This study on “Evolution A Jewish Deception,” is not all inclusive, as to do such a study would encompass every single creature on earth. Therefore, we submit the following for your review.
Evolution A Bankrupt Science
Due to the tremendous amount of unbelief in Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ in America today, and a seemingly worship of evolution, in government, I have compiled this presentation for your consideration. Please give me the courtesy of reading it before throwing it away.
Creation Not Evolution:The theory of evolution is that all forms of life derived by gradual modification from earlier and simpler forms or from one rudimentary form. It teaches a process in which something complex is developed by itself from a simple beginning. It accepts the existence of the cause or causes of the first substance and the force or forces working successive transformations from a lower to a higher form of matter and life.
The theory of cosmic evolution claims that from lower units of matter [atoms and molecules] the vast material suns, moons, stars, planets, and universes were formed by themselves. That of organic evolution teaches that the vegetable and animal kingdoms evolved from lower forms of life to what they are today.
Utter Foolishness of Evolution: Evolutionists do not deny the first cause. Their theory begins with matter or substance already in existence. They believe in primitive nebulosity and powers possessed by molecules. They do not try to account for how these came to exist, how molecules got their inherent powers, or how there came to be definite laws governing them so that they could produce, without failure, all things as we now have them. Their theory does not show why there is such bitter hatred against the God of the Bible as being that first cause.
It does not consider proven facts, but has absolute faith in a mere supposition which no fact has ever been produced to prove it. Its teachers seemingly deny God, the Bible, and known facts and continue to rob multiplied thousands of boys and girls of their simple faith in God and the Bible without a sting of conscience.
They manufacture multiplied drawings of human beings, different kinds, rising from a molecule through a monkey to the present man; and add guess upon guess of how life was in each stage of evolution, but refuse to accept the Bible truth of the origin of all things.
They speak glibly of denying God and His work in the creation and at the same time pose as having the only truth on the subject. Huxley said, "It is clear that the doctrine of evolution is directly antagonistic to that of creation...Evolution, if consistently accepted, makes it impossible to believe in the Bible."
Darwin (Charles Darwin's Uncle, factory owner Josiah Wedgewood, owned a business that worked White Children of five years of age in a chemical factory permeated with Lead Oxide, a deadly poison. Wedgewood acknowledged that the lead made the children "very subject to disease" but worked them anyway) taught that the more complex organs and instincts have been perfected by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Spencer said that evolution was purely mechanical and anti‑supernatural.
Earnest Haeckel said, "It entirely excludes the supernatural process, every prearranged and conscious act of a personal character. Nothing will make the full meaning of the theory of descent clearer than calling it the non‑miraculous theory of creation."
Thus the confessed evolution‑theory leaders are clear that no true evolutionist can be a Christian or a believer in the Bible. There is no place for God in evolution, hence no need of a belief in sin or a Saviour, heaven or hell.
Those in the church who try to harmonize evolution with the Bible rule God out in spite of themselves and are the enemies of both God and the Church.
No one branch of organic evolution has been proven, much less the main theory. It is a bankrupt, speculative, philosophy ‑‑ not a scientific fact.
True Science Rejects:
1). The theory that the hair is but elongated scales of prehistoric animals.
2). The legs of all animals developed from warts on aboriginal amphibians.
3). Eyes are but accidental development of freckles on blind amphibians that responded to the sun.
4). Ears came about by the air waves calling to spots on early reptiles.
5). The theory of natural selection.
6). Man came from monkeys.
7). The vast universes came from a few molecules.
8). Nothing working on nothing by nothing, through nothing, for nothing begat everything.
Fallacies of Evolution:
A). It accepts heathen and pagan philosophers in preference to God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Bible, Christians. Pagan Hindu and Greek Philosophers invented such a theory. Aristotle taught An Internal Spontaneity, which is the same idea of modern evolutionists who call it Resident Forces or Impersonal Eternal Energy.
B). It nullifies the idea of Bible creation by God. Blind force is substituted for the creative power of the personal and living God who created all things.
C). It degrades man from creation by God in the image of God to a monkey ancestry.
D). It degrades God's image to a mere beast.
E). It makes Christ, the second and last Adam, nothing more than a mere animal.
F). It does away with the fall of man, for how can a mere beast who has evolved steadily from a molecule to an intelligent being go backward and have a fall?
G). It does away with Bible miracles and the supernatural in all its forms. The only miracle or power of evolution is the inherent force of molecules.
H). It does away with the virgin birth, makes it impossible and unnecessary, and makes Christ a product of evolution in the same sense that it does all other men.
I). It denies the bodily resurrection of Christ and declares that it is contrary to the process of evolution of resident forces making progress.
J). It denies the atonement, for according to evolution there was no fall of man and therefore no sin to make atonement for. Regeneration by outside power is the direct opposite of the resident powers, the only power accepted by evolution.
K). It denies the 2nd advent of Christ and the final restoration and preservation of all things by the personal acts of God.
L). It does away with the authority of the Bible as a real revelation from a personal and living God, making it a lie, not only in regards to creation but every other doctrine.
To argue that the Christian can accept evolution on the grounds that the Bible is not to be taken literally, is a surrender to the foes of God, Christ, The Holy Spirit, the Bible, and all Christian teachings. The theory therefore, is anti‑God, anti‑Christ, anti‑Bible, anti‑Christian, and anti‑Intelligence.
Facts Disproving Evolution:The Bible in its entirety condemns the theories of both cosmic and organic evolution. It declares in no uncertain terms that God created [brought into existence] all the material and moral creations; the animate and inanimate things, and that He is the first and last cause of all existing universes and the things therein.
The Bible declared God created the heavens and the earth; God created great whales and every living creature (Genesis 1:20); God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them (Genesis 1:26‑28; 2:7; 19‑25; 5:1‑2; 9:6); All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made (John 1:3); God created all things by Jesus Christ (Ephesians 3:9; Colossians 1:15‑18); The upholding of all things by the word of His power (Hebrews 1:3); Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created. (Revelation 4:11)
It is a law of nature that nothing reproduces anything greater than itself. If this is true of all species today, of which we have millions of examples, then it was true originally. The vast creations of matter and life had to come into existence by a superior power, not an inferior force.
One thing is certain: All intelligence and matter could not have come from one or any number of molecules of unintelligence. The most that has ever been done or can possibly be done is to demonstrate the law of improvement of a species through breeding and cultivation.
No New Species Has Been or Can Be Produced by Such A Law: If left alone the plants and animals would quickly degenerate, not improve themselves in any degree, which will be shown below.
Therefore, we must conclude that no amount of unintelligent matter could produce intelligence or intelligent beings ‑‑ anything higher than itself. The intelligent and innumerable self‑producing species of creatures, each with its own eternal and consistent traits, distinct flavored, and infinite combinations of chemicals, could never be the product of unintelligent matter.
Each one of the millions of creatures that reproduce their own kind by fixed and eternal laws must be the work of an all‑powerful and all‑wise Creator.
The Bible declares that everything created by God was given the power to reproduce its own kind. No one thing could break this law and reproduce any other kind. 1656 years later it had not been broken.
Now, after thousands of years the laws of reproduction is still unbroken. The sponge is still a sponge and has not become an oyster, octopus, a turtle, frog, fish, or crab.
None of These Have Ever Reproduced Anything Except Their Own Kind:No lowly earth‑worm has ever turned into a spider, tarantula, scorpion, lizard, tortoise, snake, or crocodile. No bug, bird, or animal has ever changed from its own kind or reproduced another kind which was fertile and could produce a new kind.
The crossing of an ass and a mare, for instance, will produce a mule which cannot reproduce itself. No monkey has ever produced a man and the missing‑link is still missing. All this is quite remarkable in view of the fact that there are over 2,000,000 different species of plant and animal life.
Each species proves the law of reproduction established by God‑‑ after his own kind. It is claimed that there are more than 1,000,000 species of insects. Species of beetles number 250,000; butterflies and moths 110,000; shell‑fish 80,000; snails 80,000; arachnids 60,000; flies 40,000; barnacles, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp 25,000; fish 20,000; bees 10,000; wasps 10,000; worms 9,000; ants 5,000; birds 1,200; and cockroaches 1,000. Besides these, there are many species of larger animals, and over 180,000 species of plants; species of fungi number 100,000; algae 20,000; mosses 20,000; corals 5,000; and sponges 3,000 besides many other species of living things.
All species exist in great variety, and the so‑called proofs of the evolutionists are merely variations, or minor changes within the same species. Out of billions of living organisms and fossils there is no evidence of the slightest tendency to evolve out of the original kind to which each belongs, into a new species. There is only the evidence of development and normal growth; but these are not evolution.
Improvement of a species and new varieties within the species are not evolution. The theory of evolution teaches TRANSMUTATION, a change in nature, substance, form, and alteration of essence by a slow and gradual process of Mutation from one species to another, and from the lower to the higher.
This has never been done, nor can it be done. In nature we find endless variety within each species of kind, But No Change From One Species to Another!
Without A Change of Species There Can Be No Evolution!God has made life so that it interbreeds in closely related variations; and when interbreeding is attempted between different kinds of species it is found that there is an impassable gulf which cannot be crossed.
Life multiplies abundantly. One bacterium in 24 hours can produce 281,500,000,000,000 descendents. A fly can lay 500 eggs in a season, each of which can develop into a fly capable of laying 500 eggs of its own. If all the eggs hatched and survived the original fly would have enough descendents in 6 months to cover the earth with flies, to a depth of about 50 feet.
A common potato bug is said to be capable of producing 60,000 offspring in a season; a single sunfish lays 3,000,000,000 eggs a season; an oyster 100,000,000; a codfish 10,000,000; a toad 20,000; spiders have 2,000 babies in one cocoon; a logger‑head turtle lays 1,000 eggs at a time; and a pair of meadow mice could produce 1,000,000 offspring in a single year. An elm tree produces 1,584,000,000 seeds and a barley seed 18,000 grains. But out of the billions of yearly reproductions of nature, Not one Monkey's tail has been produced by anything except a Monkey. There is no proof of man in various stages from a molecule to a monkey, or from a monkey to a man!
There can be no Evolution without the power of reproduction in living things. Since reproduction is a prior condition to Evolution, it cannot be a product of it!
Hence, we face the logical necessity for the creation of life and its power of continued reproduction. The power of reproduction is not in the embryo, but only in the mature parent. An egg cannot produce an egg.
It is also true that the egg is not improvable by itself. Improvement can come only in and through the mature form. Therefore, the parent‑form of life must have been created in the beginning to have produced an egg from which offspring alone can come.
Science has proven that dead matter cannot generate life; and that only life can come from pre‑existing life. When test tubes were filled with hay and other organic matter, when all life‑germs were completely destroyed, when the tube was hermetically sealed to exclude outer air, and while it was absolutely free of living germs, not one vestige of life appeared.
The attempt to get the living out of the dead completely failed. The theory of spontaneous generation of evolution has had to be given up. It is now recognized that life can only come from life. All life is dependent upon other life; the lower upon the higher; the simple upon the complex; the powerless upon the powerful; the impersonal upon the personal; the unintelligent upon the intelligent; the non‑existing upon the existing; the natural upon the spiritual; the temporary upon the eternal. Nothing can come from nothing or be produced by nothing.
The argument of evolution from embryology; that embryos of different forms of life are somewhat alike so they must have come from a common ancestor; has utterly failed, as have the theories of natural selection, and the survival of the fittest. The similarity of embryos and their fast development to full growth are contrary to the principles of the evolution teachers have to argue due to the fact that no single example of evolution from one species to another can be cited.
Design In Infant Nutrition:By definition, evolutionary scientists believe that life came through random chance processes, including natural selection. However, in n ature there is a chorus of voices with the message that evolutionary theory does not blend with either simple or complex observations.
In order to maintain good health, the following must be present simultaneiously and in proper balance: organic vitamins, minerals, essential fatty acids, eight essential amino acids, and unrefined carbohydrates. These are all present in human breast milk, as are hundreds of other less-well understood food factors. The more the human breast and its milk are studied, the more obvious it is that neither random chance nor survival of the fittest could explain their design and complexity.
Paul Palma, M.D., and Eugene Adcock, M.D., of the University of Texas Medical Center, along with Dr. Buford Nichol of the Children's Nutrition Research Center in Houston, Texas, are among the many researchers who have discovered some amazing facts about human milk. In their studies, Macro-hutrients, micro-nutrients, immunological factors and psychosocial factors were analyzed. Their results are discussed below. (Practical Therapeutics, 1981, Vol. 24, pp. 123-181, Palma, P.A., Adcock III, E.W. "Human Milk and Breast-feeding.”)
Macro-Nutrients:The calorically important compoents of milk are the macro-nutrients.
1). Carbohydrates: lactose, a disaccharide, composed of glucose and galactose.
2). Lipids: polyunsaturated long and medium chain fatty acids.
3). Proteins: nitrogen-containing compounds in the form of long chains of amino acids.
The caloric content and the nutrient balance of the mother's milk change dramatically according to the infant's needs. Our most brilliant neonatologists with the best computers could not design a better balanced product for an infant regardless of his needs at whatever age or stage of development. The concentration of these nutrients is dramatically affected by two factors; the duration of gestation before birth (i.e., is the baby premature or mature at birth); and the stage of lactation.
Duration of Gestation:
Lipids: The premature infant has increased caloric needs. Fifty percent of milk's caloric content comes from lipids. The milk provided for a premature infant has more lipids than the breast milk for a mature or term infant. At this time the mother's milk also has higher levels of lipases, enzymes which make the lipid content bioavailable to the infant. But it must be fresh, for lipases deteriorate in pooled mother's milk or cow's milk, particularly if it has been pasteurized.
Protens: It is now known that during the first month of lactation, the nitrogen and ptotein content decline. However, the premature mother's milk is as much as 20% higher in proteins. In evolutionary terms, this weak premature infant should be culled out by a survival of the fittest process, but three advantages for the premature have been found in this well-designed milk.
1). The ratio of cysteine to methionine is high, thereby overcoming the limited biosynthetic capabilities of the premature child to produce cysteine.
2). Taurine, aminoethylsulfonic acid, which may be essential for neonates, is present in high concentrations in the mother's milk for prematurely born infants. Taurine is very low in cow's milk.
3). The potentially toxic aromatic amino acids, phenylalanine, and tyrosine, are lower in concentration in human milk than in animal's milk. Human milk proteins are more easily assimilated by the child than the proteins in animals' milk. Some of these proteins are absolutely vital for the healthy development of the infant's immune system.
Lactose: Lactose and the enzyme lactase, which greatly accelerates lactose digestion, are balanced in the milk at concentrations ideally suited for the maturity of the baby. In summary, the design of the milk is perfect in caloric content, amino acid concentrations, and in the enzyme concentrations of both lipase and lactase, ideally meeting the infant's needs. Its make-up far surpasses that of any formula, or even milk from animal sources.
Stage of Lactation: Lactation can be divided into three stages: the early milk or colostrum; transitional milk, from one to four weeks; and mature milk, changing as the baby ages. (Barnes, L.A., ed., Advances in Pediatrics, Vol. 26, Chicago: Yearbook Medical Publishers, Inc., 1979, pp. 136-61, Nichols, B.L. Nichols, V.N. "Lactation.”) Also, during a single meal the concentration of the milk even changes between early feeding and the late feeding time. Theories as to why suggest that these changes stabilize the volume of the fluid in the baby's circulatory system.
Where would the human be if the first mother's breast had not yet developed the ability to produce just one of several specific enzymes to speed the digestion of the lactose, lipids, or proteins found in her milk? What if one of the essential amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, etc., were not in a bioavailable form or in optimal concentrations in the first mother's milk?
Human kind would not have existed through one generation. Certainly a Designer is a necessity. Random chance equals no chance in the case of life and death. Time for development equals death before the complex enzymes could develop.
Survival of the fittest? Why would a random process protect the weak, premature infant with such a complexly designed, ever-changing milk? The Designer syas that His strength was made perfect through weakness.
Micronutrients:If the study of the macro-nutrients in milk is not convincing, take a brief look at the micro-nutrients. Micro-nutrients include vitamins and minerals. They are found in very small concentrations.
Hundreds of other nutrients are also in breast milk; we do not know how most of them function. One of the functions that is known is to enhance the bioavailability (or ease of utilization) of other micronutrients. Researchers many years ago wrongly concuded that human breast milk did not have vitamin D, and supplemental formulas were recommended.
Years later it was learned that a liquid soluble type of vitamin D, formerly undetected and unique to breast milk, was present which totally met the needs of the infant when combined with the unknown food factors in milk. The whole complex design is greater than the sum of its individual components and greater than our ability to understand.
Iron and zinc are similar examples in human breast milk. The breast-fed baby has no need for supplements. However, cow's milk, formulas, and pooled pasteurized human milk all need supplements to prevent deficiencies.
Immunobiology:The early milk, or colostrum, sets in motion the infant's immunoreactive system. There are two classes of immunoactive components in the early milk; cells and soluble protein factors. Human milk is a truly living fluid in which antibodies and cells move about. The cells in the mother's milk not only attack bacteria that may be harmful to the baby, but apparently they have the ability to produce antibodies that destroy bacteria and viruses as well. Evidently the infant who is exposed to infecitons and nurses from its mother, also produces changes in the mother's breast. Within hours the next milk contains antibodies and immunoglobulins to protect the baby before the infant exhibits visible systoms.
Psycholsocial:There are many other advantages for breast feeding which have not been mentioned. We should at least mention the more tender benefits to both mother and child of breast feeding. The close contact entails tactile, auditory, olfactory, and visual interchange which reinforce bonding. This deepening relationship may even be more important than the advantages discussed above.
These virtues have been observed in many studies. The longer the duration of breast feeding, the more measurable the quality of mother-child bonding. Benefits have been noted for nursing up to two years after birth. There is also a significantly lower risk of child abuse and failure to thrive.
These characteristics of mother's milk and breast feeding would indicate an extensive design which makes the practice "very good" for healty, weak, and sickly infants. "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger." (Psalm 8:2)
This verse has two words speaking of a suckling nursing babe. It also indicates that an infant has special strength against his enemy. Is there any evidence that infants have prolonged benefits from the mother's milk or that the parent might also be stronger?
Infants who have been breast-fed have been studied up to five years of age. They have a much lower incidence of diarrhea, urinary tract infecitons, pneumonia, vomiting, asthma, earaches, childhood allergies, and crib death. Also, viral and bacterial infecitons, cancers, and learning disabilities are less of a problem, as are psychological problems. Parents of these children will be spared much anguish and will also avoid costly medical care. Furthermore, in the New England Journal of Medicine, (Vol. 330, 1994, p. 81) the incidence of breast cancer was shown to be decreased by 25% in women proportional to the amount of time that they breast-fed infants during their lives.
"There is a way which seemeth right unto man; but the end thereof are the ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12)
How many have suffered because man thought he had a better idea and recommended baby formulas with supplements instead of the real thing? The value of a formula today is measured by how close it can come to the mother's milk, but still they fall short.
Is there any way random chance (even controlled by "Mother Nature," "Mother Earth," or millions of mutation) could produce such an awesome product? If the mother's milk was not well-designed from the beginning, humankind would be extinct. Human milk cries the message of design! Time (years, or millions of years) would be the enemy of humans if this milk were not fully designed from the beginning. Thank the Creator! (Impact #259, January 1995; by Rex D. Russel, M.D. *Dr. Russell is interested in the heath benefits gained by obedience to the Creator's ordinances and commands. He is a vascular invasive radiologist at Holt Krock, Ft. Smith, Arkansas. He trained at Holt Krock and at the Mayo Clinic)
Human and other embryos pass through various stages of growth very rapidly. In the case of some, the progress of growth is so rapid that it is miraculous. Thus, evolutionists are forced to believe in miracles, which they deny. In other miracles, which they deny, in other fields, but sustain in their own, in the effort to prove their claims.
It is now known that there are radical differences between the embryos of vertebrates [backboned animals] and invertebrates [animals without back‑bones] which we would not have if all things had a common ancestor. Some similarity among embryos of all forms of life should be expected, since all start individually from a single life‑germ or a combination of two.
If a botanist would be asked the difference between an oak, a palm‑tree, and a lichen, he would declare that they are separated from one another by the broadest line of classification. But if the germs of these plants were placed before him, to choose one from the other, he could not do it. Under the most powerful microscope they would yield no clue.
If analyzed by the chemist they would still keep their secret. The same is true of the life‑germ of various animals and man. No one can tell which is which. What makes the little speck grow into the millions of different kinds of creatures?
What is there which the eye cannot see that determines which of the many creatures it shall be? Only a personal and an infinite intelligent Being could make such unfailing laws of reproduction; after his kind. It is further argued that man and monkey are so similar that they must have come from a common ancestor.
This is neither sound logic nor sound science. Resemblance proves nothing but resemblance. Similarity proves nothing but similarity. Resemblance and similarity run throughout all nature in things that have no connection with each other.
Resemblance or similarity on some points is to be expected even through we accept creation by God. Such only magnifies the fact of an intelligent operator. This is true whether it is the Creator or a manufacturer as in every factory of man. The wheel, for example, is the same in the wagon, the car, locomotive, and plane. But such similarity does not prove that the wagon evolved into an automobile, then into a locomotive, then into an airplane, and finally into a rocket.
All animals and men have the same kind of faculties to breathe, cat food, and perform other bodily functions, but no such similarity proves close relationship. God made them thus so that all could exist alike in the same air and on similar foods.
The dissimilarities between man and lower animals, and not only in body, but also in brain, spirit and soul faculties prove that they are NOT related. The differences between man and monkey are so wide that any single bodily part is sufficient in itself to prove whether it is a part of man or monkey.
Evolutionists themselves confirm this fact by their promptness in deciding whether a bone is from a monkey or a man. There are hundreds of differences between the bodies of men and apes, and thousands of differences between those two in mental, moral, spiritual, and habitual matters which prove evolution of man from apes or lower life and impossibility. Degeneration ‑‑ The similarities between man and lower animals could be used to prove a process of degeneration from man more than a process of evolution to man.
The Bible teaches, God made man before He made land animals; on day 6. There‑fore, man came first, and then the monkey. Darwin's argument that plants and animals have within themselves tendencies to vary of their own accord in many and all directions to an unlimited degree, has been disproved many times.
Mendel's experiments prove conclusively that plants and animals, even under man's selective skill in breeding, do not tend to vary in all directions and to an unlimited degree; but that the variations are within strict limits and work according to fixed laws producing unvarying results.
The theory of natural selection and of inheritance of acquired characters has failed for lack of proof. The forms of vegetables, plants, and animals that man succeeds in improving by human selection and cultivation revert rapidly to type as soon as man's directing skill is removed.
In all man's directing skill is removed. In all man's selection and cultivation he can work only within the limits of the species. No change into new species has been produced either by natural or artificial selection. The iron law of sterility stands guard at the far frontiers of the species and everything continues to reproduce after his kind.
There is a certain potency of development implanted in all things, but such potential powers are led out into actual development or improvement, not through resident forces, as evolution teaches, but only through outside intervention and intelligent help.
Man can develop the wild rose into the American Beauty, or the wild pony into the Kentucky Thoroughbred, by selection, better environment, breeding, etc., but it is most significant that these improvements do not continue to increase, or even persist, when things are left to themselves. The rose reverts once again into a wild rose if left alone, and the horse begins to revert back to its degenerated type the very minute man's skill is omitted.
If one takes a flock of highly developed pigeons, with all their shades of color and variety of markings, and turns them loose in the forest to see if they will improve or degenerate, he will find in a few years that they have all returned to one type. Compelled by an unfailing natural law, all will revert to common colors instead of being a variety with beautiful markings.
Improvements brought about by care and selection in breeding will be gone, Proving The Theory of Evolution To Be A Failure!
The same thing will happen to man. If he neglects himself, he will revert to a worse and lower type of man, like those who have been discovered on desert islands or in jungles. If the mind is neglected it will degenerate into imbecility and ignorance. Solitary confinement has the power to unmake men's minds and leave them idiots. If the conscience is neglected it will run off into lawlessness and sin. The soul that is neglected will go into ruin and depravity. Only three possibilities are before us; balance, improvement only to a certain degree, or degeneration.
The Bible Question:The Bible question is: How shall we escape if we neglect it? These three possibilities face every man. He has a desire to better himself and yet he is constantly beset with a gravitation to sin and the law of death working in his very being. We say that nature is full of life, but in reality it is full of death. Plant life and animal life are kept alive by a temporary endowment which gives power over the elements that cause death.
Withdraw the elements of life and the true nature will be revealed. Life is merely the suspension of these destructive powers; the sum total of the functions that resist death. Spiritual life is the same; the sum total of the functions that resist sins. If we neglect the use of these powers death will result. The man who does not properly use the powers to live is as much dead as a man falling 500 ft., is as good as dead the first foot of the fall. Unless he is stopped he is a dead man. One who continues to neglect life is dead. If we neglect it, degeneration sets in. If we use the powers of life to resist sin, we live.
To use the argument that the savages of heathen darkness are more like monkeys than men in the civilized world is no proof of evolution; it is proof of degeneration. Man fell from original sinlessness and the highest degree of intelligence to the present status. Adam had more intelligence the day he was created than all‑men together have now. He could name all the things God created, but all the men today who learn all their lives cannot yet do this.
Degeneration:Degeneration: Explains the present uncivilized parts of the world, and the so‑called cavemen; the Peking man, the Heidelberg, the Neanderthal, the Cro‑Magnon man and others. All problems between true science and the Bible can be solved by the facts of degeneration, or with the Bible truth of a pre‑Adamite world.
Belief in the pre‑Adamite system allows that the earth could be millions of years old. Pre‑historic animals could have been a part of that system, as well as any different type of man, if such is ever excluded from Adam's race by established proof.
Fossil remains have been referred to as one of the strongest proofs of evolution. But evolutionists themselves acknowledge that this proof is extremely fragmentary, limited, and obscure due to the fact of only a few fossil remains. Hence, they are forced to guess without proof.
The Missing Links Between Man and Monkey Have Never Been Found: The manufactured bones of pre‑historic men are all fakes. The Piltdown man, for example, was no man at all. The story is that in a gravel pit in Sussex, England near Piltdown Common, two or three bits of skull bone, a piece of jaw‑bone, and a tooth were found by different persons in different places in different years. From these few scraps so‑called scientists constructed the Piltdown man and named it the Dawn‑man of the dateless past. From the same bones another later type was made by another team of scientists.
Finally it was acknowledged that the jaw‑bone which was unquestionably human; the Peking‑man of China was made from human skull fragments found in a cave, in 1929; the Swanscombe‑man of England was made from the back and one side of a woman's skull; the Fontechevade‑man of Africa was made from an ape skull found in a number of other ape skulls and bones in Africa; and the Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii, the Nebraska‑man, was made from a single pig tooth said to be 1,000,000 years old.
Pictures of these, the man‑made specimens, have been the so‑ called proof shown in the school textbooks. Such are the Hoaxes which are being bassed upon our innocent boys and girls by some educators in the name of science!
The old geological scheme to prove evolution has also been repudiated. Instead of the older rocks being found at the bottom and the younger rocks at the top, as would be the case if evolution were true, the opposite is often the case.
This explodes the evolution‑theory of natural building up of the strata. The fact of two universal floods instead of one [One in Lucifer's day and one in Noah's day] and a later division of the earth can easily explain the fossil remains being where they are. In Lucifer's flood God turned the earth upside down by earthquakes. This accounts for fossil remains being found deep in the earth underneath many layers of solid rock.
Such things never would have been there without the earthquakes and judgment of God. It is evident that many fossils came from a great catastrophe, being entombed in the strata instead of being slowly buried by sedimentation over millions of years. We read of whole schools of fish, covering large fields which have been found with every indication of a violent and sudden death.
They are not in a relaxed position but often with their head twisted around to their tails and every fin extended, which is the position in which a fish dies when overtaken by an enemy or some catastrophe. Historians tell us that the earth has undergone one great and indescribable catastrophe.
This happened during Lucifer's flood or when the earth was divided into continents. That there was a dividing of the earth in the days of Peleg is clear from Genesis 10:25. Such a shaking up of the entire earth, as well as the flood‑catastrophe of Lucifer's time could have caused fossils to become deeply submerged.
The Arctic regions give clear evidence of a sudden calamity. In their extensive fields of fossilized and frozen mammoths, where multitudes of giant creatures have been found, some have been discovered with their stomachs filled with undigested food, and in some instances with their mouths also shows that they were feeding quietly when the crisis came and that they were destroyed with suddenness.
That the Arctic regions had tropical climate when these beasts were destroyed seems true, for they had tropical food in their mouths. Evidently they were frozen immediately when God withheld the sun, moon, and stars from shining on the earth during Luficer's flood.
Regarding Noah's flood, God commanded male and female of every species to be kept alive in the ark to replenish the earth after his kind when the flood was over. Had the evolutionists been right, this would have been unnecessary. Noah could have merely saved a couple of molecules, turned them loose after the flood and eventually, we could have the innumerable living things again in all their varieties.
If evolution is responsible for all the vast creations in space and the endless varieties of species of life on the innumerable planets, then why is the law not working today? And why do we not have actual and unquestionable examples of the various stages of evolution from the lowest to the highest forms of life? If evolution ever worked, it should be working today so that every form or stage of development could be seen as proof that the lower forms of life will eventually be the higher in the ages to come.
Is it not strange that the process has been on earth to observe the law of evolution at work? Is it not strange that man has not produced one example of change from one species to another, not even to the losing of the monkey tail and hair?
There is evidence now that the whole world and all in it are degenerating and moving toward some climax or judgment and recreation, instead of evolving upward into higher and better forms. In chemistry, which is closest to the deeper facts and forces of inanimate matter and life, there is no evidence of a surge upward. Not only are the laws of chemical affinity static and unchangeable as to their operations, but there is a disintegrating tendency downward instead of upward that seems to characterize all matter. The tendency of atoms of high atomic weight to break up into other atoms of lower weight seems to be the universal tendency of all matter. Scientists declare that this is also true in the vegetable and animal kingdoms.
The evolution theory is not only absurd ‑‑ its so‑called proofs are so contradictory that they cause increasing doubt regarding its guesses. Tyndal says that the world began in a fire‑mist that contracted as it became cold; but Spencer says it was a cold‑cloud that became heated and contracted. The age of man is estimated all the way from 550,000,000 years to as little as 6,000,000 years. The age of the earth is put by guessers as 10‑billion to the lowest estimate of 10‑million years. This proves nothing but the unreliability of data which is used in the effort to prove diverse conclusions.
Science vs. Reason:The world of science has not escaped the attention of the conspiracy, and its interest has been spurred of late by the sudden increase in the research into a competing theory. The basic foundation block of current scientific thought is the theory of evolution. So important is this theory that there are those who say that anyone finding fault with it is ignorant: "No informed person doubts any more that the many animal types that inhabit the earth today are the results of a process of evolution." (Time Magazine, April 7, 1980, p. 65)
This position is further strengthened by those who claim that evolution is no longer a theory: "...evolution is not a guess, it is an established Theory that is fully proved by known facts." (The Evolution of Man, Charles H. Kerr & Co., 1905, p. 3)
The purpose of evolution, according to the Socialists, at least in a book entitled "Evolution of Man," published by the Socialist Worker's Party, is clear: "Modern Socialism is closely allied to the modern scientific theory of evolution. If laborers understand science, they become socialists." (The Evolution of Man, pp. 9‑10)
But the theory of evolution has another purpose, more pervasive than the desire to convert the reader to the theories of Socialism. Julian Huxley, a scientist, has explained that: "Darwin pointed out that no supernatural designer was needed since natural selection could account for any known form of life. There was no room for a supernatural agency in its evolution." (Issues In Evolution, Sol Tax, Editor, p. 45)
So evolution has two direct, non‑competing purposes: to convince the student that Socialism is the partner to evolution, and secondly that there is no creative force in the universe. Huxley further went on to point out that: "The supernatural is being swept out of the universe... God can no longer be considered as the controller of the universe... Operationally, God is beginning to resemble, not a ruler, but the last fading smile of a cosmic Cheshire cat." (Evolution...God's Method of Creating, Plain Truth, June‑July 1974, p. 19)
The Masonic Order also places a strong emphasis on the theory of evolution, according to W.L. Wilmhurst's book entitled "The Meaning of Masonry," adds: "This, the evolution of man into superman, was always the purpose of ancient mysteries. Man, who has sprung from the earth and developed through the lower kingdoms of nature, to his present rational state, has yet to complete his evolution by becoming of a god‑ like being and unifying his conscience with the Omniscient..." (The Meaning of Masonry, by W.L. Wilmhurst, pp. 47, 94)
Recently, especially in the latter half of the 20th century, a competing theory to evolution was being developed. It is important to understand this new theory and its effect on evolution and science. The two competing theories may be defined as follows:
1). Organic Evolution: the theory that all living things have arisen by a materialistic, naturalistic evolutionary process from a single source which itself arose from a dead, inanimate world.
The Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. has defined evolution in this manner: "Evolution is the concept that species change through time. Over millions of years small changes accumulate to become large differences, new species arise, others die out. Rates of change vary greatly, and directions of change are unpredictable." (Evolution at the Smithsonian, Henry Morris, p. i)
The competing theory is defined as:
2). Creationism: the theory that all basic animal and plant types were brought into existence by acts of a Creator, using special processes which are not operative today.
Notice that both theories are just that: theories. Neither can be proven in the scientific laboratory. Both attempt to explain the Earth and its inhabitants from the various facts existent in the world.
The Creationists claim that there are two scientific laws that disprove evolution. These laws are called the Laws of Thermodynamics (Thermodynamics is defined as the science of heat exchange or heat transfer). These Laws are as follows:
1). The First Law of Thermodynamics: The total amount of energy remains constant. Energy is not being created anywhere in the universe, it is only being changed.
2). The Second Law of Thermodynamics: Energy is changing through decay. Energy becomes less available for further work.
One of the world's leading Creationists, Dr. Henry Morris, has stated that: "The Second Law demonstrates that there must have been a beginning or otherwise the universe would already be dead. The First Law demonstrates that the universe could not have begun itself, since none of the processes creates anything." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, by Henry Morris, p. 19)
Dr. Morris continued: "The real law of change, however, is one of decay, NOT OF GROWTH, a change 'DOWN' instead of a change 'up.' Thus the laws of thermodynamics sharply conflict with the philosophy of evolution." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 19)
Both of these theories look at the universe and then attempt to explain its origin. These two theories are contrary to each other. Evolution theorizes that The Earth created life through a gradual process when first forms of life were created and then the higher forms evolved from the earlier.
The second theory, Creationism, contends that all animal as well as all human life was created at nearly the same moment. Except for the White Man who came along about 6,000 years ago. Neither theory can be reproduced in the laboratory, and neither is taking place now. The evolutionists explain that the first cause of life was chance. The Creationists explain it as the act of a Creator.
Perhaps a review of the Creationist's arguments will assist those who have never examined these two theories side by side. There are at least nine strong arguments against the theories of the evolutionists.
1). Chance: The evolutionists theorize that simple life originated from the creation of amino acids, which later combined in chains to form protein, all by the randomness of chance.
A). Amoeba: "A unicellular protozoan found in stagnant water or as a parasite, of indefinite and reproducing by simple division." (Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 20)
For a multiple celled animal to come from an Amoeba, it would have to divide itself into a mutant, to produce a male or a female. Then there would have to be two such mutants to occur at one time, within a few seconds of each other and within a few inches of one another or they would die before they could mate. The chances of this happening are so astronomical, there is no possibility of such a thing happening! So a simple protein would consist of a chain of about 100 simple amino acids. But not just any combination of amino acids aligning in exactly the right order is one chance in one followed by 158 zeroes.
"Astro‑physicists estimate that there are no more than 10 to the 80th infinitesimal 'particles' in the universe (one followed by 80 zeros), and that the age of the universe in its present form is no greater than 10 to the 18th seconds (30‑billion years). Assuming each particle can participate in a thousand billion 10 to the 12th different events every second, (this is impossibly high, of course) then the greatest number of events that could ever happen (or trials that could ever be made) in all the universe throughout its entire history is only 10 to the 80th x 10 to the 18th or 10 to the 110 (one followed by 110 zeroes). Any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 110th therefore cannot occur. 'Its probability becomes zero, at least in our known universe.' Thus, the above suggested ordered arrangement of 100 components (100 Amino Acids forming in a chain to give simple life) has a zero probability. It could never happen by chance." (Probability and Order Versus Evolution, by Henry Morris, p. 1)
That enormous figure of 1 followed by 158 zeroes can be compared in its size with the estimate of today's scientists that there are only 1 followed by 22 zeroes stars in the universe. So if chaos cannot produce order of such miniscule proportions, how can it be expected to blindly generate all of the order that scientists find in the universe? Edward Conklin, a biologist, has said that: "The probability of life originating from accident (or chance) is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a print shop."
This question of whether chaos could produce order was faced by two of England's most eminent scientists. They studied the probability of life occurring by chance. The two scientists, Professor Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, independently concluded that "the probability of life originating at random is so utterly miniscule as to make it absurd." Each found that the odds against the spark of life originating accidentally on earth was staggering, in mathematical jargon 10 to the power of 40,000 (The number 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes. That would be approximately 12 pages of typewritten zeroes of 55 lines of 60 spaces per page).
They concluded that it became sensible that, "the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate. There is no other way in which we can understand...life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale. We realize that the only logical answer to life is creation ‑‑ and not accidental shuffling."
The article that reported on their conclusions, the August 14, 1981, London Daily Express, carried the headline: "There must be a God!" In other words, life starting by chance doesn't have a chance!
2). Fossil Evidence: The Arizona Daily Star of August 17, 1981, carried a picture of a recently deceased cow decaying on the desert. The picture revealed that there was nothing of the animal but some very bleached bones. There was no skin, hair, or internal organs left of the animal. These had been ravaged by the elements, by other animals, and by bacteria.
The decaying animal, soon to be little more than some badly decayed bones, raises an interesting question: how is a fossil made? The longer the animal lies in the elements, the less there is to fossilize.
Yet the so‑called scientists tell the world that it takes millions of years for the required amount of dust, mud or debris to cover the animal. Yet fossils have been found nearly intact, down to the skin and wrinkles (fossilized worms, for instance).
A fossilized worm, down to the little convolutions of its body, implies a sudden deposition of mud to cover it and then chemical exchange to make the animal hard enough to withstand the enormous pressure of the huge amounts of dirt above the fossil.
Claims have been found with their muscles intact, which implies a sudden deposition of debris over them, and then rapid chemical exchange, making the muscles inside the clam shell a hard fossil. It would be presumed that, if these clams had slowly decayed during the time it would take to slowly cover them up, the muscle would decay. The problem of how the slow accumulation of dust covering up a carcass can account for the fossilization of a land animal is not the only problem for the evolutionists, however.
The same problem exists in the fossilization of animals in the water. One scientist indicated that: "...when fish decay their bones disconnect in less than one week (The scientist) said that means the presence of fish fossils in complete form is evidence of a catastrophe that covered the fish suddenly and locked their bones in place." (The Arizona Daily Star, December 16, 1981, p. A‑3)
This problem of fossil creation is a problem for the evolutionists but not for the Creationists who believe in a worldwide flood that had the ability to suddenly and quickly deposit huge amounts of mid dirt on dead animals, both on the land and in the sea.
But this is not the only problem for the evolutionists. The theory demands numerous intermediate living things which can be hooked together in an attempt to show an evolutionary sequence. "However, the fossil record reveals a profound change from reptilian host to mammals ‑‑ and without any proven intermediaries." (Day The Dinosaurs Died, Plain Truth, Jan. 1970, p. 70)
The evolutionists theorize that the fossil record will show a step‑by‑ step development of higher to lower forms of life, the deeper the scientist digs into the earth. The Creationists theorize that the fossil record will reveal the sudden appearance of life of high and low forms at the lowest strata with no evidence of lower forms changing to higher forms as the scientist moves upward through other strata of rock. This is because the Creationist believes that all life arose spontaneously at roughly the same time.
The first identifiable life is found as fossil evidence in the Cambrian layer of rock, supposedly 500,000,000 years old. There are no known fossil evidences in the two layers underneath. There have been billions of fossils found in this one layer alone and all have been of a highly complex nature. No one has found any fossil evidence of a development of life from a single cell, just as the Creationists theorized. One textbook agrees.
Stansfield's "Science of Evolution," published by MacMillan in 1977, says this about the Cambrian layer: "During the Cambrian Period, there suddenly appeared representatives of nearly all the major groups of animals now recognized. It was as if a giant curtain had been lifted to reveal a world teeming with life in fantastic diversity." (Does Academic Freedom Apply to Both Secular Humanists and Christians?, by Jerry Bergman)
Creationists have also pointed out another problem with the reasonings of the evolutionists. They question their conclusions that the oldest fossils are always found in the oldest rocks. One Creationist has written: The fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks are assigned geological ages because the fossil evidence that life has evolved from simple to complex forms over the geological ages depends on the geological ages of the specific rocks in which these fossils are found. The rocks are assigned geological ages based upon the fossil assemblages which they contain. The fossils, in turn, are arranged on the basis of their assumed evolutionary relationships. Thus, the main evidence for evolution is based on the assumption of evolution. (Circular Reasoning in Evolutionary Geology, ICR Impact Series, [June 1977], by Henry Morris, p. i)
In other words, the reason the rocks are old is because the fossils in them are old. The reason the fossils are old is because the rocks they are contained in are old. This is called circular reasoning.
Another problem for the evolutionists in the fossil record is that: "... anything approaching the complete geological column is never found at any one place on the Earth's surface..." In fact, "...it is not at all unusual for strata to be found completely out of the approved order, with 'old' strata resting comfortably on top of 'young' strata." (Genesis Flood, p. 271)
The geological column is a column that shows the various layers, one on top of another. The older layers are supposed to be on the bottom, the newer layers on the top. Each layer was supposedly laid down on top of the layer just underneath. This process assumedly took billions of years. In addition to this insurmountable problem for the evolutionists, there is yet another. "It is now known that complex plants existed in the Cambrian Period, which, on the evolutionary time scale, is 200‑million years or so before even simple land plants are supposed to have evolved." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 22)
In Glacier Park, for example, "There are numerous localities around the world where supposedly older and simple fossils have been deposited in layers vertically above layers containing 'younger,' more complex, fossils." (Letter to the Editor from Duane T. Gish, The News‑Sentinel, March 4, 1975)
But one of the most startling discrepancies in the fossil records came to light when a Tuatara lizard was found alive on some islands off New Zealand after the animal was supposedly extinct. Because the scientists have not found any fossil remains of the lizard in any rock supposedly younger than 135‑million years old, they presumed that the lizard was extinct. In other words, the animal once lived 135‑ million years ago, but not between then and the present, as there have been no fossil remains of the lizard found in those layers of rock above those supposedly 135‑million years old.
Finding some living Tuaturas on the surface of the earth really puzzled them. Where are the fossil remains of the lizard for the last 135‑million years? Don't ask the evolutionist. Only the Creationist has the answer: the assumptions made in dating fossils is wrong. (The Genesis Flood, p. 177) Such anomalies are very common all over the world.
For instance, one scientist became troubled when he was checking fossil remains in the Grand Canyon. He found a layer of rock containing a certain fossil. Above that layer was a thick barren layer, indicating that the fossil had become extinct. But the layer directly above the barren layer was a layer containing the fossil evidences again. "The evolutionary theory allows no backtracking, no renewal of a species, once it has become extinct." (Canyon of Canyons, by Clifford Burdick, pp. 42‑43)
The fossil record's inability to explain the basic tenet of evolution, that simple life evolved into complex life, has been noted by some prestigious scientists. One, David Raup of Chicago's famous Field Museum, has said that about the fossil record: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. 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, has had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." (Creation, Selection & Variation, by Gary E. Parker, p. iii)
In spite of all of these problems, the evolutionists still continue to hold up the fossil record as the evidence proving their case. Perhaps the reason this is so lies in the rather interesting fact that: "...more than half of the geologists in the world work directly for oil companies, and the support for many geologists in academic [pursuits] and [in] government comes from petroleum." (The Genesis Flood, p. 430)
3). Mutations: The Arizona Daily Star of April 4, 1981, carried a picture of a two‑headed snake. The caption underneath the picture said that the associate professor of zoology at Arizona State University said that the snake "'wouldn't last in the wild.'" (The Arizona Daily Star, April 4, 1981, p. 2‑B)
The snake was a mutation and it would have difficulty surviving in nature! Evolutionists claim that mutations are the changes that account for the changes in species, yet scientists know that about ninety‑nine out of one hundred mutations produce inferior creatures, such as the two headed snake that "wouldn't last in the wild." If this is true, then the fossilized remains of these ninety‑nine unsuccessful mutations should be in the fossil record, as well as the successful ones found so abundantly. The fossil record reveals no fossil remains of known mutations.
4). Time: The evolutionists theorize that there have been millions, if not billions, of years in which man and the various animals have been able to evolve into higher forms of life. Certain species have died out and become extinct before other species, including man, evolved.
At a debate between an evolutionist and a Creationist in Tuscon, the evolutionist, a professor at the University of Arizona, claimed that, if ever fossil records of man could be found alongside fossil records of the dinosaur, this find would seriously weaken, but not destroy, the evolutionary theory. He explained that this was because the dinosaurs had become extinct, according to the evolutionary theory, around sixty million years before the appearance of man on the earth.
One of the spectators at the debate hastened to point out to the scientist that such fossil evidence did indeed exist at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas, south of Ft. Worth. Apparently a flood in 1900 eroded away the top layer of mud and exposed a limestone layer underneath it.
This limestone layer, supposedly 120‑million years old, contained a rather startling discovery. The stone contained human footprints! Since it is theorized that man appeared on Earth about 1‑million years ago, approximately 119‑million years of time had disappeared, at least if the rock was supposedly 120‑million years old.
But there was even something more startling in the stone. The human footprints were side by side with dinosaur footprints! The theory is that the dinosaur died out about 60‑million years ago. That means, according to the evolutionary theory, that it is impossible for man and the dinosaur to have been on the Earth at the same time.
The spectator asked the professor if he had an explanation. Did man and the dinosaur co‑habitate the Earth at the same time? How could the rock be 120‑million years old, the dinosaur footprints 60‑million years old, and the man's footprints 1‑million years old? The scientist was quick to offer an explanation. His position was that the rock was once soft, about 60‑million years ago.
The dinosaur moved through the mud, leaving behind the evidence of his presence, his footprints. The mud, then became hard and some 59‑million years later, because of some mysterious circumstance, became soft once again. Man then moved through the soft mud, leaving behind his foot prints. Then, for some other unexplained reason, the rock became hard again, leaving both the dinosaur and the human footprints side by side. (WOW ‑‑ WOW and double WOW) When questioned as to why the dinosaur footprints didn't erode when the limestone became soft again, unless man's footprints were placed down in the soft mud precisely the same day the mud got soft and then hard again: The Scientist had to admit that he had no answer!
Also, what mechanism did the professor know about that could cause rock to become hard, then soft, then hard, then soft, and then hard again? Once again, he had no answer. The scientist was unwilling to admit that the fossilized footprints "weakened, but didn't destroy" his evolutionary theory, even though that conclusion was his opening statement.
5). Gravity: Gravity holds us firmly on the ground and also keeps the earth circling the sun. It draws rain from the sky and causes the tides. This mysterious gravity force continues to puzzle scientists even as it give stability to the universe.
How is gravity able to act across empty space, and why does it exist in the first place? Science has never been very successful in explaining such "natural" laws. After all, these universal rules cannot slowly arise by mutation or natural selection; they have been here for since the very beginning.
Gravity, as well as every other intricate physical law and constant, is actually an absolute testimony to creation. What is Gravity? Galileo (1564-1642) first explored the motion of falling objectsd. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) later described the law of gravity: All objects in the universe attract each other. This attractive force is proportional to the objects' masses and deceases as the square of the distance separating them.
Figure 1 illustrates the gravity force; Table 1 gives some representative values. Henry Cavendish (1731-1810) finally measured the gravitation constant which allowed the gravity force to be precisely calculated. Comments from these science pioneers show their respect for gravity's origin: "Galileo: From the Divne Word, the Sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed." (From Galileo's letters of 1613-1615. Quoted by Gerald Holton, Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science (Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading, MA, 1973, p. 57))
"Newton: This most beautiful [gravitational] system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." (In the second edition of Newton's Principia. Quoted by J. De Vries, Essentials of Physical Science. (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, SD, 1958), p. 15)
“Newton: When I wrote my treastie [Principia] about our [solar system], I had an eye on such principles as might work with considering men for the belief in a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose." (From a 1692 letter. Quoted by Gerald Holton, p. 192)
The origin views of Cavendish are not known because he left very little written material. One will search in vain for these creation quotes, or anything similar, in most science books. Texts typically give only half the story; they accept gravity without any discussion of its origin and implications. The properties of gravity illustrate just how unique this essential force is. Consider six points, chosen from many others.
1). Gravity does not change with time. Many researchers have looked for a possible variation in the strength of gravity, without success. Some feel that stronger gravity in the distant past might possibly have helped trigger star formation or the Big Bang itself. Even with a long time scale, however, gravity appers to be perfectly constant. ("Timeless Gravity." Nature (15 November 1990) 348 (6298), p. 195) Gravity therefore does not solve the problems of Big Bang cosmology.
2). Aside from air resistance, large and small objects fall downward in exactly the same time. Drop two compact objects and you should see and hear them hit the floor simultaneously.
3). Gravity is always attractive, while other forces such as magnetism can either repel or attract. This beneficial property makes gravity the universal "Elmer's Glue" which binds the universe together. Even the distant galaxies, which appear to have been created with an outward expanding motion, are gradually slowing due to the inward gravity pull from all other galaxies in the universe.
4). Gravity cannot be turned off or shielded in any way. Intervening objects have no effect on the original gravity force between two separated masses. This means that there is no anti-gravity chamber available in which the occupants can continually flat freely. The weightless, gravity-free feeling you may have experienced on an amusement park ride results from a temporary falling motion. Orbiting astronauts appear weightless only because their fall toward the earth is balanced by the outward directed centrifugal force.
5). Gravity attration does not depend on the composition of objects, only on their mass or weight. Several blocks composed of glass, lead, ice, or styrofoam, if they all have equal mall, will attract each other identically.
6). The gravity force decreases with distance but is actually infinite in its extent. Gravity acts instantly between the earth and moon, as well as across the millions of light years of space between galaxies, according to classical theory.
Gravity and Scripture: Two Bible verses especially help us understand the nature of gravity. First, Colossians 1:17 explains that Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist. The Greek verb for "consist" (sunistano) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together. Extrabiblical Greek use of this word pictures a vessel holding water within itself. The word is used in Collosians in the perfect tense, which describes a present continuing state arising from past action. This perfect tense also implies permanence of the act of holding the universe together.
One mechanism used is obviously gravity, established by the Creator and still maintained without flaw today. Consider the alternative: If th eLord turned His back on the universe for one moment, instant chaos would result. Without gavity, the earth, moon, and stars would immediately disintegrate.
A second reference, Hebrews 1:3, declares that Christ upholds all things by the Word of His power. Uphold (Greek, enegko) again describes the sustaiing or maintaining of all things, including gravity. The word "uphold" means much more than simply supporting a weight.
It includes control of all the ongoing motions and changes withink the universe. (Vincent, M.R., Word Studies in the New Testament on Hebrews, first published in 1886 (MacDonald Pub. Co., McLean, VA, 1970), p. 1093) This infinite task is managed by Christ's Almighty Word, whereby the universe itself was first called into being. (Hebrews 11:3)
Gravity and Modern Science: We know of just four fundamental forces in nature. First, there is the electro-magnetic force which operates electric motors, radio-television, and particle accelerators. Second and third, the strong and weak nuclear forces aruse within the nuclei of atoms.
Finally, there is gravity, actually 1040 times weaker than electromagnetism, and the only force known in Newton's day. Gravity dominates other forces on the larger scale of space objects. (Suppose the gravity force which keeps the moon circling the earth was to be supplied by a steel cable. Since this force is 35 million billion tons, the cable would have to be over 600 miles in diameter to avoid breaking! Gravity is immense on the scale of solar-system objects). Some example values of the attractive gravity force between objects.
Objects Gravity Force (Pounds)
You and this Impact article-10
You and the moon. 001
Two locomotives. 005
You and the earth Your weight
Moon and earth 7 X 1019
Earth and sun 8 X 1021
Physicists have long attempted to "unify" these four basic forces into just one entity or theory. Initial success was shown by Faraday and Maxwell 150 years ago when electricity and magnetism were combined.
So far, however, gravity has proven a special challenge to the experts. Gravity should reveal both wave and particle (qunatum) properties, to fit the pattern of the other forces. Traveling gravity waves, suggested by some researchers, should slightly compress or "curve" space-time, according to Einstein.
The hypothesized particles called gravitons, with no mass or charge, are thought to stream back and foth continually between the earth and moon, resulting in the observed gravity force. Neither gravity waves nor graviton particles have been observed yet. One wonders if scientists will "ever" discover the actual method by which the Lord maintains the gravity system. Perhaps, similar to the creation process itself, such details lie forver beyond our probing.
It is a fair question to ask natural science why basic laws such as gravity exist. Why is the universe filled with intriguing technical relationships, symmetry, and unity? Some experts are quick to reply that the task of science is only to find out the "how" of nature, not the "Why." But this excuse simply revelas the incompleteness of natural science alone. Ultimate truth about the universe must also deal with God's initial provision and his continuing care for us. The Creator is clearly an intimate part of every physical detial, including gravity.
The fact is, the scientist was bending the facts to explain his theory, rather than adjudting the theory to explain the facts!
One scientist, when asked about some of the human footprints in the stone, while he was an observer to their uncovering at the site in about 1955, said that if the human footprints were alone in the rock, he would have to conclude that they were human. But since they were beside the dinosaur footprints, he wasn't sure. To further complicate the problem for the professor at the debate, other scientists have carbon dated some plants in the limestone layer. They were found to be 38,000 to 39,000 years old, quite a bit earlier than the supposed age of the rock which is theorized to be 120‑million years old.
In addition, other scientists have found another problem for the evolution theory at this same site. They have found human footprints in rock layers Below strata containing the footprints of the dinosaur. All of these facts fit the Creationist's theory that holds that man and the dinosaur lived at the same time, not millions of years apart, but thousands of years ago. This explains the footprints of both at the same site, in the same layer of limestone.
5). Sequence: The age old question of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?," is an appropriate question to ask in the evolution versus Creation debate. The world is full of examples of animals and plants that had to appear on the scene at precisely the same moment in the past!
For instance, the bee and the flower both had to appear at exactly the same time or the earlier would not be able to survive. Then there is the problem for the evolutionist which is the question of when certain predators for certain animals evolved. There is a naturally occurring balance of nature whereby the population of one species is kept in balance by another species, its natural predator.
If the population of the hunted animal suddenly increases, the population of the second animal, the hunter, increases as well. As the population of the hunted animal decreases, so does the population of the second animal. It is only when man artificiality intervenes in the environment that this system gets out of balance.
Take, for example, the case of the rabbit in Australia. This animal is not native to this country and was reportedly brought there as a game animal to be hunted for sport. But since the rabbit has no natural predator in Australia and is a rapid breeder, the animal is increasing in numbers so quickly that it is starving other animals native to the land because it is consuming their share of the available food. A similar problem is occurring in Oregon with the opossum. This animal is also not native to the area, having been brought to the Northwest by Southern Negros who came to build ships during World War II.
After the war was over, the Negros, for the most part, returned to the South and they released whatever animals they had on hand at the time. These animals breed rather rapidly and have spread all over the Northwest to the point where they are eating vital food needed by other animals. The opossum has no natural predators, and it is prospering to the detriment of other animals native to the are. Some locals have claimed that the only predator of the opossum is the automobile! It seems that it is the major predator of this little animal because it strikes so many of them at night as they cross the roads looking for food. It has become a real problem for those living in the Northwest.
But these examples ask the question that the evolutionists have trouble answering: the hunted animal and its predator, the hunter, had to "evolve" at exactly the same time, or either the world would be overpopulated by the hunted animal, if it had "evolved" first, or with large quantities of fossils of the hunter if it had "evolved" before its food supply "evolved."
Man's attempts to artificially induce an animal into the environment where there is no natural predator proves that both the hunted animal and its predator had to "evolve" precisely at the same time. Thus, the existence of such a balance of nature strongly implies a designer or Creator.
6). Missing Links: One of the areas most open to question by the Creationists is the area of the "missing links," the humans and near humans who supposedly link man and his ancestors. A quick look at some of these "missing links," or early men, shows how weak this evidence is for the case of the evolutionists.
(a) The Zinjanthropus Man: The fossil evidence of this early "man" was discovered in strata supposedly 1 and 3/4 million years old. Yet when the scientists carbon dated other material in the same layer, that material was found to be approximately 10,000 years old.
(b) The Nebraska Man: This connecting link was cited at the famous Scopes trial in Tennessee by leading scientists to prove that man had evolved from earlier forms of existence.
The fossil evidence of the Nebraska Man consisted of a tooth that was said to have come from a prehistoric man who supposedly lived one million years ago. Scientists used this tooth to reconstruct the Nebraska Man's flesh, hair and family. (Impact #101, by Gary E. Parker, November 1981, p. ii) Yet when more fossils were unearthed at the same site, it was discovered that The Nebraska Man was only a Pig!
(c) Piltdown Man: This man was supposed to be half a million years old and was constructed from a piece of jaw discovered in 1912. The fossilized jaw was considered to be authentic until 1953 when it was discovered that the jaw had turned out to be the Jawbone of a Modern Ape. In addition, the jawbone had been filed down and stained to look older. In other words It was a deliberate Hoax. (Impact #101, by Gary E. Parker, p. ii)
(d) Neandethal Man: This connecting link was once pictured as a link between apes and man, but was later found out to be strictly human, just another man.
One can only speculate as to why the evolutionary scientist is so quick to grasp at anything that appears to be a link connecting man with the ape. Perhaps the question has been answered by the following statement: The real reason why; after multitudes of fossil fragments have been examined and sorted by evolutionary anthropologists for over a hundred years -- there is still no agreement as to man's evolutionary ancestry, is because he had no evolutionary ancestry! All the real evidence indicates that man was true man right from the start. (Impact #74, August 1979, by Henry M. Morris, p. 11)
Maybe this is why some evolutionists are now shifting away from the theory that man evolved from apes or monkeys. Unfortunately, their predetermined prejudices stay with them when they develop new theories. Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center of Emory University.
Dr. Bourne is an Australian born, Oxford educated American cell biologist, anatomist, and considered to be one of the world's leading primatologists. He has declared his belief that "apes and monkeys are the evolutionary descendants of man!" (Acts & Facts, August 1976, Vol. 5, No. 8, p. 1) This so‑called scientist wants man to believe that the ape and monkey are Man's Grand Children.
7). Male and Female: The obvious fact that so many animal species have evolved into male and female types is another thorny problem for the evolutionists.
Both sexes are absolutely essential to the continued propagation of the animal species, and it is absolutely imperative that both evolved at exactly the same time. That means, if one species of animal evolved a male into a higher form of life in the process of evolution, that animal had to have a female of exactly the same type evolve at exactly the same time, or the new male wouldn't have been able to reproduce itself!
8). Age of The Universe: It is claimed by the evolutionists that the Earth was "Created" about 4.5‑billion years ago. The Creationists are now developing a very effective scientific argument that the Earth cannot be older than 10,000 years old.
Some of the arguments for a young Earth are as follows:
(a) Decay of the Magnetic Field: National Aeronautical and Space Administration orbiting satellites have been measuring the Earth's magnetic field and have found that it is slowly decaying, or wearing down. One scientist has interpreted these scientific data and has drawn this conclusion: "Since the Earth's magnetic field is decaying, extrapolation back into the past more than 10,000 years predicts a current flow so vast that the earth's structure could not survive the heat produce. Thus the Earth cannot be much older than 10,000 years old." (Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field, San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1973, by T.G. Barnes)
Continuing with the presentation of the arguments for a young Earth:
(b) Oil Seepage: It is estimated that the amount of oil that seeps into the oceans is 5‑million tons per year. It is also estimated that the total amount of offshore oil is 100‑billion tons, which means that the total amount of oil would have been lost to the oceans 2500 times, if oil is estimated to be 50‑million years old, or that it would only take about 20,000 years to deplete the entire quantity of offshore oil. ((Submarine Seeps, Are They A Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution, Science, by Max Blumer, Vol. 176, p. 1257)
(c) Helium Decay: As plant and animal life dies and then decays, a certain amount of helium is released into the atmosphere. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the Earth appears to be about 10,000 years old, even allowing for moderate helium escape to the space above the atmosphere. (Impact, June 1981, p. iii)
(d) Population Growth: Evolutionists generally theorize that man evolved about 1‑million years ago. These early humans have multiplied, so the theory goes, to the point where there are now about 4‑billion people on the Earth. "The same population statistics which supposedly pre‑age a man in the past...An initial population of only two people, increasing at 2% a year, would become 3.5‑billion in only 1,075 years...An average population growth of only 1/2 of one percent would generate the present world population in only 4,000 years." (Evolution and the Population Problem, Impact No. 21, by Henry M. Morris)
(e) Meteoritic Dust on the Earth: "There is no measurable accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Earth's surface, but present rates of influx of such dust from space would produce a layer 1/8th of an inch thick all over the Earth in a million years, and a layer 54 feet thick in 5‑billion years." (The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p. 92)
(f) Decay of the Sun: In 1980, two scientists discovered the, "...sun has been contracting 0.1% per century..." they believed that this shrinkage was continuous and has occurred at the same rate as in the past. Therefore, if this is correct, only 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as big as it is today; 20‑million years ago, the surface of the sun would have touched the Earth and the Earth would have been a cinder. (The Sun Is Shrinking, Impact #82, Russel Akridge, April, 1980)
(g) Meteoritic Dust on the Moon: The scientists who planned America's lunar landing probe theorized that the moon was approximately 4.5‑billion years old. They knew that as the moon orbited through space, meteoritic dust fell on its surface. They were somewhat able to scientifically estimate the exact quantity of dust that had fallen during its supposed 4.5‑billion year life.
The scientists, therefore, theorized that the moon had large quantities of dust on its surface because it was so old. They then concluded that the lunar landing device would sink in dust when it landed. So they devised the disc‑shaped feet on the landing device so that the feet would support its weight when it landed.
Their theories were in part supported by the theory of R.A. Lyttleton of Cambridge University. He theorized that: Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, the moon's surface is exposed to direct radiation.
Thus, the strong ultra‑violet light and x‑rays can destroy the surface layers of exposed rocks and reduce them to dust at a rate of a few thousandths of an inch per year. So, if a layer, say 0.0004 inch thick in pulverized matter, is formed per year, than, in 10,000 years a layer of about four inches in depth would be produced; in 100,000 years a layer of 40 inches; in one million years a layer of 3.3 feet; in one billion years a layer of 6.3 miles; and in 4.5‑billion years (The supposed age of the moon) a layer of about 28 miles in depth would be formed. Yet when the Lunar landing device landed on the Moon, they measured the dust layer to be "1/8th inch to 3 inches in thickness."
So if Professor Lyttleton's theories are correct, the moon is no older than about 10,000 years, or less, and certainly not 4.5‑billion years of age.
9). Symbiosis: Symbiosis is defined as: The intimate living together of two dissimilar organisms in a mutually beneficial relationship.
And this existence of several symbiotic relationships presents real problems for the evolutionists. For instance, the Nile crocodile allows a small bird, called the Egyptian Plover, to enter its mouth to clean its teeth of harmful bacteria. If the Plover does not remove these intruders, the crocodile can be seriously harmed.
These Parasites are the Plover Bird's sole source of nutrition!:In other words, the two animals need each other and had to occur at exactly the same time or one would not have been able to survive to wait for the other. But symbiosis is not confined to the animal kingdom alone. Frequently the plant and animal kingdoms join together in a symbiotic relationship, mutually beneficial to both parties. Such is the case of the Yucca Moth and the Yucca Plant. The moth collects a ball of pollen, stuffs it into a seed chamber of the Yucca Plant, and then lays a few eggs inside the seed.
Since the larvae that hatch can feed only on developing Yucca Seeds their growth is provided for; and since some seeds are left and this Yucca cannot otherwise pollinate itself, the plant also benefits. Neither the plant nor the animal would have been able to survive if both had not occurred at exactly the same time.
Bird Migration A Mystery To Science:Birds, fish, whales, butterflies and frogs, all have something in common. Hundreds of thousands of them Migrate. They move from north to south, from east to west, up and down, back and forth. Golden Plovers and Arctic Terns navigate thousands of miles, from the Arctic to Antarctica, twenty‑two thousand miles round trip, in the case of the Arctic Tern. They fly by day and by night, over featureless seas, often out of sight of land for days and thousands of miles, and above cloud layers.
How? When did the very first bird or other creature migrate? How did they know where to migrate to? How were they able to find their way for the very first time? The migration of these creatures leaves evolutionists with their mouths open, utterly lost, stumped, wandering endlessly in a sea of bewildered consternation: totally confused for want of an answer.
How good are you at directions? We are sure you consider yourself a reasonably intelligent human being. Surely, there can be no doubt, man is infinitely smarter than, say, an albatross. But man is totally unable to fly thousands of miles out of sight of land, and reach a selected designation, without thousands of dollars worth of scientific equipment to show him the way.
When you last made a trip across the country, didn't you have to consult a map? Sometimes often? Then you had to follow the marked road signs, and occasionally ask directions at a gas station or a passerby. Human beings may be intelligent in many ways, but they have no built‑in sense of direction. Spin a person around, convey them about in the dark, or take them on a lengthy ride in the back seat of an automobile, buss or train, and many will become hopelessly lost. Many chilling stories of one disaster or another, and stories of barest survival from hunters, hikers, or seamen, who became disoriented and lost.
Not So For The Tinest Of Birds: Not only are they perfectly equipped to do what they do, to build nests, without instructions from an older bird, obtain food: to survive, and many species migrate over vast distances, under the worst of weather conditions, out of sight of land! HOW? Can the so‑called intellectuals, the evolutionists explain it?
Many species of birds migrate, some of them for only a few hundred miles, some of them for thousands of miles. Wilson's Petrel, for instance, makes the trip from Antarctica to the north Atlantic every year, a one‑way trip of nine thousand miles. The little Kirtland Warbler flies each year from the Great Lakes region to the Bahamas, a distance of about 1,200 miles.
The Golden Plover makes an eight thousand mile trip; the Bobolink seven thousand; the Arctic Tern from fourteen to twenty‑two thousand miles, round trip!
You have heard the mournful distant honking and calling of wild geese in flight. Each year, vast numbers of ducks and geese leave their summer feeding grounds far in the north, in Canada, or Alaska, and wing their way south. Millions of them winter in South Texas and other gulf‑coast states. Many go on to Central or South America. But, Why? Well, weather is partly the answer.
It takes no great "scientific" genus to realize that, with winter arriving, the sun's rays become longer. Shorter days, longer nights, and bitter cold invade the northern hemisphere. In the hostile, winter environment, food would be unobtainable. The rivers, ponds, and lakes freeze over, so millions of waterfowl couldn't dive for their aquatic food, or feed on water plants, small fish, and insects.
The tundra freezes; heavy snowfalls cover even the mosses and lichens upon which some birds feed; the frozen north becomes a bleak, barren, frigid, silent, seemingly lifeless wasteland. Yet, evolutionists cannot answer the mysteries of Bird Migration merely through observing that weather changes force the birds to look elsewhere for food. Why? For the simple reason that many of the birds begin their journey just when their food supplies are at an absolute peak, "before" the storms of winter being to fall upon them!
Evolutionists speak of the "mystery" of bird migration and say: "It's just one of those 'mysteries.'" Then go confidently ahead, teaching evolution. Unfortunately, the entirety of evolutionary thought is a "mystery," it is a mystery at just how so‑called intellectuals could be so totally insipid! After being presented with the real facts from the Word of God, the Scriptures.
The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Animal Life says, "There is no more fascinating way of arousing interest in flight than having your child catch sight of migrating birds ‑‑ perhaps a flight of geese in military formation, or a close‑massed flock of grackles racing like a dark, wind‑blown cloud. Even after years of research and experiment, scientists speak of the 'mystery' of bird migration, for they still do not completely understand it." (Vol. 1, p. 17)
Robert Allen, in his book, Birds, page 9 states: "...the real mystery is still unsolved. The greatest mystery about bird migration is the ability of many birds to move over the same route, year after year, arriving each spring in the same nesting locality and spending each winter in the same place."
Many Other Creatures Migrate:It is not just birds which migrate. Such tiny creatures as ladybird beetles migrate. So do monarch butterflies, bats, eels, elephants, horseshoe crabs, king salmon, turtles, plankton, locusts, lemmings, frogs, whales, tuna, and dozens of other species!
But how? Why? When did the very first bird migration take place? What strange, built‑in instinct, or compulsion, causes these creatures to know when it is time to depart? What guidance system leads them unerringly across featureless seas for thousands of miles in the darkness of night? How can a tiny insect, like a colorful ladybird beetle, with a "brain" virtually microscopic in size, migrate over vast [to it] distances?
Let's turn to the prestigious book by Wesley Lanyon, called Biology of Birds. After all, it's a collegiategrade, well‑done, thoroughly‑ researched textbook on bird biology. Whatever we want to know about birds, especially bird migration, we ought to find there! Pages 68 and 69, of the index says. "One of the questions most frequently asked of an ornithologist is, 'Why do birds migrate?'"
That is exactly the question we have asked? And turned to Lanyon's book for the answer! His answer is: "We can only speculate as to what these factors may have been, for it is impossible to substantiate these theories with experimentation..." So evolutionists aren't going to be much help, after all. They only call it a "mystery," and say "We can only speculate," or tell us they "do not completely understand it."
Can Science Explain It?:Some experimentation has been conducted. Unfortunately, the experiments only serve to further confuse the confound scientists, so long as they cling, stubbornly, to their evolutionary theories, their belief that there is NO GOD who designed these myriad creatures and set within them these miraculous instincts!
It was found, for example, that young swallows, nesting on the European continent slightly south of the latitude of London, flew all the way to Africa to winter. But they flew only to the northern and equatorial part, like Morocco, Libya, Chad, etc. Yet, strangely, the exact same kind of birds, same species, same colorings, habits, nests, appearance; Same Kind of Birds which were nesting in England: further north than their cousins in Europe, flew all the way to South Africa, a distance Twice As Far as their European counterparts. WHY? Wouldn't there have been enough food in England?
Do all birds leave England each winter? No, hundreds of species stay there the year around, winter and summer. Especially the crows and sparrows! England may have bad winters, but surely they're not all that bad.
But the swallows migrate. Since evolutionists say it's all a matter of the survival of the fittest, of strange compulsions having to do with food‑getting, mating, nesting, with surviving; and since the sparrows survive quite well in England, why didn't the swallows act like the sparrows? Why do they not simply stay in England? But, they migrate, many thousands of miles.
In one experiment, a migrating swallow was observed to return to build a nest on the same beam of the same barn in Pennsylvania for three successive years.
There was an experiment involving the tiny, ruby‑throated hummingbirds. A lady was overheard making the remark, "Take down the bird feeders every winter, or the birds will stay around too long, and winter will catch them, and they'll die." She need not have worried. Those plastic feeding stations hanging outside your windows, to enable you to watch the tiny little birds hover as they bring in the honey and water would never overcome the built‑in migratory instincts of hummingbirds. They will leave just when their food supply is at its most abundance; whenever their built in, "migratory clock" tells them it's time to go!
In the experiment, three tiny babies (about as big as your thumbnail were banded by scientists. They grew up, fed around the neighborhood where their parents had nested, and disappeared with the other hummingbirds as fall arrived. They flew about five thousand miles, to the tropics of South America. Of course, no one saw them go, for within a moment of darting flight the little creatures are but a speck, and soon swallowed up in the distance. The next year, astoundingly, those same three birds, with the bands clearly in place on their tiny legs, were using the very same feeding station their parents had used the year before. It was within thirty feet of where they had been hatched!
Hummingbirds have perhaps the most rapid metabolism among all living creatures, for their busy flight requires that they eat the equivalent of their OWN WEIGHT each day! Think of applying that kind of a diet to human beings, or elephants! Ornithologists have determined that the tiny ruby‑throated hummingbirds fly completely across the Gulf of Mexico to the Yucutan Peninsula, and down into Southern Mexico and Central America for the winter. Yet, the diminutive birds cannot find any food en route; not a single island, or branch of a tree upon which to rest. How do they suddenly leave their rich source of nectar in Texas, and, unable to eat the equivalent of their own body weight each day, sustain flight for many, many hours?
Some strange "genetic urge" begins to trigger the deposit of increased fat, like stored energy, in the bird's bodies some weeks before they begin to migrate! But how? Remember, The very First Migration from Texas to Central America had to be successful!
But long, long ago, in the evolutionary scheme of things, when the First ruby‑throated hummingbird "decided" to migrate across the vast, trackless waters of the Gulf, the little bird didn't "know" that its body needed to begin collecting much MORE nectar than for daily sustenance. There was no "genetic urge" to begin depositing body fats around the breast muscle for a long‑range, time consuming flight!
So when the very first hummingbirds attempted the very first migration, naturally, they "ran out of fuel" about twenty miles out over the Gulf, fell into the water, exhausted, and drowned. Therefore, since there was no hummingbirds left to "experience" the benefits of migration, there was no need to migrate. Since they all died, there are none left today. But there ARE thousands of tiny ruby‑throats today, and they successfully migrate each winter.
Evolutionists might suppose, "Perhaps they tried to migrate, and failed, turning around just as they tired, and made it safely back to land."
Then, they might surmise, "perhaps succeeding generations attempted flights further and further, 'gradually' adding to their body fat to sustain prolonged flight without a food supply."
Why? Why, when not a single one of these increasingly prolonged flights netted a single drop of nectar?
Are we to assume the tiny birds kept at it for thousands, perhaps millions of years, failing each time, until finally the first pair succeeded? And, since they had to turn back, and there were no flowers blooming during all those millions of winters, and they starved to death the very first winter, then there are no ruby‑throated hummingbirds in Texas. But there are. Confusing, isn't it? It is confusing if you cling to the concept of evolution to somehow explain the fabulous intricacy of God's great creation; His amazing design of His creation; His awesome mind which thought out, planned, and brought into being each of His amazing living creatures.
The only way to understand the "strange genetic urge" which causes the little ruby‑throats to begin storing body fat instead of burning it up each day; which causes them to leave Texas just when their food supply is at its peak; which causes them to fly unerringly across the vast Gulf of Mexico, hundreds of miles, and navigate perfectly to their desired landfall, is to understand God built into them that instinct; God caused that genetic urge, they did not "Evolve" it!
The Golden Plover:Then there is the story of the Golden Plovers. They nest along the coastlands of the Arctic Ocean, in the faraway land of permafrost, musket, seals, white whales and polar bears. After raising their young, feeding them all through the summer until the young are able to fly with the parents, the Golden Plovers somehow feel a strange compulsion to Leave the hospitable, friendly environment of their nests, where ample food supplies are readily available, and begin one of the most awe‑inspiring migrations in the bird world. Unerringly, they point their beaks southward, flying an elliptical course along routes only they seem to know, covering more than sixteen thousand miles!
Observers in Labrador, on the tip of Nova Scotia, see them flying through. They completely bypass the lower forty‑eight states, winging their way over the trackless Atlantic, perhaps first sighting land again along the tip of Cuba or Haiti. Their next landfall is undoubtedly somewhere near Guyana or Venezuela. Across the famous rain forest of the Amazon, the "Matogrosso" of Brazil they fly, until arriving at their wintering area located in southern Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina. There, while frigid winter storms howl across the frozen tundra they had departed, they happily feed and spend their days in the sunshine of summer in these southern latitudes. Again, just as their food supply is at it's peak, and before there is any discernible reason for them to depart, they begin a northward migration. But they do not retrace their mysterious track across the open Atlantic!
Instead, they point their beaks northwest, cross the towering Andes range [with its peaks such as Aconcagua, higher than twenty‑two thousand feet!], reach the Isthmus of Panama and Central America, fly across the Yucatan Peninsula and the Gulf, reaching a landfall somewhere around South Texas and Louisiana, wing their way up the Mississippi Valley, across the northern states flanking the Great Lakes region, into Canada and onward to their home in the remote Arctic! What a trip!
Remember, the Golden Plovers leave their nesting area when their available food supply reaches its peak. All of their foods, tiny crustaceans, arctic plants, insects, etc., are in the greatest abundance at this time of the year.
Evolution "supposes" there are various compulsions somehow built into these birds which cause them to go in search of a greater food supply? But how can evolution explain them leaving when their food supply is at its peak. No!, "weather" is not the compulsion which causes migration in every case.
Species after species leave Canada and the northern states in the contiguous forty‑eight in mid‑summer, in the hottest time of the year, long before there is any hint of autumn, let alone winter! And there are many other cases of migration back and forth within the tropic zones, having nothing whatsoever to do with weather!
Can you believe it? Some have actually proposed that birds began migrating, anciently, in the face of "advancing glaciers" during the Pleistocene "ice age!" Think about it. Just how fast does a glacier advance? It may move a few feet, or even a few hundred yards in a year! But it moves far more ponderously and more slowly than a three‑toed sloth, or than the proverbial molasses in January!
Further, there are Penguins in Antarctica! Other birds depart, mysteriously, winging their way up across Africa, into Europe, or along South America up to the United States and Canada! Yet, the Penguins remain where they are! Why didn't the Terns, anciently, simply turn into Penguins? There they are, with the very richest oceans of the world all around them! Scientists know that the extremely cold seas around Antarctica are the feeding grounds of many species of the great whale; that many types of seals and other huge creatures are at the top of the food chain in this region.
"Krill," or plankton, crustaceans, small fish, and sea life are abundant in Antarctica! This sea life is the basis of the Penguin's food supply! Can evolution have it both ways?
Can they confidently tell us that the vast number of birds spending their summers on Antarctica but which mysteriously leave just when their food supply is at its peak do so because, anciently, some compulsion caused them the leave Antarctica to go back to the north [where summer would soon be coming on] in order to Survive? Then, are they going to tell us that the Penguins gradually evolved their wings into flippers; evolved the sack into which to deposit their eggs so it could be incubated away from the cold; evolved their big, webbed feet, and powerful beaks for catching fish; evolved their thick, protective winter "coats" and took to diving after Krill in order to Survive?
Stimulation For Change:Evolution tells us the stimuli for adaptation or survival are a wide variety of food‑getting techniques, nest building, egg laying, feeding of the young, coloration and camouflage, protective armor [as in the case of porcupines and armadillos], etc.
Thus, as one looks closely at each creature, whether Penguin, Arctic Tern or Golden Plover, one can see fully‑formed perfectly‑functioning methods for food getting egg laying and incubation, feeding of the young; in short, astounding techniques for Survival. But How? When? In order for each of these species to have such intricately‑functioning food getting and survival techniques, each species had to be successful on the very first try!
If not, if for some reason their food‑getting and survival techniques were inferior; if they failed in the distant past, then they would have died! They would not have survived. And, if they didn't survive, then they would not be here, today! But here they are, in all their amazing splendor, with their mind‑boggling proclivities which science cannot explain.
The Arctic Tern:Most people, seeing an Arctic Tern in flight, would believe they were looking at a seagull. The terns nest in the extreme north, along Hudson Bay, across the northern territories of Canada, and along the west coast of Greenland. Some may nest as far south as New England. The annual migratory pattern of millions of these birds is so vast, so impossibly complex, that it presents a great Mystery to ornithologists and evolutionists.
For example, the Terns nesting in the Cape Cod area [and this is the southern‑most nesting area for the Terns] depart just when their food supply is at its peak, fly across the Atlantic Ocean to offshore Spain, then continue along the west coast of Africa to cross the Atlantic again until they reach the eastern‑most tip of South America! Then, they follow the South American coastline to Antarctica! Why? Some of the birds flying such a tortuous route actually cover as much as twenty‑two thousands miles! Unerringly, they return from far away Antarctica back to the very same nest; the same rocky shore, inlet, creek, gravel bed or sand pit that they departed!
Scientists have even speculated that the birds migrate by the stars. Which does not explain how they continue their migration during cloudy and overcast conditions.
Stellar Navigation:Some ornithologists have conducted experiments with captured birds, introducing "fake sunlight" or artificial stars into their environment, and have been amazed to see the birds line up in appropriate direction, according to the travel of these fake sources of light. In absolutely black, featureless "skies" the birds were completely disoriented. Some naturalists believe birds may be able to determine where they are from the slant of the sun exactly the way a navigator may take his noon sight with a sextant! According to one biologist, the calculations involved for a bird to do this are so enormous that they "involve so much mathematical calculation that you would think only an IBM machine on wings could get anywhere with such a shifting point of reference. Nevertheless he is convinced that the migrating and homing birds are equipped by instinct for such a feat." (Our Amazing World of Nature; Its Marvels and Mysteries, G.V.T. Matthews)
E.G.F. Sauer of the University of Freiburg, Germany, conducted an exhaustive study of Warblers which migrate over vast distance, mostly at night. If you have ever been to a planetarium, you may have witnessed an artificial reproduction of the heavens, wherein one sits in a theater, and watches the movements of the heavenly bodies as the world rotates.
Dr. Sauer placed the Warblers under such a dome, where they could only see an artificial reproduction of the night sky. If he rotated the artificial sky in a wrong direction, the little birds were completely disoriented, that they aligned themselves according to the False position of stars in a fake environment! Yet, when he rotated the planetarium sky correctly the Warblers lined up exactly in accordance to the direction of their intended migration!
The Very First Migration:Since evolutionists claim we are the result of blind chance, of gradual evolutionary processes brought about by external stimuli [survival] over vast ages of time, would it not be logical to assume that we, as the very Product of evolutionary processes, should be able to understand the processes by which we came to be? Why not apply, pragmatically, the presumptions of evolutionists to bird migration.
Let's imagine an Arctic Tern up in the extreme north of Canada, nearly to the Arctic ice cap, sitting on its nest. Never mind, for the moment, what the bird is doing there. The black and white Tern doesn't know he is a Tern. He is only a "creature" of some sort, surviving quite nicely as August and then September pass.
All around him, the Arctic tundra is rich with insects, crustaceans, soggy bogs and marshes wherein myriad aquatic forms thrive. The nearby bays and estuaries teem with tiny fish. He walks along the bogs, pecking at insects and tiny crabs. He flies to the nearby shores, eating small fish.
The weather begins to chill. Winds howl, storms blow in. Show begins falling, and one night in late September, the water in his favorite bog freezes. He stretches out his wings, flaps them several times. Nothing. He flaps them again! What? He isn't moving. He looks down in disgust. His feet are frozen in solid ice!
All around him are other terrified Terns, trying to tear their tiny toes from the freezing grip of the ice. But all are stuck fast. They mournfully call to each other as the next storm, and the next, descend with the madness of winter's fury. All die. None survive. Terns do not exist.
The first Terns didn't have the instinct to leave when their food supply was at its maximum, to avoid being trapped by winter. They waited until the weather Forced them to leave, because they hadn't yet "evolved" this amazing instinct, this sixth sense of timing, hadn't yet passed it on, genetically, to their progeny. So they all died. None lived.
But we'll suppose, somewhere, a few Terns decided the first chilling nights signaled them they should leave. Of course, they knew nothing of the jet streams; they didn't know that it could be Warmer here, sometimes, than it could be in Florida! But they decided to go South, like any thoughtful Tern.
The further south they flew, the colder it got. In Minnesota, they saw hundreds of species of small birds, hopping about on the snow. Some drilled their funny‑looking beaks into tree trunks, shot out a long, barbed and sticky tongue, and ate larvae that attack trees. The Terns decided to try this. Several died of a broken neck. One caught his beak in a crack, and was frozen solid, unable to move. Several flew dizzily around in circles, a powerful headache throbbing in their tiny brains.
Others, not having "evolved" the ice‑tong‑like feet of a woodpecker, could only flap uselessly at the tree trunks, making a feeble peck here and there, bending their beaks, failing to penetrate the hard bark. But the woodpeckers kept on tattooing the trees, happily surviving.
Beneath, rustling about in the leaves from the autumn, were Thrushes, Larks, Grackles, Chickadees, and several other species. This appeared easier than banging their heads against bark, so the Terns Stayed in Minnesota, and gradually "terned" into tiny tanagers! So there aren't any Terns, today. But there are.
Let's speculate that the first truly successful migrators simply flew out to sea, intending to cross the Atlantic [how did they know it was there? How did they know the world is round? How did they know they wouldn't fly off the edge, be sucked into a terrible vortex of intergalactic wind, and have all their feathers stripped off?] They fly for a couple thousand miles, or so.
Then, they begin to become disoriented. None of them had ever paid the slightest attention to the sky before. What are all those tiny, blue‑white lights up above? They didn't know. Oh, they might have wondered about the big, white disk that seemed to change shape as the months passed, but you could never depend on it. It moved around crazily in the skies. It would be on one horizon, and then the other, looking like a silver of white, or a big yellow orb, squatting on the horizon.
Now, they were flying along, two thousand, seven hundred miles south, southeast of labrador, underneath an overcast. They flew in circles. Gradually [for everything always happens "gradually" in evolution], they ran out of gas, body fat, to the uninitiated.
You see, they can only remain in flight so long as they have energy to fly. But they are leaving the far north only because their food supply has been covered up under tons of snow and ice! We won't wonder about how long they lost weight, tried to peck a hole in the ice and go ice fishing, or eat snow, or??? And so, as their body fat is used up, one by one they let out a squawk drifted down in crazy, random [everything in evolution always happens randomly] patterns, and fell into the sea. None survive. Terns don't exist.
But let's imagine some few Terns made it to the coast of Spain. There, in sunny Spain, were hundreds of bird species. All along the rocky coastlands over which they flew were gulls, cormorants, several species of ducks, falcons, pigeons, further inland were Warblers, Blackbirds, Finches, Wrens, Thrushes, Sparrows; dozens of other species, including ravens! So they stayed in Spain, and evolved into sparrows! There aren't any Terns. But there are!
Somehow, those first migrating birds who left at the exact moment; who didn't become disoriented; who knew solar and stellar navigation; who had accumulated enough body fat, somehow knew they should pass by Spain, that they must not begin fishing in the rich waters of Portugal, or stop in the Canary Islands, and become a you‑ know‑what! On to the coast of Africa they flew.
Birds don't sweat, or ooze, like their so‑called "closest living relatives, the crocodiles!" [That's right! That's what evolutionists believe!]. But these birds were winging their way in the late September right along the equator! It was hot! Furthermore, in the jungles below them, in Senegal [they didn't know it would someday be called that, but then they didn't know this was Africa, either!] were millions of tasty creatures; small mice, rats, grubs, worms, beetles, bugs, moths, weird‑looking fish, crustaceans; a veritable banquet of edible bird food.
Did they stop? No way. No Tern was going to "Tern" into Africa and become a crocodile again, they had had it with crawling about on their stomachs in swamps. Nosiree! These Terns were going first class, they were going to fly!
So they flew out across the Atlantic again, and died in a tropical heat wave. Now, our non‑existent, non‑surviving, completely lost, hopelessly confused, starving Terns [which do not exist, because they could not have survived, not knowing how to navigate, where they were, where they came from where they were going], are really in trouble, for, ahead of them, lined up like so many huge medieval castles, are thunderstorms whose tops tower up to seventy thousand feet! But they don't know this.
They think these huge things are mashed potatoes, or heads of cauliflower. Or snow. So they fly to the edge of the first big thunderstorm, and try to land. They are at only six hundred feet. Suddenly, they are sucked up into a violent updraft that carries them to twenty‑thousand feet! Around them are grapefruit‑sized hailstone. Lightning flashes, thunder rolls. They all die from lack of oxygen.
Some are pelleted to death. Others have every feather ripped off by the winds. Still others fight their way to lower altitudes, evolve a genetic distrust of thunderstorms [this being the first one they have experienced] and decide to pass on the information to their young, whenever they next nest.
The survivors [but there aren't any] cross the Atlantic once again, arriving at the mouth of the Amazon. Below them are myriad birds; Macaws, Parrots, Finches, Warblers, Red‑winged Blackbirds; the rivers are teeming with juicy bird food. In the tropics, hundreds of exciting‑colored birds survive.
They perch on branches above the ugly snouts of alligators. Some even pick insects from the backs of alligators. Some even evolved into alligator toothpicks, choosing to pick the teeth of alligators, who like to lie around in the sun opening their mouths to tiny birds, who eat food scraps from the alligators' mouths.
Thus, we must conclude the Terns toss this tantalizing possibility around in their minds. But, they decide they better not. So, on to the south Atlantic they fly. Past Uruguay, with its teeming forests, rich rivers and lakes, over thousands and thousands of miles of rich foods, hundreds of other species, millions of fish, they fly. Why? Who knows? They just "do!"
But, wasn't their initial "instinct," or whatever, because they needed food? And haven't they disdained a billion tons of food, from the east coast of the USA to Spain and Portugal; from Africa to Brazil? On to Antarctica they fly; arriving there in the Antarctic "summer."
So here we go again. Now, according to the Evolutionists, we've got to "imagine" the Terns somehow "knew" when it was time to depart, "knew" which route to take, "knew" they should fly over billions of tons of tantalizing Tern food, disdaining to remain there and evolve into a Macaw or a Red‑winged Blackbird, and wing their way up to the far north once again. And, if you believe all this just "evolved," then I've got some great seafront property in the Sahara and twenty miles south of Galveston, Texas for sale.
Evolutionists Are Confused:Ever pick an evolutionary textbook off the library shelf? Ever look through the introductory material; the first chapter? If you do, you will run across expressions such as these: "Out of man's grasp," said to be, "mystery, according to the theory," "other ornithologists believe," "no single solution," "other theories proposed," or "no adequate answer." Speaking of the "mystery of bird migration," one so‑called "authority" came up with a truly classic line, "All theories fail when offered as the one solution to all migration." (Science News Letter, p. 191, September, 1962)
Remember "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" absolutely require that various food getting techniques have proved successful, and that those very techniques have contributed to the development and "evolution" of the species! But evolutionists are rendered irrational by the study of Terns, Plovers, Warblers, Hummingbirds, or, for that matter, any migrating species, from Tuna to Turtle, and from Ladybird Beetles to Monarch Butterflies! One evolutionist must not have known what he was saying when he wrote, "If natural selection has been responsible for the evolution of the adaptedness of behavior in an animal, then the way that animal is behaving right now must obviously contribute to its survival." (Animal Behavior, Niko Tinbergen, Life Nature Library, p. 174)
And that is the whole point. They survive today by doing what they do. And they Migrate. So, they had to migrate to survive! And the first migration had to be successful, or the species would have disappeared! Undaunted, this source completed the quote by saying, "This is why studies of the survival value of behavior are not only important in their own right but are also required for an understanding of evolution." (Animal Behavior, Niko Tinbergen, Life Nature Library)
Oh! So we must understand "evolution" by understanding the complete "mystery" they claim they cannot understand? Evolutionists tell us that there was a time when birds did not exist, except as disgruntled reptiles. Well, let's suppose there were no birds? Could this earth survive without them? A scientist tells us. "Today, a countryside without birds would be unimaginable. And this is as it should be, for without birds humanity would face disaster. We have only to note how many different kinds of injurious insects are being continuously and tirelessly destroyed by birds, to see what part the latter play in saving our field and orchard crops from destruction, as so many kinds of birds are entirely insectivores. Equally effective is the help of birds in man's fight against moles, mice, rats and other rodents which not only destroy the harvest in the fields, but also constitute a danger to human health as carriers of infectious diseases. These are only a few of the helpful roles played by birds in maintaining nature's equilibrium." (Strange and Beautiful Birds, Josef Seget, p. 5)
But notice what scientists tell us about the arrival time of birds and insects. "Flying insects became a reality about fifty million years before the reptiles and birds took to the air, and for those fifty million years the only flying creatures were insects." (Insects, Ross Hutchins, pp. 3‑4)
Could the earth, as we know it, have survived and human life developed? Let's say it was only fifty million years, perhaps twenty‑ five million years, maybe five million years of difference. How about a thousand years? Would you believe a hundred?
Let's see what would happen to a "birdless" earth! "The descendants of a pair of houseflies, if they all lived and did well from April to August, would total 190,000.000,000,000,000,000 individuals. Fortunately, the balance of nature, in the form of natural controls, limits such population explosions among insects just as it does among other animals and among plants." (Insects, Ross Hutchins, p. 9)
Granted that insects eat other insects. Perhaps the earth would not be covered with forty feet of insects in one year. But be sure that the earth could not survive unless birds and insects were created together to form that fantastic balance in nature, that man is just coming to understand.
Why don't evolutionists think about the ecological implications of their theories for a change? No, evolution has no answer for bird migration or how birds came to be such awe‑inspiring creatures, just as they have no intelligent answer for the origin of matter, or the origin of life! It's time you saw the real fallacies of evolution, time you faced squarely the only alternative, that God does exist, and you can prove it!
There are thousands of similar problems for evolution. Regardless of sensational articles of the new "Scope's Trial" in Arkansas a few years ago; of claims by scientists that evolution is true, when one takes a really close look at the theory; when on applies plain common sense to their claims, you can see great gaping flaws in the theory, which makes the theory pail into the obscurity of stupidity, the place where it rightfully belongs!
Another writer H.L. Mencken, an observer at the famous Scopes evolution trial which tested the right of the state to limit school curriculums, said: "There is, it appears, a conspiracy of scientists afoot. Their purpose is to break down (the Christian) religion, propagate immorality, and so reduce mankind to the level of the brutes. They are the sworn and sinister agents of Beelzebub (the Devil) who 'yearns to conquer the world...'" (The Review of the News, July 16, 1975, p. 33)
10). Unifornity: Why are men universally about 5 ft. 8 inches to 6 ft. in height?
11). Food: Why is it that a cow, a sheep, a pig, a chicken and a rabbit can eat the same grass, grains and plants; yet a cow grows hair, the sheep grows wool, the pig grows bristles, the chicken grows feathers and the rabbit grows Fur?
12). Trees: How is it that a Banana Tree, an Oak, a Pecan, a Fig Tree and a Pine Tree can grow side by side in the same soil, all warmed by the same sun, and the watered by the same rain and warmed by the same sun for thousands of years; yet each one is different, they have different barks, different leaves and different fruit?
13). Milk: Why is it a cow gives milk? So does a Milkweed and a Coconut. Yet Man can drink the Cows milk and the Coconuts Milk but not the milk of the Milkweed?
With the foregoing in mind, we can clearly see, man is endowed with instinct and reason. He has a creative mind. He tries to make things like himself, but the inferior cannot create the superior and therefore man cannot make anything that is equal to or greater than himself. But that does not keep him from trying.
For example: The automobile has two headlights which correspond to the eyes, four wheels that correspond to the hands and feet, a gas tank and battery that correspond to the stomach and the nervous system.
Man makes things to aid himself. The X‑ray and the telescope aid his vision. The telephone extends his voice over great distances. And so it is with everything man makes.
All the things that man makes are images of his thoughts. He has a thought and he makes a thing that is an image of that thought. This is true of everything made by man, from the tallest building on earth, to a shoe lace.
Every bridge, every piece of machinery, everything made by man first existed as a thought in his mind. Man has a creative mind, and this elevates him above the animals, which results in a civilized society. It is therefore logical to believe that the universes, the sun, moon, stars and the earth were thoughts in The Divine Mind of Almighty God, and that they are images of those thoughts.
The Bible says, "...He spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalm 33:9); "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world..." (Psalms 19:1‑4)
The stars are arranged in constellations. Each appears to us as a picture; such as the great dipper and the seven stars and Orion. There are eighty‑eight such picture constellations so far known to man, and symbolically they teach us the truth about the Creator.
There are vibrations coming to the earth all the time from these stars and they are the voice of the Creator from which David and the prophets received their inspiration, and they wrote this down in what we now call the Bible, the Holy Scriptures. Every person who is in tune with the Infinite receives some inspirational messages.
The Apostle Paul said, "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead..." (Romans 1:20)
There is no conflict nor disagreement between material science, which is ascertained truth, and the teaching of the Bible, but there is a conflict between "hypothesis" {a guess} and "theory" which sounds good and which works up to a given point, but is not a proven science and the many ways in which some interpret the Bible literally and out of context in order to substantiate their own religious doctrine or dogma. Therefore the conflict is between errors on the part of the atheists and errors on the part of the religious leaders.
A little learning does much harm. The theories which are called science that the average student gets in high school and college are apt to make an unbeliever out of him, but if he would go on into the deeper studies of science he would end up with a true faith, as did the great physicist, the late Sir James Jeans when he said: "The universe now appears to be a great thought."
That is exactly right, for all the universe is the expression and image of the thoughts of Almighty God. Material evolution which teaches that one species developed into another species of a higher order is not science. It is only a theory and that theory is false, for it makes the inferior create the superior.
Then may I ask, what kind of faith or hope could we have in a theory that teaches it took nature from four to eight billion years {depending upon who is used in presenting the age of the earth} to evolve a man and then can only keep him alive for seventy some years and there end forever his intelligence and his existence.
There is neither reason nor logic nor science in the theory of evolution. We all believe in progress but there is a vast difference between eternal progression which is true and material evolution which is false.
Man is on his way to something better, even unto Christhood. This is eternal progression, not evolution. When reading a book on religion or metaphysics and the author uses the word "evolution," one should, we believe, close the book and read no more of it, because he is totally ignorant of the truth.
"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal." (2 Corinthians 4:18); "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord {the Divine Mind, the Supreme Being}, are changed into the same image from glory to glory {by degrees}, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:18)
We need to know that law does not create. Law only governs that which is already created. First the thing was created, from the atom to the universe, from the smallest one‑celled animal to man, and then law was set in motion to govern that which was created. Of course we need to study and find out as much as we can about how the law operates.
In ancient times there were alchemists who claimed that they could turn cheaper metals into gold, that they could change one thing into another thing. They were considered mystics and fanatics and were laughted at. But maybe they had just caught a glimpse into the future, for it is now know that man can make gold, but it is too expensive a project to be profitable. It is known that different metals and things are what they are because of the different ways that the atoms operate in them. The first miracle of Christ was the turning of water into wine, and here we definitely have the changing of one element into another element. (John 2:1‑11) But this changing of one thing into another thing is only a mystery because it is not understood.
Take the law of digestion as an example. Man eats fruit and vegetables, grain and nuts, and by the law of digestion those things are changed into flesh and blood and bones. It is evident to every human being who thinks and reasons; there is intelligence back of everything.
You know that everything that man has made has intelligence back of it, and that is also true of everything that the Creator has created. But in some things there is not only intelligence back of it but also in it, and I think that this is true of every living thing. Life has intelligence in it. In fact, God is life. All life is a part of the Divine Life. There are different degrees of the manifestation of life and this depends upon what it operates in and through, but life is life and all life is one and the same thing.
We admit we cannot prove there is a Supreme Being, but neither can we prove that there is life. Nobody has seen life; it is invisible. We see living things: trees, animals, men; and we see them die and we conclude that all of these living things are a manifestation of life. We see the universe and the world and we conclude that it is the manifestation of a Supreme Being who is the Creator of the universes and everything therein.
We see manifested the infolding and unfolding of life. This is the nature of every tree. The great oak infolds itself in the scorn and the acorn unfolds into an oak. And by this infolding and unfolding we have the unbroken continuity of life. This is what I mean when I say that there is intelligence not only back of but, in, all living things.
The Testimony of Science:In conclusion the agreement of scientific discoveries with the sequence of events of the Creation of the World, described in the Bible as occurring during the seven periods [so‑called days], is denied. We read: "...that the records of the pre‑historic ages in Genesis are at complete variance with modern science and archaeological research is unquestionable." (Encyclopedia Britannica, Ed. II. Genesis)
Dr. Kinns Ph.D. [University of Jena], who published a list of the scientists who had approved his work, points out that the events of the Creation of the Bible narrative are fifteen in number, and the evolution of the world as admitted by those scientists can also be divided into fifteen stages.
Since a mathematical calculation shows that the chance of accidentally reproducing the exact relative sequence of any fifteen units is about 1 to a million million, the most skeptical must allow the improbability, to say the least of it, of the exact reproduction of either of these sequences being accidental. Yet their agreement is proved by science. The following is Dr. Kinn's comparison of the events of the Creation as attested to by the Bible on the one side and on the other by modern science:
Primarily: Science says that matter existed first in a highly attenuated gaseous condition, called aether, without any form, and non‑luminous.
Moses says: And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
A). Science: The condensation of this aether formed luminous nebulae, which afterwards still further condensed into suns and worlds.
Moses: And God said, Let there be light.
B). Science: In this condensation of nebulae astronomical facts go to prove that other worlds were formed before the Solar System.
Moses: God created the Heaven and the Earth.
C). Science: On the cooling of the earth some of the gases which surrounded it, combined mechanically and chemically to form air and water.
Moses: And God said, Let there be a firmament.
D). Science: On further cooling great convulsions took place, which heaved up the rocks and raised them above the universal sea, forming mountains, islands and continents.
Moses: And God said, Let the dry land appear.
E). Science: The earliest forms of vegetable life were cryptograms, such as the algae lichens, fungi, and ferns, on the land, these are propagated by spores and not by seeds. Dr. Hicks has found ferns in the lower silurian of Wales.
Moses: And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass. Literal translation: Let the earth sprout forth sproutage, which might be rendered tender herbage.
F). Science: Next succeeded the lowest class of phaenogams, or flowering plants called gymnosperms, from having naked seeds, such as the conifers. Dana mentions coniferous wood found in the lower Devonian.
Moses: The herb yielding seed.
G). Science: These were followed by a higher class of Phenogams, or flowering plants, bearing a low order of fruit, found in the Middle Devonian and Carboniferous strata.
Moses: And the fruit tree yielding fruit. The higher order of fruit trees appeared when God planted a garden later on.
H). Science: The earth until after the Carboniferous period was evidently surrounded with much vapor, and an equable climate prevailed all over its surface; afterwards these mists subsided, and then the direct rays of the sun caused the seasons.
Moses: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven, and let them be for signs and for seasons.
I). Science: After the Carboniferous period many fresh species of marine animals appeared, and the seas swarmed with life.
Moses: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly.
J). Science: In the New Red Sandstone footprints of birds are found for the first time.
Moses: And fowl that may fly above the earth.
K). Science: In the after strata of the Lias, monster Saurians such as the Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus are found.
Moses: And God created great whales. Should have been translated sea monsters.
L). Science: Enormous beasts, such as the Megalosaurus, Iguanodon, and Dinotherium, preceded the advent of cattle.
Moses: And God made the beast of the earth after his kind.
M). Science: Cattle, such as oxen and deer, appeared before man; some of them in the Post‑Pliocene period.
Moses: And cattle after their kind.
N). Science: According to Agassiz, the principal flowers, fruit trees, and cereals appeared only a short time previous to the human race.
Moses: The Lord God planted a garden...and out of the ground made the Lord God to grow everything that is pleasant to the sight and good for food.
O). Science: The highest and last created form of animal life was Man.
Moses: And God created man in His own image.
Science: As far as our present knowledge goes, no fresh species of plants or animals were created after man.
Moses: God ended His work which He had made.
In these ways, as Dr. Kinns points out, the book of nature supports the Bible. Sir John Herschel once wrote: "All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings."
Too Hasty Criticisms:In the One Volume Bible Commentary (Genesis) the writer says: "Assuming that the astronomers are right, or, indeed, on any reasonable proposition, the sun and moon were not created later than the earth."
But does the Bible say they were? Is it not evident that verse 16 of the first chapter, in which the sun and moon are mentioned, refers back to the creation of the great light called Day described in the first verse? Could that light have been any other than the sun? That it was so, one translator of the Bible makes clearer by rendering verse 16 as "And God had made two luminaries," and by rendering the first verse: "By periods, God created that which produced the suns; then that which produced the earth." (The Bible in Modern English, Ferrer Fenton)
Thus rendered, these verses harmonize with the modern theory of the solar system. Dr. Kinns shows that where we read in, (Genesis 1:16) "God made two great lights," reference is made to the period when the dense vapors that first surrounded the earth disappeared, enabling the light and heat of the sun to reach it. He shows that the word "made" may equally well be rendered "appointed" as in the 104th Psalm, verse 19: "He appointed the Moon for seasons, and the Sun knoweth his going down."
Another writer, referring to the Creation and Fall of Man, the sentence on mankind, etc., says: "The discoveries of the immensities of the universe, of the antiquity of man, and of the compilation of the Old Testament between 458 and 140 B.C. cut away the whole foundation of this theology."
But, I would ask this writer, where does the Bible upon which "this theology" is founded, deny the immensity of the universe or limit the antiquity of the pre‑Adamites in whose existence it leads us to believe. And what proof is there that the Bible Records were not handed down both in writing and orally in an unbroken line from Adam? I can find none. The contents of this presentation are the most reasonable and logical argument we can present to convince anyone that there is a Supreme Being, and we do hope, after you have read it you will pass it on, preferably to some college or university teacher, student, or to anyone you know who is suffering from the blight of unbelief.
The study of history proves that when men have dropped the idea of a Supreme Being from their minds, demoralization and disintegration sets in, and this has been the cause of the destruction of every great civilization in the past. (Romans 1:18‑32) When men "did not retain God in their knowledge" and in their thoughts and in their planning and acted without Him, the result was degeneration, even to a state lower than that of the animals. (Romans 1:26‑32, Job 30:3‑8)
Surely unbelief is the cause of most suicides, crime and for the despair that exists in our society. Man loses confidence, and respect for himself and therefore he has no respect for anyone else or for society. The so‑called sharing of the wealth and the giving of a comfortable home to every family and a guaranteed annual income and medical care would not solve the problem.
The family, the nation, and society are made up of individuals ‑ and individuals make society, and each individual must be made to realize that he himself IS somebody, that he has a mind and spirit; that he is loved and respected, and that he must love and respect the other individuals who make up society. Today we neglect the individual.
We have tried to do things in a big way and have thought only in terms of the masses of humanity and not of the individual. Man has become a pawn in the hands of anti‑Christs and has been given a number ‑ which has resulted in our civilization being seriously threatened with destruction.
This is the absolute truth: Man has lost faith in himself. He no longer has respect for himself. In fact, he hates himself, and therefore he hates everybody else and hates society in general.
Because there is no justice to be found in the courts of our land, man is turning to anarchy, with no thought in mind but to destroy. He is lost, wandering, dissatisfied individual, and unless we can convince him that he has a spirit and that he is the "offspring" (Acts 17:28) of the Supreme Being, and that he lives and moves and has his existence in the all wise, Supreme Intelligence, (Acts 17:27‑28) and that he has a place and a purpose in life, we cannot save our civilization.
This blight of unbelief is not just something that has happened in this generation. It is the end result of a hundred years of so‑called higher education, wars, and nations whose only goal is to become the greatest ruling power on earth. This is why the "theory" of evolution has developed to the point it has reached today.
Blood, The Liquid of Life:Blood is a matter of life or death. Its kind determines the nature of the life, whether animal or human. Its quality decides health; its type, parentage. Its absence through loss, or destruction, or unavailability of suitable transfusion, spells death.
Absorption of poisons, injection of air or unacceptable material similarly terminates life. A stoppage of the flow will destroy the brain within fifteen minutes, even though circulation may be restarted. Conversely, the transfusion of blood into a patient will visibly renew his vitality.
In 1799, President George Washington died almost certainly as the result of bleeding by his medical advisors. He was probably the most prominent of the many who perished through several centuries in which mistaken practitioners deprived their patients of the very means of life. So demonstrably true is the Scripture verse, "The life of the flesh is in the blood..." (Leviticus 17:11, 14)
This liquid provides the transport system of the body, propelled by the heart, itself dependent on blood; regulated by nerves, salts, and chemical secretions provided by organs that are themselves maintained by it.
Absorbing simple oxygen and air, together with very many complex chemicals from food, in health blood carries them to the numerous organs, depositing them in the right places, with accurate timing and in the correct proportions. At the same time it removes all waste substances and itself is being continually and frequently changed.
Thus it maintains the complexity and high quality of life ‑‑ in the case of man, for his threescore years and ten or more. It is essentially the main agent in the body for the maintenance of equilibrium of temperature, fluids, acidity‑alkalinity, food, salts, and general nutrition. Yet such a liquid is regarded by the evolutionist as the result of chance, without cause, yet producing complex orderly effects.
This vital fluid, with a specific gravity of 1.055 represents about nine percent of the total weight of a man, and amounts to some five liters or nine pints. Apparently consisting simply of forty‑five percent by volume of moist solids or cells and fifty‑five percent plasma, a yellow liquid, both parts contain dozens of complex and vital compounds.
The plasma or serum consists of about ninety percent water, nine percent protein material, 0.9 percent salts, and 0.09 percent sugar, urea, and so forth. These salts are chiefly the basic ions: sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and the carbonate, chloride, phosphate, and sulphate ions. The concentration of these salts is allowed little variation in health.
The kidneys receive a blood inflow of about seventeen hundred quarts daily, but remove only about .10 percent as urine. It is in this that most of the waste products of protein metabolism are secreted ‑‑ such as urea and uric acid, some dyes and other foreign materials, and excess salts.
Other wastes and excess, except that lost through defecation, are removed in perspiration, which contains a large amount of salt. This simple compound, sodium chloride, is a necessity, not only for gastric juice, but also in the blood to prevent cramps in the muscles. If it falls too low the kidneys cease to excrete it. Other chlorides are significant. Excess of ammonium chloride causes acidosis of the blood and produces convulsions. Too much potassium chloride stops the heart.
Calcium chloride is needed to help plug wounds by assisting clotting. The bicarbonate ions, at 210 mg per 100 ml, help in the removal of carbon dioxide from the tissues and keep the blood just alkaline at the pH value of 7.4. If this alkalinity is lost, increased and violent breathing results, and at 7.0 death is likely. Conversely, if the blood reaches an alkalinity of 7.6 it might prove fatal. The recent research of Winston H. Price, Harvey V. Harrison, and Shirley H. Ferebee, reported to the New York Academy of Sciences, suggest that such widely different disorders as cancer, coronary thrombosis, pulmonary tuberculosis, rheumatic heart diseases, and schizophrenia all produce detectable changes in certain blood substances. These are serum mucoids, which are compounds of proteins and carbohydrates. Seven of these provide, in healthy persons, a pattern which is disturbed by disease.
Such facts hardly allow the development of variation in the composition of serum from the supposed original stock of the evolution of new species. The highly imaginative evolutionists have suggested that life evolved from the sea, as its concentration of sodium chloride and other salts is like that of blood and other body fluids.
However, blood has less than one percent of this salt, whereas sea water has a 2.7 percent on average, and 0.8 percent other salts, of which some are not in blood nor would be acceptable to it.
The evolutionists would find that the Baltic Sea, with its somewhat fresher water, is still too salty; but somewhere, at a yet‑to‑be‑discovered location, a river with suitable concentrations might be found as the site of the start of life!
Of other substances in blood, marked changes from the 10 mg of calcium, 2 mg of uric acid, 30 mg of urea, or 100 mg of glucose per 100 ml are of diagnostic significance. For example, excess of glucose, detected also through urine, is characteristic of diabetes. Nerves and muscles cease to function properly if calcium is below 8 mg.
The plasma contains three essential proteins: fibrogen, which helps coagulation; serum albumin; and serum globin or globulin. These are not for food, but are part of the structure of the blood. Hemophiliacs (bleeders) lack fibrogen. Albumin and globulin, as they are large molecules, exert an osmotic pressure of 30 mm of mercury, which draws water back into the capillary blood vessels. This prevents the accumulation of water in the tissues in the condition called edema.
The blood either makes or receives certain substances called antibodies, which are globulins. These are of many kinds and they provide defenses against foreign particles, including bacteria. Should the evolutionist regard these facts of size, content, and effect as the result of chance? The merciful provision of the wise creator rather is the true view.
There are other proteins than those mentioned above that are found dissolved in the plasma, including hormones and enzymes. These latter remarkable, complex substances are in transit: enzymes to catalyze metabolism, and the hormones to stimulate development and secretions, like the working of the "brains" of a factory. For the purpose of nourishing or replenishing the tissues, there are also present in the blood amino acids, which are like "building blocks." These come from proteins that are absorbed chiefly in flesh foodstuffs and consist of chains of these acids. The evolutionist will find no comfort from the fact that human blood contains three or four of these acids different from the gorilla and only one in common with fish. Truly Scripture states: "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of man, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes and another of birds." (1 Corinthians 15:39)
In different races the proportion of individuals belonging to a particular blood group varies widely:
CHINESE WHITE NEGROES
B 35 14 20
P 31 80 95
Rh(D) 100 84 95
V(CEs) ?0 0 40
J52 0 0 20
Fya 99 65 20
Dia 5 0 0
(Source: Blood Transfusion in Clinical Medicine Blockwell Scientific Publications Table 5.3, p. 161)
The forty‑five percent of the blood which consists of cells provides yet more striking evidence of the wonderful nature of the substances in blood. These cells consist of three main types: red cells or erythrocytes, whites or leucocytes, and platelets or thrombocytes. Each kind is produced in bone marrow, although in the fetus its liver is the main site for producing red cells, and white cells are formed in its spleen.
All these cells jostle one another through the arteries, the veins, and some fifty thousand miles of capillaries which can be fifty times thinner than a human hair. In 1658 J. Swammerdam in Holland discovered the red cells, and in 1661 M. Malphighi in Italy saw this capillary circulation. William Harvey in England discovered the general circulation of the blood in 1628. The white cells were found by J. Lieutaud in France in 1749.
The various kinds of cells have their own particular structure, functions, contents, and size. The platelets are the smallest being about 2.5 microns in diameter (the micron, a unit of microscopic measurement, is one millionth of a meter or 0.001 mm). These cells number about half a million per cubic millimeter. They are colorless.
On touching anything but the endothelium lining of the blood vessels, they disintegrate, liberating (among other substances) thrombokinase, which assists in producing from the blood protein fibrogen, the fibrin essential for clotting or plugging loopholes. A rash occurs in pupura when the number of platelets is below normal.
The white cells are comparatively few at five thousand to ten thousand per cmm, or one to every five hundred or one thousand red, and are of three main types. These are the granulocytes (60‑70%; themselves divided into three classes), the lymphocytes (25‑30%), and the monocytes (5‑10%).
They are all indefinite in shape and are of sizes varying with their kind, being between eight and twenty‑two microns. Their main, but by no means exclusive function is phagocytic as they deal with foreign bodies, bacteria, and waste material, ingesting and dissolving them. In this process many of these cells become damaged and die, thus forming pus.
The lymphocytes also apparently produce the antibodies which neutralize the effect of poisonous material. When a person suffers from the serious disease leukemia, there is a population explosion in the blood by the uncontrolled formation of the white cells. All leucocytes have the power of free movement, and lead independent lives for up to fourteen days before being removed and replaced by new cells. They are thus separate lives within a life, and give blood the character of a living fluid.
Once again man has proven the Scriptures to be true. Once again man has proven that God exists because in ancient times He related in the Scriptures that there was life in the blood! "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off." (Leviticus 17:11, 14); "Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh." (Deuteronomy 12:23)
The red cells are the most numerous, numbering about five million in women and five and one‑half million in men per cmm, totaling about 25x109 in the whole body, or ten times more than the platelets, and one thousand times more numerous than the leucocytes.
A red cell can travel from the heart to the brain and back in eight seconds, and to and from the toes in eighteen seconds. These cells are specially designed to carry oxygen from the lungs around the body to the tissues.
This is effected by the remarkable chemical hemoglobin. The blood of males contains about 12‑17 grams of the substance, and that of females 11‑15 grams per 100 ml. This compound apparently consists of four molecules of haem linked with the protein globin, which itself contains three hundred amino acids in two chains.
The haem molecule is one atom of iron combined in its ferrous state with seventy‑four other atoms, being nearly nine percent of its weight or four percent of the whole molecule of hemoglobin. This latter substance accounts for most of the thirty‑eight percent solid matter in the red cells. But the iron in the total hemoglobin of a man is sufficient to make only a single two‑inch nail! It was the German chemist J. von Liebig who, in 1852, discovered the combination of iron and oxygen in the blood. The hemoglobin molecule is very large, having a molecular weight of 68,000, whereas that of glucose is only 180.
Hemoglobin functions by forming a loose compound with oxygen, the ferrous iron being oxidized to the ferric state to make the molecule bright scarlet. When it is reduced in the tissues by giving up the oxygen, it turns dark purple. At the same time one‑third of the carbon dioxide passes into the red cells and two‑thirds into solution in the plasma. The difference in color between the arterial and venous blood is a valuable indicator in medical practice.
The darker venous blood is returned to the lungs where it releases the carbon dioxide into the air, and the hemoglobin is recharged with oxygen. One hundred ml of oxygenated blood containing 14 grams of hemoglobin will hold 18.5 ml of oxygen, whereas a similar volume of water would dissolve only 0.38 ml.
These facts are a merciful economy in the amount of blood the body would otherwise have to carry. If the poisonous gas carbon monoxide enters the lungs, this function of hemoglobin is destroyed. This is due to the fact that hemoglobin has 250 times more affinity for it than for oxygen, and also does not release it in any part of the body. Survival is then dependent on replacement of the poisoned cells by newly made ones, or the body dies of oxygen starvation by its otherwise life‑giving fluid. Anemias are diseases in which the red cells are deficient in number or in hemoglobin content.
These erythrocytes are like envelopes containing hemoglobin. Their life is much longer than that of the other types of cells, being about 120 days, after which they are worn out. This means that about 2.5 million are made and destroyed per second, or one percent of blood is replaced daily in the body. After about three hundred thousand exchanges of oxygen and carbon dioxide the hemoglobin is destroyed in the spleen, forming amino acids.
In economic fashion, the iron returns to bone marrow and the liver for further use. The red cells are of uniform shape compared with the other kinds of cells, being elastic, biconcave discs 7.5 microns in diameter and 2.2 microns thick. In certain anemias the shape is distorted. Mathematical analysis, confirmed by the applied science department of the International Business Machines Corporation computer, showed that the normal shape is the best for giving the largest surface to the smallest volume for the function of supplying oxygen rapidly to the tissues. The area thus provided for this purpose in the aver person amounts to about 3,500 square yards. Was such a perfect plan for cells the result of chance or the work of the Wise Designer? The Creator of all things.
A comparison of the size and number of red cells alone in various creatures shows wide differences, which do not help the theory of common ancestry. Whereas man has about five million red cells per cmm, the goat has nine to ten million; but its near relation the sheep has thirteen to fourteen million. Birds have one to four million. Fish, supposed to be less evolved, have from 0.25 up to as many as two million, and the more developed (according to the evolutionist) frog has only 0.5 million.
The average diameter of man's red corpuscles at 7.5 microns is nearly the same as that of his good friend the dog at 7.3. The supposedly related carnivore, the cat, has cells of 6.5 microns. The herbivorous rabbit's measure 6.9, but the goat's only 4.1 and the musk deer's 2.0.
It is obviously difficult to relate these sizes to activity, habitat, food, bodily size, or supposed evolutionary descent. Also of interest here is the fact that frogs and pigeons, as examples of amphibians and birds, have larger oval, red corpuscles measuring 22.3 by 15.7 and 14.7 by 6.5 microns, respectively.
Many other differences between the blood of man and that of animals show the folly of following evolutionary theory. For instance, the granulocytes of different mammals have dissimilar appearance. Also the crystalline forms of hemoglobin derived from the blood of various animals differ greatly. Even those of supposedly closely related creatures are markedly unalike. Further, while dogs and cats have a low red cell concentration of potassium and a high sodium content, in the rat and the rabbit these relative concentrations are reversed.
As early as 1904, H.F. Nuttall published the results of thousands of blood precipitation tests in his book Blood Immunity and Blood Relationship. These were used as evidence in 1925 by H.H. Newman of the University of Chicago in the famous Scopes trial, which concerned the teaching of evolution in Tennessee. N. Thompson in Outlines of Zoology, as late as 1944, quoted them in support of the theory.
Douglas Dewar in his valuable book The Transformist Illusion, 1957, pointed out the numerous absurdities in these figures. (Douglas Dewar, The Transformist Illusion. Evolution Protest Movement Pamphlet No. 74, 1957) Examples of these are that ungulates (hoofed animals) appeared closely related to whales, and some whales are nearer relations of man than are monkeys.
The crane is apparently a close relative of the greenfinch, but far removed from the hedge sparrow. Some humans showed they are more closely related to apes than to their fellow men, and as nearly related to carnivores, rodents, and ungulates! Nevertheless, Newman stated, "The results so far attained are so definite and clean‑cut that there is every reason to expect a great future for this type of evolutionary evidence."
However, the situation today is no clearer, and this type of appeal has been largely dropped. It is an interesting example of false evidence being used to bolster up a failing theory, and of a blind faith that blood, which holds the key to life, must also prove evolution.
In 1649 the Englishman Francis Potter discussed blood transfusion. He was followed by Richard Lower, F.R.S. who became M.A. of Oxford during the Commonwealth. Lower successfully performed a transfusion of blood from one dog to another in Robert Boyle's presence at Oxford in 1665, and repeated the experiment before the Royal Society in London in 1669. On 15 June 1667 Jean Baptiste Denys made history in Paris by transfusing blood from one man to another.
Lower safely repeated this on 23 November of that same year in England. Such experiments subsequently caused fatalities, probably through lack of knowledge of differences in blood‑producing coagulation. Hence they were stopped by law in most countries. The English obstetrician James Blundell early in the nineteenth century revived interest in the process by saving the lives of a number of anemic patients by transfusion of human blood.
The Austrian Karl Landsteiner in 1898 made the vital discovery which led to safer transfusion. He found blood could be classified into four main groups, according to the presence in the serum or red cells of certain substances, causing agglutination or clumping together of the cells.
Group A contains one of these two main materials; group B the other, group AB has both, but the fourth group O has neither. Hence group O may be given by transfusion as the "universal donor" to any group.
AB may receive the blood of any group, but A and B are restricted to that of their own respective group. There are also a number of other factors, including some mentioned below which have to be considered; and before actual transfusion, cross‑matching of the donor's and the recipient's bloods to assure no agglutination must be done, or death may occur.
Inheritance of the group follows Mendelian laws. A, mating with A or O, produces only A, B with B or O gives only B. A crossed with B gives the AB group, and O produces only O.
Here again is no evidence for evolution, as another group is never produced by a different pure pair. Groups also persist in being distinct; No New Ones Are Formed.
There are racial variations in the distribution of the groups. Human Blood is not all the same. The translation of Acts 17:26 in the King James version, unlike some revisions, inserts "blood," although the word haima does not appear in the Greek text, which is thus in accord with modern physiology!
The tables below show the percentage frequencies of occurrence of the various groups in different races. The second list is from the report of J. Moor‑Jankowsky, Alexander S. Weiner, and Charles M. Rodgers in "Human Blood Group Factors in Non‑Human Primates," (Published in Nature, vol. 16, no. 5, p. 54)
A BA B 0
Europeans 45 10 5 40
Negroes 24 28 6 42
American and
Mexican Indians 29 3 1 67
Table II: Non‑Human Primates
Chimpanzees 87 0 0 13
Orangutans 85 4 11 0
*Gibbons 20 40 40 0
*Gorillas 0 100 0 0
Baboons, pure41 20 39 0
Baboons, cross‑bred 0 81 19 0
*Pigtail monkeys 0 100 0 0
*Rhesus monkeys 0 100 0 0
*Celebes black apes 70 20 0 10
*Java macaques 61 8 23 8
*Squirrel monkeys 75 0 0 25
*Cebus monkeys 0 75 0 25 (Results based on small samples)
The figures of Table II give little comfort to the evolutionist seeking identity between apes and men, for none are comparable with those of Table I, even allowing for wide variations in the figures.
Gibbons, which have some percentages similar to those of man, are obviously very different as they are without the O group. A number of others also have no O group, which is abundant in man. The Cebus and squirrel monkeys include some with the O group, but none with A or AB. The gorillas, often regarded as near man, are one hundred percent B.
Evan Shute in his book Flaws in the Theory of Evolution points out the vast differences found by Rabin in the distribution of blood groups between the long isolated Ona and Yahgan tribes who live adjacent to one another in Tierra del Fuego. The figures as percentages are:
A B AB 0
Ona 5.6 0 0 94.4
Yahgan 0 91.0 0 9.0
On the other hand, many peoples who are racially extremely unalike have yielded almost identical distribution figures. Examples of these pairs are Australian Aborigines and Eskimos, Negrito Pygmies and Russians, south Africans and Melanesians! An increasing number of factors that can cause agglutination are being found in blood, so the number of groups is not confined to the four mentioned above. Thus there are the Lewis, Kell, and Duffy factors, named after the families in which they were first found.
Also there are the M and N types of blood, and the P positive and the P negative identified by Landsteiner and Levine in 1927. The total is in excess of fourteen, which give rise to over one hundred types of blood. Combinations of factors will produce numerous types, since 210=1024, 214=16,384, and 220=1,048,576. Thus there is great individuality in blood, which shows how remarkable the substance is and how valueless for evidence of evolution. So A.E. Hooton, himself an evolutionist, in Apes, Men, and Morons states, "The reconstructions of primitive races and prehistoric migrations that are based on serology are even more speculative and implausible than those that result from the study of skulls and bones."
Among the other factors found in blood is the Rhesus discovered by K. Landsteiner and A.S. Weiner in the United States in 1940. This factor divides blood into that type containing it and thus termed Rhesus Positive (or Rh+) and that type without it, termed Rhesus Negative (or Rh‑). A mixture of these bloods in transfusion or in childbirth can cause death.
The existence of this factor in both human and Rhesus monkey blood has been quoted as evidence for the relationship of man to monkeys. However, 15 percent of the white races have blood in which the factor is absent; that is, they are Rh‑, and the Basques are twenty‑five percent Rh‑! While ninety‑five percent of negroes and ninety‑nine percent of American Indians, or Chinese, or Japanese are Rh+, these races are not therefore to be regarded as nearer simians than those of European stock. This is seen in that they have other factors very different from the Rhesus monkeys, for while the latter has no O group, the table above shows they have forty‑ two percent and sixty‑seven percent, respectively. also the American Indians have only three percent with group B, whereas the Rhesus monkeys have one hundred percent.
Landsteiner and Weiner also found that the Rh+ factor in human and chimpanzee blood is not identical, and that the "red cells of monkeys give no clear reaction with any of the Rh‑Hr antisera used." they also report considerable differences regarding other factors, stating for instance that for the Lewis factor, "a characteristic pattern emerged for each primate species." These conflicting figures show the impossibility of deriving an overall blood pattern that would justify the evolutionary belief in man's monkey ancestry, or explain how the various non‑primate species evolved.
Much more detailed and technical information about blood is revealed in such books as Functions of Blood, edited by MacFarland and Robb‑Smith. Vroman in his book Blood lists twenty‑two learned periodicals given wholly to describing investigations into this vital liquid, and points out that numerous other research reports are being made in other journals such as Science and Nature. Thus as research proceeds, blood is seen as more and more highly complex; so that with increasing knowledge, transfusion and therapeutic techniques become safer and more effective.
Man is thus revealed as neither "Up from the Ape" (Hooton) nor emerged from the amoeba, but "fearfully [for reverence] and wonderfully made" (David in Psalm 139:14) ‑‑ a unique creature to the last drop of his life's blood. Are all the features of blood reviewed above to be regarded as the products of gradual development, adaptation, trial and error, or chance; or are they the work of the life‑giving God?
The beauty of blood,
Living, sustaining,
Detecting, restraining;
Flushing and flowing;
Finding the feet,
Guiding and guarding;
Feeding the fingers,
Weaving and warming;
Uniquely healing,
Health‑giving ‑‑ revealing
The Maker Almighty,
All‑loving, All‑knowing.
The Urge To Submerge:"I must go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky."
This famous poem by John Masefield, former Poet Laureate of England, was one many students had to memorize while in school. It is a beautiful and moving poem, but most can not identify with it. Especially those who spent their early boyhood or girlhood years in Texas, in a region of deserts, far from the sea, and never felt any such compulsion at all. But NOW we learn, from a fascinating article in the "New Age Journal," that we have all evolved from aquatic apes! This is the theory proposed by Elaine Morgan in her popular book "The Scars of Evolution."
"Ever wonder why we love water? Why we head for the beach at the first opportunity, stay in the shower long after we're clean, even ponder water births for our babies? According to Welsh author Elaine Morgan, this urge to submerge may have an evolutionary explanation -- that holds some surprising implications for our health today.
Traditional evolutionary theory posits that humans separated from monkeys when our ancestors dropped from trees to hunt animals on the dry African plains. In contrast, Morgan argues that the first humans evolved in a flooded wet region of north-east Africa where they spent much of their time swimming or wading hip-deep in water." (An Evolutionary Urge to Submerge? by Meryl Davids, New Age Journal (January/February 1995), p. 19)
This new theory of human origins does not have the merit of explaining why fossil remains of ape-men are so scarce. One would think, if man has been in the process of evolving on land for a million years, and with so many paleoanthropologists searching for these remains, there would now be an abundance of such remains available everywhere to document our human evolution. As another advocate of the aquatic ape theory reminds us, however, in his article, "The Water People": "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin...And the true origin of modern humans; of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." (The Water People, Lyeli Watson, Science Digest, Vol. 90 (May 1982), p. 44)
This extreme scarcity of authentic hominid fossils is probably why paleoanthropologists feud so vigorously among themselves as to whose fossils are the best and oldest. Some evolutionists think the time is ripe for promoting aquatic apes as the real key.
"While largely ignored by many mainstream anthropologists, the aquatic ape theory has been attracting increasing scientific interest. Last summer, a symposium on the subject at the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS) attracted researchers from around the world. When earlier published in England, 'The Scars of Evolution' was positively reviewed in scientific journals." (An Evolutionary Urge to Submerge? Meryle Davids, p. 20)
Here, then, may be the solution to the extreme scarcity of hominid fossils. They are all under water somewhere!
Now, we creationists should usually be very cautious about anything published in a "new age" journal. However, the aquatic-ape theorists are probably right about this particular aspect. The reason why anthropologists can find so few fossils of primitive people is that they were all drowned and their remains, if they survived scavengers and decay processes after drowning, are now buried in the sediments at the bottom of the sea.
Even before Morgan developed her theory of the aquatic evolution of people, many other evolutionists had long been claiming that the origin of life itself was in the primeval sea. That is why, they explain, that human flesh is still 90% water and why blood has almost the same chemical composition as sea water.
The Bible, of course, says otherwise, "The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground." (Genesis 2:7); "The first man is of the earth, earthy." (1 Corinthians 15:47)
The Greater Light To Rule The Day:"Of all the celestial objects with which we are acquainted, none make so strong and universal an impression upon our globe as does the Sun. He is that very light, 'the greater light to rule the day,' as stated in the first chapter of the book of Genesis; a vast and fiery orb, kindled by the Almighty on the morn of creation, to cheer the dark abyss, and to pour his radiance upon surrounding worlds. Compared with him, all the other solar bodies are of inconsiderable dimensions; and without him, they would be wrapped in the gloom of interminable night."
The Sun's supreme and paramount importance to the Earth, in the utter dependence upon it of every living thing, is far too vaguely known and too indefinitely appreciated and understood. Hence, a few basic facts about the Greater Light are in order.
The visible body of the Sun is called the photosphere, or sphere of light. Surrounding the photosphere is the Sun's atmosphere which consists of the chromosphere (or pinkish sphere of color) which extends for several thousand miles above the photosphere, and the corona which extends outward for millions of miles. The corona of the Sun is visible only during a total solar eclipse.
The Sun's dimensions are virtually incomprehensible. Were a railroad, if it were possible, passed through the Sun's center, and should a fast express train start from one side and proceed at the rate of 100 miles per hour continuously to the other side, the time required for such a transit would be nearly one full year. With a diameter of 864,059 miles to be precise, a distance equal to 109 Earths set side by side in contact, or roughly twice the diameter of the Moon's orbit about the Earth, the Sun is an immense ball of extremely hot gasses. The surface temperature alone is in excess of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
More than a century of spectroscopic study has resulted in detailed knowledge of the Sun's composition, of which the most abundant elements are hydrogen and helium consisting 98 percent. The other two percent is made up of heavier elements common in the planets.
The volume of the Sun is such that 1,303,600 volumes the size of the Earth would be required to fill it, and its mass is such that given a large enough scale it would take a stack of 332,946 Earths before the balance would tip in favor of the Earth. The almost inconceivable distance to the Sun, 93,000,000 miles, would require our high-speed train well over a hundred years to traverse. If there were air to convey a sound from the Sun to the Earth, and a noise could be made loud enough to pass that distance, it would require over 14 years for it to come to us.
The angular diameter of the Sun subtends about one-half degree, or very nearly the same as the Moon, a fact that has important cosmological consequences insofar as eclipses of these bodies are concerned. If a weight trainer's barbell weighed 100 pounds on Earth, the same would weigh well over a ton on the Sun, if it didn't become instantly vaporized in the intense heat. At magnitude -26.8 the solar orb shines with the brilliance of perhaps 500,000 full Moons. The Sun rotates, but not uniformly. Being neither solid nor liquid, but entirely a sphere of gas, its rotation varies, as learned from the observation of the apparent travel of sunspots across its visible face, being most rapid at the equator and the slowest near the poles. At its equator, the average rotational period is 27.50 days, and near the poles it is 34 days. Light from the Sun traveling 186,262 miles per second takes a little over eight minutes to reach the Earth. The equator of the Sun is inclined a little more than seven degrees to the ecliptic. A cubic foot of the Sun would weigh about 85 pounds if it could be placed on your bathroom scales.
When Galileo first noticed dark specks on the surface of the Sun, he thought they might be openings into the Sun's interior. Actually sunspots are whirlpools of particles that are stirred up by the Sun's intense electric and magnetic fields, which in turn may be a function of its uneven rotation. They appear dark because they are 30 percent cooler than the rest of the Sun's surface, although they are still thousands of degrees hotter than molten metal. The number of sunspots vary over time, but reach a maximum about every eleven years. Other than the sunspots, the most noticeable detail on the Sun's surface, as seen through a filtered telescope, is the granulations, the little islands of heated convection cells averaging 600 miles across that cover the entire face of the Sun. According to Newtonian physics, the Sun comprises 999/1000 of the mass of the Solar System.
In order to get a grasp on the Sun's appearance and visibility over great distances, suppose we board a space ship and go on a journey through the Solar System and out into space directly away from the Sun. To being with, we recognize that from Earth, the Sun appears about the same size as the Moon. Now, if we were to blast off in our racket and fly to Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun, the Sun would appear about two to three times larger hanging in the sky over Mercury's baked surface. As we sped over the cloud tops of Venus, the Sun would appear about half again as big as from Earth. If we landed on Mars and saw the sun from the chilly Martian deserts, the muted solar disk would appear about two-thirds as large as it appears from Earth. As our spaceship passed through the asteroids, the Sun would be about a third as large as the Earthen Sun. In the vicinity of Jupiter, the Sun would appear about a fifth as large. As we continued even further outward in the Solar system, the sunlight outside our spaceship's window would appear ever dimmer. By the time we arrived at the planet Uranus, the Sun would no longer appear as a discernible disk to the naked eye. At Pluto, the sentinel of the solar system, the Sun would appear as a star although its brilliance would still be dazzling.
Once we left the Solar System and headed out into the dark and exceedingly frigid depths of the abysmal cosmos, the sun would yet remain the brightest object in the sky for a considerable distance. When we reached Alpha Centauri A, the nearest star at a little more than four light years away, we might land on a nearby planet and look in the sky to see the sun as one of the brightest stars and located just to the left of the group of stars we call Cassiopeia. Finally, as we continued our journey, we would have to travel outward another 45 light years before we reached a point where the Sun would appear as a faint yellowish star barely visible to the naked eye, at about 50 light years out in deep space. Beyond that it would disappear below the threshold of visibility and would require a telescope to see it.
Of all the celestial objects, the Sun is probably the one most taken for granted. Its light and heat is a familiar everyday phenomenon. History is full of evidence that men did not always have our present childlike faith in tomorrow's sunrise or in the return of summer. Chiefs and priests of many cultures offered sacrifices and several obeisance to the Sun god whose anger at mankind supposedly cause it to retreat southward in the fall, punishing the people with bitter weather. Some, no doubt, believed that the return of spring was due solely to their ardent solicitations to the Sun. What would our emotions be if on some evening's news broadcast it was announced: "Ladies and gentlemen, we have just received word that the Sun has gone out?" Such a catastrophe would bring a dawnless morning, the Earth would be doomed to perpetual darkness, in the course of a few hours time summer would turn into winter and perhaps snow would start falling in the darkness and then the lakes and oceans would eventually freeze. Food and fuel would rapidly disappear and civilization would be ended within just a few days at best. Ultimately the atmosphere would condense, liquefy, and freeze to entomb the entire Earth with a thirty-foot casing of solid air at the temperature of deep space, about 400 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. The Sun is a cleverly designed dynamo that continually furnishes us with light and heat.
The Sun's reliability and permanency is remarkable, although it is not known with certainty what mechanism lies within the solar furnace that produces known with certainly what mechanism lies within the solar furnace that produces all of its energy. The natural first thought that some kind of fuel was burning had to be ruled out. It is easily calculated that if the sun were made of coal and had always burned at the observed rate, it would last only 5,000 years.
We do know that it is extremely efficient, producing 70,000 horsepower for every square yard of the solar surface. Only one part in two billion of the total radiated energy leaving the Sun actually strikes the Earth. Nevertheless, even if the fraction falling in one week upon an area one mile square could be converted into electricity at the rate of five cents per kilowatt hour, its value would be well over a million dollars. The geyser-like eruptions called prominences that emerge from the Sun can be identified with the stormy sunspots which in turn are associated with the Sun's magnetic field and its coronal halo. All of these may be linked to the Sun's different rotation.
As for its energy production, it is believed that the sunlight we see everyday is made of units of radiant energy called photons which originate in the inferno of the Sun's core. They may take many years slowly wandering up to the surface, then in a little more than eight minutes they speed across the 93,000,000 miles of space to the Earth, if they happen to be headed our way. Depending upon the wavelength or amount of energy a photon has, it may be absorbed by the Earth's atmosphere, reflected back into space, or it may zip down to the Earth's surface to warm a flea or a blade of grass for an instant. Each photon carries only a tiny amount of energy, but trillions of them reach every square yard of the Earth each second. Together they make up the Sun's light and heat.
The great pressure and temperature of the Sun's core cause the crowded jumble of atomic particles to smash into each other so violently that they stick together in a process called fusion, which releases the energy. The process is thought to be very similar to that of a continuously exploding hydrogen bomb. The best way to look at the Sun is, don't! Gazing at the Sun much longer than an instant can cause serious, permanent eye injury or even blindness. The damage is imperceptibly caused by the Sun's rays which are focused by the eye onto the retina, in much the same way that a magnifying glass can focus the Sun's rays on a piece of paper and set it afire.
There has been much talk among evolutionary philosophers about the Earth being "just another planet" revolving around "just another average star." Yet when the evidence to the country is considered, it is clear that neither the Earth nor the Sun are insignificant or typical, and that the Sun is not just another "star" after all, but actually quite unique in the universe and that it ought not be classified as a star. When the Sun is compared to the stars, it truly stands out in its unique stability as the light-and heat-giver for the Earth as an abode of life. It is a known fact that most stars produce visible light in only small proportions and are most intense in their output of lethal radiations like X-rays and gamma rays.
The Sun is unusual in the life-supporting spectrum of energy that it does provide. Another aspect of the Sun's uniqueness is its singularity. Over two-thirds of the stars are members of star systems containing two or more gravitational interplay of the neighboring stars, life on Earth would be precarious at best, given the drastic variations of tides, light, and heat it would experience. The Sun is unique in yet another way. Compared to most stars, its light and heat is steadfast, constant, and abiding. Many more of the stars are considerably variable in their output of light and heat.
Most stars fluctuate greatly in the process of time, with output factors that range from 10 percent to 150,000 percent. Life on Earth could not endure such wild extremes of radiation. Furthermore, the vast majority of stars are smaller, cooler, dimmer, and less massive than the Sun. In addition to the Sun's unique intrinsic suitability to be the Earth's light-and heat-giver, the Earth itself is placed at the optimal distance from such an unusual "star" as our Sun. When seen in the broader context of the cosmos, the Sun can be clearly seen as a grand product of design, with a very special purpose, by an almighty and benevolent Creator who has revealed Himself and declared in His great foundation revelation: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth...and God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; He made the stars also." (Genesis 1:1, 16)
References to the Sun fill the Bible, its importance as a light-giver, symbol, and timetable is inestimable. The divinely ordained purpose of the Sun is well known "to rule the day...and to divide the light from the darkness." (Genesis 1:18) Given its importance in the daily affairs of man since the days of old, there is no wonder it was worshipped by many ancient civilizations, and that even in the Bible it is used metaphorically for God. Where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. Something can be done about it. If we quit passing the buck and saying "They" should do something about it, and start saying I must do something about it, then we can, with the help of Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ do something about it!
Microgeometric Design of Diatoms: Jewels of The Sea:"It was a miracle of rare device, A sunny pleasure dome with caves of Ice!" (Samuel Taylor Coleridge, on the Pleasure Palace of Kubla Khan)
From the evolutionary view of the biosphere, the Kingdom Protista, which comprises the unicellular eukaryotic organisms (protozoa, algae, and slime molds) is primitive to "higher" life forms, multicellular animals and plants, yet among its members is manifested the greatest complexity of cell structure known. Exemplary of this point are the diatomaceous algae (Bacilliariophycea), whose cytoarchitecture exhibits perhaps the most exquisite geometry seen in the natural world. (M. Armitage, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 31 (1994): 167-160. This paper should be consulted for a bibliography of the points addressed in the present article. Also see M. French, Invention and Evolution: Design in Nature and Engineering (Cambridge University Press), C. Froede, CRSQ 32:11, P. Treguer et al., Science 268:375-379)
Diatoms are truly microorganisms, too small to be seen with the naked eye. With an average diameter of 25 microns (10-6 meters), four individual diatoms could be aid across the breath of a human hair. In terms of population numbers, however, diatoms are a huge component of the earth's biota, making up about 90% of all living organisms in the ocean (there are also species of diatoms inhabiting fresh water).
These and other photosynthetic phytoplankton constitute the trophic base of the ocean's food chains, responsible for the production of some 130,000 million tons of organic carbon per year. As such, diatoms play a vital role in the earth's ecology. And to those students of nature who are receptive to it, they give us a lesson in the philosophy of design and its significance. Diatoms have been a marvel to microscopists since Ernst Haeckel's mid-19th century descriptions of the first of what now amount to some 10,000 species living today, and in the fossil record. The fascination is with the geometrically intricate structure of the cell wall. As for other kinds of algae and the cells of plants per se, the cell wall of diatoms contains cellulose. The spacial orientation of the cellulose microfibrils is guided by an array of microtubules in the cortical cytoplasm, which in turn becomes a determinant of cell shape.
In concert with the deposition of silica (as silicic acid, Si[OH]4, taken up from the environmental milieu) a topography of elaborately sculpted patters of groves, flanges, and spicules is established; as these are inlaid with hydrous silicon oxide, the diatoms' opaline shells, or tests, are produced. This patterned framework is repeatedly perforated with minute pores, or fenestrae, through which pseudopodial cytoplasmic processes pass in the course of nutrient acquisition and locomotion. The result is one of astonishing beauty, perfect symmetry, top to bottom, left to right, and front to back, in a plethora of geometric shapes, circles, squares, triangles, ovals, stars, and rectangles. (Note: Silica is the stuff of which opals are made [more mundane substances composed of silica are sand, quarts, chert, and glass]. The biogenic opaline structure of diatom tests indicates that millions of years would not necessarily be required for the formation of these gemstones as it is commonly purported) Like other algae, diatoms contain the green pigment chlorophyll, but the presence of additional pigments, notably the yellowish xanthophylls, give these organisms a rich golden brown hue. The artistry is further embellished by the way in which diatoms reproduce, which is usually by cell division, but with a twist.
Diatom cell walls consist of almost identical halves which fit together like a box fits into its lid. With division, each half separates and produces a slightly smaller shell that fits within the old one, a scheme reminiscent of Russian Matrishka dolls. Subsequent divisions result in a succession of ever smaller daughter cells, until a minimum size limit is reached. A process of sexual reproduction, by means of spores (gametes), is then activated, giving rise to diatoms of the original size. Altogether, diatoms are aptly referred to as jewels of the sea. Fabergé's finest creations pale in comparison to those of the Creator!
Diatom shell structure is species specific; i.e., all organisms of the same species have essentially the same shell shape and infrastructure (though there are minor individual variations, so that no two diatoms are exactly alike), but the patter is different for each species. Thus, as a character of taxonomic significance, it may be inferred that diatom shell structure is determined, ultimately, by genetic information. Meanwhile, the geometric diversity displayed appears to be non-adaptational, i.e., undiminished by natural selection. This is beauty for its own sake, unfettered by evolutionary pragmatism!
Nonetheless, for all their aesthetic qualities, diatoms are also a practical environmental resource. As photosynthetic autotrophs, they manufacture their own nutrition, which in turn represents a substantial percentage of the earth's annual production of organic carbon. In the process they are significant consumers of carbon dioxide and are responsible for the production of much of the earth's atmospheric oxygen. Their syntheses included that of a very high quality oil (comparable to peanut, linseed, and cotton oils) occupying up to 10% of the cell's volume (the diatoms use this oil as a metabolic energy reserve).
While chemically different from that found in oil fields per se, it is not unlikely that fossil beds of diatoms containing billions of cubic feet of these microbes have contributed to the earth's hydrocarbon deposits. As primary producers, diatoms constitute the major food item for many fish (supplying among other nutrients most of the vitamin D found in fish oils) and other aquatic animals, including the largest of all - whales. Diatomaceous earth (deposits of their sedimented siliceous tests, diatomite rock from fossil beds, fullers' earth from more recent sediments) has industrial application as a fine abrasive and is used in filtering and insulating materials.
When absorbed by diatomite (which Alfred Nobel knew as Kieselguhr), nitroglycerine becomes stable and thus we have dynamite. Diatoms have proven extremely useful as guide fossils to the geologists' location of petroleum deposits for the oil and gas industry. Ecologically, they significantly impact the inorganic chemical concentrations of the aquatic environment, especially of silica, nitrates, and phosphates, playing a major role in their cycling between the animate and inanimate components of the biosphere. Under certain circumstances (e.g., fertilizer runoff, resultant phosphate pollution and microbial blooms), this can have the adjunctive function of purifying fouled water supplies. Besides diatoms, planktonic organisms for which silica is a structural component, are the silicoflagellates and some of the radiolarians. A group of protists resembling diatoms in their form are the polythalamian foraminifera. They differ from diatoms in having tests of calcium carbonate. The obvious system, one perhaps adjunctive to their buoyancy, though most protests get along very well without them (see, e.g., the shell-less radiolarians).
Geometric form is also seen in purely physical (abiotic) systems, as in the case of crystals. Indeed, most solid matter has orderly atomic arrangement and is of crystalline structure when a solid is formed gradually from a fluid (a notable exception in glass). Outward form is bounded by smooth, planar, symmetrically arranged surfaces (facets) which develop in response to directional forces within the growing crystal itself. Each chemical element (or compounds thereof, e.g., salts and oxides) tends to crystallize in a definite and characteristic form. The apparently infinite variability of form exhibited by snowflakes, every snow crustal is unique in its precise configuration, is due to the unlimited variation in the specific micro-weather conditions under which they are assembled (combinatorialy, the number and distribution of ice nucleation centers in a developing snowflake are infinitely variable, thus the chance of a repeat become mathematically impossible).
Engineers, who by and large are less prone to flights of evolutionary fancy than biological theorists, note that one characteristic of function design is elegance. Where natural systems are the example, references is to an essential elegance, one more fundamental than mere appearance; beautiful outward form is a reflection of economical design.
To a consideration of the design principle, it is significant that the geometry exhibited by diatoms goes above and beyond the aforementioned intrinsic organizational properties of physical matter - e.g., crystalline geometry, in its informational determinants, which, as embodied in the organisms' genetics (vide supra), are extrinsic micromorphology of these organism is neither predictable nor constrained by the physical qualities of its constituent elements, nothing that biogenic silica as opal has no inherent crystalline structure (cf. lithogenic silica), but in the solid state is amorphous. Cf. the case of snowflake formation where I=0 (see below), information is a quality which when imposed on a dynamic system reduces an indefinite number of possible outcomes to a singularity, as we have it in the species specific form of diatom shells. Thus, if I0 = 0 (when no information is available, I1 # 0 (when information is gained), P0 is the probability for possible outcomes, P1 = 1 (when, as a result of specifying information, a single outcome is selected), then:
I = -k InP or _I=-kin (P1/P0) = I1 - I0
In the totality of our human experience, there is but one source of meaningful information, and that is intelligence. Proponents of chaos theory might have it otherwise. To a non-theistic evolutionist, who would perforce gainsay the impingement of creative intelligence on the natural world, what is perceived as design in biological systems is attributable to the organizational properties of matter itself, or a stochastic trial and error process in the evolution of the genetic base.
Yet the same evolutionist has no problem with identifying artifacts such as arrowheads for what they are and accordingly attributing to them an intelligent source, with the conviction that such geometric shapes, albeit much less complex than those manifested by diatoms, do not form by mindless chance. Why are diatoms, so exquisitely complex, so singularly beautiful to study?
The answer is in Romans 1:20: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."
In all their aesthetic intricacy, could diatoms be simply the calling card of the Master Designer? With that in mind, we dedicate this paper to the memory of Dr. Richard Bliss, who was so quick to comprehend and appreciate design in nature, its source, and who was so effective in educating his students, K through faculty colleagues to that principle. (By Mark Armitage, President of MicroSpecialists and a student in biology at the ICR Graduate School; and Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D., Chairman of the Biology Department at ICR and Professor of Biology at The Master's College)
Female Monarch Butterfly's Needles Designed For Its Survival:There are many marvelous evidences of creative design in the structure and life history of the Monarch Butterfly. Only one example; that of its remarkable forelegs, is considered in this part of the study. The female Monarch butterfly has six microscopic needles on each foreleg. The male Monarch butterfly forelegs have no needles, only hairs. Some evolutionary scientists say that since the small 0.2-inch forelegs have no useful purpose, they will eventually disappear. However, this belief is far from the truth. These needles are vital for the very survival of the Monarch butterflies.
The reason most evolutionary entomological scientists believe these small forelegs will disappear is because they have never studied their use in great detail or from the right perspective. They believe this complex, beautiful butterfly came into existence by random chance or accident many millions of years ago. They assume that since the other two pairs of legs are so much larger and more useful in grasping and tasting things, that these small forelegs must be shrinking and eventually will disappear.
But remember that no human has ever seen random chance produce a complex, organized, living creature or structure. Even if humans were ever able to make a living cell in the laboratory, it would be by a complex and well-organized design and construction process, not by random chance, and the forelegs of the Monarch butterfly are extremely well-designed for their specific functions.
The Monarch butterfly has six legs. The two forelegs, located just under the head, are very small, requiring a magnifying glass or microscope to see them. The tips of each of the female forelegs carry three pairs of copper colored, microscopic needles, and when looked at under the microscope the female foreleg is obviously a well-designed structure.
The female butterfly in search of a suitable place to lay her eggs, taps these six foreleg needles into the milkweed several times causing the milkweed fluids to flow onto the surface of the leaf. The female tastes and smells the fluids and determines whether the milkweed is suitable for laying her eggs. She determines this by use of taste sensors on the bottom of the other four legs and the smell sensors on the ends of each of the antennae. Normally she lays only one egg on the bottom of a single milkweed leaf, but she lays a total of about 600 eggs altogether. The milkweed must contain enough water and nutrients to supply the vital requirements for the growth and survival of the baby caterpillar once it emerges from its egg.
The male forelegs are shaped differently. The male foreleg has no microscopic needles to make a chemical analysis of the milkweed because males do not lay eggs and have no need of needles to pierce the milkweed leaves. The male Monarch uses its forelegs for maintaining balance, especially during the mating act. With his forelegs he holds on to the flower or other object while his other two pairs of legs hold on to the female.
The taste sensors on the ends of the two large pairs of legs on both sexes are 2000 times more sensitive to tasting sugars than the human taste sensors. The red smelling sensors on each of the antenna tips are about 5000 times more sensitive to smell than the human nose sensor.
There are many, many more interesting facts about the Monarch butterfly that point to a great Designer who created it. The author's book about the Monarch butterfly, "From Darkness to Light to Flight," tells the story of its life cycle. It reveals the fantastic details of this complex creature in words and by color pictures and describes how it can migrate as far as 3000 mils, navigating with astounding precision to a preordained destination it has never before visited. Truly the Monarch butterfly not only possesses exquisite beauty, but is also a majestic specimen of God's creative handiwork. The more we look, and to whatever depth we look, we see the unmistakable signature of the Creator! (From Darkness to Light to Flight, Jules H. Poirier is a retired electonics engineer who has done much original research on the |Monarch butterfly, Impact #267, ICR P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021)
The Yellowstone Petrified Forests:Yellowstone National Park surpasses all other sites in the United States for its petrified wood, for here is found large amounts of it, in an exquisite state of preservation. In and around Yellowstone Park, erosion has exposed in cross sections an incredible sequence of rather flat-lying rock layers, each containing numerous petrified trees. Many of these trees are upright, in growth positions. The question remains, are they in their original growth location?
The argument as presented to lay people, and as refleted on the roadside marker, includes the growth and petrification of a series of forests, as well as the erosion of the hillside. Each layer contains the remains of a mature forest, we are told, with petrified trees discovered in many layers containing as many as 1000 or so tree rings. Following the burial of the standing forest in volcanic ash and other debris, the trees petrified. Meanwhile, the ash exposed on the surface weathered into clay and eventually into a soil suitable for growth of a new forest. This is thought to take 200 years or so.
At Specimen Ridge, 27 successive layers have been claimed, but at nearby Specimen Creek, over 50 have been counted, each requireing the lengthy burial and decomposition process described above. Obviously, the total time for the deposition was at least tens of thousands of years. (W.J. Fritz, Roadside Geology of the Yellowstone Country (Mountain Press, 1985) p. 149) Instead of a rigid adnerence to forests buried where they stood by volcanic ash fall, geologists are free to propose forests growing on a broad, flat, flood plain, adjacent to volcanic highlands. Mud flows, associated with eruptions, buried some trees where they stood, but moved others to their final locations, occasionally in upright positioins. Trees and plant remains of several habitats are thus mixed together.
Erosion of the hillside, which exposes the layers particularly evident at Spceimen Ridge, proceeds slowly also, probably requireing more them than the deposition in a uniformitarian model. This would have occurred after the most recent series of volcanic episodes. When this time is added to the time needed for deposition, the totatl time becomes incompatible with the strightforward Biblical time scale.
In more technical presentations, evolutionists allow for more variety in depositional models. (W.J. Fritz, Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone 'fossil forests,' Geology (1980), Vol. 8, pp. 309-313) Instead of a rigid adherence to forests buried where they stood by volcanic ash fall, geologists are free to propose forests goring on a braod, flat, flood plain, adjacent to volcanic highlands. Mud flows, associated with eruptons, buried some trees where they stood, but move others to their final locations, occasionally in upright positions. Trees and plant remains of several habitats are thus mixed together.
But the total time needed for petrification doesn't change. The individual layers still represent different episodes of volcanic activity and separate forests. Discussed below are several factors to consider.
Fossils and Soils: Interestingly, no animal fossils have been discovered in association with the abundant plant material - no mammals, no birds, no insects, no earthworms. While more mobile animals could poetnetially escape a mud flow, it does seem curious that none have been found if this deposit represents a standing forest.
Researchers have found an amazing diversity of plant species represented in the individual beds. Including polen, up to 200 species have been identified from a wide range of ecological habitats, seemingly far too wide to have originated in one standing forest. Some species are from semiarid deserts, othes are from rain forests. (H.S. Coffin, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983), p. 139) Many representatives of temperate climates are present, but so are fruit trees. Significantly, the pollen and leaves present are from species other than the trees.
In many growing trees, the root systems are larger than the tree itself. In the Specimen Ridge trees, however, the roots abruptly terminate at ground level, or in some cases with a "root ball" - individual roots having been broken. The older trees are sequoia, the same species as those which today gorw to be thousands of years old and are virtually immune to disease and pests, and resistant to fire. They have no bark or branches. They are typically found with younger trees, in the 30 to 40-year-old range. it is interesting that none signifiantly older have been found and that few are intermediate between the two groupings.
Seldom reported is the fact that some of the upright trees transgress into the layer above or below. If the trees in the overlying layer give evidence of being more than a few years old, there would be sufficient time for any protruding snag or trunk to decay. In the most publicized area of Specimen Ridge, one upright tree terminates within the root ball of an upright tree in the overlying layer. Yet these trees typically show clearly preserved tree rings with no sign of decay
Coffin (H.A. Coffin, Origin by Design, (Review and Herald, 1983), p. 137) and others have measured the orientation of prostate trees and the long axis of the vertical trees and have found a similarity of orientation. This orientation could be accomplished by moving fluids, but would not be present in a standing forest, espceially with a rather flat floor.
Gorwing forests possess a well-developed soil and huymus layer, consisting of organic debris from the trees and plants, but also abundant animal life. Investigators have found fossilized remains of leaves and needles (but rarely cones) which they interpret at the original floor of the forest. The organic level also contains short rootlets only radiating from the larger trees. The organic level also contains short rootlets only radiating from the larger trees. The organic level, when present, is usually near the root level of the trees but is completely missing from many layers.
Often the fossil plant material displays precise preservaton. But fragile leaves would decay rapidly once deposited on the floor. Newly fallen ones would be on the top, whle earlier ones would be being altered by decay beneath. The ancient "soils" do not show this profile of differential decay. Often the organics are mixed in with the volcanic sediments. As noted by Cofin, (H.A. Coffin, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983), p. 142) the organic levels extend laterally, but split and recombine and usually terminate abruptly. The average orgamic level is only about three centimeters thick, too thin for a well-developed forest soil.
These fossil organic levels are nearly horizontal, but in growing forests (particularly those on the flanks of volcanoes) the ground surface may be at a sever angle. Even a horizontal forest covered horizontally by volcanic ash or mud would, in just a few years, develop stream drainage, but no such topographic relief has been reported.
Thin sections of these organic-rich zones show clear evidence of water action and none of active soils. (H.A. Coffin, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983) p. 143) While finer grains predominate, normal grading is clearly present in most, with coarser grains below, fining upward, and it includes inorganic volcanic ash in the sequence. Occasional reverse grading has also been found. Think laminations are present, clear indication of deposition by moving fluids.
Finally, the "soil" layers possess no clay, (H.A. Coffin, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983), p. 145) the altered remnant of volcanic ash. Time is needed to weather the ash into clay, so the absence of clay implies the lack of much time having passed between layers.
Specific volcanic sources are hard to trace in this intensively active area, but Fritz (W.J. Fritz, Roadside Geology of the Yellowstone Country (Mountain Press, 1985), p. 14) and others have speculated that two long chains of volcanoes were erupting all at the same general time, with a narrow valley between them.
As the volcanoes erupted at intervals, mud flows may have inundated a specific area from any one of a number of specific vents. In between the individual eruptions, forests grew on the previous deposit. These debris flows (or lahars) transported some logs and other material, while burying others in growth location. (W.J. Fritz, Reinterpretation of the depositional environment of the Yellowstone 'fossil forests,' Geology (1980), Vol. 8) But as we have seen, this view does not address all the issues.
As Coffin has pointed out, (H.A. Coffin, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983), pp. 146-148) the beds of volcanic breccia are extremely variable and highly discontinuous. They inter tongue with finer grained ash beds throughout the area. The beds of all types are nearly horizontal, and it is difficult to envision mud flosing for long distance over dry land and with such low dips. However, similar deposits have been observed to form underwater.
Dendrichronology: The study of tree rings provides insights into the history of a tree. Wet seasons, droughts, insect infestation, frost, and unusual weather patterns can all be discerned from tree rings. By comparing the ring patterns from trees of overlapping life spans, a chronology of past events can sometimes be constructed.
Much effort has gone into developing such a chronology for long-living trees whose remains are still in a woody condition. The bristlecone pine has been used in the southwestern United States, while the oak has been developed in the United Kingdom. These are further used to calibrate radiocarbon dating.
Contrary to common belief, dendrochronology is not a simple exercise. Two trees, growing side by side at the same time, will not necessarily have identical tree-ring geometry. Rings from one side of a tree will not identically match those from the opposite side.
In order to correlate the rings investigators look for a signature pattern, a unique series of thin and thick, wet and dry, etc., years involving a series of at least several rings. The specific thickness of an individual ring may not be important, but the thickness and characteristics relative to other rings form the basis for recognizing the signature. Theoretially, closely spaced trees growing at the same time, and enduring the same general conditions, should display similar patterns in their rings, in at least some cases.
At the Specimen Creek fossil forests, tree-ring patterns from several layers have displayed a recognizable signature. (M.J. Arct, Dendroecology in the Fossil Forests of the Specimen Creek Area, Yellowstone National Park, Ph.D. dissertation, Loma Linda University,1991; See also his M.S. thesis Denoecology in Yellowstone Fossil Forests, 1979) This demonstrates that at the traditional interpretation of those trees and layers as consecutive forests and volcanic episodes does not seem to be supported by the data.
The large tree stumps did not grow in place, as evidenced by the broken root systems, the lack of suitable soils, the diversity of plant species, and the lack of animal fossils. The trees are oriented in a preferred diretion, unlike modern stands of trees. Moving fluids must have been involved in the deposition of the geologic materials and the transportation of the trees from elsewhere.
Mudflows of volcanic material must have come in pulses, the time between which was less than it takes for leaves to suffer decay. Water must also have been involved in producing the graded and laminated sediments and the orientation of trees, while the mathing tree-ring signatures demand that at least some of the trees in different layers grew together.
Coffin (H.A. Coffin, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983), p. 150) has proposed that "volcanic activity in the Yellowstone region occurred while the area was at least partly under water. Trees, some vertical, were carried along in mud and gravel, or floated in the water along with organic debris. As trees and vegetable matter became water-saturated, they settled down onto the breccia at the bottom. Within a relatively short time, another slide moved over aqnd around the trees and organic debris. Before the appearance of each succeeding breccia flow, more trees and organic matter descended to the bottom or were spread about ty the flows. Thus layer upon layer of trees and organic zones built up in a relatively short period of time."
Could it be that the larger trees, observed to have been on the order of 1000 years old, lived during the 1656 years between Creation and the Flood? Dislodged by the Flood waters, they floated through the Flood, with bark and branches being abraded off. Once the Flood ended, the settled to the ground where sprigs and seeds sprouted and grew.
But the years following the Flood were rife with volcanic activity and the ground surface remained saturated with much standing water. Perhaps post-flood volcanism relocated the older dead and younger living trees in associated mudflows with some of each retaining an upright posture, as has been observed at Mount St. Helens.
Conclusion: We have seen that a classic argument for errors in the Bible is itself in error. The evidence, while difficult to interpret fully, supports Biblical history. This area was visited by a hydraulic and volcanic catastrophe of dramatic proportions with these layers deposited either during the year of the great Flood, or in the years closely following.
<< It is clear for all to see >>
<< The Theory of Evolution is A Failure And A False Relition! >>