Evolution is a Bad Idea (Page 38)
terryanderson1986: In case someone missed my mussing on time travel .... Yesterday I proved the theory .. Yesterday for a hour I was a kid again .... I was drinking hot chocolate and watching a Charlie Brown carton ..... sometimes silly simple things bring a surprising amount of pleasure. There are scientists that actually believe that theoretically time travel is possible ... any thoughts?
Blackshoes: It's impossible to prove anything to those that cannot see beyond the tunnel vision of BS that they believe ..
The majority of researchers that discovered all of the Geological features on earth in the pass 'all atribulated geology to Noah's Flood !
So here's the Thing :were they telling the truth then', or are they that changed all of the original finding to suit they're beliefs and dogmatic faith telling the truth today ?
"A global flood as described in this myth is inconsistent with the physical findings of geology and paleontology. "
The above statement is just assumption n' opinion and IMO a outright lie !
All of biology screams Creation , all of Geology is witnesses to a global Flood .
If you cannot understand all of the scars and Geological evidence and mountains of facts that represent the titanic events that happen in the pass . You've miss the Ark !
Only 6 to 8 inches of bio soil average here on the planet ..
Much of coal and oil is buried above sea level ..
A titanic Flood easily explains Niagara falls, the Grand canyon, Crude oil , the lack of mountains erroding into the seas in less tha millions of years # polystrate fossils ,Diamonds the youth of the oceans , No civilization older than 10,000 years ,lack of buried trillions of bodies and populations of claimed millions of years humans existence, the rapid burial of huge numbers of fossils found ,the list is long !
The Grand canyon is over 9000 feet above sea level there is no erosion or marks between layers ! Little to any Bio mass . The Grand Canyon layering cannot have happen over millions of years ? It's all sedimentary rock !
It doesn't take geologist or paleologists to see the Grand canyon as a titanic event . Note also the grand canyon is not alone in the world of geology . There is Flood evidence all over the world all far above sea level ' to have been caused by local flooding !
Again: It's almost impossible for any of the evolutionist to have a open mind and use any reason or logic due to they constant and endless conditioning from Accademia pseudoscientific beliefs and preaching ..
Whether or Not the a global flood occurred Is inconsequential . Evolution remains a pseudoscience ,ridiclous ,and ludicrous theory ! Believed by the masses that have little real knowledge of the subject .. Those that truly believe in evolution and understand all the evidence ' have based they're belief in assumptions and faith .
Evolution is a religion ..
#"‘If one estimates the total thickness of the British Coal Measures as about 1000 m, laid down in about 10 million years, then, assuming a constant rate of sedimentation, it would have taken 100 000 years to bury a tree 10 m high, which is ridiculous."
Actually, I found the fossil on the beach. Where there often are others especially Jellyfish like those that from known German shales.
No need for a flood.
how long does it take for things to fossilize??
Blackshoes: It doesn't surprise me that you laugh .. You don't know any better
I don't like the use of the word stupid .. People are not stupid their easily deceived !
That Video has twisted every single fact and evidence that creation has presented ! Rock cannot be dated that's a fact Jack ..
Yet the point is moot , Even if you were too add a trillion years ..Abiogenesis is still impossible
Microevolution is only assumed to continued into Macroevolutionary ..
Then why aren't we seeing Macroevolutionary change happening with in any of the so called millions of species ! All of the reseach so far has only shown Microevolution
All of the reseach has Only proven Bacteria remains Bacteria ! Insects remain insects ! Horse remain horses ! Whale are not learning to walk !
Where is there any honesty in that video ? Insulting those that tell the truth and denying the facts ', is a typical tool of those than wish to control minds !
Finding dinosaurs within layers isn't Rocket science ',we know where almost everything is
If you used a color system for the layers', rather than a dating system ;, you'd still find dinosaur bones ..
Abiogenesis isn't possible '' That's a Scientific fact !
The claiming Abiogenesis as possible, without any reseach or evidence ', Doesn't make it science or possible !
Absolutely untrue ! T Rex Flesh and bone even Blood cells can be seen within the flesh ! It has has been found ! Another lie of evolutionist !
I don't like videos like yours Beav or the one below because they use insults to control minds .. When they say Life came from nothing they're saying that evolution is preaching the fairytale that life evolved from non life ! In other words NOTHING !
Even Atheist are beginning to realist how ridiclous the theory of evolution is
Twisting the fact and making up assumptions is all they have !
What kind of logic or reason is there to claim this sort of complexity came into existence on it's own ! Over unknown eons and imagined processes In supposed Primordial Oceans that have no evidence of ever existing ?
Your video is just endless racism against believers and the truth ..
Laugh all you want ', claiming you have missing links because you make assumption and opinion and long names may decieve fools ..
Lining up extinct apes and other species n' fossils that look alike ', may fool you ,and those you teach .
As for those that use their intellect, we need real science and not assumptions !
Show some real science and stop with the BS and rhetoric
Evolution died the day that the complexity of DNA was discovered ! IMO You'd have to be lacking any reason knowledge or logic to believe all the claims that evolutionist make !
Angry Beaver: Good onya, believe what you will, I aint gunna change your mind nor do I want to.
You must be some kind of genius scientist? Cos you sure do think you have the absolute truth hey?
We all apologise for being (as you keep pointing out) dumb gullible and rather ill informed, but we don't have a science degree as you seem to
Blackshoes: I tell the truth . Evolution is a faith based religion without any real science methodology within it ! That's a fact Jack ..
Assumptions and opinions that have all been proven false !
By evolutionist own reseach !
Macroevolution has never been observed either in the fossil record or in real time !
Accademia endlessly preaching about adaptational change which no one disagrees with doesn't make Macroevolutionary assumption true !
You want to believe you're little more than a bacteria and a monkey ? Knock yourself out ', Just don't call it science !
Nor do I need a degree to smell the BS being throw around by those that claim their better than others !
Blackshoes: And what does that have to do with Evolutionary paradigms ?
If you had any understanding of all the scientific evidence and facts ! You'd at lease know that Evolutionary theories are nothing more than a fairytale for adults !
I repeat maybe you didn't understand the question ?
You're welcome to enlighten me ..I 'll be waiting as I have been waiting for over 40 years ; Not one scientist nor anyone has ever come here with any real scientific evidence of Abiogenesis or transspecies devolvement whatsoever !
They have filled these pages with their opinions, assumptions, and worship of academia's BS ..
Yet: they all lack the one thing that could easily convince '. Just a little real Science and truth !
Angry Beaver: And they lack the absolute arrogance to claim that they and they alone know "THE TRUTH" and that anyone who disagrees is either stupid, misinformed or just plain liars as you constantly call them.
If you think every piece of research that has been shown to you is BS, then how about you show us what trials and experiments you did to form your hypothesis and then write "Blackies Theory Of Evolution Is Bunkum"
Also, please explain why you think you are way smarter than the majority of the scientific community and why you can so easily refute their hordes of research and experimentation?
And please don't copy paste somebody else's work which you happen to believe because it agrees with your biased world view, use your own test results...
Don't bother to use one of your usual insults on me as I am unfollowing, you can tell those who are left
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
Blackshoes: When you answer My question ? Angry I'll be glad to answer yours
"You're welcome to enlighten me ..I 'll be waiting as I have been waiting for over 40 years ; Not one scientist nor anyone has ever come here with any real scientific evidence of Abiogenesis or transspecies devolvement whatsoever ! "
Blackshoes: Why People Believe in Evolution
"The most insidious and damaging ideology ever foisted upon the mind of modern man is the notion that human beings are but animals, and the offspring of other, more primitive creatures. It is known as the theory of organic evolution. This concept has been reflected in recent years in such volumes as Phil Donahue’s, The Human Animal (1986), and in the earlier production, The Naked Ape (1967), (as man was characterized) by zoologist, Desmond Morris.
Tragically, multiplied thousands across the land have ingested, to a greater or lesser degree (sometimes even with a religious flavor), this nefarious dogma. But why? Have folks intellectually analyzed the matter, and thus, on the basis of solid evidence and argument, accepted this viewpoint. Not at all; rather, for a variety of emotional reasons, this concept is entertained so readily.
In 1974, Marshall and Sandra Hall published a book titled, The Truth: God or Evolution? In the opening section of this excellent volume, the authors listed several reasons why the evolutionary theory is embraced by so many. With credit to them for the germ thoughts, I would like to expand the discussion.
Since the issuance of Charles Darwin’s, The Origin of Species (1859), there has been a massive campaign to flood the “intellectual market” with evolutionary propaganda. Though such ideas by no means originated with Darwin, he popularized evolution more than anyone else. His book sold out (1,025 copies) the first day of its release.
Another significant milestone was the famous Scopes Trial, conducted in Dayton, Tennessee in July of 1925. Twenty-four year old John Thomas Scopes, a high school science teacher, had agreed to violate Tennessee’s Butler law, which forbade the teaching of any theory that holds man has descended from a lower form of life. The entire affair was “rigged,” but it brought together William Jennings Bryan (three-time Democratic nominee for president), who volunteered to represent the state, and the famed criminal defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, who defended Scopes. The trial, the first ever to be broadcast on radio, brought national attention to the issue of creation vs. evolution. As a result of that encounter, the concept of creationism was cast into an unfavorable light, and evolutionary dogma gained considerable respectability, albeit undeserved.
From that time, however, the theory of evolution has accelerated in influence via the media and the public school system. Today, there exists a determined campaign for the indoctrination of evolution, and millions have absorbed it into their minds.
Hand-in-hand with the brainwashing factor is the impact of intimidation. Supposedly, evolutionary doctrine has the endorsement of “science.” In 1966, H. J. Muller, a prominent geneticist, circulated a statement signed by 177 biologists. It asserted that evolution is a “scientific law” which is as firmly established as the rotundity of the earth.
Since most folks want to be thought of as “educated,” and as they have been led to believe that “all educated people believe in evolution,” they have defected to the Darwinian camp. Most of these individuals could not cite a solitary argument in defense of evolution; they simply believe it is fact because “the scientists say so.”
Informed people should know the following:
Evolution is not a scientific law.
Darwin’s “Theory” is actually an hypothesis that falls quite beyond the pale of the scientific method (observation, experimentation, and verification).
There are numerous laws, e.g., the laws of thermodynamics, genetics, etc., which contradict evolutionary assertions.
Evolution is “pseudo-science”
Many scientists dispute that evolutionary dogma is true science. Evolutionist Robert Jastow, for example, has conceded that belief in the accidental origin of life is “an act of faith,” much, he says, like faith in the power of a Supreme Being (Until the Sun Dies, New York: Warner Books, 1977, p. 52).
Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, has said:
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact ... It is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure jaggling ... If evolution occurred at all, it was probably in a very different manner than the way it is now taught” (Fresno Bee, Aug. 20, 1959).
It is hardly necessary, therefore, to yield to the pressures of evolutionary brow-beating. We ought not to be cowed down; we should be more aggressive, demanding that those who affirm their confidence in evolution argue their case logically.
Some have been thrust toward evolutionary ideology because they are repelled by the confused (and sometimes cruel) state of the religious world. Religionists have sacrificed their own children in the name of “gods” (cf. Jer. 19:5). In the Far East the cobra is worshipped as deity. “Christians” (so-called) have warred with the devotees of Islam.
Catholics allege that the bread and wine of “the Eucharist” magically turn into the body and blood of Jesus, while Protestants insist that such does not occur. Some contend that “baptism” is administered only by immersion, while others allege that “sprinkling” or “aspersion” will suffice. A rather unique view suggests that it takes all three “modes” to constitute the “one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 (cf. Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, Peabody: MA: Hendrickson, 1998, p. 201).
This disunity has driven many to disenchantment with religion in general, which includes a rebellion against divine revelation. This, of course, is precisely what Jesus indicated. He admonished those who professed a loyalty to him to be “one,” that “the world might believe” (Jn. 17:20-21); the Lord thus implied that disunity would produce the opposite effect, i.e., unbelief.
But people need to realize that a departure from the original does not negate the genuineness of the original. The segmented status of “religiondom” does not authenticate evolution. The fact of the matter is, the evolutionists are as divided as the religionists.
For example, Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, contended that biological life evolved here on earth. On the other hand, Sir Fred Hoyle has argued that “spontaneous generation” occurred in outer space! Some Darwinians speculate that the evolutionary process has occurred quite gradually, over eons of time. Supposedly this explains the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. Others (e.g., Richard Goldschmidt, and more recently, Stephen Gould of Harvard), suggest that evolution has proceeded rapidly, almost in snatches.
There is wholesale disagreement among the advocates of evolution. Those, therefore, who have fled from religion because of its disunity, have found no haven in Darwinism.
A World of Disorder
Many feel that our world environment, which is so characterized by brutality and suffering, is more consistent with Darwin’s tooth-and-claw, “survival-of-the-fittest,” principle, than it is with the notion that the earth is tended by a benevolent God. There might be some leverage in this argument if there were no other rational explanation for the ills of this globe.
But the fact is, a compelling case can be made for the proposition that life’s tragedies are the result of man’s rebellion against his Creator; and negative consequences have been allowed to follow as an educational process on behalf of the human family. In our recently published book, The Bible and Mental Health, we have an entire chapter chronicling some of the values of human affliction.
But here is another matter for consideration. While the believer has some basis for explaining the presence of “evil” in a fashion that is consistent with the existence of a powerful and benevolent God, the evolutionist has no reasonable explanation as to why there is a human sensitivity within man that judges some things to be “evil” and others “good.” How can a package of mere “matter,” which, according to atheism, is the sum of man, arrive at a rational, moral judgment concerning this phenomenon called “evil”? The problem of “evil” is more challenging for the evolutionist than for the creationist.
Many folks are impressed with the evolutionary case because it is buttressed, they believe, with tangible evidence, whereas religion seems to partake of a dreamy, surreal environment. After all, scientists have “fossils” to prove their case, don’t they?
This argument is exceptionally deceptive for the following reasons:
All of the fossils ever collected represent less than 1% of the potential evidence, according to David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum (Museum Bulletin, Jan., 1979, p. 50).
Not a single fossil has ever been discovered that clearly demonstrates a link between basic organism “kinds.”
All fossil evidence is subject to interpretation; and even evolutionists dispute the data.
For example, when Donald Johanson and his colleagues discovered the few bone fragments they dubbed “Lucy,” back in 1974, they alleged that this little creature walked on two legs, and was on-the-way to becoming human. Numerous evolutionists, however, seriously disputed this. We discussed this matter in considerable detail in the October, 1986 issue of the printed Christian Courier.
But Bible believers are not without “tangible” evidence in the defense of their case. Numerous archaeological discoveries have been made which support the historicity of the Scriptures (see our book, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology.
If, then, a general case can be made for the factual correctness of the Bible, one may reasonably conclude that its affirmations regarding the origin of humanity are correct as well.
Escape from Responsibility
Another reason why many so readily accept evolution as the explanation for mankind, is that such allows them to “cut loose” from God, and hence to be free from moral and religious obligations. They thus can become their own “gods,” and write their own rules. Richard Dawkins says that “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist” (The Blind Watchmaker, New York: W.W. Norton, 1986, p. 6).
This viewpoint was vividly illustrated some years ago when Clarence Darrow spoke to the inmates of the Cook County jail in Chicago. Hear him.
“I do not believe there is any sort of distinction between the real moral conditions of the people in and out of jail. One is just as good as the other. The people here can no more help being here than the people outside can avoid being outside. I do not believe that people are in jail because they deserve to be. They are in jail simply because they cannot avoid it on account of circumstances which are entirely beyond their control and for which they are in no way responsible” (Arthur Weinberg, Attorney For The Damned, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957, pp. 3-4; emp. WJ).
This shocking statement reveals the motive of some evolutionists.
People do not believe in evolution because they have been led there by solid evidence. They are stampeded into the Darwinian community by superficial, emotional, and personal factors. They only delude themselves when they think otherwise."
By Wayne Jackson
Laetoli Footprints Revisited
The Laetoli footprints are back in the news. Discovered in Tanzania in the 1970s by Mary Leakey below rock dated at 3.6 million years, the trail of tracks has classically been interpreted as the “first family” of upright-walking human ancestors. The tracks appear to belong to two individuals walking side by side and another behind. A presentation at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s annual meeting has revealed new information showing the tracks may belong to four individuals who were not walking together.
The tracks have long been re-buried for their preservation, but last February a portion was re-excavated to evaluate the area for a future museum. Only casts of the prints have been available to study for many years. But now, modern high-resolution three-dimensional photography has produced high-quality pictures for scientists to reexamine. Researchers at the Bureau of Land Management studied those photos and presented their findings at the meeting in Las Vegas.
The 3-D views reveal an extra set of toe prints inside one set of the prints. Furthermore, all the prints are the same size, without a smaller set attributable to a juvenile as previously thought. “So instead of having three individuals of different sizes, with the sizes related to different ages, there are probably four individuals of the same size moving through this area, perhaps not traveling as a group,” paleontologist Brent Breithaupt explained.
So instead of having three individuals of different sizes, with the sizes related to different ages, there are probably four individuals of the same size moving through this area, perhaps not traveling as a group.
Until now “any secondary interpretations had to be made from the first interpretations or from a cast or reproduction,” Neffra Matthews added. “So not having access to that primary set of data kind of channeled the way the interpretations would go from then on.”
Denver paleontologist Martin Lockley, commenting on the study, pointed out how modern biases had crept into our interpretation of the famous footprints. He said, “There's a temptation to say, 'Well, we've got this data and it must mean something. And where do we get our meaning? We get our meaning from our cultural experience. So we say, ‘We've got happy families today, here's a family 3.5 million years ago.’ . . . The whole concept of the family, possibly two adults and a baby, it's kind of like the three bears: mama, papa and baby.”
While correctly pointing out that scientists do interpret fossil evidence through their own biases, Lockley doesn’t go quite far enough. The right question should not be “how many went for a stroll across the volcanic ash?” The real question for the evolutionist is “what were they?”
The Laetoli footprints are sandwiched between rock dated at 3.6 and 3.8 million years old by potassium-argon dating.1
Current evolutionary wisdom maintains the earliest Homo human ancestor evolved about 1.90 million years ago. (There was a 2.33 million year old candidate, but it recently lost face. Read more about it at Sediba with a Little Sleight of Hand.) Thus, the Laetoli footprints cannot be interpreted as human, since humans weren’t supposed to be around yet. Even if they look human!
Despite many evolutionists’ insistence that the footprints belong to an extinct human ancestral ape called Australopithecus afarensis, the footprints appear to belong to modern humans, albeit barefoot ones.
And in fact they do. Despite many evolutionists’ insistence that the footprints belong to an extinct human ancestral ape called Australopithecus afarensis, the footprints appear to belong to modern humans, albeit barefoot ones. “Lucy” was found in faraway Ethiopia, although some possible Au. afarensis mandibles were found around Laetoli. But apes are knuckle-walkers and, even when walking upright, leave tracks distinctly different from humans. The ape pelvis and musculature is such that an ordinary bipedal gait is impossible. Yet the Laetoli tracks show an ordinary human bipedal gait. The tracks also have ordinary human arches and, when examined by evolutionist R. H. Tuttle were found to be completely consistent with barefoot modern-type humans.
Controversy has raged about whether Lucy walked upright. Did “she” even have an arched foot? Yet thanks to dating dogma, even anatomical evidence that Lucy’s family could not have been bipedal carries no weight. The afarensis apes must have walked upright at Laetoli, proving themselves to be viable human ancestors, because humans at Laetoli would be the ultimate anthropological anachronism. The popular interpretation of Laetoli, to be enshrined in a new museum, is slavishly committed to the evolutionary worldview. Even the anatomical facts dare not fly in the face of the dating game.
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on November 12, 2011
Evelyn99: Are you guys ever going to stop. We got the memo that you don’t believe in evolution. It’s getting old now. Besides it’s borderline mental illness much of what you guys write. Or maybe more how your brain is set to rally one agenda that is crazy. 99% of all steps forward in biology is based on evolution. Every biologist well say that it’s beyond proven. Better to listen to people that use this professional in a long and respectful education. Because they know exactly what they talk about. Every major university on the planet has evolution as a cornerstone fact that is fundamentally. Might as well argue that our planet is flat.
Blackshoes: You're welcome too enlighten us ,with any real evidence or facts of your claims ..
Typical of most evolutionist to make or repeated assumptions ,and accusations ..
Refusing to see beyond the tunnel vision and ignorance that has been conditioned into them by all the preaching of Accademia
Note that the truth is easily referenced and verified
Everything I've posted and stated Is reference and verifiable
Evolution is a pseudoscience based entire on assumption opinions and beliefs and the faith that Accademia knows more than the truth of the scientific evidence and the facts ! !
Just because you disagree and reject the truth makes it no less true !
Evelyn99: No it’s not if you ask a biologist everything that they base everything on is evolution. According to them it’s proven far beyond any reasonable doubt. Just dna alone is a proof of that life has evolved. Besides you never ever say anything to support your theory just bringing evolution down
Blackshoes: Please Enlighten me Of this " proven beyond any reasonable doubt ."
I never been present with any real evidence without Accademia's assumption and opinion added !
Note : that all biologists knows that abiogenesis is impossible and that Biogenesis is scientific fact !
"What Do Biologists Believe About Evolution?
Editor’s note: This is the second half of Roger Patterson’s point-by-point analysis of a survey that was given to ninth-grade biology students in a New York public school. The survey instructed students to answer “in terms of how you think biologists use and understand the term ‘evolution’ today [emphasis original]” regardless of whether the students personally agreed with those answers. After each question we have noted whether the teacher expected an answer of “true” or “false.” Please read part one to better understand the context of these questions.
9. Evolution is something that happens to individual organisms. (False)
Since an organism only lives for a short time, it can adapt to its environment but it cannot change to form a new species or kind through major adaptations. For example, our bodies can adapt to lower oxygen concentrations at high altitudes, but that trait will not necessarily be passed on to our offspring to bring about change in the future. To add major adaptations like a fish gaining lungs, the process would take much longer in the evolutionary view, so it is common for them to say that populations or species evolve over time, not individuals. In general, creationists would agree, but within the limits of kinds. Performance Indicator 3.1f says that “species evolve over time” and goes on to explain that process. From a biblical perspective, we know that molecules-to-man evolution never happens since God has created fixed boundaries for His creatures (Genesis 1:11–13, 20–25).
10. Evolution is a totally random process, or a series of “accidents.” (False)
Again, from a naturalistic process, everything is “random” because there is no purpose within any process that follows natural laws. While evolutionists believe that the laws of nature dictate the process of biological evolution, many try to argue that the overall process is not random, yet it is not directed. How exactly does a series of unguided laws produce a non-random outcome? To label this statement as false is to be inconsistent at best. One website explains that random mutations bring about differences in organisms and then “natural selection sorts out certain variations.”1 But natural selection is not guided by anything other than the laws of nature that happened as the result of a random universe. The NYSED standards also make it clear that natural selection is not guided. From a biblical perspective, we know that God established certain natural laws that govern our universe (e.g., Genesis 1:14; 8:22), which is why logic and order exist. A naturalistic evolutionary worldview has no valid explanation for the existence of ordered complexity.
11. Evolution was developed in order to destroy or undermine religion. (False)
While this statement is said to be false, this is a very subjective statement. Part of the motive of Charles Darwin hinged on his distaste for a God who would allow death and suffering. The geologist who greatly influenced Darwin, Charles Lyell, thought of himself as “the spiritual savior of geology, freeing the science from the old dispensation of Moses.”2 In his own words, Lyell wanted to “free the science of geology from Moses,”3 removing the Bible and the teachings of Moses on the origin of the earth to pursue uniformitarian science apart from God’s special revelation. Many others also believe that Darwin has made it possible to have an explanation of life that does not include religious myths like the Bible. This does not mean that every evolutionist rejects the idea of a god or religion, but many evolutionists have clearly stated that they embrace the religion of evolutionary thinking (humanism) to set aside other religions, particularly Christianity. However, biological evolution is absolutely incompatible with the clear teachings of Genesis 1–3 particularly, as well as the rest of the Bible. The Christian knows that evolution is another worldly philosophy (Colossians 2:8–10) that attacks God’s Word (Genesis 3:1) and exalts man and nature above God (Romans 1:20–25).
12. Evolution tells us that there is no God. (False)
Evolution does not require any concept of God. The science textbooks used in public schools explain evolution as an absolutely natural process and reject any notion of supernatural initiation or intervention! Many people attempt to add the idea of a god to evolution, but that is an inconsistent approach for any Christian who says they trust in the Bible as the Word of God. In fact, as presented in public schools, any suggestion that there was a god of any sort involved in the evolutionary process or origin of life could land a teacher under discipline. This attitude has been demonstrated in many court cases despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe God created mankind or, at the least, God-directed evolution. While evolution may not tell us there is no God, it certainly has no use for one. In fact, the NYSED standards even teach the students that their “behaviors have evolved through natural selection” and “resulted in greater reproductive success” (Performance Indicator 3.1i). From a moral perspective, Judges 21:25 demonstrates the danger of removing God and His moral absolutes from our daily lives, allowing everyone to do “what [is] right in his own eyes.”
13. Evolution can be compatible with all the world’s major religions. (True)
This can only be true for Christianity by adding “if we ignore, reinterpret, or rearrange major portions of the Bible.” The order of creation described in Genesis 1 is absolutely incompatible with the order of events of the evolutionary view of life, even if the “days” are viewed as long ages.
14. Evolution simply means “change.” (False)
While this is surely one of the definitions, those who embrace biological evolution mean ”evolution” to be understood as “the diversity of life on Earth today is the result of natural selection occurring over a vast amount of geologic time for most organisms” (Key Idea 3).
15. “Evolution is only a theory.” (False)
By placing this in quotes, it seems this is aimed at those who make this claim in an erroneous manner. When most people make this statement, they are mixing the common use of the word “theory” with the scientific usage (see statement 1). This is an argument that Christians should not use against evolution, since it is a misuse of the scientific term “theory.” I would suggest that evolution should not even be considered a theory under the scientific meaning; rather it is a hypothesis at best. The millions of years required for evolution means that it cannot even be scientifically tested or observed.
16. There is actually very little evidence for evolution. (False)
A common misunderstanding of evidence is in view here. There is not a battle over evidence—everyone has the same evidence; it is simply interpreted differently. Evolutionists don’t have more fossils than biblical creationists. Everyone has the same sun and stars to examine. It all comes down to the interpretation of the evidence. Evolutionists look at all of the fossils, molecular evidence, and other factors and, based on the doctrines of uniformitarianism and naturalism, conclude that all of the evidence can be interpreted to support evolution. Biblical creationists look at the same evidence, starting with the Bible, and conclude that God created everything. When examining the universe we live in, biblical creationists also interpret the evidence in light of the effects of the Fall and Curse as well as the Flood. These influences are automatically rejected by the “open-minded” scientists who are allowed to present their ideas in the public school textbooks.
17. One indication that evolution has not occurred is the total absence of “transitional organisms” (those with traits intermediate between two different groups). (False)
The answer to this question lies in the presupposed interpretation. If you already believe that fish turned into amphibians, then you will interpret an animal that seems to have some characteristics of a fish and an amphibian as an intermediate form. This is the evolutionist’s view of the Tiktaalik fossils. From a biblical perspective—rejecting the evolution of fish to frog—the fossil is interpreted as a kind of fish created by God that was buried during the Flood.
18. Fossils provide many problems which evolution cannot explain. (False)
To suggest that no new discoveries ever challenge the evolutionary understanding is quite an odd claim. The very nature of scientific discovery is to expect that new findings may change previous explanations. The discoverers of new fossils often claim that they will have to change what they have previously thought regarding their explanations of evolution. However, no fossil would ever cause them to reject their evolutionary claims, but to simply adjust their models. This was demonstrated recently when a rock containing what is clearly fossilized feathers was found in a layer that is supposed to be older than the dinosaurs from which birds are supposed to evolve.4 The evolutionary “model” is so plastic that it can accommodate any data, regardless of how contradictory it is to previous interpretations. Among evolutionists, there is a zealous religious commitment to evolution that is comparable to the way Christians view the Bible.
19. Most biological and medical and agricultural research assumes evolution is real. (True)
Really? Please name one technological advance in medicine or agriculture that is dependent upon an evolutionary explanation. Before you answer, consider that bacterial resistance to antibiotics and the pesticide resistance in plants are not examples to bolster evolutionary claims. And don’t take my word for it, but listen to an evolutionist on the topic:
Darwinian assumptions are not needed for the day-to-day work of science. If you look at the biochemical literature for scientific papers that try to explain how biochemical systems developed step-by-step in Darwinian fashion, there aren’t any. It’s startling. Most biologists completely ignore evolution in their work, and the ones that think about it simply look for relationships and don’t bother with Darwinism. My University of Georgia colleague in biochemistry, Professor Russell Carlson, has expressed the same sentiment to me privately.5
20. Evolution theory has been tested many times, and has always been supported by the evidence. (True)
This is such a broad statement that it is absolutely meaningless. Many particulars of the evolutionary explanations have changed, often quite radically, as new evidence has come to light. The only way this statement can be true is to assume that evolution means some vague notion of “change over time,” the very idea refuted in number 14 above. This self-contradictory statement points to the flawed and arbitrary nature of the evolutionary worldview.
21. Dinosaurs lived during the time of early humans. (False)
Evolutionists demand that dinosaurs died out over 60 million years before humans even began to evolve form an ape-like ancestor. This denies all of the biblical explanations of man and dinosaurs being created on the same day as well as much evidence that supports man living alongside dinosaurs. Here is another example of the incompatibility of Biblical Christianity and evolutionary theory, even though item number 13 demanded their compatibility.
22. Evolution involves individuals changing in order to adapt to their environment. (False)
See the explanation for item number 9 above.
23. There is actually considerable observable evidence against evolution. (False)
This is simply a negative restatement of item number 20. There can be no observable evidence for evolution since there was no one there to observe it happening over millions of years. Again, the flaw in the overall worldview of evolution is apparent since the description of evolution from the NYSED standards demands it happened over vast ages of geologic time during which there were no humans.
24. Science can properly infer what has happened in the past, based on evidence. (True)
See the distinction between observational science and historical science in item number 1. Evolutionists will say that the present is key to the past, but actually the past (as given in the Word of God) is key to the present (why there is so much death and suffering, for example). Christians must put their trust in the Bible, which reveals God’s eyewitness account of history above any manmade explanations.
25. The formation of complex structures, like the eye, can be readily explained by evolution. (True)
This statement does a little hand waving to make the evolutionary changes needed to form an eye from some other form of cells a simple affair. A statement like “readily explained” is intended to sway the reader to think that evolution is simply a fact. Saying that something happened doesn’t make it so. In fact, evolutionists must assert that the eye evolved multiple times and in multiple forms in the past. However, the Bible calls us to trust that the hearing ear and the seeing eye have been made by the Lord (Proverbs 20:12), not the blind watchmaker of evolutionary storytelling."
by Roger Patterson on September 27, 2013