We need to differentiate between ORGANIC evolution and
INORGANIC
evolution. ORGANIC evolution concerns LIVING matter; INORGANIC means
non-living matter. We will be concerned only with ORGANIC evolution.
There are those that say that the universe `evolved`. That subject would
require a separate study. For now we are concerned only with `organic
evolution.
First, a definition of `evolution`. Simply stated, evolution
is the
theory that living matter arose from chemicals.
When I was in college, one of the first laws I was taught was
the
`Law of Biogenesis`. This law states that life does NOT arise
spontaneously from non-living materials. Needless to say, the theory of
evolution is in direct conflict with this law. The theory of evolution
says that life emerged spontaneously from dead matter. The origin of the
theory of evolution was, of course, Charles Darwin. He was not the only
scientist who postulated the theory, however. Lamar was another
scientist who was a believer in the theory of evolution.
What is the `motor` that propels the theory of evolution? To
understand the `motor`, we need to discuss the concepts that are
necessary to the theory of evolution.
Those are natural selection, mutations, and lengthy (or
epochal)
time periods. We want to look at these things individually, to see
"where the evolutionist is coming from", and to see how steady the
foundation of the theory of evolution is.
NATURAL SELECTION is the tendency of nature to perpetuate the
`survival of the fittest`. It says that as we `evolved` over the
millions of years, the strongest of each of the species has survived,
and have gradually changed into a new and different life-form. It is
also the `natural selection` tendency to eliminate the inferior species,
those unfit to live in a changing world. Natural selection is NOT a
method of `macro mutation`, and we need to differentiate between `macro
mutation` and `micro mutation`.
`MACRO MUTATION` is a major postulate of the theory of
evolution.
It says that species are able to `evolve`, and to change into A NEW AND
DIFFERENT SPECIES. Natural Selection is NOT a method of `macro
mutation`.
`MICRO MUTATION` is the ability of members of a given species
to
exist in different forms. For instance, a poodle and a Saint Bernard are
examples of `micro mutation`. They are of course both dogs, but have
different appearances. But you must remember that no matter what the
color, no matter what the size, they are STILL dogs. They are not
`evolving` into horses.
I believe in micro mutations, but I do not believe in macro
mutations. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that macro mutations
have ever produced a more viable life-form.
An example of a micro mutation is the `peppered moth` of the
eastern
seaboard. Evolutionists love to say that this moth is `proof` of
evolution, because the color of this moth has changed from light colors
to dark colors over the past several hundred years. They say that since
the trees of that area have darkened in color due to air pollution, the
moth has `evolved` into a darker color to evade their natural predators
by `matching` the color of the tree bark. They neglect to mention that
the moth has changed color for the SAME REASON that the trees have, due
to air pollution and smog. Yet evolutionists point to this as the
`greatest proof` of the theory of evolution ever witnessed.
If this is `evidence` of evolution, I say that they have not
witnessed evolution at all, BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MOTHS. They still
have the genetic material of a moth.
Thus there are limits to the extent of change within the many
different species. It is amazing how far these limits extend. The
genetic material has variations, but a dog will always be a dog. No dog
has `evolved` into a horse. If one ever did, the theory of evolution
would have at least a reprieve. But no solid evidence of such an
incident exists.
I recently read that if you took one chromosome from a human
and
stretched it out, it would be seven feet long. ONE chromosome. It would
be so thin you could not see it even with an electron microscope.
If you took ALL of the chromosomes in the average human body
and
stretched them in a chain, they would extend back and forth to the moon
200,000 times. I want you to know that there is an enormous amount of
genetic information in the human body.
If you took the genetic information in your body and entered
it into
your computer word processor, it would require enough paper to more than
fill the Grand Canyon.
It takes an enormous amount of information to produce a human
from
the sperm and ovary. It takes a gigantic amount of genetic
`instructions` to produce a human.
The theory of evolution says that by mutations, `accidents`
can
happen to that instruction bank, and then as that organism grows into
adulthood, that `accident` will produce a `better` life form.
Now, the human body is infinitely more complex than an
automobile.
What if, during the construction of an automobile, someone at the
factory changes something? What if they connected a spark plug wire to
the gas tank? What if they miswired the electrical system? What if they
installed the pistons backwards? What if they installed the distributor
where it was not in sequence with the crankshaft? Would the result ever
be an improvement in any of these cases? Of course not.
The same results are produced when genetic material mutates.
Mutations are virtually always detrimental. The results are usually
fatal. Sometimes the subject is merely crippled. Sometimes there is
simply a malformed form of the same creature. But there is NO evidence
of a mutation ever producing a more viable life-form.
Thus we have now discussed both natural selection and
mutations.
These, remember, are the cornerstones of the theory of evolution. But
mutations are the only means of producing `evolution` as we know it.
I would like to read an excerpt from a book written by Dr.
Walter T.
Brown. Dr. Brown is a retired Colonel from the Air Force, a West Point
graduate, and has a PhD in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. It is my understanding that MIT does not give degrees to
persons who do not have the credentials necessary to obtain one. He has
been a Fellow of the National Science Foundation, and so on.
In his book, Dr. Brown says that "the process of mutation is
the
only known source of raw materials of genetic viability, and hence,
evolution." He is quoting here from a man named Theodosus Dzenski [sp],
who is one of the most famous teachers of the theory of evolution.
Dzenski [sp] says, "The mutants which arise are, with rare
exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments
which the species normally arise."
In other words, he is saying that if these mutants are
produced in a
laboratory setting, a scientist can sometimes manage to keep them alive.
In the environments where the species normally lives, these mutants
usually die.
A quote from the magazine `Origin of The Species` says, "If
we say
that if only by chance the mutants are useful, we are still speaking too
leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal."
Why that quote was in that magazine is a mystery, because if
you're
trying to sell the theory of evolution, that statement is not conducive
to your cause.
Paul Moorehead has written a book, "Mathematical Challenges
to the
Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." In it, he says he decided "to
find out whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation
is known that doesn`t produce a result harmful to the function of that
hemoglobin." He was studying the changes necessary in a hemoglobin to
improve it.
He says, "One is hard put to find such an instance." Yet
evolutionists have taught for years that Alpha Hemoglobin A changed
through mutations into Beta Hemoglobin A.
Mr. Moorehead learned that such a mutation would require A
MINIMUM
of 10^120 mutations.
How large is 10^120? There are "only" 10^80 electrons in the
entire
universe. Now this man is telling us that it would take 10^120 micro
mutations to change this one hemoglobin? How many of you believe that
evolution accomplished this feat?
To continue this story, scientists say that there is enough
room in
the space around an atom so that the electrons of an atom have the same
amount of space as two bees flying in Saint Peter's Cathedral. Thus
there is a large amount of space between the electrons that orbit around
an atom.
How many electrons do you think you could `pack` into the
universe
if you disregarded the electrical repulsion of the electrons? We know
that there are 10^80 electrons, and there is the same amount of space
between electrons as two bees flying in Saint Peter`s Cathedral.
What exponent do we put on the 10 now? The answer is 10^120,
the
same as the number of mutations required to change that single
hemoglobin.
The more you think about this comparison, the more you will
begin to
realize that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground.
What are some of the mutations present in the human species?
Well,
there is albinism, dwarfism, color blindness, and Down syndrome. These
are genetic mutations, the `stuff` that evolutionists say produced
modern man.
How many of those would you like to have? How many of those
mutations have benefited the people that they happened to?
The motor that drives the theory of evolution is mutations.
Yet
there has never been a documented example of a beneficial mutation.
One of the things we have been pounded with is the amount of
time
necessary to allow mutations to produce modern-day species. The
evolutionists are desperately looking for time, because if you can
produce enough time, you can hide the many weaknesses of the theory of
evolution. But eons of time are an absolute necessity, simply because of
the amount of mutations necessary, as we saw a few minutes ago.
There are a number of `clocks` that are used to judge the age
of the
universe. We will see whether or not these `clocks` are reliable. We
will see whether or not the universe is really as old as the theory of
evolution postulates.
The first is radio-metric dating. Potassium argon or uranium
lead is
used to determine how old something is. Carbon-14 is radioactive carbon.
Carbon normally has 12 electrons, but occasionally a carbon atom has 14
electrons. When it has 14, it is unstable.
If you took ten pounds of Carbon-14 and came back 1,000 years
later,
if there was only five pounds of Carbon-14 left, and the rest was
Carbon-12, that is how you would at least theoretically determine the
age of the carbon. If that is over your head, just let it go; but that
is how that `clock` works.
When a creature is alive it of course breathes. Even plants
breathe.
Thus Carbon-14 enters the creature or plant. When an animal dies, you
should be able to measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in the
specimen and thus to determine the age of that specimen. You should be
able to use a scale to determine how much Carbon-14 it should have had,
and then the specimen's age should be measurable. This dating method,
incidentally, is only good for organic material, and it is only reliable
for a time span of about 40,000 years. For a longer period of time,
potassium argon or lead uranium dating must be used. These latter
materials have half-lives (supposedly) in the millions of years.
This is a pretty good theory; we shall now see how shaky its
foundation is.
To make these clocks work, you have to assume that the rate
of
radioactive decay is the same today as it has been for the last 40,000
years. However, scientists have recently discovered that the rate of
radioactive decay can be changed, not in tiny amounts, but in
significant amounts. Yet we have been deceived into believing that
radioactive decay is an absolutely steady process. That is not true.
Another necessity for this clock is that the amount of
Carbon-14 in
the atmosphere would have to have been the same for the last 40,000
years. How many of you believe that the concentration of C-14 in the
atmosphere 20,000 years ago was the same as it is today? How many of you
believe that it was the same 50 years ago? It wasn't. We've been
measuring it for about 50 years, and it has changed in `only` 50 years.
What does that tell you about the reliability of the Carbon-14 dating
system?
How many of you believe that the concentration of radioactive
argon
or potassium is the same as it was two million years ago? That is a very
shaky presumption for the theory of evolution.
The point that I am trying to make is that the `facts` that
we have
been bombarded with are not necessarily true. We assume, since a theory
comes from a `distinguished` scientist, it is a law. That is an absolute
falsehood. These `clocks` are NOT as reliable as we have been led to
believe.
A scientist who won the Nobel Peace Prize once said, at a
meeting
with other Nobel Prize winners, concerning radio-metric dating, "if it
corroborates our theory and our work, we print it. If it comes close, we
put it in a footnote. If it is contradictory, we don't mention it at
all."
How's that for scientific honesty?
A quote from `Common Problems With Radio-Metric Dating`: "The
fact
that erroneous results can be and often are derived from radio-metric
dating techniques has been experimentally verified. For instance living
snails have been dated at 2,300 years old by the carbon-dating method."
How many of you believe that a living snail could be 2,300
years
old? Wood from living trees has been dated at being 10,000 years old.
How many of you believe that a tree can live 10,000 years?
Hawaiian lava flows known to be about 200 years old have been
dated
by potassium argon dating as being 3,000,000,000 years old.
These scientists would do well to consider the question put
to Job
by God: "Where were YOU when I laid the foundation of the earth?"
I have a total of 69 points that indicate a young earth. We
will not
have time to cover them all, but I will include as much information as
possible.
We will now talk about the `clock` of cosmic dust. 14,000,000
tons
of cosmic dust fall on the earth every year. The earth has a good
atmosphere so that this dust could have been dispersed for a long period
of time.
Cosmic dust has a high concentration of nickel in it.
Therefore if
this dust has been falling for hundreds of millions of years, we should
be able to find an enormous amount of nickel. We have not. Either
the
rate of this dust has changed greatly in the last 50 years, or our world
is not as old as we have been led to believe.
Scientists thought that the lunar lander had to be designed
with
large feet. Since there is no atmosphere or rain to disperse this cosmic
dust, considering the supposed age of the moon, the lunar lander might
sink into the dust.
How much did it cost taxpayers to pay for the landing pods on
the
lunar module? Remember that the lunar lander had `feet` about six feet
in diameter?
What happened? The dust wasn't 200,000,000 years thick, was
it? It
was about 1/2 an inch deep. What does that point to? A young moon.
How about Niagara Falls? Scientists have measured the erosion
rate
of Niagara Falls for more than 100 years. If the North American
continent has existed for as long as evolutionists claim, Niagara Falls
would have eroded itself completely around the world, more than once.
What does that suggest? A young earth.
How about the Mississippi delta? Scientists have studied it
for more
than 150 years, because of the concern about flooding of the delta area.
There is a great deal of information about the Mississippi delta. At its
current rate of sedimentation, guess how long it has taken to reach its
present configuration? About 4,000 years.
The delta produces about 300,000,000 cubic yards of
sedimentation
into the Gulf of Mexico every year.
You can also look at from the other side. At the current rate
of
sedimentation, if the Mississippi delta has existed as long as
evolutionists say it has, it would have filled up the Gulf of Mexico
more than once. What does that suggest? A young earth.
Scientists have discovered that the Earth's rotational speed
is
declining. If the earth is 2,000,000,000 years old, as evolutionists
say it is, and it had been slowing at the present rate, the earth would
have stopped rotating many years ago. Its rotational speed would be
zero.
Looking at this in another light, if you extrapolate the
rotational
speed of the earth, and increase it as you go back in time 2,000,000,000
years, it would have been spinning so rapidly that all the continents
would have drifted to the equator, and the earth would have become a
`pancake`. What does this point to? A young earth.
The earth has a population growth of about 1/2 of 1% a year.
Actually this is a very conservative estimate. In actuality, the growth
rate is about twice that much.
How long would take one man and one woman to populate the
entire
world at 1/2 its present rate of growth? About 4,000 years.
If you went back in time to the time when evolutionists say
that
mankind as we know it began, guess what the population of the earth
would be at 1/2 the present growth rate. The population would be 10^2100
people! You remember that there are `only` 10^80 electrons in the
universe. Remember that if the universe were `packed` with electrons,
there would only be room for 1^120 electrons? That number is NOTHING
compared to 10^2100.
What does this evidence point to? A young earth.
Let's talk about stars. Our sun produces the energy of about
1,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs per second. By doing that it is converting
the smallest form of atomic elements, hydrogen, and radiating that out
into space. The sun is therefore consuming itself.
There are stars that are 1,000,000 times brighter than our
sun. That
means that they are using a phenomenal amount of matter to produce this
much energy, and they are radiating this energy out into space. If you
take the present size of those `superstars`, and extrapolate back
2,000,000,000 years, those stars would have had to be implausibly large
to be the size they are today. In fact, one of them would have had to
have been big enough to occupy almost the entire universe! What does
that suggest? A young universe.
There are many more indicators that suggest a young universe.
They
range from the sublime to the absurd. Unfortunately, time does permit me
to cover them all.
Now let's consider the demands of creation versus the demands
of the
theory of evolution.
First, creation demands the presence of a creator. The theory
of
evolution demands the absence of a creator.
Second, creation demands the creation of matter. The theory
of
evolution has no explanation for the origin of matter.
Third, as for the time span of the existence of the universe,
creation demands the time span of recorded history. The theory of
evolution demands eons of time, billions of years.
Fourth, creation demands a `spirit world`. That is, the
presence of
a `higher power`, one who created this universe and governs its
operation. This `higher power` is the giver of life. The theory of
evolution does not allow for a higher power or a giver of life. The
theory of evolution says life emerged spontaneously from non-living
matter.
Fifth, there is the fossil record. Creation demands a sudden
appearance of life forms in the fossil record. The theory of evolution
says that the fossil record should show the `evolution` of life forms.
The theory of evolution says the fossil record should show species
changing from one life form to another. There should be many, many
examples of this in the fossil record, if all the many life forms we see
today truly `evolved` from the `primeval soup`. We will look in detail
at this subject later.
Now, to consider all of these demands in detail, we will
begin with
the first. Since the belief or non-belief in a Creator is a personal
matter, this is something that science cannot measure. It is either yes
or no, depending on what a given person believes.
The creationist has a choice here. Ironically, the
evolutionist DOES
NOT HAVE A CHOICE. The creationist can choose to believe in a Creator or
to believe in evolution. The evolutionist MUST believe in evolution,
since he `knows` that there is no Creator.
Secondly, there is the question of the origin of matter. The
creationist believes that a Creator created matter. Where does the
evolutionist say matter came from? Why, it came from the `Big Bang`.
Hold it. I didn't say, "how did matter come into its present form?". I
said, WHERE DID MATTER COME FROM? The evolutionist might say it
condensed into this big blob before the `Big Bang`. Well, you missed me
again. I asked, `Where did it come from?`. The point is, the
evolutionist has no answer for this question. If matter `condensed`
from energy, as some evolutionists say, where did that energy come from?
The creationist has no problem with this demand. The
evolutionist
has MANY problems with this demand.
It is true that the evolutionist could ask, `Where did the
Creator
come from?`. That is an area where man`s mind fails, because man cannot
comprehend the actions of the infinite, or the workings of a Being
infinitely greater than man. There are no words to comprehend or
describe a Being so far advanced from us mere mortal beings.
My answer is that their position on creation demands an
answer, and
my position does not, because my position deals with an infinite Being.
The evolutionist's position does not deal with the infinite.
Third, the subject of the age of the universe has been
covered in
the previous material. We have seen that dating methods are far from
reliable, and we have seen that there is a great deal of evidence that
strongly suggests that the universe is not nearly as old as the theory
of evolution claims it is.
Fourth, there is the question of where life came from. The
creationist has no problem with this demand. Life was given from the
Creator to man. The creationist has an understanding of life; of what
life really is. The creationist knows that a man is much more than just
a collection of matter and chemicals.
If you ask an evolutionist what life is they will likely tell
you
that it is the result of the production of chemicals. In essence, their
only concept of life is the arrangement of matter.
I believe that this question can be proven. Suppose that
there is a
person in the hospital who has just died of a heart attack. I challenge
the evolutionist to take this person, to cool him down, and to go in and
repair or replace his heart. If life is nothing more than a collection
of chemicals and the specific arrangement of matter, let's correct the
chemical imbalances in his body, and then the evolutionist can bring him
back to life.
The evolutionist wouldn't have to wait for lightning to
strike the
primordial soup, here's a human already `evolved`. Let's see if the
evolutionist can bring him back to life.
I don't mean to be morbid or sarcastic, but I believe that
this
example, though it may be offensive, readily illustrates the
shortcomings of the evolutionist's concept of life. In reality, the
average evolutionist knows almost nothing of what life is really all
about, especially the spiritual world. The evolutionist is spiritually
DEAD.
The creationist's understanding of life enables him to see
that the
Creator has taken back the life that was given to this man, AND THERE IS
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT THE EVOLUTIONIST CAN DO ABOUT IT.
-----------
Next we will consider the fossil record. If there is anything
that
can tangibly `prove` the theory of evolution, the fossil record would be
the most likely. Fossils can of course be seen, handled, and examined.
It has been instilled into this generation that the age of
anything
can be absolutely proven. As we have seen from our study of the various
dating methods, there is very little that is absolute in the `science`
of dating. The methods and results are at best questionable.
Recent advances in science has shown that there are questions
regarding things once thought absolute. I have read that scientists have
discovered that the speed of light is slowing down. There is evidence
that atomic clocks do not run at a constant rate. They, too, are slowing
down.
Concerning the fossil record, let me read what a leading
scientist
has said:
"The fossil record reveals the absence of life forms in the
lower
2/3rds of the earth's crust. Then, suddenly, an abundance of advanced
life forms appear. The oldest rocks in which indisputable fossils are
found are those of the so-called Cambrien Period. The Cambrien [sp]
Period sedimentary deposits contain BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of fossils of
HIGHLY ADVANCED and HIGHLY DEVELOPED life forms. Every major
invertebrate form is found in the Cambrien rock layer. The complexity of
these advanced life forms is so great that evolutionists claim that it
would have taken 1,500,000,000 years to evolve."
If the theory of evolution is true, why do we find NO life
forms
in the rock layers underneath the Cambrien rock layer? If evolution
produced these advanced life forms, where is the evidence that these
fossils `evolved` from more simple life forms? Where are the fossils
that these advanced life forms evolved from?
If you believe in creation, the fossil record fits in
perfectly.
This is exactly what you would expect if this world, and the creatures
in it, all began at one point in time. You would expect a sudden
appearance of advanced creatures, virtually at the same time.
What viewpoint does the fossil record support, evolution or
creation? The answer should be obvious to anyone except a close-minded
evolutionist.
To conclude:
"Not a single indisputable, multi-cellular fossil has ever
been found
in pre-Cambrien rock."
Charles Darwin, regarded by many as the `father` of the
theory of
evolution, once said:
"NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We
cannot
prove that a single species has ever changed."
- Charles Darwin
To illustrate the theory of evolution:
ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿
³ FROG + MAGIC WAND = PRINCE ³
³ (Fairy Tale)
³
ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´
³ FROG + 200,000,000 YEARS = PRINCE ³
³ (Evolution)
³
ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ
Another quote, this one from George Gaylord Simpson, a
champion of
the theory of evolution, follows. After stating that nowhere in the
world is a trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap
between ASSUMED (by evolutionists) fossils of the horse species and its
ASSUMED (by evolutionists) ancestral order, Mr. Simpson says:
"This is true of ALL of the 32 orders of mammals. The
earliest and
most primitive known members of EVERY order of mammal ALREADY HAVE the
basic ordinal characters and in NO CASE is an approximately continuous
sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so
sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative
and much disputed."
Now that`s the candid admission of a man who was one of the
champions of the theory of evolution.
What scientists have done is to go around the world,
gathering
assumed horse fossils, sometimes from the wrong strata. Then they have
come up with this `evolutionary tree` of the horse species. Most people
have seen this `ancestral tree` of the horse species. We have been led
to believe that this `tree` is absolute, indisputable fact. In
actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a merely a
hypothetical exercise, and it is NOT based on sound research.
Because the fossil record is so void of transitional fossils,
evolutionists have come up with a new theory, called `Punctuated
Equilibrium`. This is a theory that my daughter at -------- college has
been bombarded with. She is a pre-med student, which of course involves
the study of life sciences.
First let me define `equilibrium` as we are using it here.
Evolutionists now claim that as a new species `evolves`, there are
periods of `equilibrium` of from one (1) to ten (10) million years
during which some species do not change at all. Evolutionists claim
that this is the reason that we find an abundance of advanced fossils in
one time period, such as in the Cambrien rock layer.
Next we are asked to believe that, after millions of years of
inactivity in their `evolution`, this supposed species suddenly becomes
"punctuated". This means that after all those years of inactivity, the
assumed species changes TO ANOTHER SPECIES in a few thousand years.
Since a few thousand years is so small an amount of time in
the
`evolutionary process`, the evolutionists claim that this is the reason
that no transitional life forms are found.
This is a very popular theory nowadays. What is the evidence
for
this theory? There is really NO evidence of gradualism. What they are
saying is that the evidence for punctuated equilibrium is, no evidence
for the old theory. Since the absence of transitional fossils disputes
the validity of the theory of evolution, they have now devised this new
theory, also based on no evidence, to `patch up` the lack of evidence
for the original theory of evolution.
I am amazed at how this theory has been accepted, and how it
is
being taught in our colleges. It is a ridiculous theory, based on no
evidence.
But it illustrates one thing clearly. It clearly indicates
the
BANKRUPTCY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, so man has
now
accepted ANOTHER theory that has no evidence in fact. Needless to say,
the evolutionist cannot explain how or why this hypothetical phenomena
`happened`.
Jay Gould, one of the authors of this theory, has recently
expressed
hope for the appearance of the "Hopeful Monster" theory. This theory
states that a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it. This is
the only hope for the theory of evolution, because there are NO
transitional fossils in the fossil record.
Dr. Ethridge, the curator of the British Museum, has
remarked:
"Nine-tenths of the talk
of evolutionists is SHEER
NONSENSE, not
founded on observation, and wholly
unsupported by the
facts. This museum is full of
proofs of the
utter falsity of their views. In
all of this great museum
there is not a particle
of evidence of the
transmutation of any species."
I suggest that Dr. Ethridge is as qualified to make that
judgment as
anyone else in the world. He has millions of fossils at his disposal.
That seems to me to be the honest statement of a scientist who has truly
investigated the theory of evolution, and has found it to be totally
lacking in credibility.
There are about 250,000 species of life that have been
discovered in
fossil form. Yet out of this great collection of fossils, Dr. Ethridge
is stating that NOT ONE has been found that supports the theory of
evolution. I hope you will think about the gravity of his statement.
Next we will imagine a mental picture of a man sitting on an
imaginary chair. The chair is not really `there`, but the man is
sitting on it. The poem, illustrative of the theory of evolution, goes:
As I was sitting in my chair
I knew it had no bottom there
Nor arms or legs, but I just sat
Ignoring little things like that
That is a good description of the many shortcomings of the
theory of
evolution and its attendant theory, the theory of `punctuated
equilibrium`.
If you will go up to Glenrose [sp] in north central Texas,
you can
find dinosaur footprints and human footprints in the same rock layer.
How did they get there together? The evolutionists tell us that the last
dinosaur died 30,000,000 years before the first `true human` was born.
Did that mud stay moist for 30,000,000 years, so that the dinosaur
footprint and the human footprint would appear in the same rock layer?
Of course not. That would be too ridiculous a statement, even for an
evolutionist.
I've seen a movie that was made on those fossils at Glenrose
[sp].
It shows the footprints of several dinosaurs and then it shows a human
footprint trail going right across it. Now these human footprints are
not very clear. In fact, the only very clear human footprint in the
collection is not there. Instead, there is a large square where someone
chiseled the human footprint out of the rock and sold it to a tourist.
But you can see the trail of the person walking there, and if you will
use a composite of those footprints you can produce a perfect human
footprint. There are some that show the toes very clearly, some that
show the heel very clearly, and so on. In fact, on one of the
footprints, you can see that this human slipped on the mud, and slid
about three feet. Where his foot stopped, you can see a perfect outline
of this human's toes.
If you want to reassure yourself, look at your foot sometime.
If you
study this, you will discover that there is no animal that qualifies as
having possibly those prints. That includes apes, bears, or anything
else. The human footprint is very unique.
Interestingly, in the movie I mentioned above, these human
footprints were shown to both evolutionists and creationists. Their
comments were very revealing.
As you might expect, the creationists came up with the
conclusion
that was logical. The prints were what they appear to be. No mystery.
Just more proof of creationism.
The evolutionists, as might be expected, agreed that the
dinosaur
tracks were obviously genuine, but they expressed doubts as to whether
those `really were` human footprints.
Do you see the difference in interpretation of data? The
evolutionists disagreed, not because the proof was inconclusive, but
because their preconceived beliefs prevented them from accepting the
data. Of what value is a scientist who will not accept data unless it
agrees with his preconceived views?
Most people have seen dinosaur footprints, or has at least
seen
photographs of dinosaur footprints. Everyone, even laymen, know what a
dinosaur footprint looks like. Of course, everyone knows what a human
footprint looks like.
Thus, even an inexperienced layman could conclude that 2 + 2
= 4.
Yet these `scientists`, these evolutionists, could not make the same
conclusion. Why? Their prejudice would not allow them to. Their
`training` and `knowledge` precluded the obvious conclusion.
Next we will discuss The Religion of Evolution. First, a
definition from Webster's New World dictionary:
religion - a. A belief in a supernatural power;
b. an expression of this belief in conduct or ritual;
c. a specific system of belief or worship involving a
code of ethics;
d. an object that is zealously pursued.
Obviously, if you are a
creationist, one or more of these
definitions would apply to you. You would probably
believe that this
supernatural power created all things. You should have
a code of conduct
that you try to make an integral part of your life, as
outlined in the
Bible, at least for all of us in attendance here. Also,
you should also
believe that this supernatural power, having created
this magnificent
universe, also has the power to override what we would
call infallible
physical laws. These `overrides` are called `miracles`
by most people.
Does evolution qualify as a
religion? I would submit that it most
certainly does. Here's why I think it does:
Does the evolutionist believe in a supernatural power?
Yes. They believe in a power that overrules the Second
Law of Thermodynamics. A corollary of this law says that
systems of matter do NOT `evolve` into more organized
states, as the evolutionists say it did after the `Big
Bang`. Instead, this law states that the OPPOSITE is true.
Matter and states of matter become more DISORGANIZED,
rather than more organized, if left to themselves.
The evolutionist's view of primordial earth is that
matter, with no outside intervention, somehow produced
life.
Another term for this disorganization is `ENTROPY`, which
is a term for these increasingly disorganized states.
I hope that you understand what I am saying here. The
Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law that is considered
to be as fundamental as the law of gravity. It is one law
has been proven to be true for a very long time. Yet
evolutionists say that this law was suspended while man
and animal `evolved`. It HAD to have been suspended.
It is ironic that these two
directly contradictory issues are being
taught concurrently on our campuses. In the biological
sciences, students
are taught the theory of evolution.
Across the campus, the Second
Law of Thermodynamics is being taught.
I think you can see how pervasive is the influence of the
theory of
evolution.
A quote from a champion of
evolution:
"Evolution is an ANTI-ENTROPIC process, running
COUNTER to the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
with its degradation of energy and
its
tendency to uniformity."
- Sir Julian Huxley
"Evolutionists are a group of persons who
believe quite openly in mathematical miracles.
They advocate the belief that, tucked away
in nature, outside of normal physics, there is
a law which performs miracles, provided the
miracles are in the aid of biology. This
curious situation sits oddly in a profession
that for long has been dedicated to finding
logical explanations for Biblical miracles."
- New Scientist Magazine
November, 1981
How's that for contradiction? In other words, evolutionists believe
in miracles for biology, but they do not believe in Biblical miracles.
Dr. Collin Patterson, Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the
Paleontology Department of the British Museum of Natural History, says
that he `now realizes that evolution was a faith. He had been duped into
taking evolution as revealed truth in some way and that evolution not
only conveys no knowledge, but conveys anti-knowledge; apparent knowledge
which is harmful to systematics.
If a evolutionist is honest (and few are), he or she will admit that
there is something necessary to make their theory `work`. The evidence is
conclusive that if one relies solely on the evidence and the laws
governing the operation of this universe, evolution is an impossible
theory.
The above, I believe, shows why evolution qualifies as a religion.
Do the pre-conceived beliefs of evolutionists affect their ability to
judge evidence? Yes, they do.
Don't evolutionists observe a code of ethics or a code of behavior,
based on their belief in the theory of evolution, just as creationists
use the code of ethics and behavior found in the Bible? Yes, they do.
Do not evolutionists pursue their beliefs zealously? Yes, they do.
They are strict proponents of voicing their ludicrous beliefs at every
opportunity.
Their belief in the theory of evolution affects their conduct,
enabling them to look at data and reach a conclusion that is plainly
illogical. This could be compared with what the Bible calls `faith`.
Evolutionists have `faith` that their theory is correct, even when the
evidence plainly suggests otherwise.
Before concluding, I would like to stress that believers in
creationism no longer have to `apologize` for their beliefs. The theory
of evolution has so pervaded our society that many believers in
creationism have for years been trying to `combine` the `facts` of the
theory of evolution with the Biblical account of creation. That is not
necessary. Now that you have seen the evidence regarding the
unreliability of dating methods, along with the fossil record, you should
be able to see that there is no longer any need to feel uneasy when
expressing your belief in creationism.
Next we will talk of creationism versus the theory of evolution in
regard to the various disciplines of science. We have already spoken of
the astronomical side of this question.
We will now consider the study of cells. These cells make up every
living thing. What evidence is there in this area, which will settle the
question of evolutionism versus creationism?
If the theory of evolution is correct, then the accidental synthesis
of the DNA molecule had to have taken place. As biological science learns
more and more about the complexity of the cellular structure, the
realization that this feat is impossible has set in.
The DNA molecule can only be replicated in the presence of certain
enzymes; numerous, complicated enzymes. Those enzymes themselves can only
be replicated in the presence of DNA molecules. So, which came first, the
chicken or the egg?
It is not enough to `simply` synthesize the DNA molecule; it would
also have been necessary to synthesize these attendant enzymes, virtually
at the same time. This is mathematically improbable, to say the least.
As we learn more and more about single cells, we have learned that
each cell is composed of thousands of functioning enzymes. In the early
days of science, cells were thought to be simple creations, with only a
few components. Thus their accidental `evolution` was perhaps a bit more
plausible. With the advent of the electron microscope, science has
learned that even singular cells are enormously complicated structures.
The advance of science almost daily erodes the already shaky foundation
of the theory of evolution.
A single cell contains over 1,000 functioning enzymes. Each enzyme
requires a gene to produce it. Each gene might be made up of 1,000 or
more nucliatides [sp]. Each nucliatide [sp] occurs with the arrangement
of four particular molecules that form it; thus, there could be 4^1000
possible combinations of these nucliatides [sp] to form only ONE of these
genes.
In other words, for the probability that the proper sequence for the
formation of ONE nucliatide occurred is 4^1000, which is the same as
10^600. Having spoken of exponential numbers before, it is still
difficult to assimilate 10^600. To refresh your memory, remember that
there are only 10^80 electrons in the universe.
Remember that the above odds are for the chance synthesis of ONE
GENE. Also remember that these alleged `evolutionary processes` must link
together to eventually form ONE living cell. The exponents of the numbers
allegedly attributed to these processes quite quickly reaches the
laughable. With each assumed `evolutionary process`, the chances begin to
approach zero very quickly.
Thus, the theory of evolution is in trouble at the very lowest
levels. That is, there is mathematical evidence that the theory of
evolution doesn't even have the possibility of `getting off the ground`.
The theory of evolution cannot even demonstrate the chance synthesis of a
single living cell.
But remember, the evolutionist MUST find a way to explain these
things. To NOT do so would be against his religion. Since the
evolutionist knows that there is no Creator, his ONLY alternative is
the theory of evolution, no matter how ludicrous his theories and
explanations become.
The evolutionists have devised the postulation that, billions of
years ago, the earth had a sea of rich nutrients. In one of many
biological miracles, lightning struck this primordial soup and, by
chance, these nutrients reacted and produced the first living, self-
replicating cell. This cell was the first living thing in the universe,
according to the evolutionist.
The evolutionist conjectures and implies that this jump was just a
minor thing. That is far from the case, as we saw a few minutes ago when
we discussed the odds of even one cell being born by chance.
Concerning that jump from molecule to living cell, a Nobel Peace
Prize winner has deduced that an alien entity, in the dim past, seeded
the many forms of life on earth. Isn't it incredible that a mind
brilliant enough to win the Nobel Prize could come up with such a stupid
idea?
This theory, more than anything else, shows the utter failure of the
theory of evolution to explain the origin of life on earth.
This great scientist is basically saying, after realizing that the
theory of evolution is foolishness, since life couldn't have started on
earth, it must have started somewhere else. Apparently evolutionists are
getting more desperate than ever for an explanation of the origin of
life. At least this statement raises the odds. Maybe, just maybe,
somewhere out there in space, there is a planet where the biological
miracles of the evolutionist could have happened. At least this puts
things out in space where there is no one around to be able to prove
their facetious theories wrong.
Earth, with all of its water, with its atmosphere, with its perfect
distance from the sun, with the perfect cant of the axis so that we have
seasonal changes, with the perfect amount of light, with all of this
perfection, if it is impossible for it to have occurred here, how could
it have occurred somewhere else? There seems to be a certain method of
thinking, bound into the minds of certain scientists, to proclaim that it
HAS to have happened, and whatever kind of frenzied thought is necessary
to produce the right circumstances, we MUST devise and proclaim it. There
are apparently no limit to the imaginations of those devising these
theories. There also seems to be no limit as to the gullibility of the
public in accepting these silly theories.
There is also a theory out that, as an embryo develops, its many
appearances at different times reflect its evolution. This applies to
all embryos, whether it be a bird, as turtle, or a human. I was taught
this theory in college.
Do you know when this theory was proven wrong? Back in the 1920's.
As someone once said, There is nothing more fun than to watch an
intelligent man expound on an stupid idea.
So what can you say? The above theory was called the Biogenetic
Law, and it has been proven wrong or proven totally implausible so many
times that it is ridiculous to even consider it.
"This theory is now completely discredited by most
embryologists."
-- Dr. Jeffrey Bryne
Over fifty years ago, Dr. Waldo Shumway [sp] of the University of
Illinois said:
"Experimental embryology demands that this hypothesis
be abandoned."
If that's the case, why is this `law` still being taught? The answer
is that people are preaching the theory of evolution with religious
fervor, and they have to have something to teach. The theory of
evolution, being shaky at best, requires periodic `props` to at least
provide temporary stability. In a pinch, the evolutionist can always
dream up a new theory to bolster his cause.
Evolutionists have to rely on three things to make evolution
`work`. These are natural selection, huge periods of time, and mutations.
The theory of evolution is thus standing on three broken legs. None of
the three are viable models for producing life as we know it. These
theories were worthless thirty years ago, and they are just as worthless
today. The advancements of science, rather than proving the theory of
evolution right, is doing the opposite. The theory of evolution has
become the de facto religion of the humanist society of today.
The truth of mutations is that no one has ever produced a species
change through mutations, whether through micro mutations or through
macro mutations, even in a laboratory, even after thousands of mutations.
The appearance of a species can be changed through mutations; through
species interbreeding, you can come with a poodle or a dachshund. But
guess what? Both are still dogs.
There is the story of a missionary who proposed several possible
explanations of the origin of a tribe of natives. The natives of New
Guinea, after hearing the theory of evolution, openly laughed at the
idea. Why aren't we laughing at it? It has been proven wrong countless
times. The reason that we aren't laughing is that the evolutionist is a
member of a religion, with the theory of evolution as his god. He is a
devout person, and openly laughs at the idea of creationism. That is
called voluntary blindness.
In respect to the issue of genetics, if the theory of evolution is
correct, there is the issue of homologous structures. If you studied the
genetic structure of organisms, you would expect to find a chromosome
with a gene located on it in a place in a chicken that causes the
bird's wing to appear during its development, and you would expect to go
into animals that `evolved` from these lower forms of life and find a
similar gene relative to a homologous structure. In other words, the
forearm of an animal should be similar to the wing of a bird. That is not
the case. Instead, the genes of all these life forms are distinct, each
with their own individual characteristics. There is an obvious
contradiction of the genetic data, and the concept of the inherited
homologous structures is false.
Sir Gavin de Beer [sp], a devout evolutionist, says:
"The attempt to find homologous genes except
in closely related species is HOPELESS.
Organs such as the eye preserve their
similarity in structure, but the genes
responsible for the organ must have become
altered during the evolutionary process."
Have you ever heard a more stupid statement? He is saying that over
the eons, as the eyes have evolved from one creature to the next, the
eyes have remained the same, but the genetic information producing the
eyes have changed. He is saying that mutations produced the same results,
but with different combinations of genes. That's utterly ridiculous, but
it is typical of the desperate measures taken by the evolutionist to be
able to hold on to his god, the theory of evolution.
From the field of anatomy, we should see certain indications in the
anatomical structures of life forms. If the theory of evolution is true,
we should see organs in the human body (for instance) that were useful to
the human during his evolution, but that since have become useless.
When I was a in college, there were about 180 organs in the human
body listed by evolutionists as being in this category. They included
things such as the appendix, the thymus gland, and the big toe.
Over the years, we have learned that these supposedly obsolete
organs do indeed have a use.
The thymus gland is a gland that surrounds an infant's heart at
childbirth. As the child ages, that gland quickly shrinks so much that it
is difficult to find any indication of it in an adult. The evolutionists
have therefore proclaimed this as proof of the theory of evolution, since
it has no use.
Medical science has since discovered that the thymus gland is an
integral part of the mechanism that starts up the immune system of a
child at birth. Would any of you like to do without your auto-immune
system? How long would you live without it? Ask an AIDS patient, if you
don't know the answer to those questions.
Guess what else is part of the auto-immune system? The humble
appendix, believe it or not. It is responsible for the T-Cell formation
which is part of the immune system.
The truth is, there are NO organs that do not have a purpose. If
evolution really happened, we should see them.
We should also see organs being born; that is, organs that
seeing strange organs developing in our bodies, organs that have no use
at the present, but that will have a use sometime in the future. But we
do not, because there are none. This is still another instance of the
proclamation of assumed processes, processes that have no proof of ever
having happened.
Imagine the first amphibian, as he started to evolve a wing. At
first it would be just a stub, having evolved from a useful forearm. In
the midst of its evolution, it would become a useless stub, being halfway
between a forearm and a wing. It would have no function while `evolving`.
Thus it places a severe handicap on the creature. Obviously natural
selection would not allow such a thing to take place. Genetics certainly
disallows it. So there is no way, with reasonable thought, that it could
have happened.
The jawbones of reptiles had three bones in them. Evolutionists say,
by evolution, these bones `migrated` into the three bones inside the
human ear. The evolutionist says that since humans have only one
jawbone, these bones must have produced our ear bones. Isn't that
impressive? Wow. You know, from a distance, that could possibly be
conceivable. However, if you understand the genetics that would have to
be involved with such a migration, it becomes untenable. It becomes
ridiculous.
It seems obvious that the evolutionist looks at `facts` from a great
distance away. If you see a human from a distance of one mile, you might
think it is someone you know. As you approach this hypothetical person,
the differences become obvious; you realize that the distance made your
vision poor. That's how the theory of evolution operates. At a distance,
it can sometimes be appetizing; up close, it is frequently laughable.
There is not a single scientific discipline available that will
prove the theory of evolution `true`. On the contrary, the opposite is
true. When studied, the theory of evolution crumbles as the laws of our
world come into play.
The simplest conceivable life form has about 600 protein molecules.
The chance that even a SINGLE molecule could form by chance arrangement
of the sequence of the amino acids in it would be between 10^450 and
10^600, depending on whose data you study.
How many INCHES LONG do you suppose it is from one end of the
universe to the other, at least with our present astronomical knowledge?
Can you guess? It is about 10^28! That seems a small number, but consider
that the distance is in INCHES. And to form ONE molecule the
probabilities are from 10^450 to 10^600? How outrageous does the data
have to get before it becomes laughable? Remember that the theory of
evolution says that this happened not once, but again and again and
again.
It seems apparent to me that we are dealing not only with a
ridiculous theory, but with a sick theory, an ignorant theory that has
been hammered into the public's mind with a religious zeal. What else can
you call it?
Most of the believers of the theory of evolution probably really
believe that the theory of evolution is an established `fact`. But where
did they acquire their `knowledge`? From their educational
establishments. They learned a deception from men who have been deceived
themselves.
"Evolution is a theory fully accepted
not because it can be proven by
biological coherent evidence, but
because the only alternative, special
creation, is clearly incredible."
- D. S. Watson
To me, it's the theory of evolution that's incredible. The evidence
of creationism is clear. The parts all fit. The creationist has no
problem with the evidence. One explanation explains everything. The
theory of evolution explains nothing.
"I think we must admit that the only
acceptable explanation is creation.
I know that this is anathema to
physicists, as it is to me; but we
must not reject a theory that we do
not like if the experimental
evidence supports it."
- Professor H.J. Lipscomb
Physics Bulletin, 1980
Now this professor is an advocate of the theory of evolution. He is
also a rare individual; not many scientists would have the courage to
make this damning statement. He is also stating that the theory of
evolution is anathema to the laws of physics.
We will now conclude this lecture. As a last subject, we will
discuss not the theory of evolution, but rather WHAT EFFECT the theory of
evolution has on our thinking processes. I speak of us as individual
human beings, each of us with the power to make decisions and to
interpret the evidence before our eyes. What does belief in the theory of
evolution cause us to think, and what does the theory of evolution cause
us to do?
I will now quote from Doctor Henry Morris` book, "The Twilight of
Evolution". This book contains a statement from Thomas Huxley, one of the
greatest advocates of the theory of evolution ever:
"Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary
approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to
human affairs, we are beginning to realize that
biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution
in general. Evolution, in the extended sense can
be defined as a directional and an essentially
irreversible process occurring in time which in
course gives rise to an increase of variety and
an increasingly high level of organization in its
believers. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to
view that the whole of reality is evolution,
a single process of transformation."
I believe that you can feel the religious overtones in that
statement concerning the theory of evolution. You can also see that
someone who has preached it with the great zeal of this man has had his
entire comprehension of the universe altered. It is more than a `science`
to this man, it is his religion. It has permeated his entire personality,
under the guise of `intelligence`.
With that statement, we will close. Thank you for your time."
