.
- Evolution is belief in a theory that whether or not God exists, all life
began millions of years ago as a simple cell that grew, divided, and evolved
into life as we know it today. It is a belief that whether or not God exists,
he could not have accomplished anything of the magnitude and complexity of creation;
it had to be an accident. Evolution makes a claim that it is scientific rather
than faith based.
If evolution is believed by faith, as proposed herein, then it follows that
trying to disprove evolution to those who believe in it is counter productive.
And indeed we believe that to be the case. The purpose of this article is to
suggest answers to those who have questions rather than the conversion of ‘evolution
believers.’ Back to our story.
Back to Index
CHAPTER V
How Did We Evolve
As our parents ran through the forest, so we were told, debris falling from
the trees and getting into their eyes caused a problem, so they adapted by growing
eye lashes and eye brows. Does that sound good? Perhaps, but is it logical or
scientific or is it just a fairy tale? If growing eye lashes and eye brows was
a direct reaction to debris falling into our eyes, then the hair should have
grown on our eyeballs instead of above them. If it was a reaction of our skin
and not necessarily for the protection of our eyes, then the hair should have
grown on the end of our noses as well as above our eyes. Consider for a moment
the many systems all at work in our bodies. We have a reparatory system, a digestive
system, a nervous system, a circulation system, a temperature regulation system,
a reproductive system, a growth regulating system, we have a system to regulate
our blood sugar, and so on and on. For instance our blood goes to the lungs
where it picks up atmospheric oxygen, converts it to a chemical form that is
compatible within our bodies (atmospheric oxygen is not) and takes it to muscle
and brain cells where energy is needed. There it drops off the oxygen and picks
up carbon dioxide in a chemical form that is compatible within out bodies (atmospheric
carbon dioxide is not) then takes it to our lungs where it converts it back
into the atmospheric form and drops it off so that we can exhale it. Our blood
also delivers nutrition and liquids as needed by the rest of our body. We breathe
when we are awake and we breathe when we are asleep. Yet we can override our
automatic breathing in order to eat, drink and whistle. We have biting or cutting
teeth in front and molars for chewing or grinding in back. Just how did we adapt
our teeth? Our skulls are not directly affected by our vision, yet they are
shaped to accommodate and protect our eyes; more magic. This is all Cinderella
Science. A wave of the magic evolution wand and she could make horses from mice
and chariots from pumpkins. She could make glass slippers from old worn-out
shoes. Some people question how we could believe in the Bible. I question how
anyone could believe in evolution. Faith for faith, it is easier for me to believe
in the Bible than to believe in evolution with all its false props and unreasonable
conclusions.
To some, the development of drug resistant strains of viruses is proof of evolution.
They say the virus mutates to survive and thus gives us an ongoing view of evolution.
A stem cell in us is capable of developing into a cell in our big toe, our
eyeball, our kidney, or any other one of the 100 trillion cells in our body.
But it cannot develop into a cell in the toe, eye, kidney or any other cell
in our pet poodle. Each stem cell has an intelligence gathering system that
tell it, “You are here.” so that it can develop as needed. But there
is a finite number of developments possibilities dependant upon our DNA. Viruses
have a finite number of developments possibilities available to them dependent
upon their DNA. Its intelligence gathering system tells it how to develop in
its environment. Now, a lot of study is ongoing, so I cannot claim to know all
about it. But we do know that a virus does not evolve into another species in
order to become immune to drugs used against them. Drug resistant strains of
viruses are not proof of evolution; those claims are based upon insufficient
knowledge of the subject matter. Lets consider three points relative to the
claim of new species evolving in drug resistant virus.
- While stationed in South Korea during the Korean War, we were plagued
by swarms of flies in the summertime. Dead flies were everywhere; lying on
their backs on every flat surface after the first time the area was fogged with
DDT. The last time the area was fogged with DDT before I returned to the States,
there were dead flies afterward, but not as many as the first time and for two
reasons. The population had not rebuilt completely, so there were fewer flies to
begin with. But a few flies could still be seen flying slowly through the fog.
New populations of DDT resistant files were developing. A new species? No.
A DDT resistant strain of the same old species.
- If you have a serious chronic pain problem, you might notice that some
medications lose their effectiveness after continuous use over a period of time.
You yourself are developing resistance to certain drug treatments. By some
standards you are evolving into a new and different species. Incredible, isn't it?
Notice that DNA is different for every species, but not for drug resistant strains
of people or virus, so it really does not make good sense to say that drug resistant
varieties of virus prove evolution.
- Various strains of flu viruses are one of the most commonly cited proofs of
evolution. Supposedly the virus mutates and evolves in order to better survive our
latest medical treatments. But current studies indicate that each season, a crop of
flu virus originate near the equator and follow a predictable route across Asia to
the west coast of the United States. Here we battle them with our latest, best
medicines with varying success. From here they continue on across the US and on to
an environmental graveyard, never to return to their point of origin. So new strains
are not the result of our battles against them. Our medical battle affects our
survival, but not theirs. Historically, flu has been around for more than two
thousand years, but the worst year for recorded deaths was 1919, so our drugs and
vaccines do not affect the strain we will face tomorrow. The various strains may be
cyclic, but not evolutionary. You can see evolution here only as a direct result of
faith that it is so, and really, it is not so.
Back to Index
CHAPTER VI
Prospective
Then there are the ‘living fossils.’ What is a living fossil? It
is an oxymoron. It is a prospective gone wrong. We have seen that the fossil
record of evolution satisfies only people who accept it based upon a strong
belief, a belief that does not see objections and accepts as facts that which
is without scientific proof. We have seen that methods of age dating are chosen
which yield the desired answers even if there is reasonable doubt that those
answers could be correct. Living fossils show us an example of prospectives
gone wrong.
If you look at a painting of a railroad station you will notice there are two
tracks that lead away from the station. In the distance, you can see only one
line representing the two tracks and ultimately, the track disappears into the
distance without a trace. This leads to the illusion of distance on a flat piece
of canvass. Those railroad tracks are somewhat like the big bang; it comes out
of nowhere, splits into two tracks and expands into full detail at our feet.
If you could climb into the picture and travel along the railroad tracks, you
would never come to the place where the two tracks merge into a single line
nor to the place where the track disappears. You can never travel to the end
of the rainbow to claim the pot of gold waiting there. Evolution takes a flat
screen of the species living today and arranges them in order by size and complexity.
Then they add their prospective to that flat screen. A prospective that says
all of the species evolved from small to large and from simple to complex. Species
that are thought to be extinct are placed back in time, then when it is discovered
that they are not extinct, they are called living fossils. Are not all fish
living fossils if they evolved before reptiles, yet it is never used that way.
Thus the term ‘living fossil’ really means ‘oops.’ It
is a quasi admission of a mistake. This ability to see depth in a flat screen
is an art form, not a science. Only belief in evolution justifies the conclusions
that support evolution. And claims that evolution is based upon science are
transparent to anyone without that predisposition. There are no living fossils.
Instead there is living proof that arranging species in some order and calling
it proof of evolution leads to cases of ‘living fossils’, ‘three-toed
horse’ evolution, and shows that when two species of early human ancestors
which supposedly evolved one from the other, but who really lived at the same
time in Kenya, proves that neither are our ancestors. Believe what you want,
I do.
Back to Index
CHAPTER VII
Why is not the Bible True?
Lets consider a few instances where evolutionists maintained that the Bible
was not true, but ultimately had to change their views to agree with the Bible
after all. The Bible declares that, “In the beginning God created the
heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness
was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of
the waters.” Instead, according to evolution, there was a big bang and
with incredible heat and incredible light, the universe exploded from a pinpoint
spot at nearly the speed of light. But this explanation has its own problems,
so some changes had to be made. It occurred to many of us that if the mass of
the universe exploded from a pinpoint, surely gravity would have pulled it back
into a black hole. After all, a black hole is so named because it has enough
mass, i.e. gravity, that it pulls light and all matter back into itself. So
now the statement has been amended to say that neither light nor gravity existed
in the beginning of the big bang. Gravity is a force that is always with us
and controls nature. Remember that lack of sufficient gravitational force is
what kicked Pluto off the first tier planet list. Two requirements for full
membership as a planet were 1) the gravitational force must be sufficient to
bring the object itself into spherical shape, and 2) gravity must also clear
celestial debris from the orbital path, either pulling all objects to its surface
or capturing them in orbit. So when the earth was void and without form and
darkness was upon the face of the deep, we could conclude that gravity and light
were missing. God created light first and then he created gravity. And with
the coming of gravity, water flowed to its lowest level and remains there captured
by gravity. Now the earth had a (spherical) form and the land appeared because
gravity pulled the water into the seas and kept it there within bounds. (This
is not a statement of dogma, but it appears to be so.) Anyway, now the big bang
theory has been revised to agree more closely with the Biblical account of a
beginning without light and without form (as controlled by gravity.) Interesting!
Further, if there was no light at the time of the big bang, it follows that
neither was there any heat. That brings us back to ‘ether’, a forgotten
substance from the days of alchemy. Consider that it was during the twentieth
century that Einstein proposed a formula relating mass to energy. That formula
was E = mc2. Grasping that formula, scientists were able to
produce an atomic bomb during World War II. The formula worked. We are not looking
for proof of the Bible, that would be superfluous, but notice that this important
formula is compatible with Psalms 29:4 "The voice of the LORD is powerful";
and Psalms 33:9 "For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood
fast." There is no conflict between the Bible and science. The point here
is a simple one, new scientific discoveries upset and change theories, but there
is no conflicts between the Bible and the very latest scientific discoveries.
Genetic researchers have concluded that all mankind is descended from a single
mother, a proverbial Eve. How about that?
Some claim the Bible says the earth is flat. That is not true. It mentions
four cardinal directions that we currently use (check your GPS) and it refers
to the rising and setting of the sun. Today’s newspaper also tells me
what time the sun rises and when it sets, but the Bible does not say the earth
is flat. Instead there were people who claimed to be able to tell everyone else
what the Bible said and what it meant. And they it was who said the earth was
flat, and they were wrong.
Evolution told me that civilization was a product of cave man associations.
The Bible told me that cave man was the product of civilization and religious
persecution. Heb. 11:36-38 says “They were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and
goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; (Of whom the world was not
worthy:) they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of
the earth.” Of course I consider one explanation to be recorded history
and the other to be baseless speculation.
When I was a child, the Bible stated the nation of Israel would again occupy
their ancestral home and it would be comprised of both Judea and Samaria. Today
that has become a fact, but few believed that it would ever happen when I began
public school. I watched it happen before I was twenty years old. At the time
Jewish people spoke Yiddish, not Hebrew, but it was written that a pure language
would return to them, and so it did. It is not nearly so impressive when being
told about this as it was seeing it happen, so get ready for the next episode.
At the time of this writing, Israel cannot stop rockets from being launched
at it from the Gaza Strip and it is building a wall to try to stop infiltration
from the West Bank and help define its borders. Going back several centuries
BC we find it written that Israel will obtain peace and secure borders (Ezekiel
38, 39). After that happens, an alliance of some of the northern countries (probably
former members of the Soviet Union) will invade Israel from the north accompanied
by an invasion from the south by Ethiopia and Libya and from the east by Persia
(the name Iran stands for the combined kingdom of the Medes and the Persians.)
This will be interesting to watch, but very unsafe. Perhaps unnamed nations
such as the US will also become involved. Hitler had a personal war with the
Jews and with the Gypsies in addition to a war to conquer Europe and the world.
His war on the Jews catapulted them from being wanderers into becoming a state,
but no good came from his attack on the Gypsies (Roma people). Similarly, this
future attack of perhaps more than half a dozen countries will catapult Israel
to a position of world power and leadership. The alliance from the north will
retreat and return home in defeat with the loss of more than eighty percent
(five sixths) of their forces and the remaining Palestinians will all have been
displaced from Israel. Will you believe the Bible when that time comes (providing
you survive)? And most startling of all, Jesus will come back to earth again.
And finally let’s examine one of the reasons why creation could never
have happened in the minds of evolutionists. The Bible teaches that the chicken
came before the egg whereas evolution teaches that the egg came first. This
creates a paradox. It could not work if the egg came first. Suppose for a moment
that God had made grass seeds and tree seeds on the third day, and then made
fish eggs and bird eggs on the fifth day. Then on the sixth day suppose he made
baby animals and then baby Adam and finally baby Eve. God would have had no
rest on the seventh day, the Sabbath. If you had come to the Garden of Eden
on that first Monday after creation week, even though he was only three days
old, you would have found Adam tending the garden. He would not be growing up.
He would have all his molars, a full beard, and would be eating food that had
already grown. There were trees in the garden, and if you had taken core samples
from those trees you would have found many rings showing how many years old
the six-day-old trees were. Thus creation becomes impossible in the minds of
evolutionists because they impose impossible conditions of their own making.
Adam was created two or three decades older than creation itself, the way God
did it. Some of the stars are thousands of years older than creation itself
if you only go by appearances, or prospective, as the measure of how things
came to be.
Back to Index
CHAPTER VIII
WHAT IS CONSENSUS ?
From chapter one we notice that the National Academy of Science stresses to
teachers that the scientific consensus on the theory of evolution is “overwhelming.”
If you go to Iran, you will find an overwhelming consensus that Islam is the
one true religion. If you go to China, you will find an overwhelming consensus
that Buddhism is the one true religion. If you go to Rome, you will find an
overwhelming consensus that Catholicism is the one true religion. If you go
to Athens, you will find an overwhelming consensus that Eastern Orthodoxy is
the one true religion. If you go to Salt Lake City, you will find an overwhelming
consensus that Mormonism is the one true religion. Consensus is applicable to
politics and religion, but definitely not science. Relying on consensus tells
us that no scientific evidence is to be had in spite of all the years of tax
supported searching. That one statement from the National Academy of Science
is of greater importance than the whole of all the other subject matter herein.
Their best evidence of evolution is a consensus. That is all they have to show
for the billions spent in searching for a scientific clue to evolution.
Back to Index
CHAPTER IX
Conclusion
From the foregoing examples we notice that Darwinian Evolution cannot be disproved
to its adherents even though it has significant conflicts with mathematics and
some of the basic rules of science. We also notice that it shrugs off numerous
frauds in its core teaching. And, although not addressed herein, it draws its
financing from our public school funding and from governmental grants and funding
(tax money). Thus we see that evolution is a pseudo science and is our de facto
state religion. When challenged, ridicule for its detractors and platitudes
for its adherents seem to replace what one should expect in defense of science.
Indeed, we should consider such defenses an admission that if science were supportive,
that evidence would be submitted in place of ridicule and platitudes. It is
alchemy, not science, which is based on consensus and platitudes. Thus we pay
taxes to have our children taught that evolution is science and that the Bible
is a myth. Two thousand years ago the most serious challenge facing Christianity
came from the centers of religious learning and seminaries and that has not
changed, but couching evolution as science is a grave concern. It has been said
that it is better to be tossed overboard with a cement necktie than to offend
the Biblical faith of a little child. In that Great Eternal Morning when we
give account to God for our deeds here on earth, those who have foisted the
teaching of evolution onto our school children will too late learn the true
meaning of accountability.
Back to Index
|
|