In its Conventional Wisdom Watch this week, Newsweek Magazine says that three out of ten Republican candidates indicated they do not believe in evolution, “further proof we come from monkeys.” In other words, you are as stupid as an ape to believe in special creation.
Really?
If we evolved from single-cell organisms as most scientists assert, there should be a steady line of fossil evidence all the way back to the first life. But that line does not exist. Evolutionists say this is because of “punctuated equilibrium”, which means creatures didn’t stay transitional very long. They also say evolution happened in a “branched tree” not a straight line.
Huh? Does evolution hold that all species gradually changed from lower forms to what we see today or not? No matter how it happened, there would still have to be thousands or even millions of transitional creatures between a fish and a fry-cook; an amoeba and an attorney; a worm and a warden, right? But there are none. Zero. In fact, the amoeba is still alive and well, worms are still here, and so are fish. The thinking is that we evolved, but the lower forms stayed put. (The fact is, there never really were any “simple” creatures. The DNA code is just as complex in a tape worm as in your own cells.) But, the question is, why didn’t they evolve, too? Yet I’m the monkey for wondering about this. Also, go back as far as the fossil record takes us and you find animals that are still living today, complete with organs, eyes and body systems, fully functional and intact.
Can we agree that computer code is written only by very intelligent authors? But Newsweek says I'm a moron for not believing that the amazing DNA code was basically an accident.
Really?
If we evolved from single-cell organisms as most scientists assert, there should be a steady line of fossil evidence all the way back to the first life. But that line does not exist. Evolutionists say this is because of “punctuated equilibrium”, which means creatures didn’t stay transitional very long. They also say evolution happened in a “branched tree” not a straight line.
Huh? Does evolution hold that all species gradually changed from lower forms to what we see today or not? No matter how it happened, there would still have to be thousands or even millions of transitional creatures between a fish and a fry-cook; an amoeba and an attorney; a worm and a warden, right? But there are none. Zero. In fact, the amoeba is still alive and well, worms are still here, and so are fish. The thinking is that we evolved, but the lower forms stayed put. (The fact is, there never really were any “simple” creatures. The DNA code is just as complex in a tape worm as in your own cells.) But, the question is, why didn’t they evolve, too? Yet I’m the monkey for wondering about this. Also, go back as far as the fossil record takes us and you find animals that are still living today, complete with organs, eyes and body systems, fully functional and intact.
Can we agree that computer code is written only by very intelligent authors? But Newsweek says I'm a moron for not believing that the amazing DNA code was basically an accident.
Back to the fossil record: Yes, there are fossils of an animal the size of a dog that resembled a modern horse. It was called the eohippus. And right along side it in the fossil record are full-sized horses. Oops. What about the Archaeoraptor – the flying dinosaur with feathers? It was a wonderful example of a transitional fossil – until it was revealed that it was fake.
I found a web site that lists many supposed transitional fossils, but it has no pictures. If you click on a name it says things like, “Paramys -- Generalized early rodents; a mostly squirrel-like skeleton but without the arboreal adaptations. Had a primitive jaw musculature (which modern squirrels still retain).”
Okay, so it was an old squirrel. It may even demonstrate micro-evolution (within a species), but Darwin’s evolution needs macro-evolution (from one form to another) to be true. He said so himself, and there is not one undisputed, transitional fossil to back up his theory. Not one and there should be thousands and thousands. 148 years of science have completely failed him in this regard.
I first published this column in October, and got quite a bit of response from around the world. It was amazing how passionate people are about this topic. It was as though I had deeply insulted them by writing this. Several sent me pictures of whale and elephant fossils that are believed to be transitional forms. I was totally, completely unconvinced. The elephant fossils showed nothing more than micro-evolution. And about the whales: evolutionists believe life began in the seas and crawled up on land, right? But they believe whales began on land and crawled back to the sea. And as they evolved, their noses migrated from the tip of their faces to the top of their skulls. Shouldn’t there be fossils of whales with the blow hole slowly moving to where it is today? Well, there isn’t a single one. It’s utter nonsense and only a fool would believe it.
I most certainly want science and medicine to move forward, but Darwinian Evolution is a bust.
We all have philosophical leanings that influence us, I fully admit that. And if the evidence really did support Darwin’s evolution, I would have to adjust my faith somehow to match it. But this is simply not the case. (What I see in the animal kingdom is a common creator, not a common ancestor.)
I found a web site that lists many supposed transitional fossils, but it has no pictures. If you click on a name it says things like, “Paramys -- Generalized early rodents; a mostly squirrel-like skeleton but without the arboreal adaptations. Had a primitive jaw musculature (which modern squirrels still retain).”
Okay, so it was an old squirrel. It may even demonstrate micro-evolution (within a species), but Darwin’s evolution needs macro-evolution (from one form to another) to be true. He said so himself, and there is not one undisputed, transitional fossil to back up his theory. Not one and there should be thousands and thousands. 148 years of science have completely failed him in this regard.
I first published this column in October, and got quite a bit of response from around the world. It was amazing how passionate people are about this topic. It was as though I had deeply insulted them by writing this. Several sent me pictures of whale and elephant fossils that are believed to be transitional forms. I was totally, completely unconvinced. The elephant fossils showed nothing more than micro-evolution. And about the whales: evolutionists believe life began in the seas and crawled up on land, right? But they believe whales began on land and crawled back to the sea. And as they evolved, their noses migrated from the tip of their faces to the top of their skulls. Shouldn’t there be fossils of whales with the blow hole slowly moving to where it is today? Well, there isn’t a single one. It’s utter nonsense and only a fool would believe it.
I most certainly want science and medicine to move forward, but Darwinian Evolution is a bust.
We all have philosophical leanings that influence us, I fully admit that. And if the evidence really did support Darwin’s evolution, I would have to adjust my faith somehow to match it. But this is simply not the case. (What I see in the animal kingdom is a common creator, not a common ancestor.)
Some will call me a fool for believing God created the universe in 6 days. Actually, I don’t believe that. I don’t know how long it took. Hebrew scholars say each day in Genesis 1 can represent an epoch of time. That seems to fit the fossil, astronomical, and geological records. Imagine believing in what the evidence actually shows? Why don’t scientists do this? Could it be they are desperate to explain the universe without giving the creator the credit?
And I haven’t even mentioned the origin of life itself. Scientists are so desperate to keep God out of the loop, they teach that aliens may have brought life here. My son learned in school the other day that the earth’s oceans were filled with ice from comets. That’s a heck of a lot of comets hitting us to produce that much water! Why not just embrace that we were created by a God who loves us? Why is that so hard to do?
Can I prove that God exists empirically? No, it takes faith, but so does evolution! Look at a beautiful painting and tell me what takes more faith, to believe it was created by an intelligent artist, or that the image formed accidentally over eons of time. Like it or not, the evidence is on my side.
Einstein saw this, too. He believed the incredible order of the universe proves it was created. You can believe Darwin if you want, but I’ll go with Einstein on this one.
And I haven’t even mentioned the origin of life itself. Scientists are so desperate to keep God out of the loop, they teach that aliens may have brought life here. My son learned in school the other day that the earth’s oceans were filled with ice from comets. That’s a heck of a lot of comets hitting us to produce that much water! Why not just embrace that we were created by a God who loves us? Why is that so hard to do?
Can I prove that God exists empirically? No, it takes faith, but so does evolution! Look at a beautiful painting and tell me what takes more faith, to believe it was created by an intelligent artist, or that the image formed accidentally over eons of time. Like it or not, the evidence is on my side.
Einstein saw this, too. He believed the incredible order of the universe proves it was created. You can believe Darwin if you want, but I’ll go with Einstein on this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment