Creation vs. Evolution (Part 2)

IV. The folly of the fairytale of evolution 1. Today the Theory of Evolution is taught as if it were a scientific fact. 2. It is important to distinguish microevolution from macroevolution. A. Microevolution - Evolutionary change within a species or smaller group of plants or animals, taking a relatively short time B. Macroevolution - Evolutionary change over a long period, leading to the appearance of new groups of plants or animals 3. Microevolution happens all the time and has been observed and well documented. A. Natural selection happens all the time, but natural selection cannot produce new genes, and rather than facilitate macroevolution, it prevents it. B. "Like so many terms in science, the popular meaning of “natural selection” differs from what the words actually mean. “Selecting” implies something that nature cannot do: thought, decision making, and choice. Instead, the complex genetics of each species allow variations within a species. In changing environments, those variations give some members of a species a slightly better chance to reproduce than other members, so their offspring have a better chance of surviving. The marvel is not about some capability that nature does not have, but about the designer who designed for adaptability and survivability in changing environments. With that understanding, the unfortunate term “natural selection” will be used. "An offspring of a plant or animal has characteristics that vary, often in subtle ways, from those of its “parents.” Because of the environment, genetics, and chance circumstances, some of these offspring will reproduce more than others. So, members of a species with certain characteristics will tend, on average, to have more “children.” Only in this sense, does nature “select” genetic characteristics suited to an environment—and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. "Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it “selects” only among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased. "For example, many mistakenly believe that insect or bacterial resistances evolved in response to pesticides and antibiotics. Instead, • a lost capability was reestablished, making it appear that something evolved, or • a mutation reduced the ability of certain pesticides or antibiotics to bind to an organism’s proteins, or • a mutation reduced the regulatory function or transport capacity of certain proteins, or • a damaging bacterial mutation or variation reduced the antibiotic’s effectiveness even more, or • a few resistant insects and bacteria were already present when the pesticides and antibiotics were first applied. When the vulnerable insects and bacteria were killed, resistant varieties had less competition and, therefore, proliferated. "While natural selection occurred, nothing evolved; in fact, some biological diversity was lost. "The variations Darwin observed among finches on different Galapagos Islands is another example of natural selection producing micro- (not macro-) evolution. While natural selection sometimes explains the survival of the fittest, it does not explain the origin of the fittest. (underline mine - CEW) Today, some people think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. Actually, natural selection prevents major evolutionary changes. It deletes information; it cannot create information." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) C. Mutations are not helpful to life, but almost always harmful. D. "Mutations are the only known means by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution. Rarely, if ever, is a mutation beneficial to an organism in its natural environment. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; some are meaningless; many are lethal. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having greater complexity and viability than its ancestors." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) 4. Macroevolution has never happened. A. In order to be scientific, macroevolution would have to be observed. B. The Law of Biogenesis i. Spontaneous generation of life has never been observed. ii. "Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes. "Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis. However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) C. Acquired Characteristics i. Animals or humans do not pass on characteristics which they have acquired during their lives. ii. "Acquired characteristics—characteristics gained after birth—cannot be inherited. For example, large muscles acquired by a man in a weight-lifting program cannot be inherited by his child. Nor did giraffes get long necks because their ancestors stretched to reach high leaves. While almost all evolutionists agree that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited, many unconsciously slip into this false belief. On occasion, Darwin did. "However, stressful environments for some animals and plants cause their offspring to express various defenses. New genetic traits are not created; instead, the environment can switch on genetic machinery already present. The marvel is that optimal genetic machinery already exists to handle some contingencies, not that time, the environment, or “a need” can produce the machinery." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) D. No animals have ever been observed evolving from one species to another. i. "A century of fruit fly experiments, involving 3,000 consecutive generations, gives absolutely no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in complexity and viability. No clear genetic improvement has ever been observed in any form of life, despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) ii. Fully developed organs a. If life is in a continual process of evolution from one species to another, there should be partially developed organs in all animals. b. "All species appear fully developed, not partly developed. They show design. There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes, skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) c. "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.75) d. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.179) iii. God from the beginning created plants and animals to reproduce "after their kind" (Gen 1:11-12,21,24-25). a. Kind - II. A class, group, or division of things. 10. a. A race, or a natural group of animals or plants having a common origin b. Specie - 1. a. In kind; in respect of kind; specifically. c. Species - 10. Zool. and Bot. A group or class of animals or plants (usually constituting a subdivision of a genus) having certain common and permanent characteristics which clearly distinguish it from other groups. d. It still holds true today that animals and plants can only reproduce after their kind or species. e. Evolution teaches that one specie produced all species. E. There is no evidence of macroevolution in the fossil record. i. The animals found in the fossil record are all distinct species. ii. If macroevolution actually occurred, there would have to be millions of transitional forms in the fossil record (one species of animals evolving into another species by minute increments). iii. "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms (underline mine - CEW) must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.163) iv. "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous (underline mine - CEW). Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p.323) v. "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection. (David M. Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, January 1979, p. 25.) vi. "Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95) vii. “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” (David S. Woodruff, “Evolution: The Paleobiological View,” Science, Vol. 208, 16 May 1980, p. 716.) viii. “There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by palaeontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely ‘transitional’ types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again. What unfolds itself, in ever-increasing richness of form, is the great classes and kinds of living beings which exist aboriginally and exist still, without transition types, in the grouping of today.” [emphasis in original] (Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West, Vol. 2 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.) ix. “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.” (Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.) x. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study (underline mine - CEW)." (Stephen J. Gould - "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14.) xi. "New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.” (Ibid., p. 12.) xii. All the missing links are missing. xiii. The evolutionists have condemned themselves. a. "...Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant...." (Luk 19:22) b. "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Mat 12:37) c. "Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I: yea, thine own lips testify against thee." (Job 15:6) F. The theory of macroevolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis at best, and a blind-faith religion at worst. 5. The linchpin of the theory of evolution: billions of years. A. Evolutionary scientists now claim that the universe is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years old (Wikipedia). i. They claim that the earth is a mere 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years old (Wikipedia). ii. As they continue to realize that the fairytale of evolution requires more and more time to appear possible, they keep adding zeros onto the supposed age of the universe. iii. As Stuart Crane used to say, "What's a zero? A zero's nothing; it just makes a good story better." iv. No human being can possibly conceive how long a billion years is - and that's the way they want it. v. Use a bunch of fancy scientific words and numbers that numb the mind and the unwashed masses will believe it because the worldly wise men say it. vi. With feigned words and great swelling words of vanity they make merchandise of them (2Pe 2:3; 2Pe 2:18; Jud 1:16). B. All of the scientific dating methods which are used date material on earth (ex. Carbon-14 dating; Radiometric dating) are based on unproven assumptions. i. "To date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) ii. "Rock minerals naturally contain certain elements and not others. By the process of radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes occurring in a rock, exotic elements can be introduced over time. By measuring the concentration of the stable end product of the decay, coupled with knowledge of the half life and initial concentration of the decaying element (underline mine - CEW), the age of the rock can be calculated. Typical radioactive end products are argon from potassium-40 and lead from uranium and thorium decay." (Wikipedia - Article on the Age of the Earth) iii. How could anyone living today have any idea what the initial concentration of an element in a rock was millions or billions of years ago? Your B.S. detectors should be sounding right about now. iv. Carbon-14 decay rates can only be used to date things to approximately 30,000 years (if all the assumptions were true) because the half-life of Carbon-14 is only 5,730 years and after five half-lives, there is not enough C14 left to accurately measure. v. Furthermore, these dating methods assume an uniformitarian perspective (everything has always been like it is now and no major changes have ever taken place on the planet, like a global flood). vi. Uniformitarian - 1. Geol. One who maintains or accepts the theory that geological processes and phenomena have always been and still are due to causes or forces operating continuously and with uniformity. vii. Uniformitarianism and denying the global flood is nothing new; scoffers have been doing it for at least the last 2000 years (2Pe 3:3-6). C. The universe is not billions of years old. i. The Bible plainly shows that the universe is approximately 6000 years old. a. There is an unbroken genealogy in the Bible from Jesus Christ to Adam (Luk 3:23-38). b. The universe was created six days before Adam was created (Gen 1). c. Those six days were literal 24-hour, evening-and-morning days (Gen 1 c/w Exo 20:11). d. A careful examination of Bible chronology will show that the universe is about 6000 years old. e. The Wonders of Bible Chronology by Philip Mauro is a great reference which plainly and simply shows this. ii. Much scientific evidence shows that the earth and universe are young. a. Human Artifacts 1) Human artifacts have been found in coal and rocks that are "millions" of years old. 2) "At various times and places, man-made objects have been found encased in coal. Examples include a thimble, an iron pot, an iron instrument, an 8-karat gold chain, three throwing-spears, and a metallic vessel inlaid with silver. Other “out-of-place artifacts” have been found inside deeply buried rocks: nails, a screw, a strange coin, a tiny ceramic doll, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years older than man." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) b. Helium 1) There's not enough helium in the atmosphere for the earth to be millions of years old. 2) "One product of radioactive decay within rocks is helium, a light gas. This helium enters the atmosphere at a much faster rate than helium escapes the atmosphere. (Large amounts of helium should not escape into outer space, even when considering helium’s low atomic weight.) Radioactive decay of only uranium and thorium would produce all the atmosphere’s helium in only 40,000 years. Therefore, the atmosphere appears to be young." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) c. Excess Fluid Pressure 1) There is far too much oil, gas, and water pressure in the earth for it to be millions of years old. 2) "Abnormally high oil, gas, and water pressures exist within relatively permeable rock. If these fluids had been trapped more than 10,000 to 100,000 years ago, leakage would have dropped these pressures far below what they are today. This oil, gas, and water must have been trapped suddenly and recently." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) d. Continental Erosion 1) The continents would be flat due to erosion if the earth were hundreds of millions of years old. 2) "The continents are eroding at a rate that would level them in much less than 25 million years. However, evolutionists believe that fossils of animals and plants at high elevations have somehow avoided this erosion for more than 300 million years." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) e. Moon Recession 1) The moon is too close to earth for it to be billions of years old. 2) "As tidal friction gradually slows Earth’s spin, the laws of physics require the Moon to recede from Earth. (Edmond Halley first detected this recession in 1695.) Even if the Moon began orbiting near Earth’s surface, the Moon should have moved to its present distance from Earth in billions of years less time than the 4.5-billion-year age evolutionists assume for the Earth and Moon. So, the Earth-Moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) f. Hot planets 1) The planets Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are too hot to be billions of years old. 2) "Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate away more than twice the heat energy they receive from the Sun. Uranus and Venus also radiate too much heat. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion, radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, or phase changes within those planets. This suggests that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning) g. Supernova Remnants 1) There only about 7,000 years' worth of supernova debris found in our galaxy. 2) "In galaxies similar to our Milky Way Galaxy, a star will explode every 26 years or so. These explosions, called supernovas, produce gas and dust that expand outward thousands of miles per second. With radio telescopes, these remnants in our galaxy should be visible for a million years. However, only about 7,000 years’ worth of supernova debris are seen. So, the Milky Way looks young." (Walt Brown, Ph.D., In the Beginning)
Attachment Size
Creation vs. Evolution.PDF 514.7 kB