Morgan Books




By Amos Morgan

Copyright © 2008 By Amos Morgan
Do not duplicate without permission















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


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


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;

  1. Were crystalline rocks formed before, during, or after the earth was formed?
  2. Did radioactive decay begin before, during, or after the earth was formed?
  3. 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



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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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


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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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



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


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



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



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



Contact us at
This site designed by Metro Design copyright © 2007 — 2018     All rights reserved