Ultimate Purposes:The ultimate purpose of evolution is to attempt to persuade you, that you (and all men) came from a great ape type, without any contribution by God.Evolution wants you to believe you are a mistake of natural processes, a lucky accident.It wants you to think you are 'one with animals.' Evolution tries to convince you that you and animals came about by the same process.Big-bang evolution asserts you began as ‘dead pond scum’ or in an ‘ocean of elements’ residue, (they cannot agree on which). They generally agree that this slime came from rained on rocks in that prehistoric pool or first ocean of elements.Finally, evolution wants you to believe that there is only this short purposeless life and then you die and become oil reserves.That is, according to them, all there is, after this life on Earth is over.
On the other hand the Bible declares God loves you and that you are a special creation of God. His highest and best creation, for Whom He sent His only Son to pay for your sins. The Bible declares that sin has a penalty.It is eternal torment in hell and the lake of fire. BUT, God wants you to avoid the eternal torment in the world to come and to instead, live with Him forever in heaven.God the Son came to Earth, lived a sinless life, and suffered a horrible battered death on a cross to pay for your sin.If you accept His death in your place, you will live forever in a heavenly paradise.(Today shalt thou be with ME in paradise)
Thus, it is clear that one cannot believe in the public school taught big-bang evolution and in the Bible. One of them is a totally untrue. Which do you want to believe?Which should you believe?Which belief system is supported by the evidence? Which one is based upon philosophical assumptions that have never been supported by the evidence?If you have had only a public school education, even in the finest universities, the answers may surprise you.But you should KNOW!If the godless evolution is true, you are wasting your time as a believer in God and the Bible.But, if you discover, after you die, that the Bible was true all along, you will have to pay the consequences for rejecting the Truth of God and accepting in its place the vain imaginations of three men: James Hutton, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.It is clear that you cannot believe in both.And to accept one in place of the truth is to be worse than a fool.
We are here to answer the question: Is there a viable alternative to the Biblical principle? The Bible declares:IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH...Can you safely trust the Bible?Has evolutionary evidence proved the Bible unworthy of your belief?Or is Darwinian evolution without any credible proof?
This seminar material is offered to the Glory of God by
& My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to Me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children. Hosea 4:6
Darwinian Evolution:In 1859 Charles Darwin published: On the Origin of the Species, By Means of Natural Selection, Or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life, which began a societal revolution (or war) between those who believed in God and the Bible and those who did not.
Mr. Darwin was an unlikely candidate to begin such a cultural revolution against the long held beliefs in God and the Bible, since he had been trained at Christ’s College, Cambridge to be an Anglican (Episcopal) pastor. Mr. Darwin was, at best, a self taught geologist and many of his contemporaries considered him an amateur whose pronouncements were not always accurate.The Rev., Dr. Adam Sedgwick, then head of the department of geology at Cambridge University (Darwin’s alma mater) wrote to Darwin about his 1859 book, stating:
. . parts I laughed at until my sides were almost sore . . .
There were a small core group of Darwinians who adamantly argued that Mr. Darwin’s ideas were correct, but as far as the vast majority of the chief scientists of Mr. Darwin’s day were concerned, the ideas of Mr. Darwin, were without merit because Darwin did not haveany factual basis for his imagined transmutation of species (later named evolution).Not only did Darwin, himself, question the fossil record of his day, but he also spent part of one chapter in the book apologetically naming great scientists of his day, whom, Darwin feared, would all (except perhaps one) reject his theory.When the book was published, all the chief scientists of his day that he had named (but that one) did reject the speculation in his book about transmutation or evolution.This is a fact, which Mr. Darwin admits (and laments) twelve years later in Descent of Man (1871).But, Darwin though admitting that his ideas were contrary to the evidence, wrote that he hoped in the future, people would find proof in the rocks (geologic record) for the imaginations written in his 1859 book.
By 1984, one hundred twenty-five (125) years later, had they found the proof? In 1984, Sir Frederick Hoyle (1915‑ 2001 A.D.) was a very prominent 20th century scientist, astronomer, astrophysicist and agnostic author of the prestigious Cambridge University, England.Hoyle wrote this about Darwinian evolution and its failure: I quote:
"How the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection managed, for upwards of a century, to fasten itself like a superstition on so called enlightened opinion? Why is the theory still defended so vigorously? Personally, I have little doubt that scientific historians of the future will find it mysterious that a theory which could be seen to be unworkable came to be so widely believed.The explanation they will offer will I think be based less on the erroneous nature of the theory itself and more on the social changes and historical circumstances that surround its development." (TheIntelligent Universe, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, NY [1984] p.25)
Why then are most of the seminary’s of the major or main line denominations trying to find ways to accommodate the imagined ideas of Mr. Darwin and the vast ages that are now falsely claimed for the age of Earth? The Bible says, God’s people are destroyed (and continue to be destroyed) for lack of knowledge.It is time for Christians to stop hiding out in the church.Come out!Look at the hard evidence presented in the scientific community and realize once and for all that Darwinian evolution is totally without proof. Always has been and always will be.It never has had any basis in scientific fact.Allow me to say that again. Darwin’s evolutionary thought has never had any scientific evidence, no scientific basis in fact.It is speculation from the imagination of men’s minds.
Fossil Record: Darwin recognized problems in the fossil record [fn[1]].It was Darwin's hope that one day the fossils would be found to prove him correct.Didn't the scientists of Darwin's day believe the fossil record supported Darwin?Not on your life!
One of the scientists named by Darwin (apologetically) in Origin of Species was Louis Agassiz, a Harvard professor.Agassiz was also a contemporary of Darwin. The professor wrote there was no factual basis for Darwin’s theory.Agassiz wrote that all the scientific evidence was against Darwin and his henchmen.Professor Agassiz said they had already found highly complex organisms in the oldest rocks.This conclusively proved that there was no evolution of species.Why?
Darwin argued that evolution developed all life from simple to complex. Darwin, without having any proof it had ever worked that way, said that the developments of all life from one species to another species was supposed to be slow, small, gradual, ongoing changes.For instance, if a mouse really did evolve into a bat, we would expect to see the front feet of a mouse first blunting. Then, perhaps they would begin to show signs of webbing in thousands of generations.We might have rudimentary webbing. Then slowly in another thousand generations we might have rudimentary wing like front limbs slowly shown in the fossil record as they took shape as each next generation added a bit more to the leg becoming wing like.A web first between the digits, then slowly becoming larger webbing in the next thousand generations until after several hundred thousand generations we would have a totally helpless half mouse and one half bat. But, let me stop right there before the helpless creature is eaten up by a cat or some other predator or dies since it has no one with whom to mate as it changes to another species or since natural selection is blind and only saves those things that are good for the species, how does blind random chance know when to save a female part for a female, while at the same time rejecting that very part for the male?However, most importantly, allow me to ask: is there any evidence of this species changing in the fossil record?
Mr. Darwin admitted, in his publication (Origin of Species) that there should have been 'truly enormous' amounts of changes, for his ideas to be true.Mr. Darwin also admitted the fossil record of his day did not show any.Not one.If they were not in the fossil record and since there were no written records more than six thousand (6,000) years ago, where did he come up with his ideas? . . . From his mind or imagination.
With these complex fossilized life forms in the oldest rocks (and Darwin admitting there were no evidence of even one finely graduated organic chain of fossils or organism changing from one kind to another unlike kind of species). There was also no simple to complex evidence to support Mr. Darwin's ideas.These findings in the fossil records of the rocks, the place that Darwin would expect to find his proof, said ANO” to evolution.Do you understand why?
Well, if creation by God is true, you will find highly complex fully functioning life forms without any earlier or simpler forms.If evolution had been true, you would not find highly complex forms alone.You would find literally hundreds of thousands(or more) simple forms, slowly changing from one species type to another from simple to complex.What did the fossil record of Darwin’s day reveal?Highly complex organisms in the Cambrian layer of rocks with absolutely NOT ONE prior life form.NOT ONE chain of species changing fossils!The only scientific conclusion one could make is: highly complex life forms suddenly and explosively appeared in the fossil record without any prior simpler life forms in the fossil record.
This is evidence for sudden and abrupt creation. This is evidence against the purported slow, small, many changes from simple to complex that were the ideas of Darwin, now labeled evolution.
20th Century Fossil Record:Remember Darwin hoped the fossil record would eventually prove him correct.For over one hundred (100) years hundreds of expeditions, dug and searched for fossil evidence (as they vainly attempted to prove Darwin’s imagined ideas).At the end of this period, Stephen Jay Gould, a Harvard professor and Niles Eldredge, a curator of The American Museum of Natural History, New York City, made these conclusions about the fossil record.(These men had been thorough Darwinian evolutionists.)The 1977 A.D. fossil record did not support Darwin’s evolution.While proposing another imagined theory, Gould made this observation about the fossil record.I quote:
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism (Darwin’s theory):
1Stasis:Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth.They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2Sudden appearance:In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.' [fn[2]]
Hmm.Do I understand?Dr. Agassiz said the fossil record was against Darwin.Darwin needed fossil proof.Evolutionists searched for fossil proof for one hundred fifty (150) years.What did they then conclude?The evidence or fossil record remained substantially the same.There has never been found one species changing chain.Species do notarise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors.This is an admission that Darwin was wrong!And who is saying Darwin was wrong?Two thorough evolutionists: Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould and evolutionist-curator, Niles Eldredge.For evolution to be true, species would have to arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors.That was Darwin’s whole premise. That was his guess.Darwin said species arose by the gradual, steady transformation. But, Professors Gould and Eldredge said did not occur.There would have to be hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of prior life forms showing slow, gradual, small, ongoing, changes.There was no such evidence in Darwin’s 19th century.There was no such evidence found in the 20th century.There is no such evidence of prior multiple transitional life forms in the fossil record today.Dr. Agassiz was correct when he made the declaration in the 19th century that the fossil evidence said, NO to Darwin's imagined evolution.
I Laughed:It is no wonder that the head of geology, professor, Rev. Dr. Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge, wrote to Darwin about his book:parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; . . . Sedgwick thought Darwin's position untenable and absurd.Sedgwick went on to condemn Darwin for mischief with the facts.
Then, Dr. Sedgwick, prophetically concluded:
‑‑ There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical.A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.Tis the crown & glory of organic science that it does thro' final cause, link material to moral . . . You have ignored this link; &, if I do not mistake your meaning, you have done your best in one or two pregnant cases to break it. Were it possible (which thank God it is not) to break it, humanity in my mind, would suffer a damage that might brutalize it‑‑& sink the human race into a lower grade of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.
And more than one hundred years later two boys, who had been taught and had believed in Darwin’s imagination, went on a brutal, degrading murderous shooting rampage in their public school in a quiet town in Colorado.
Building on a Rock?Uniformitarian Geologic Principles:Darwin built his speculations upon uniformitarianism.It is no longer considered (by main stream geologists) to be sufficient to explain Earth and its geology.This geological principal of Charles Lyell (uniformitarianism) alleged that a slow, gradual, and continual process could explain everything on Earth.This ignores tornado, landslide, fire, flood, et cetera, as factors.He who ignores catastrophes does not have a credible explanation of Earth geology.
Lyell was building on James Hutton’s Earth age conjecture of 1795.Hutton argued all Earth geology could be explained by the gradual, continual, slow: grain-by-grain, erosion. He ignored and repudiated catastrophes. Although generally not relevant, because this was from his imagination, it is important to note that Hutton had other unusual beliefs.Hutton thought the universe, as seen, was an illusion of men’s minds.Hutton had come to his geological conclusions in a similar manner as he mused over the rocks and dirt.Hutton affected Lyell. Lyell affected Darwin.These three men lived and published after 1776 (American Revolutionary War).Before that, uniformitarinism was not a part of scientific belief, nor was there a reputable theory of evolution.
Hutton-Lyell-Darwin:Who were these three men who argued for this new belief system of uniformitarianism (everything is slow, gradual and continual)?Hutton, Lyell and Darwin, were not trained Earth scientists.Hutton was the closest to having studied Earth science.Hutton, a farmer, had studied to be a lawyer, then after being dismissed from his clerkship, learned medicine, but not the geology of his day.The second man: Charles Lyell wrote a three-volume work entitled Principles of Geology.What was Lyell’s education?He was an attorney.He popularized farmer Hutton’s ideas.Then came a third, a less likely candidate for science.This third man was trained to be a minister or Anglican (Episcopal) pastor.His name was Charles Darwin.None of these three were educated as geologists.There is not a real earth-science man in the three.Yet, these three, self-taught, non-geologists, overturned the geological belief system. What is amazing and ironic is that today the three might not be published. Why?
When evolutionists debate, write to criticize or want to exclude the publication of articles, they exclude those without proper education from having articles published in any leading scientific journal or magazine.They cite the lack of academic credentials.Perhaps farmer Hutton (only because of his M.D.) might have a chance at publication.What do you suppose would happen if an attorney with a new geology theory (Lyell) wanted to publish?We all know the result if a clergyman (Darwin) wanted to publish a new belief in one of their journals.NO CHANCE!Yet, the farmer-attorney-doctor, a second attorney (Lyell) and clergyman (Darwin) were instrumental in changing Earth geology. How ironic, when today their imagined assumptions would not have been published in any scientific journals.
Who was James Hutton?Not many have heard of James Hutton (1727-1797).But James Hutton is a man we should understand.It was James Hutton who introduced an imagined supposition that was to become the basis for geology and evolution for the next one hundred years.Hutton had been trained in the law, but was dismissed from his clerkship.Hutton then went back to school and studied medicine.Hutton graduated in medicine.However, Hutton had inherited a farm.He opted to become a farmer.Hutton spent much time studying his rocks and dirt.As Hutton watched the land erode, it came into his mind that this is how the Earth came into being.So Hutton imagined or invented his theory of the Earth and its vast ages in 1795, just two years before his death.Two fellow Scotsman, Playfair, a teacher and another man who had studied the law, Charles Lyell were to make the Hutton theory popular.
Not An Ancient Belief: evolutionist-geologists have used this method of calculation, named uniformitarianism, for ONLY the last one hundred and seventy-five (175) years.Before Lyell (1830), who taught the Hutton theory, no credible geologist believed uniformitarianism explained Earth geology.Did you hear me?NO CREDIBLE man of science believed in this imagination of slow, vast ages. Not until Lyell, an attorney wrote geology books.Brother Hughes, are you certain of that?Let us consult with Dr. Hoyle.
Astronomer, theorist, author, and anti-Darwinian, Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001) (who erroneously believed Earth to be b-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years old) reports:
. . . The great geologist Charles Lyell (1797-1875) repeated and extended Hutton's observations in the field, and soon came to the conclusion that Hutton's 'principal of uniformity,' as it came to be labeled, was indeed correct.Lyell's Principles of Geology, the first volume of which appeared in 1830, was in considerable measure responsible for the disappearance of the Biblical time-scale from all serious discussion.Indeed, Lyell's books were largely responsible for convincing the world at large that the Bible could be wrong, at any rate in some respects, a hitherto unthinkable thought. (Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe, NY 1983, p. 29)
In 1985 Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company, a textbook company, in Section 9, Geologic Time and Earth History, p.211, stated:
Almost 200 years ago James Hutton recognized that the earth is very old.But how old? Scientists tried to date the earth for many years, but their attempts were not very successful.Instead they had to rely on techniques which helped them place events in their proper order without knowing how long ago each event occurred.. . .(p. 211)
. . .
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the doctrine of catastrophism strongly influenced the formulation of explanations about the dynamics of the earth.Briefly stated, catastrophists believed that the earth’s landscape had been developed primarily by great catastrophes.Features such as mountains and canyons, which today[the textbook says] we know take great periods of time to form, were explained as having been produced by sudden and often worldwide disasters producedby unknowable causes [the textbook says]that no longer operate.Thisphilosophywas an attempt to fit the rate of earth processes to the then-current ideas on the age of the earth.. . .[the textbook says]. (Ibid.)
So as to a date when the vast ages became accepted by the world at large, we would have to agree with Hoyle, it was after the Lyell publication of his three volumes on geology in the early to mid 1830's.Thus, it was after 1830, when geologists first contended for great ages of the Earth based upon grain-by-grain uniformitarianism.Also, we note these geologists call the competing philosophy catastrophism, a philosophy, not science.Thus, the textbook concludes that a way of looking at things is a philosophy, not science.Please remember that.
The Enemy:So this is the enemy.God’s enemy.The Bible’s great foe.An ideology devised by three men.These were men who put their pants on very much the same way as every other man, one leg at a time.They needed to eat, sleep and otherwise function as a total human being.They had to die.It might be pointed out that more than one hundred years has passed since their deaths and not one of them has risen from the dead. ) (Only One has risen.
Public school children have been taught and indoctrinated for more than one hundred years on Darwin’s ideology of transmutation of species (evolution). Evolution is based upon simple to complex random chance selection (natural selection).Natural selection was supposed to be causing slow, gradual, progressive changes.It is supposed to be the mechanism that created the several million species believed to exist on Earth.We must realize that fossil evidence does not support Darwin’s evolution.
Remember Professor Agassiz labeled certain evolutionists 'Darwin's henchmen.'Henchmen?Yes.In my opinion, these would include Thomas Huxley and Ernst Haeckel.These men made up things that did not exist to try to bolster the 1859 Darwin theory, which was under attack.These include eozoon, bathybius and gemmules, which will be discussed later.These beliefs have been disproved and rejected by science.
The Scanning Electron Microscope:The final death of Darwin’s evolution came in the 20th century with the development of the scanning electron microscope.It revealed the complexity of the cell with many complex systems, including the highly complex coding of the DNA and RNA systems.This discovery demolished the remaining simple to complex ideology necessary for evolution to be true.DNA probabilities absolutely destroy the possibility of evolution in even one cell.Once you understand these things, you will be able to quench the fiery darts of your enemy, the current darwinian ideology of the world, which wars against the Bible.We should have learned this and proclaimed it from the pulpits.It was something, which should not have remained hidden.Yet our scholars and schools have failed the body of Christ.It is no wonder that God declares: My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge!
WAKE UP!!!For the sake of the present and future generations, awake and know that God is God.God is Truth.Always has been and always will be.If you do not believe God is Truth, if you do not believe the Genesis account of creation, you may well need to be delivered from Darwinism.The last of the upper echelon evolutionary-scientists who actually believed Darwin, were emancipated with the development of the scanning electron microscope.With it, they learned of the significance of the DNA discoveries of the 1950s. Science finally had a specific idea of the blue print for all organic life, the living cell.This new illumination and magnification allowed science for the first time to be able to measure the first principals of life.Now we could explain biology in mathematical terms or probabilities.The scanning electron microscope gave science a measuring device of great precision.No thinking scientist today holds to the fantasy of the Darwinian theory.Yet this theory continues to be taught in elementary school textbooks.Doesn't that really upset you?It should!
Probabilities:In 1984, I.L. Cohen, an engineer, research scientist and author, reflected upon this discovery of the 1950's and evaluated the highlights of past concepts of evolution.He then translated them into the new mechanistical meaning of the DNA/RNA.Cohen then applies mathematical probability concepts.He noted that the millions of nucleotides within a DNA spiral must align in very specific sequences.This, he maintains, could not be the result of random chance, as Darwin asserted.Thus, species could not be the result of evolution.Why?
Darwin contended that the lowest life form was what he thought was the 'simple cell.' He did not know it was complex.Mr. Darwin thought the cell to be mainly a blob of protoplasmic jell.If that had been true, there would have been opportunity for random chance to develop something more complex.Yet the so-called simple cell is extremely complex.Actually each cell needs millions of proper connections for the one cell to function (be alive).If just the DNA needs to have millions of connections just to properly function, there is no room for the trial and error of random chance selection.You will learn that not even vast ages would allow natural selection in even one cell to make proper connections.Then it would have to randomly be correct multi-millions of times for human body cells.There is no way for random selection (natural selection) to replicate itself billions of times to make a body function.It is mathematically impossible.
When I.L. Cohen calculated the probabilities of random selection making the connections of the complex DNA strands, it was vastly greater than 10-50 (ten to the fiftieth power) against random selection of evolution.The probability against random selection of evolution is mathematically fixed against evolution.Mathematicians always assign a probability.The probability that the random selection of evolution could have connected the complex DNA of even one cell is 0%.This indicates evolution, as agent for creation of life in only one living cell, is impossible.Therefore, it is impossible.Allow me to repeat that.This probability of 0% indicates it is impossible for random selection of evolution to have even connected the DNA in only one single cell.How much more improbable does it become for evolution to randomly both create and then connect the DNA in a cell?How much less possible in a second cell?Each time we add another cell the chances against evolution are multiplied: 0% x 0% x 0% x 0% et cetera.This equals more than 0%.It is impossibility multiplied by impossibility.It is zero times a greater zero, times a greater zero. It cannot happen.
Understanding the Concept of PROBABILITIES
A brief introduction to the concept of probabilities is needed.It is really fairly simple and straightforward at the elementary level.I. L. Cohen does a nice job of introducing probabilities in his 1984 book, Darwin Was Wrong, (A Study in Probabilities).Building on its simplicity, allow me to explain probabilities in terms of eight white balls.Each ball has one number printed on it: 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8.The numbers are printed separately, each number on its own ball.
If you toss ball numbered one (1) into the air, it will always come down as ball number one (1).The probability that this will occur is assigned the value of 1.Or 1:1 (one out of one).
Next let us move to four balls labeled 1-2-3-4.When you throw all four balls up into the air, what is the probability that they will come down and naturally select the sequence of 1-2-3-4?To determine the probability and find that there are 24 possible random selections, we multiply the ball numbers by each other: 4x3x2x1’24.
The probability of the balls randomly selecting the sequence 1-2-3-4 is expressed 1:24.IN other words every 24 times you throw the four balls into the air, one time they will randomly select 1-2-3-4.Are you with me so far?
Now we move to eight balls.How many combinations are possible?Based upon the rule for the previous four balls, we would have 8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1’ 40,320.Therefore with the tossing up of all eight balls, we could randomly obtain 40, 320 different combinations.Each throw would come down with a different sequence of numbers.Therefore the probability of these eight balls randomly selecting the sequence of 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8is expressed as 1: 40,320.In other words, if you threw all eight balls into the air 40, 320 times, only once would they randomly, naturally select the sequence 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8.Are you beginning to understand the improbability of random chance selection?
When the numbers become large, they are expressed as powers.The probability of occurrence of one given sequence with our eight balls would be expressed as:4.03 x 104 .(And for you statisticians, the probability would be expressed as: 2.09 x 10-5)
To go any higher in our sequences would require higher mathematics and your acceptance of what I say as being truth.In other words you would have to trust another man. That is not wise. What is important to understand is that mathematical probabilities of a chance happening or a natural selection randomly selecting the correct combination with only eight possibilities is over 40,000 to 1 against the proper selection.Not a good bet!
As we increase the number of digits, the available combinations become mind-boggling.For example if we had seventy-five (75) balls the possible combinations would be expressed as 2.48 x 10112.That2.48 x 10112 means 248 followed by 112 zeros.Most mathematicians cannot read such a number.The chance to obtain the correct sequence of 1-2-3-4-5- to ... 75 in a single random throw is so small it is said to be randomly non-existent.
Darwinian evolution wanted the public to believe that in one throw or in one random selection, over one million DNA helix strands would by chance connect properly together and thus form the DNA helix of one cell. We know that with 8 strands chances of a proper sequence connection would be more than 40,000 to 1 against a proper connection.With 75 random selections, a proper sequence connection becomes mathematically 0% probable.How can they possibly want us to believe that over 1 million selections will all be correct in the proper perfect sequence?That is impossible.Then evolution asks us to believe that these one million random chance helix connections occurred over and over and over and over, in the one cell.Then they ask you to believe that it was repeated cell after cell after cell after cell.Each time blindly, randomly, naturally selecting these over one million connections, again and again and again. That is similar to the same one person winning the state lottery every week for more than one hundred years. That is mathematically impossible.It is against all probability.
We have heard of some people winning a state lottery a second time in the same decade.Even once, we heard that the same person won a state lottery twice in the same year.Those stories made headlines in the newspapers.Why?We know that it is not possible.It cannot happen.It is against all mathematical odds or chance. Yet evolution asks you to believe that blind, random, natural selection can make selections equivalent to the same person winning the state lottery by chance, every week for well over one hundred years.We KNOW that this is preposterous, without some intelligence helping.After the third or fourth time, we would scream:FIX ! We would be correct.No one could randomly win over and over and over again.We therefore must conclude that for there to be these random DNA helix strand connections in multiple celled organisms, the fix is on!There must be Intelligence direction.Christians know that this Intelligence is God.()
Admittedly, my mathematical credentials are limited to high school geometry, advanced algebra, trigonometry and one semester of teaching middle school math.I am no mathematician.However, I do understand that just as no one can randomly win the lottery over and over and over, neither can blind, random chance (natural selection) make the DNA connections once and certainly not again and again. There had to be Intelligence causing it and directing it.
However, Cohen is a fair mathematician.He published in 1984.Although he has been criticized, no one has mathematically refuted him openly in public or in peer level debate.The greatest Darwinian mathematicians could have stepped forward and challenged him. They did not.Why?Because the math is correct.Mathematically evolution is impossible.(Also Lee Spetner published the book:Not By Chance (New York: The Judicia Press, Inc, 1997) with very powerful calculations against life occurring by chance.Sir Frederick Hoyle, a famous astrophysicist, also has written a book on the mathematics against Darwinian evolution having occurred in Mathematics of Evolution (Hoyle, Alcorn, Memphis, Tn 1999)
Louis Pasteur:We must remember Darwin had detractors from the beginning.Not only those mentioned, but also there is another prominent opponent of Darwin.He is well known for his scientific work with bacteria and milk.His name was Louis Pasteur (1822-1895).Pasteur is best known for the pasteurization process.Also his experiments with bacteria and lower life forms had destroyed any remaining belief that life sprang from non-life in the lower forms of life (spontaneous generation).Most 19th century evolutionists erroneously believed life could come from non-life. Most had moved their belief of its occurrence back to Darwin’s primordial pool.Pasteur had now demonstrated its high improbability.It was not observable in the smallest organisms by the microscope of his day.If one believed in spontaneous generation, one had to now believe against the scientific evidence of the day.
Pasteur quote:
Folks, many evolutionists KNOW Darwin’s evolution is impossible.Many abandoned Darwin for another theory or no theory.Some, after admitting the impossibility of evolution, (or one of its parts) continued to hold to that which they know impossible. Really?Consider the following true story of Dr. George Wald.
Embracing Impossibility in Place of God
Nobel Prize winner, Dr. George Wald (1906-1997) seemed as if he would be a very logical man. Wald was a Dr. and Harvard professor.So, when he announced in the well-known Scientific American Journal his views, one had to be surprised.When writing, Dr. Wald was reacting to big-bang revelations of his era and late 19th century proofs.Wald stated there were only two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: 1) spontaneous generation(living matter from non‑living matter) or 2) creation (a supernatural act from outside of the universe to bring it into existence). Dr. Wald said, "There is no third position." He further concluded: "spontaneous generation" of a living organism was "impossible."Dr. Wald continued, I quote:
"We tell this story to beginning students of biology as though it represents a triumph of reason over mysticism. In fact it is very nearly the opposite. The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a 'philosophical necessity.' It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated.Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing." (Wald, George, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, vol. 191, 1954, p. 46.)
This spontaneous generation or abiogenesis is a part of evolution. The theory dates from the Greek era of Aristotle’s day.The Greeks thought they observed living things, such as maggots, coming from putrefying meat, or beetles coming from manure. (Yuk!) More recently Darwinians taught that the living bacteria type cell evolving from the non-living cells in the pool of primordial chemicals, proposed by Darwin.Francesco Redi had already proven the Greek view incorrect, now Pasteur showed spontaneous generation impossible in lower cells.Wald conceded that Pasteur and the complexity of the so-called simple cell had destroyed any reasonable scientific belief in spontaneous generation.Dr. Wald continued: I quote again:
"One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are ‑‑ as a result, I believe, in spontaneous generation." (Ibid. Scientific American, August 1954.)
WHAT!?!You know it is scientifically impossible, but you believe in it?
A rough translation of Dr. Wald is: Although I know it’s impossible, I believe in spontaneous generation.Why do I believe in that which I conclude is scientifically impossible? Because, the alternative would be to believe in a supernatural creative act by God. That I refuse to do!Therefore, Wald believes something known by him to be...impossible.He embraces impossibility rather than accept creation and Creator God.
We also must realize that evolutionary, big-bang thinking requires (at the very least) one act of spontaneous generation, i.e. living from non-living.Wald concludes this is impossible.Darwin asks us to believe the first impossible step (spontaneous generation in the pre-biotic soup, pond or ocean) of a living cell from a non-living cell.Then Darwin demands you believe that blind random chance (natural selection) created the material for the complex cell, DNA, RNA, mitochondria, et cetera, et cetera.Now how one of them can evolve the other is another miracle of evolution, since they both need the other to exist and cannot exist (or live) without each other.But . . .those facts aside, on we go with the unworkable theory.Next we have to have connections for the DNA helix strands to work.Now there are a million double connections.There are four possible connections for each and you must first select the correct connection and then again select the correct compliment out of the four.This is supposed to have occurred, all of them, by blind random chance?One million connections haphazardly came together in proper perfect sequence, all by chance?Always correct?We have already discussed the I.L. Cohen work Darwin was Wrong (1984) that has demonstrated the mathematical impossibility of random selection evolution connecting one DNA in even one cell.For those who want more advance mathematics, I recommend the book Not By Chance (Spetner 1997) Spetner calculates the possibility of evolution occurring both Neo Darwin and punctuationist theories. Hoyle is always an interesting read as he is well respected by evolutionists. Mathematics of Evolution (1999) Hoyle knows how to communicate to the high school graduate and is not always 'over your head' (unless he wants to be.:- )).
We must admit Darwin did not know of the complexity of the cell. The neo Darwinians, (1930s-1940s) were much more aware of genetics and complexity, but were also about a decade shy of the revelation of the explosive complexity of the so-called simple living cell.Remember (I know I am repeating) to form one living cell, non-living or dead and blind, random natural selection would be required to randomly create the material of the cell.(It would create itself by spontaneous generation)Then after this impossible task (Wald) natural selection (blind chance) would have to select the more than one million helix DNA strand connections in proper perfect sequence.This is only in one cell.This is also impossible (I.L. Cohen 1984) (Spetner 1997) (Hoyle 1999).Yet those like Wald who know the whole process impossible dare to live their life, irrationally embracing impossibility.Then Dr. Wald died.Others will also die and then will stand before the judgment bar of God. God will ask, WHY DID YOU NOT BELIEVE IN ME?Will they say, "Well, although I knew what I believed was impossible, and though I knew that science pointed toward super natural creation, I purposefully, intentionally chose not to believe in creation or in You, Creator God."Every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Holy Bible, Book of Isaiah, chapter 45: verse 23; Romans 14:11) And the unbelieving shall find their place in the Lake of fire. (Revelation 21:8 [fn[3]])
We now know that by the time of Wald's 'confession' (mid 20th century) evolutionists already recognized big problems.Even before that, contemporary scientists of Darwin’s day had opposed him.By the time of the forward to the centennial edition of Origin of the Species (1959) had reported evolution in trouble, affirmed the death of spontaneous generation and that Haeckel’s fraud was disproved.
A QUOTE FROM FORWARD OF CENTENNIAL EDITION
There was no way that evolution could have thereafter reasonably been believed.How did evolution keep and originally gain such a strong following?
Made Up Evidence
Wanted: Early Life Form:Evolutionary followers knew of the long-standing problems dating back to the days of Darwin.Darwin and his adherents, including Huxley, Hooker and Haeckel, could not find the lower forms of life below the Cambrian rock layers.The finding of millions of fossils in this Cambrian bed of rocks was called the Cambrian explosion.The fossils were of fully developed plants and animals in complex design.As stated, this explosion of fossilized life has always been evidence for creation and of great concern to evolutionists since and included Darwin. This explosion of life was found not at the Earths lowest and oldest rocks, but about 5/6 of the way up to the surface.The opponents of Darwin took this as the perfect expression of God’s creation.And it is.There was not a trace of pre-Cambrian life when Darwin wrote: Origin of the Species.So if there were no actual preexistent life forms, how did the evolutionists react?The evolutionists made up two phony pre-Cambrian forms: Eozoon and Bathybius.The only purpose for them was to support Darwin’s fragile theory.These were said to be part of the monera of life, a term made up by Ernst Haeckel of Germany.Haeckel made it his life’s practice to create deceptions to bolster Darwin’s fragile imagined perception.
Darwin was delighted with these new so-called pre-Cambrian discoveries. Eozoon (which was supposed to closely resemble [the later discovered to be fictional] Bathybius) entered the fourth edition of Origin of the Species with Darwin's blessing.Darwin stated, "It is impossible to feel any doubt regarding its organic nature." Was Darwin correct?
His disciples, Huxley and Haeckel, postulated these gelatinous forms, with the unusual names, were primitive life that covered the floors of the deep seas.The Challenger expedition of the 1870s set sail to explore the world’s deepest oceans and find these life forms.Deep-sea mud samples were dredged and lifted onto the deck of Challenger.The so-called life forms were not found.But, as they preserved the samples for later analysis by adding preserving alcohol to the sea mud, that B word, Bathybius suddenly appeared.So it was discovered and admitted that this so called early life form was no more than a substance created by adding alcohol to mud.It had no organic life.It was a precipitate of calcium sulfate.It was produced when deep-sea mud reacted to the alcohol. [fn[4]]
Was Darwin correct in saying it was organic life?No! It was not organic.It occurred only upon mixing deep-sea mud with preserving alcohol.Once again Darwin and his disciples were without a pre-Cambrian form of life.Evidence indicated sudden creation of complex organisms in the Cambrian rock layer.
Gemmules Anyone?Darwin also erroneously believed heredity was passed through the blood of both father and mother through 'gemmules.' These were supposed to be quite small and were able to carry characteristics through the blood into the sperm of the male and the egg of the female.They thus carry the acquired characteristics to the next generation.What proof did they have of these gemmules, other than the imagination of their minds?None.I.L. Cohen, educated as an engineer, a lifelong researcher into humankind's past through science and archeology and noted author, stated, and I quote:
We now know that gemmules did not exist outside of Darwin’s imagination.Many scientists defended this theory, simply because they assumed it to be true.Gemmules were taken quite seriously at the time - they had been advanced by an authoritative scientist and couched in ‘scientific’ terms.
With time, however, it was realized that heredity did not work according to the fantasies of Darwin’s imagination.Instead Gregor Mendel's theory of genes. . . proved to be scientifically correct...; in those years Darwin's magnetism was much too strong to overcome.The scientific community of the 19th century preferred to continue theorizing with Darwin’s hypothetical pronouncements, rather than evaluate the solid, factual data submitted by Mendel.His significant laboratory results were brushed aside by all the 'learned' scientists, as though they meant nothing.Instead Darwin's illusory gemmules theory was paid serious attention and subscribed to as being established scientific fact. [fn[5]]
Groundless Beliefs:Eozoon, Bathybius and gemmules, were humiliating errors of groundless evolutionary beliefs.Yet, these grave errors were dealt with (by Mr. Darwin's disciples) as things to be now hidden. Why?Darwin’s notion had always been tenuous at best.The Truth shining in on it might destroy it as quickly as the noonday sun melts butter left out on a dish near the window.So evolutionists, rather than admit the theory was in serious trouble, allowed their faith in Darwin and in evolution to carry them deeper into error.When the errors became apparent the evolutionists preferred to bury them or keep them quiet.Why?Negative results and new discoveries within a decade and one half of the darwinian articulation were already causing serious doubts about Darwin’s announcements.
Engineer and author I.L. Cohen, in 1984, wrote and I quote:
Unfortunately, . . . realistic carefulness and scientific humility was not widely exercised during the 19th century and Darwin’s theory was virtually acclaimed as the arrival of the scientific Messiah.Still more unfortunately, we continue to consider that theory as law, without having the intellectual courage to question anew each aspect of it as if there were no alternatives.Darwin’s theory is not scientific law - it still lacks conclusive proof in spite of its plausibility and popularity.(I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, . . . New Research Publications, Inc. NY {1984} p.20)
. . . The repetition and reemphasis of a concept by the majority of the scientific community does not make it objective truth. (Ibid. p.21)
Darwin and the Cell Collide
Next we turn to the basic building block of all life, the cell.
All living matter - plants, fish, reptiles, birds, mammals or humans are composed of cells.In Darwin's day it was called by all, including Darwin, the 'simple single cell.'Their microscopes then magnified to about 200 times.Not much was seen.Darwin thought the cell a roundish mass surrounded by a membrane, which holds semi-liquid cytoplasm with some vague central nucleus.Many disagreed with Darwin, but no one was given any serious consideration until the development of the scanning electron microscope, which magnifies about one million power.A virtual city of mechanistic machinery was seen.It was as if someone who had fallen asleep behind a hill and could not see over it, now had awakened and climbed to the top of the hill.They beheld a beautiful large industrial city, next to industrial city after city, after city.The so-called 'simple cell' was incredibly complex.
There is within the nucleus of each and every cell complex DNA chemical chains of acids with millions of necessary connections.In addition RNA, which is outside the nucleus, is a likewise complex chain of chemically bonded molecules in constant motion.There are proteins and enzymes (protein chains).There are many mitochondria.They are described as power plants.Most cells contain thousands of these mitochondria.Furthermore it is believed that these mitochondria may have their own DNA and RNA.There are many other parts of this complex basic building block called the cell: Golgi complex, membrane, etc.However, we will concentrate only on the DNA and by analogy on the RNA to determine if it is possible for natural random selection to randomly select for one cell, let alone for all the species on the planet, as unknowingly proposed in Origin of Species.
DNA:Do you remember our recent discussion of probabilities?Whatis the likelihood by mathematical probability for all DNA helix strands to be properly and perfectly connected in proper sequence by random chance?It would be mathematically impossible for over one million connections to have been randomly selected by chance in a precise 1-2-3-4-5-6-7- to . . . 1,000,000 exact proper sequence.This perfect selection would be necessary for the DNA in even one cell to allow that one cell to even function.Remember with eight balls or connections the chances of obtaining the right proper sequence of 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8 are over 40,000 to 1 against it happening.40,000 to 1 against random chance helix connection in ONE DNA!
When you increase it to seventy-five balls or seventy-five proper connections the probability against random chance connection lining up in proper perfect sequence 1-2-3-4-5- . . . 75 becomes mathematically improbable and/or mathematically impossible.The chance against the seventy-five balls lining up in perfect proper sequence is well over 10-50(ten to the fiftieth power).Mathematicians state the chance against seventy-five connections lining up properly by random chance selection is so remote as to have a zero probability.
Darwin did not understand the full implication of his theory as to the cell. But we now know that Darwin’s imagination wants us to believe random natural selection would be able to create the cell material.Next, by natural selection (blind chance), make perfect proper sequence helix connection of over one million helix strand connections, by unguided chance. It is more complicated by the fact that there are also four types of DNA connectors. To create, then connect the strands in only one DNA molecule is impossible!Thus evolution is impossible in the so-called simple single cell.Natural selection had zero probability to make these connections happen in one cell.The chance happening is against astronomical mathematical probabilities.Yet, Darwin wants you to believe this happened (not only once) but again and again and again and again and again; cell by cell, by cell, by cell. And they ask you to believe this mathematically impossible things continue to happen daily.Natural selection must also 'get lucky' with the RNA and the mitochondria and again on a mitochondria DNA system.Sorry, but this is impossible!
But, there is a more horrendous problem that DNA poses for which there is no logical answer. The question is: How could the first cell have evolved?
If, as Darwin alleged, all things must change step by slow step over vast periods of time, then we must find a way for DNA to evolve into a cell.And that, at first, might seem possible since the DNA contains all the information for the building of every part of the cell.So, clearly the plan and information for the plan must come first.You want a solid long-standing house, you need a plan and a builder to instruct and supervise the building.Thus DNA must come first. BUT, DNA can only live, (can only have life) when it (DNA) is in its home.It’s home, or the only place DNA can exist is: inside of an ALREADY fully living and functioning cell.How can DNA, which holds the information for the cell, which is the builder of the cell, evolve into a cell, when it cannot exist outside of an already constructed cell?
Folks, most upper echelon evolutionists know evolution is not possible, since mathematics and probabilities render it to be scientifically impossible in even only one cell.How could it work in multi-celled beings? (Medical scientists tell us that the human body has approximately one hundred trillion cells.)It is zero probability times zero probability, times zero probability times zero probability, times et cetera.Or, stating it another way, impossibility upon impossibility upon impossibility upon millions of impossibilities.For us human beings, one hundred trillion cells impossible.
This impossibility has been well known by upper echelon evolutionists for a quarter of a century and understood by many of them for almost a half a century. And yet, elementary school textbooks still preach the fraudulent misrepresentation born and living only in the imagination of men.Men, who now know, allow the continuation of this false indoctrination of our young elementary school children.
Darwin was clearly wrong as to the understanding of the cell.The cell was never the simple unit Darwin believed, when viewing from his vantage point behind the hill.Furthermore, for evolution to be workable, Darwin needed the cell to be simple and unremarkable.It had to be so that evolution could build upon it from simple to complex by random chance and random natural selection.Had it been seen in all of its complexity and incredible purposeful design, hopefully even Darwin would have had to fall to his knees and there proclaim, "My God how great Thou art!!!"
The BIG Bang Evolutionary Thinking
As you know, Darwin’s evolution does not concern itself with the origin of life.Evolution does allow the Creator only a small role as initiator of the process.It was therefore natural that a vast majority of them would adopt the big bang theory as to the origin of the universe. Why?The big bang theory, while not always conceding God as Creator, would allow Him that role of initiator and would also limit Him to that small role.
In the 19th and early 20th century, the universe was believed by many evolutionists to be infinite, universal or eternal.Edwin Hubble, lawyer turned astronomer, photographed and plotted the red shift in nearby spiral galaxies. This indicated: the universe is expanding.Since the universe is expanding outward, they realized they must go back to a beginning point.Thus, they could no longer believe in a fixed or eternal universe. The Hubble findings were based upon prior observations by another astronomer. The Einstein theory of relativity and the Friedman-Lemaitre standard big bang model predicted the expanding universe.The realization of the finite nature of the universe dictated the concept of a Singular event, a beginning, or a creation.That indicates there was a time when the universe and time-space came into existence.Scientists admit only two possibilities.Either the universe and time-space created itself (which is philosophically absurd) or there was a supernatural creation by one outside the universe. This One would have to be the sufficient, uncaused Cause to account for Himself, the universe, time-space and the first laws.This is mainstream, scientific standard big bang teaching.This is not some Christian splinter group. It has come to be believed in the scientific community that it makes more sense for the universe to have a Creator.
What is taught:The traditional or standard non-theistic evolutionary big bang ideology taught all that is in the universe, came into existence 18 to 20 b-i-l-l-i-o-n years ago.All the matter in the universe was supposedly compacted into a very small space, no bigger than a dot on the page of a textbook.Evolutionary big bang says there was then an explosion out ward.Outward exploded all matter.Who or what created the matter in the small dot?They do not know.How was matter created?They do not know.What caused the explosion?They do not know.But they speculate that about 4.6 b-i-l-l-i-o-n years ago Earth and its moon came to rest where it is now located.Big bang then says about 3.8 b-i-l-l-i-o-n years ago, it rained on Earth’s molten rocks for m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years.They do not know how rain was created.They did not really know the origin of rocks.This rain and erosion of the rocks, washed chemicals into pond, pools or ocean of dead elements, which became organic soup. However, they want you to believe that the chemicals somehow bonded, by random chance without any assistance. [fn[6]]
The Nebular Hypothesis:But how did the Earth come into being?As you travel the educational road of big-bang evolution, you will encounter the nebular hypothesis.It holds that our solar system (and later, the universe) began and was formed, in a cloud of swirling gasses that produced the sun, planets, the stars and all that is in the universe, including, of course, Earth. Some stellar (star) evolutionsts will tell you that this was first proposed by Emanuel Swedenborg in 1734 A.D.But, they know that most of us will never try to verify this supposed fact or go beyond this information.They really do not want you to know that this is not really a 'scientific finding.'How then did Emanuel Swedenborg readily admit the first acquired this knowledge?It was during a séance with little men from two outer uninhabitable planets in our solar system.
WHAT did you say, Brother Hughes?
Emanuel Swedenborg readily admitted that he had confirmed this 'knowledge' of the nebular hypothesis, during a séance with little men from Jupiter and Saturn, two outer uninhabitable planets in our solar system. (He also saw sheep on Jupiter and alleged there was a race of men on the moon, who spoke through their stomach in belches (burps). Things that we know are not true and would be impossible. Was the idea from his imagination? Is the science?NO!It is, at best, metaphysics.But, since it is a séance of the devil and not of God, those unbelieving evolutionists (who generally do not believe in God or the devil’s realm) quickly suppress this information and fully accept the nebular hypothesis, as if it was true; and they act as if it was ‘scientific.’
So, mark it down the so-called ‘scientific idea’ of the nebular hypothesis about the formation of stars and planets comes from a séance (a meeting of people who are calling upon the dead through the prince of darkness and death, the forces of evil) and this séance was supposed to be with little space men from other planets (which we now know to be uninhabitable).
On Earth:After this nebular hypothesis formed earth, Darwinians want you to believe that (against all possibilities) one living something created itself by a blind chance combination of chemicals, amino acids, proteins, to DNA in the first living complex cell.Again they do not know how these chemicals came into existence in the rocks.They do not know how they could possibly combine.Remember also that this process of non-life to life (spontaneous generation) has been disproved over and over again.It has been shown false even at the molecular, microscopic level by Louis Pasteur in the 1850s.But, evolution says the first living something that came into existence against the laws of science (and without God, they allege) either found another or recreated itself in its own image.Then it decided to come together to produce the lowest form of this simple life.Next they want us to assume that one life form supposedly gave life randomly by blind chance to other cells to form a species of some kind.Now when we have the first so-called primitive plants, that is a problem. And if we believe the evolutionist tale, first there is a plant, but it is an underwater plant.It becomes a fish, (but somehow also remains a plant type) then a fish becomes and amphibian (frog type) and an amphibian becomes a land-breathing animal, while at the same time slowly becoming also a bird.Is it any wonder that when reading Darwin’s attempt to explain all this, Rev. Dr. Adam Sedgwick laughed until his sides were almost sore?And in what part of a plant’s DNA is the ability to produce movement, or the hooves of the great horse, the neck of a giraffe, the flight of the honeybee, the butterfly or bird, the brain of an intellect or the voice of a great singer? IF it all happens at the DNA level as neo Darwinists now allege, then this had to be resident in some primitive form in the DNA of that first primitive water plant.
But when we move to the animal realm and have to account for reproduction they want you to really assume impossibility upon impossibility.
When speaking about things that reproduce sexually by fertilization or by egg and sperm, there had to be three things happening. 1) The species had stay and survive so it would be around, to produce all of the various kinds of new and different species.2) At the same time, it had to go off in at least two paths of seemingly contradictory evolution to form a male and all his equipment and then, at precisely the same time,3) be forming a female something with all of her different and totally complementary equipment. Of course this all had to happen in those cells which reproduce, while the same something had to be able to stay the same so that it could reproduce.All this, staying the same, but developing two sets of totally different, yet complimentary sets of equipment.This is all to be by blind chance.It had to take these two conflicting paths (perhaps more) to form two highly complex but totally different, yet completely complimentary forms. These totally different forms could reproduce (take some male gamete and some female egg) and have by accident developed the ability to change inside of it, this liquid or soft material and develop the nervous system, the bones and reproduce all the intricate organs and mechanism to cause each offspring to remain the same to preserve itself to reproduce. This is too much to believe.It is mathematically impossible.Do you understand the implausibility of this happening?
How can an organism or animal change from one species into two so completely different forms of another species by blind chance?When do these new forms cross over into having to reproduce with one another?Who reproduces with them before that?Or are there several thousand reproducing into other forms so that these two can come together to form the new species by chance.How do the two new complimentary forms of the new species find each other? If this is supposedly happening by chance some place on Earth, how will they ever come together?
Let me understand.One evolves by random blind chance and has all the male reproductive organs and devices.At the same time blind evolution is producing its female counter part with all the proper and corresponding female reproductive organs and devices.So chance is producing that which may even appear contradictory: the male and female through small incremental (or punctuated) changes: both totally different genders, at the same time? DOES THAT EVEN MAKE LOGICAL SENSE?No.BUT, evolutionists now say this simple reproductive life form, found another of the same kind of living something.
Folks, they ask us to believe that while this was happening, the living some things evolved by natural selection from plant, to a fish.Is it possible for the cell to stay alive if it also mutates sufficiently to become something radically different? No! The cell will die.Therefore the reproductive cells have a terrible problem.Stay the same and not produce the evolutionary thing, but live or have the cells die trying to mutate.(This is simplistic, but at its core, true.)Some have called these miracles of evolution. (Miracles? Does evolution produce by miracles?) The fish types all stayed the same, all except for two lines, one male line and one corresponding female line to produce amphibian.Improbable?Yes.Impossible?Yes. But the story must go on.
Back at the pool of slime.Remember the remarkable amphibian?That one they argue evolved all of his fellow amphibians, by staying the same kind.Then a few went off, they claim, to somehow radically change into the reptile.Ah, the reptile, another miracle of Darwinian evolution.
This reptile followed the path of his supposed evolutionary 'creator' called blind random chance. The reptile stayed the same so as to produce kinds of reptiles.But at the same time, the magnificent reptile took not one but TWO separate paths.While staying the same to produce kinds of reptiles, they allege a few slowly changed into mammal (like a cow) and also at the same time to become bird (like a sparrow).IF this were true, (and truly haphazard and by chance, without direction) I would expect to also find some flying cows and some chicken like things out of whom you could get milk. We should see chaos as things search by chance without direction to become or produce that which we see and have as chickens and cows. Would not chaos and thousands of forms struggling to change and become some other thing be what we should see? BUT we see order. All those members of one kind have the same number of eyes and hearing devices and legs. Change or chaos is NOT the rule. This would be the natural end of the changing forms that did not make it.I never thought about it, but do you suppose it is difficult for some evolutionists to tell the difference between such closely related offspring of reptile: a cow and a sparrow?
The mammal likewise evolved and eventually the gods of evolution: random, blind chance and b-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years: created us: man.How?They do not know.But it created us with our trillions of cells.. . .That is what the darwinians expect you to believe.That is what they ask elementary teachers to teach to young children who will believe anything that their teacher tells them.
Spontaneous Generation:This process, as you can see would take at least one act (more likely several acts) of spontaneous generation.Remember that Dr. Wald, and most biologists believe the work of Redi and Pasteur was correct. They concluded that spontaneous generation (non living forms to give life to living forms) is scientifically impossible!!!Yet, remember, Dr. Wald irrationally refused to accept that which Wald concluded makes more sense, i.e. supernatural creation.According to Wald, it is the only other position.Wald says: "There is no third position."Nevertheless Dr. Wald clings to that which he knows is not true, that which Wald concludes is scientifically impossible: spontaneous generation.
Probabilities:Additionally, we must recognize that big bang and evolution cannot cross the mathematical probability barrier of the over one million DNA helix strand perfect proper sequence connections.There are several interdependent things happening in the single cell.Random natural selection is incapable of making a proper connection of even the DNA without regard to the other processes that are occurring in but ONE single living cell.Blind natural selection would also have to make perfect proper sequence connections in RNA, achieve protein sorting, prepare mitochondria and properly organize its mtDNA.It is hoped by now you will be thinking: 'It is mathematical impossible for there to be cell formation by the concept of random chance natural selection.' If you do not understand my hesitation in accepting evolutionary explanations, allow me to give you one other example.
When evolutionists claim random natural selection made the DNA connections they are asking you to believe that you can win the state lottery every week for over one hundred years, by random chance.
Blind Baseball: However, as the cell is interdependent, many things must happen at once. Thus allow me to give you an example from baseball where several things happen at one time.
Evolutionists want you to believe that there is in effect a baseball game going on by chance.They tell you that blind chance can hit over one million connecting spots on the field.The spots are not known to the pitcher, the catcher, the batter or other participants.Yet blind natural chance will find them.First the pitcher must pitch a ball.The batter must swing at the ball.The bat must hit the ball every time.The batter must hit with just enough force and angle to send the ball to an unknown spot.That spot is not known even by blind random natural chance.But, they want you to believe that by blind random chance the ball thrown by the pitcher, hit by the batter will go to a predetermined unknown spot.The ball cannot be off an inch.If it is, they all die.The pitcher must pitch every pitch; the batter must swing with the right force and never miss.The bat must always direct the ball to a certain unknown spot by chance.This must be done one million consecutive throws, with one million consecutive hits and one million correct times to predetermined unknown spots.It would be hard enough if we knew the spot and it was marked with a big X.BUT we do not know one of the one million spots.Yet not knowing, we must hit the right spot over and over and over and over.And if we miss? The cell dies.So we are dead.And if we are successful we have not even built the one cell, we have only lined up the one set of DNA helix strand connections.Are you beginning to understand the immensity of the problems of so-called evolution?It is impossible.
BUT WAIT!Because it is blind random chance, we had better blindfold the pitcher.Blindfolded he/she still has to pitch that ball one million times to the batter.The ball has to come to the batter so he can hit it just right to drive it to a certain spot.The placement of the ball must be correct one million consecutive times.How do you feel about the chances with a blind pitcher?
To be truly blind chance, wouldn’t we have to blindfold the batter too? (DO YOU NOW UNDERSTAND THE IMPOSSIBILITY of blind random chance?
One of those 'vast age' astronomers, Sir Fred Hoyle, knew that random blind chance could not accomplish evolution.He wrote, in 1981: I quote:
Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every aspect deliberate.. . . (Sir Frederick Hoyle, Cambridge University and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Cardiff, Wales, Professors of Astronomy and Applied Mathematic) Convergence to God, In Evolution From Space,J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp. 141)
Changing Truth of Evolution:In the last half of the 20th century there remained some Darwinians who (in hope) still believed the answer was in the fossil record. Yet in 1960 Dr. Carl Dunbar, PhD wrote most positively:
Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms. Carl O. Dunbar, PhD (geology) Historical Geology, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1960, p.47
However, by 1981, the view had radically changed.Gould and Eldredge had already concluded that the fossil record did not support Darwin (1977 - see page 3 in this essay).A zoologist,(one who studies animals present and past) from Oxford, England, wrote:
In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.Mark Ridley (zoologist) Oxford University; Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p.831
In just twenty-one short years they would go from professing faith in the fossil record as 'the' basis for evolution in 1960, to repudiating it by 1981. Dr. Ridley boldly states "no real evolutionist" uses the fossil record.Wow!What an example of unchanging. . . truth?
Mark Ridley failed to state that Darwin himself in Origin of Species discussed the fossil record and regarded its lack of evidence for evolution to be serious.As mentioned, Darwin hoped such fossil record evidence would be found. The fossil record did not then and does not today support evolution.How can we trust anything they tell us, as their truth is ever changing?
BE NOT Conformed:Christians must not be conformed to this ever-changing evolutionary ideology. Why? Darwin’s evolution no longer is even pretended to be true by many.Yet, all public school students for the past one hundred years have been propagandized.They have been brainwashed with evolution.They have been filled up by the only belief system taught in our public schools: evolutionary big bang.It pretends that Earth is b‑i‑l‑l‑i‑o‑n‑s of years old, that everything changes slowly, gradually, continually.Yet apparently it does so without leaving any evidence.This view of Darwinian evolution from Lyell and Hutton has been totally rejected by many scientists.Furthermore, as indicated, Darwin's evolution was rejected by many from the beginning.To demonstrate more clearly why Darwin was not universally accepted, allow me to return for a moment to Charles Darwin’s 1859 publication entitled On The Origin of the Species, By Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life.
Darwin Knew They Would Not Believe:What?Did Darwin KNOW the great scientists of his day would not believe his theory?You decide by reading this quote from chapter 9 of his book Origin of Species:
". . . We see this in the plainest manner by the fact that all the most eminent paleontologists, namely Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz, Barrande, Falconer, E. Forbes, &c., and all our greatest geologists, as Lyell, Murchison, Sedgwick, &c., have unanimously, often vehemently, maintained the immutability of species. But I have reason to believe that one great authority, Sir Charles Lyell, from further reflexion entertains grave doubts on this subject. I feel how rash it is to differ from these great authorities, to whom, with others, we owe all our knowledge. Those who think the natural geological record in any degree perfect, and who do not attach much weight to the facts and arguments of other kinds even in this volume, will undoubtedly at once reject my theory. . . ."‑C. Darwin On the Origin of the Species, chapter 9.
They did reject Darwin. At first, all of them. Charles Lyell, as Darwin predicted, did change his position. The other scientists were men of great reputation.Most are now well known in the evolutionary community for two things: their great contributions to science and their opposition to Darwin.
As Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard Professor, stated in 1979, I quote:
This notion of species as 'natural kinds' fits splendidly with creationist tenets of a pre-Darwinian age.Louis Agassiz even argued that species are God’s individual thoughts, made incarnate so that we might perceive both His majesty and His message.Species, Agassiz wrote, are "instituted by the Divine Intelligence as the categories of His mode of thinking."(Stephen Jay Gould, PhD [geology, paleontology, Harvard University] ‘A quahog is a quahog’ Natural History vol. LXXXVIII [7], Aug-Sept, 1979 p. 18) 7 )
As you can see Professor Agassiz was very much a believer in God and opposed to Darwin’s evolution.Professor Gould knew this and reported that his fellow Harvard professor (Agassiz) was known for his great contributions to science and as a creationist.Agassiz always opposed Darwin’s evolution.
Another to reject Darwin was his former professor, Rev. Dr. Adam Sedgwick.Sedgwick was head of geology at Cambridge.He wrote Darwin that when he (Sedgwick) read Origin of the Species, that in some places because of absurdity: "parts, I laughed at until my sides were almost sore."
Recall also that some produced false evidence to support Darwin’s imagination.Huxley and Haeckel were two who tried to make up evidence to support Darwin.They published articles as if they were true and scientific. They gave 'scientific sounding' names to things, which did not exist.After that first major mistake (or imagination) was exposed, Haeckel was not finished.Haeckel later furnished a great fraud that deceived many, for generations.What did Haeckel do?Haeckel falsified carvings and drawings of embryos.Haeckel believed humans passed through an evolutionary past, during the nine-month gestation period.Although this really would be evidence against slow (m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years) evolution, they wanted to believe the hoax, so they grasped at it as proof.When Haeckel did not find this in the embryo, he altered his and others drawings.The faked drawings were used to prove the Haeckel fraud. Knowing Haeckel had been thoroughly disproved, evolutionists continue to promote this deception today.
All we can say for sure is that the majority of upper echelon evolutionists admit Darwin was in error.Thus the Darwinian ideology should not continue to be the 'propaganda of' or 'belief system' taught in the public schools. There is agreement of this by some evolutionists that evolution should not be taught in high school. [fn[7]]Christian parents, if at all possible, should not allow their children to attend public schools since the eternal destiny of the child is at risk.
Now perhaps you can see why they have to start you out when one is very young.A very young person is willing to believe anything that is told to them.Remember the typical eight year old believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Darwinian evolution.
Conclusion
Folks, evolution could not create us. Not with the complexity of the cell.Evolution has a mathematical possibility of 0% of being creator of DNA material and connector of the helix strands.This all took deliberation.It took Intelligence.It took a Director.It took the Mind of God.Yes, we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made.
GOD is GOD
We need to see God as He is.All Knowing, All Powerful and able to do more than we can think or ask.God created us from these complex building blocks named cells.And we are not one, but we are trillions of these complex cells.Scientists have now confirmed the Psalmist's pronouncement: that we are 'fearfully and wonderfully made.'We can join with the psalmist and say to God, I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully [and] wonderfully made: marvellous [are] Thy works; and [that] my soul knoweth right well. (Psalm 139:14)
If you have doubted God and/or the Genesis account of His creation, perhaps now you begin to see you have been deceived by the evolutionary ideology of Darwin and his followers.Your faith is being destroyed by this evolutionary ideology.The upper echelon evolutionist has heartlessly failed to prevent Darwinian theory (with its known impossibility) from being taught in public schools to young and impressionable children.Since the theory is unworkable, lacks fossil evidence, and is mathematically impossible, it does not belong in our school systems.
The evolutionist is one of two kinds, either he/she is still deceived or she/he knows Darwin was wrong and is part the deceivers.Those who know Darwin wrong perpetuate the myth, for who knows what purposes: beyond the obtaining of government and foundational grants.To knowingly deceive innocent children is so evil and treacherous I can think of nothing much worse.Such deceit has eternal consequences for and to the child.It is akin to September 11, 2001: a sneak attack by terrorists.The attackers are after innocent, indefensible children.This attack occurs in your public school system every day. Thus Christian parents, if possible, should not permit their children to attend public school.Their faith in God is placed in jeopardy!It has eternal consequences!
...
All right, allow me a moment to TRY to settle down, to try to become more philosophical, homiletical (to explain) and hermeneutical or interpretative. )(
Introduction to the Biblical View
The Bible begins: IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH...If you call yourself a Christian, you must believe these first ten words of the Bible.If you do not believe these ten words, you are not a Christian.But, if you do believe them, that is not enough.The Bible asks us, 'Do you believe in God?'The Bible says, Ye do well, the devils also believe and tremble. [fn[8]]So to know of God or know of His Bible is not the same as KNOWING GOD! To know God you must surrender your will, your supposed higher intellect and ask God (the one you do know) to reveal Himself intimately, personally, and unmistakenly.God can and will reveal Himself to you.You must ask truly wanting and expecting an answer.Multiplied millions have asked: kings, prime ministers, presidents, professors and peasants. God wants all to come to Him.
Who is This God?Many believe in some form of a god.But God wants us to believe more specifically in God as HE has revealed Himself in the Bible.
The general understanding of the concept of God by most non-Christian or nominal so-called Christians is that HE is some heavenly, distant Being 'in the sky.'Their God is perhaps responsible for the creation of the universe, time-space and the necessary first laws of nature, but then He goes on vacation or to sleep or off on a visit.Thomas Henry Huxley was called 'Darwin's bulldog.'Huxley was a contemporary and disciple of Darwin.Huxley was involved in making up false early life forms to support the Darwinian imagination.Huxley reveals that he held to a God concept. I quote:
Creation, in the ordinary sense of the word is perfectly conceivable.I find no difficulty in conceiving that at some former period, this universe was not in existence; and that it made its appearance in six days... in consequence of the volition of some pre-existing Being. Thomas Henry Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, volume II (1903), p.429
Most people (who believe as Huxley) speculate that their god was finished. Their concept of god then allowed other gods and/or forces and/or random events to determine the unfolding of the universe.Their god was not in control.Therefore, this god perception does not include our Providential God.Their god cannot intervene (no miracles).We know God does intervene in the affairs of the world or man.Most know that God desires worship.Most also understand there should be some form of prayer and/or offering.Why do they pray and or worship?I am not sure.Their god is so impotent.Their god is also inconsistent.Their god acts only when he wants to and will equally decide to not act.There is no pattern or assurance that his or her god will even be listening.If he is, their god is a stern police officer type.Their god is impersonal, away from them and far above them.This is NOT an accurate picture of the loving God as HE reveals HIMSELF in the Bible.
Our God, in the Bible, called Himself, Elohiym in Genesis 1:1.IN THE BEGINNING ELOHIYM CREATED. . ..God immediately begins revealing HIMSELF as a caring, meticulous, purposeful, Designer.First Earth is covered with water. The Spirit is hovering over (rachaph {raw‑khaf'}) the water in a caring and loving way.God, Who reveals Himself, says, "Let there be Light." Immediately Light is.It dispels the darkness.God brings dry land out of the sea, creates the initial heaven and places water above Earth.Plants, sun, moon and stars, fish, birds are all created. On the sixth day, God creates from the dust of the Earth, breathing land animals.Then God says, Let US create man in our image. And God made a body from the ground, but creates (new from nothing that previously existed) the soul and spirit of man in His image and likeness.What a difference between our God who cares for and loves man so much as to make man in the Image and Likeness of God.God is not impersonal, distant or unconcerned.
In the first three chapters of Genesis, God reveals a close personal relationship and personal concern for His creation, Adam and Eve.When His creation listens to another voice, other than God, man sins.God comes to man with punishment, but also declares the way of RECONCILIATION to HIMSELF.
The care and concern of God for man thereafter could be summed up in understanding Why Jesus came to Earth in the form of a man.That is why many have said over the years that the entire Bible from the creation of man in Genesis to the coming again of Jesus in Revelation is summed up in John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Why did Jesus Come into THE WORLD?
We have all heard Jesus came into (appeared as a man in) the world to seek (hunt, pursue, track down) and save (deliver, recover, redeem) those who are lost (hopeless, disoriented, confused) separated from God.Let us try, with God’s help, to understand what that implies, considering the entire Biblical account of man.
In the beginning God created man or Adam. Adam named all the animals. He was in the Garden of Eden and enjoyed daily fellowship with God.God saw that man was still lonely and incomplete.God gave him a wife to be a help (benefit, assistance, aid) meet (appropriate, fit, suitable).
God gave the two, one rule to keep. God said you could eat off any tree, except the tree in the midst of the garden.It was named the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.God said, Do not eat from it.For the day you do, you shall surely die.
What did Adam (and wife) do? They broke the one rule that God told them to keep.They sinned.They ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.Genesis 3 tells why.The serpent deceived Eve. They ate the forbidden fruit (Adam was with her -Genesis 3:6).Then what happens?DEATH. This death was not when life comes to an end.It was Spiritual Death as when man becomes disconnected from God. Furthermore we must realize that the word Death is NOT a going out of existence.Death is merely the passage into another existence, an Eternal existence. Where?Your choice: heaven or lake of fire.
There are 3 Deaths:Spiritual death.
Physical death follows
Eternal death (in the lake of fire)
How horrible must be that Lake of fire and eternal torment.It is so bad,(appalling, dreadful, horrifying) that God, the Father-Son-Holy Spirit, was willing to allow the Son to come into the world became flesh (take on a body).HE came into the world for one reason. Why? HE offered Himself as ‘the Lamb,’ The Sacrifice, of God.Jesus, God (in man’s form) allowed His fleshly body to die in your place.He paid your penalty for sin. The wages of sin is death, (eternal death).But the gift of God is eternal life, through ONE, Jesus Christ our Lord.Jesus lived a sinless life.So you (and I) might have eternal life in heaven with Him.How can we escape eternal death, the horrifying torment in the lake of fire? We must accept what Jesus did for us. HE died in your place.
That is why the Bible can all be summarized in John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
If you will believe this simple, but profound statement, you will understand God’s love for each of us, even after sin.You will understand the extent to which God was willing to go to bring to you reconciliation.To take advantage of what God had done for you, you must receive His Gift of eternal life.As Jesus said, “You must be born again.”Only after you are born again will you KNOW God.
To know God accurately, one must be born again.To grow in knowledge of God, one must read the Bible.Many who call themselves believers have never read the Bible, from cover to cover.Those who haven't read the Bible wonder why they have so many questions.The Bible answers them in Romans 10, verse 17; So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.Hebrews 11:6 continues with a warning and instruction: But without faith [it is] impossible to please [Him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and [that] He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
I want to talk to you about some who call themselves Christian.They have actually read some (or all) of the words of the Bible.Yet, they try to make the Bible conform to what geologists and evolutionists have taught them.These people do not seem to realize that many geologists and many evolutionists are not sure the evolutionary assumption is defensible.In this ignorance of knowledge, they are being destroyed. (Remember God said: MY people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. . .Hosea 4:6) Thus some try to add vast ages to the Genesis creation account.Why?They are intimidated by these men in white lab coats with their computer printouts.They know not that these evolutionists are defending an ideology from the imaginations of men.An ideology that they, themselves, have called into question.Many have now rejected it.The so-called Christians, rather than believing God’s Bible, try to explain it and make it fit man’s belief.Isn’t that upside down and backwards?We believe the imagination of the creature and reject the Word of God.Be careful about rearranging, adding to or attempting to speak for God.God tells us what we are capable of understanding and then simply asks us to have faith in God.
There is a good example of this type of Christian in the well known author, Professor Philip E. Johnson, of Berkeley Law School wrote a book entitled: Darwin on Trial, Regnery Gateway, Wash. D.C. (1991).On p. 14, he states:
I am a philosophical theist and a Christian.I believe that a God exists who could create out of nothing if He wanted to do so, but Who might have chosen to work through a natural evolutionary process instead.I am not a defender of creation-science [fn[9]], and in fact I am not concerned in this book with addressing any conflicts between the Biblical accounts and the scientific evidence.
My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence.I assume that the creation-scientists are biased by their precommitment to Biblical fundamentalism, and I will have very little to say about their position.The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based upon a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism. (Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trail, Regnery Gateway, Wash. D.C. (1991) p.14
Translation of Johnson: I (Johnson) do not actually believe the Bible from Genesis to Revelation.I do not believe Genesis, chapter one.I don’t know if God is really All Powerful.I believe that those who believe the Bible literally are not defendable. I am not defending the Bible as written.
My purpose (Johnson says) is to put aside the word of God and argue man’s reason (mine) against man’s reasoning (Darwinians).I think fundamentalists are weird.But, I guess I do not believe Darwin either.I will check his theory against that of other men (scientists).Then I will tell you what I (yet another man) think.
How can a person can say, ‘I am a Christian,’ BUT I do not believe the book upon which Christianity is premised?This is not being logical or consistent.If says he does not believe in part of the Bible, (Genesis) then how can he believe in any of it?You see, I must be one of those precommitted Biblical fundamentalists that embarrass him when he calls himself a Christian.Dr. Johnson does not sound like a Christian at all.He may be. He just doesn’t sound very committed to God and the Bible.Dr. Johnson sounds as if he may be a ‘day ager’ or a ‘gap theory’ man.They can add m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s or even b-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years to the Bible without any effort.Then they tell us what God was really trying to tell us when God moved upon men to write the Bible.
When any man attempts to add time to the Biblical account of Creation, he is really saying God is not capable of properly communicating with his highest creation: man.Did God create us? Yes.Are we made out of those fearfully and wonderfully made building blocks, the cells? Yes.Do you really believe that God would have trouble communicating with the mind that HE created?No! Would God need men to tell others what God intended to say or convey?NO!Who made the eyes, the ear and the mind?God.Therefore does Creator God need a man to explain what God meant in Genesis 1?No.Or does God trust us common folk to understand and believe God and His Word?Yes.All we need to do is have faith in God.
Do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God?If yes, then you can become or are a Christian.If your answer is ‘No.’ Then you probably are not a Christian since God admonishes us not to add to or take from His Bible. There is a possibility that you may be a Christian, but it is very difficult to really actually believe when you do not believe the Book upon which the faith is based.And you certainly are keeping others confused as to whether they should believe the Bible.
Is Evolution compatible with Creation?It is no secret that evolution is the chief ideological opponent of the Biblical view.Folks, most evolutionists know that Darwin's evolution cannot be reconciled with Genesis, notwithstanding what Huxley said in the 19th century, to attempt to reconcile evolution and creation,D.B. Gower, a biochemist of the 20th century had stated in 1975: I quote:
The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled.One must be right and the other wrong.. . . (D.B. Gower, Scientists Rejects Evolution, Kentish Times, England, Dec. 11, 1975, p. 4)
Please do not believe people who tell you there is some way to reconcile the Creation account with the theory of evolution. Although at one time Darwin was the biggest problem, before Darwin there were those who taught that the Earth was much older than the literal reading of the Bible would allow.Thus Kelvin thought the Earth at one time 75 million years old, at another time 20 to 40 million years old.So men in schools of higher learning, especially in the schools that had seminaries, began trying to reconcile the vast age uniformitarian view with the Bible, by adding vast periods to the life span of the earth, since before Darwin published.However, it was Darwin’s speculations in Origin of Species that carried biologists away from the Biblical belief of creation.
As we mentioned earlier, many of Darwin’s contemporaries disagreed with him.Professor Louis Agassiz of Harvard was one who stated that the fossil record of Darwin’s day showed complex organisms suddenly appearing fully formed in the fossil record.We remember that in 1977 Gould and Eldredge agreed that the fossils did not support Darwin’s gradualism.At about the same time (1975) the one before mentioned, D.B. Gower, the biochemist who said Genesis and evolution could not be reconciled, also commented on the fossil record of his day.He said:
The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis.In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared.Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.(D.B. Gower, Scientists Rejects Evolution, Kentish Times, England, Dec. 11, 1975, p. 4)
Who Is that Roaring as if a Lion?It is no secret that evolution is the chief ideological opponent of creation and the Bible.But who is the chief enemy?Who goes about as if he is a roaring lion?Who says God is a liar?And when you have answered that, next ask yourself, who are the most effective agents of this evolutionary model that is credited to a man named Darwin?Is it the colleges or university?We seem to think they are to blame and in one way they are to blame, but not as we might first imagine.
The Agents:It is true that many stray from Biblical faith when in college.They do so at the urging of professors and peers, but they are not the main agents of evolution.They merely enforce that which has already been taught.The primary agents of this opponent of Biblical creation are therefore not colleges, not professors, not men of science, but instead it is your trusted elementary school teacher.She/he predisposes the children in her charge to doubt God and to adhere to the corrupt belief system of uniformitarianism and evolution.However, she is being used.She has been deceived.She was never told that evolution has never received universal acceptance.Evolution did not receive universal acceptance by science in the 19th century, not in the 20th century and certainly darwinian evolution has lost its seductive power for the 21st century scientist.
Defectors:In the 1970s and 1980s there were wholesale defections from Darwin’s unworkable and groundless belief system by those in the evolutionary-scientific community. David C.C. Watson; R.H. Peters; T. Rosazak; Pierre-Paul de Grasse; H. Lipson; Michael Denton; Robert Jastrow; D. J. Futuyma; B. Leith; Colin Patterson; Niles Eldredge; Stephen Jay Gould; N. Chandra Wickramasinghe; and Sir Frederick Hoyle are a few of the well-known former evolutionists who defected. But, and even more important than these defections, was the primary reason for the defections.It can probably be traced back to the announcement by the German Jewish physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) with his theories of relativity.They spawned the big bang theory.Then came Hubble’s confirmation that the universe had a beginning or creation event.
Not all were happy with the new standard big bang theory.As we shall see, Dr. Hoyle thrust himself into the midst of the evolutionary and big bang controversy.Why?The debate was on!Is the universe finite (had a beginning in time)?Or was it infinite (eternal) with no beginning.Some continued to believe in the eternal universe.Others conceded it had a beginning, but they were slow to name the Beginner.Hoyle was unusual in that he rejected all of the disputants: evolution, the big bang and a Creator God.This debate was not new.It had raged since the days of Dr. David Hume (1707-1776) and Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727).Those who chose to believe that it was eternal said the universe had no creator.Those who saw design, declared that the universe had to have a Designer (Creator).
NEWTON’S MODEL UNIVERSE
The Bible says In the Beginning God created the heaven and the Earth...Why does Dr. Wald or why do others, meremen, consider it incredible that the universe was created by God?The creation of the universe has long been a contention between men of philosophy (religious and scientific).Some do not want to believe in God as Creator and Judge.Other men KNOW in Whom they have believed.Those who do not believe ask if God created the universe.These questions have continued since shortly after the creation. The question is about Who (or how) the universe came into existence.Who created the world, the solar system, the universe?This may be best illustrated by an encounter between one of the world’s greatest scientific minds, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and a friend who visited him. Newton was teaching at Cambridge.
The following is a quote from someone who had first hand knowledge of Newton (such as Halley, Christopher Wren or Boyle).It is not attributed to Newton or to one of his close friends in London.I must confess that in my readings on Newton I have never come across this quote.Yet Newton was known as a master model builder.He would be one of the few capable of building a precise model of the universe.It is not known if this is an actual quote from Newton’s time.It may be that someone imagined this situation.It may be this conversation did take place.(If it is proven to be not an actual quote from/about Newton, it will be immediately deleted.)
"One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, `My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?' Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, `Nobody!'
"Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, `Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?' Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, `You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is.'
"Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. `This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know,- and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker! Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?' "-The Minnesota Technology, October 1957.
A similar conclusion about creation was reached in the 20th century:
"If the universe is a universe of thought [structured in a planned, thoughtful manner], then its creation must have been an act of thought."-*James H. Jeans, Mysterious Universe (1932), p. 181.
According to many scientists and standard big bang theory, the universe itself needs a Creator.Why?Because of the dilemma in which one finds himself/herself when they wind the universe back to its singular event, or its beginning.They admit that it either created itself out of nothing or more logically it was a Supernatural Creation by God.Then why not accept the God of the Bible as Creator?God gave us the Bible as a book of faith in which HE, God, reveals Himself, His ways and His purposes.Since we understand God is, we should seek Him with faith.HE is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him.
Yet unfortunately, as weknow, a majority (more than 50%) of the people in the world of influence: television, newspapers, radio, film, even most college professors do not accept God as Creator.Many refuse to believe in God.Are they correct?No. What do they believe as an alternative to God and His Creation? Are there any problems with what they believe?Yes.Has God or Creation been disproved? No!Or is the general public correct when eighty‑six (86%) percent (or more) of people (in a Gallup poll) say they believe in God? [fn[10]]
Thus, if you believe in God, you are in the majority, even with years of evolutionary ‘propaganda’ in school systems by misguided teachers.These teachers repeat, from lesson plans, the evolutionary ideology. The evolutionary credo is advanced by those in the evolutionary community who know the truth. Knowing the truth, they allow school textbooks to perpetuate this unworkable, impossible ideology of evolution.It says all life evolved from animals over m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years.They will face the harsh judgment of God.
Not In High School:Some have altered their positions somewhat.One example is Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London.He was delivering the keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City decades ago (November 5, 1981).Dr. Patterson, in explaining his own years of darwinian misdirection said: I quote:
One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization.For over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way.One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it.That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long.Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory.Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence.I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, AI do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school.
Those upper echelon evolutionists who advance this unproven, unworkable ideology of evolution to be taught in public elementary and high schools are without excuse.Unless they repent, they will find their place in the lake of fire!Brother Hughes, aren’t you being a bit harsh? Not at all. This is an honest warning to upper echelon evolutionists and their agents to repent or face eternal consequences.Those consequences are not pleasant.When I think about them perpetuating the fraud on our school children, with its eternal consequences,I ask Why?…WHY?…Why?
The Bible Declares
The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.(Psalm 14, vs. 1)
The fool has said in his heart: There is no God. . .
But why then do many choose to be a fool and not believe?They say they are scientists.Most in science say that they seek objective truth.IF they do and are not afraid to discover the Truth, then they need to seek it (truth) where it is unchanged, fixed and unchanging.Those who seek the Truth must not be afraid to seek God, Who is Truth.They must inquire: What is Truth?The answer is: God is Truth!From whence comes faith to believe God? From God Himself.One must not be afraid to ask for faith from God.The Bible says faith is a gift from God, Himself. [fn[11]] The Bible also tells of the long patience of God, not willing that any evolutionist or other unbeliever should perish, but God wants all men to come to repentance. [fn[12]] Our minds are to be renewed. [fn[13]]. Renewed by what? By the Bible.Renewed from what?From conforming to the evolutionary belief system or ideologic, dogma, which is no longer truly believed to be true by most upper echelon evolutionists.
Perhaps now you realize that Darwin’s evolution is not true.You have been deceived.If you now realize this, you need to make peace with Creator, God.The Bible says we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.If you want to make peace with God, you must be reconciled to your Creator, it is so simple that a fool should not err therein.God so loved the world that HE gave His only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but will have everlasting life. Jesus is the Only Way back to God the Father.
The Call to Peace:
Dear Lord Jesus,I know that You love me and have a wonderful plan for my life, but my sins separate me from Your Love and plan for me. Worse, the Bible says that my sins have earned me eternal death in the lake of fire.I know You died to pay the death penalty for sins. So, You died in my place for my sins. So, I must choose if I want to spend eternity to come in the lake of fire or if I want to accept Your death and the legal pardon You offer me to cleanse me from all sin.I repent and am sorry for my sins.Please forgive me, Lord, a sinner.I call upon You, Lord. I accept Your death in my place. I accept Your legal parson. Please come into my heart and life. Please change me completely. Please deliver me.I give You permission to change me totally and completely. This I pray, ask and declare in the Name of Jesus. Amen and amen.
If you prayed that prayer and meant it sincerely from within, you have called upon the Name of the Lord to save you from the lake of fire.The Bible says the whosoever calls upon the Name of the Lord, shall be saved from eternal torment and thus will live in heaven with God forever.(Read Romans, chapter 10, verse13 and John, chapter 3, verses 16 and 17)
God is good.
All the time.
All the time.
God is good.
Lord prepare me,to be a sanctuary
Pure and Holy,tried and true.
With thanksgiving ,I’ll be a living
Sanctuaryfor YOU !!!
Next we examine what the present parents and teachers are teaching our children:Do you know what the average eight year old believes?
Part II
Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and Darwin’s Evolution; or
Is there Actually Propaganda in the Public School?
Although the Bible teaches us AIN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. . .,the average eight year old believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Darwin’s evolution.All three are myths.
Who Is Responsible?Parents, I have somewhat to say to you.If you are a worldly person, it will sound harsh.If you need to be born again, it will certainly appear narrow minded, maybe even bigoted.It will upset you, if you are a backslider acting as if you never were born again.My friend we are the reason the average eight year old has never been taught the importance of ‘IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. . ..’We are also the reason the typical eight-year-old elementary school child believes in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and evolution.Why?The average elementary teacher and parent think it okay to perpetuate myths.They have been told things by the last generation that they accepted as true without question.Then they pass on the beliefs in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and Darwin’s evolution.Darwinian evolutionis no more true than the first two.We may later explain to our child that the first two were myths.We will never take the time or dare to challenge the school on the third myth.Our child may or may not forgive us for the untruths.Why do we allow our children to learn these untruths?Once we do teach them things that are not true, why do we then wonder why the child may lose her/his faith in God?
5) Thorns [and] snares [are] in the way of the froward: he that doth keep his soul shall be far from them. 6) Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
Proverbs 22:5-6
If you cannot trust your parents, what about the school certainly our beloved elementary school teacher to tell them the truth?Well. . .Allow me to read you a portion of a typical fourth grade public school lesson.You will then understand the propaganda or brain washing being accomplished.The ideology is being pushed onto the unsuspecting student by none other than her or his. . . trusted teacher.
Fourth Grade ‑ Science ‑ Lesson 19 ‑ Geology
Objectives
Devise a workable inch‑to‑year scale for a geologic time line in the
classroom.Measure and create a geologic time line to scale for each era.
. . .
Ask: How old do geologists think the Earth is? (four and a half billion years)
Write 4,500,000,000 years on the board. Tell the students that these 4.5 billion years, beginning with the formation of the Earth until now, are called geologic time.Tell them that geologic time is different from human time. When humans think about time they usually think in terms of lifetimes ‑‑ seventy or eighty years. We can picture how many years have passed since our grandparents were children. We can even count the years backward to the Revolutionary War, or count the centuries back to the building of ancient cities.But nothing people have experienced gives them the scale they need to count back 4.5 billion years to the beginning of the Earth.
People only began writing things down 6,000 years ago.We call the time before that prehistoric because no one was recording events ‑‑ it was pre‑history. The only record of events we have for that huge expanse of time is the record of clues in rocks and fossils.Rocks and fossils tell the story of prehistory.
Tell the students that decades, centuries and millennia are much too small for geologic time.Instead geologists divided geologic time into four eras.Divide the class into four groups to represent the four eras of geologic time. . . .
This is from an actual 4th Grade Lesson Plan.The entire plan is set forth in an End Note to this material. [EN[i]]
The Child Who Knows Better:When your fourth grader comes home and you ask, ‘What did you learn at school today?’They will probably answer, the same old stuff in science. They will not know how to articulate or even understand what was really being taught.This is what they would say, if they really understood.
Well Miss Snodgrass told us about her evolutionary philosophy again. You know I think she might even believe those evolutionary stories about the long ages of the Earth.Hey, did you know that she believes that Earth has been around for 4.5 b-i-l-l-i-o-n years?I know it had to be only her belief system or one that some man made up, because she also told us that there was no written history before six thousand (6,000) years.So, obviously she was teaching me her world-view or the world view of the person who made up her lesson plans.Too bad wish she would come to church with us and be delivered from that unbelief.
But for most fourth graders, they will not understand that their faith in God and in our Lord Jesus Christ is being attacked.I wonder how that makes our Lord feel?Gee! Seems to me that HE might become upset as HE did when HE saw ‘money changers’ in the Temple.Did HE say anything that might make me believe HE is upset?Remember when the HE called the children unto Himself as reported in the Gospel of Matthew?
2)And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,3)And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.4)Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.5)And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 6)But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.7)& Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Matthew 18:2-7
A clear and powerful message to all who would offend a child.We may not realize that we are ‘offending’ a child’s belief in Jesus.But, we ask children to participate in a commercial myth.We do this at the time of year when we should have our minds and hearts fixed on Him.If you do not believe this is a danger, allow me to share a true story with you.
JESUS and Santa Claus:A message was being shared with three people in a mobile home park.It was about Santa Claus.It related the account of a little girl who was in the fourth grade.One day she came home from school and asked her mother if the Santa Claus and the Jesus stories about Christmas were true.The mother admitted that the Santa Claus story was a myth, but the mother said, the story of Jesus is true.The little girl said, ‘Right!’And she left sobbing to go to her room.She no longer believed in Santa and had lost her faith in Jesus.
A lady about forty years old had been listening carefully.At that momentshe interrupted and said, ‘I remember that day!’She then told me how it had happened to her.Her life had changed.Here she was with her children almost all grown. She still had problems of faith.Why?She could trace it back to the myths her mother had taught her.If one cannot trust mother to tell the truth, who can you trust?How about your elementary school teacher?No.She will perpetuate the myths and add to them Darwin and uniformitarianism.
Secret Agent:Yes, in our public schools, they continue to tell our children that Darwinian evolution is true.They will tell them that the long ages of the Earth is a fact.Neither is true as has been demonstrated by study of the cell and the Mt. St. Helens account.Remember upper echelon evolutionists have abandoned Darwinian evolution in herds. )But the elementary school teacher is still being used to perpetuate the Darwinian lie.What should you do?Do not allow the child to stay deceived about any myth.
Your public school elementary teacher may be an unknowing agent for evolutionary philosophy.She/he may even believe it not to be true.However the effect on the child is the same.One would think that in a college or university they would learn all sides, they do not.You would expect the teacher to have academic freedom in public schools.They do not.You would expect that the teacher could at least express the alternate opinion: God created.They cannot.What about the poor students in the lower grades of elementary school?They are taught evolution by an elementary teacher they love or at least respect and believe.That which is disseminated in the name of science is evolution.It is an evil misrepresentation.Why is it evil? Because it attacks belief in God and the Bible.Evolution is known to be false in whole or in part by those in the upper echelon.Because they know it is false, one can conclude that they propagate it becauseit is in conflict with what the evolutionist sees as the alternate belief system: the Biblical account.How does the good teacher begin her/his agency for this false system?It starts out sounding innocent enough:
"Today, boys and girls we are going to learn about dinosaurs.They lived m‑i‑l‑l‑i‑o‑n‑s of years ago in prehistoric times."
Dinosaurs Are Dangerous:When your child comes home from school talking for the first time about dinosaurs, you must immediately realize that they have had their faith in God attacked.Their eternal destination was placed at risk. Folks, we have a problem.Teaching that dinosaurs lived m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years ago is clearly in opposition to the Bible.The Bible declares that creation was not m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years ago. It states that all land animals (that would include dinosaurs) were created on the sixth Creation day.It was that same day of the creation of Adam.Or, if you include sea dragons as dinosaurs, then they may have been created on day five of Creation.So if you believe some sea creatures are dinosaurs, then in fact, dinosaurs are one day older than man.But they were not here and gone m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years before man arrived.That is not true. It is false.It is made up to fit an evolutionary view. The Bible says they were created on day six with Adam. Which is true?The ideas of man, without any proof, or the Word of God?
Consider these three proofs.The following facts should cause you to doubt what evolutionists have taught you about dinosaurs living m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years and going extinct ago before man was around.
1) There is dinosaur pottery in Mexico;
2) There are dinosaur drawings on the cave walls in Arizona and Africa;and third, (unless you believe all Africans are ignorant and simple)
3) The Africans in the former Congo swamp report they have seen what they identify as a dinosaur when shown pictures.They are twenty-five feet long lizard like creatures named Mokele M’Bembe. If this is a dinosaur, they, like ceolocanth, are alive.(This may be the most difficult to believe because of what you have been taught, but watch out for built in prejudice and anti Biblical thought.)
Each of these true illustrations is strong and convincing evidences that man and dinosaur lived together.Why is it strong evidence, Brother Hughes?Each one demonstrates that man saw dinosaurs.If man saw them alive, then man and dinosaur lived together.
Pottery:The pottery in Mexico is dated far enough back so that it was before there had been modern era excavation of the first dinosaur bones (1820's). It was also before anyone placed them in museums (1850's).The pottery predates the discovery of the dinosaur bones and is before any European explorers could have influenced them.How did these tribal men in Mexico make pottery in the shape of dinosaurs so long ago?Why does the pottery appear identical to those later reconstructed in museums and textbooks?There is only one way they could have known how to make the statuettes.They had to see them as live models.Or, at the very least, some person who had seen dinosaurs, gave the native artist pinpoint descriptions.Either if the artist saw them or another saw them and gave the artist a very accurate description, it is compelling evidence of man being an eyewitness.Therefore, dinosaurs lived together with man on Earth.
Cave Drawings:Secondly there are ancient dinosaur drawings on cave walls. The dinosaurs are drawn together with other animals that are still seen in the region.In Arizona, for instance, there were also wild goats and other things in the same place with the dinosaur etching.Some claim that the dinosaurs are out of their imagination. I have two questions:If the dinosaur drawings are imagined, do they make the same claim for the other things drawn beside them?Also we might ask WHY are these so-called ‘made up’ drawings identical to reconstructed dinosaurs we see in museums?
Mokele M’Bembe:Third, there is a giant lizard like creatures seen in the Likouala (Congo-Zaire) swamp area. If you had only been taught the Bible story of creation, you would not have any problem in believing in dinosaurs being alive in Africa.It is only because of what you have been taught by evolutionists since grade school that you find it hard to believe.You have accepted as true that the dinosaurs lived m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years ago, and that they are now all dead.If they are all dead, then why are these creatures in Africa identical to dinosaur pictures that were shown to the Africans, pictures drawn by evolutionists or pictures of those reconstructed in museums?If they were making up a story, why did they, at different times and different tribes, all identify the pictures of dinosaurs as the creatures they saw in the swamp?This is the most difficult to believe because we have been taught to believe (brainwashed) by the evolutionary story that dinosaurs have been dead for and extinct for sixty-five (65) m-i-l-l-i-o-n years.So they will laugh and raise their eyebrows, as if to ask if we really believe such a backward and ignorant people.However, evolutionists held the same beliefs about the coelacanth fish that was supposed to be dead for m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years. Then in 1936, supposedly m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years after the last coelacanth was extinct, fishermen caught them in the India Ocean. So be careful.They laughed at the fisherman before 1936.Now the fisherman has had the last laugh. )()()
Why should a Bible believing Christian find it hard to believe that God created the dinosaur on the sixth creation day or that perhaps the dinosaur is still alive?Our Bible tells us that all land animals, including dinosaurs, were made on the sixth day of creation, the same day as man.Also the book of Job clearly describes the largest dinosaur like creatures, perhaps a Diplodocus.(Job 40:15-23 [fn[14]]) We have been taught that dinosaurs were long extinct before man, by the world.Remember, the Bible is consistent with dinosaurs being found alive in Africa; and the Bible was consistent with the find of the coelacanth fish in the Indian Ocean. (Who does not want us to believe the Word of God that all land breathing animals were alive and named by Adam?).
The Dinosaur:Now suppose you are hearing evolutionist stories about the p-r-eh-i-s-t-o-r-i-c dinosaur.One asks why is the word dinosaur not in the Bible.Well that is a fair question, what is the answer?
The word dinosaur was only invented in 1841, by Creationist Richard Owen who was a Christian later in opposition to Darwin’s view. It was used to describe the type of large reptile like fossils they were discovering and as a category in which to place these large bones.It meant 'terrible lizards.'The King James Version of the Bible was written in 1611 and was last revised in 1679.Therefore one can readily see that the word dinosaur was not in the Bible because it was not invented until more than one hundred years after the King James Version of the Bible was translated.
Also if you see the name dinosaur, the article has to have been written since 1841.Dinosaur is not an ancient p-r-eh-i-s-t-o-r-i-c name.Yes, because before that the creature (now known as dinosaur) was called a dragon, by most people.Thus, if the word dinosaur is used, it is a story written in less than the last two hundred years.It was Not written thousands of years ago. It was made up out of the imagination of man, since the word dinosaur was invented in 1841. Stories about any dinosaur comes after the word’s invention date of 1841. (20 years before the Civil War)
The Christian believes the Bible to be true from Genesis to Revelation, every verse, (and adding nothing). They must, by definition, believe dinosaur and man was created on the self same sixth day of creation. [fn[15]] Or if one believes sea creatures are also dinosaurs, then dinosaur was created one day before man.The dinosaur lived in the days of Adam and was quite common in the days of Job, as there is a description of a large dinosaur in Job, chapter 40, verses 15-19 [fn[16]] There God describes a creature that is the largest of the animals and has a tail like a cedar (tree).It only fits the largest of the dinosaurs (Diplodocus?).
However the word for dinosaur had been dragon.The Hebrew word for dragon found in the Hebrew dictionary of Strong’s Lexicon is tanniyn {tan‑neen'} or tanniym.It appears 26 times in the Old Testament. The first time it appears is in the creation account in Genesis, chapter one and is there translated whale. [fn[17]]The word appears an additional 25 times in the Old Testament [fn[18]] However, one can deduce that by the time Strong was compiling his Concordance (1894) there was confusion about how the word dragon should be properly translated.At the time of the translation of the King James Version of the Bible (1611) we may also assume the dinosaur (then known as dragon) were more rare.Why? The translators do not all agree on what should be translated as dragon.
So hard as it may be to appreciate, as we struggle against that which we have been taught since grade school.Yet, since the dinosaur was created on either the same creation day as man (or if you consider sea dragons dinosaurs he was created one day before man.Dinosaurs did live with man on this Earth.When someone tells you the dinosaurs were here and gone m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years before man, someone is really wrong.They are attacking the creation account in the Bible.Someone is trying to have you believe his or her ideology: evolution.At the same time they encourage you (with their unproven speculation) to doubt the Word of God.Who do you suppose it is that is saying the Word of God is a lie? And whom do we believe: God and the Bible, or those adhering to the imagination of Darwin?
Conclusion
For centuries it was a common scientific belief that the universe had existed forever.Therefore they said there was no need for God.Then from 1905 to 1929 relativity and the expanding universe first made its appearance, and then became the new scientific truth.And if the universe is expanding, it had to have a beginning, a singular event that brought the universe and time space into existence.Many astronomers then conceded that this was impossible absent Supernatural Creation and a Creator. While there are serious problems with the standard and other big bang models, we have to admit that science is now correct in so far as they acknowledge Creation (a singular event or beginning).Thus after centuries of absence, science is close to belief in a Creator God again.
In like manner, prior to Hutton-Lyell and Darwin there was general belief in the Biblical time scale and the geology of catastrophism.Hopefully you now have had demonstrated to you that Darwinian evolution has always had scientific opposition.It was not accepted by most of the renowned scientists of Darwin’s day.Then the 20th century scientific discovery of the scanning electron microscope revealed the complexity of the single cell.This discovery indicated evolution's blind random chance could not produce the proper helix strand connections on one DNA in one cell.The cell complexity has pretty much been the death of the Darwinian theory. In fact, not only is the complexity of the cell against Darwin’s simple to complex theory, evolution was always contrary to the fossil record.It was opposite to the fossil record in Darwin’s day (Agassiz-1860).It was adverse to the fossil record in the 20th century (Gould & Eldredge-1977).It remained inconsistent with the fossils at the end of the 20th century (Hoyle-1999).Upper echelon scientists now know the theory is not workable.Why is Darwin taught in elementary schools?
Along with Darwin the vast ages of the earth is taught, as if they are both the only truth.Mount St Helen’s geology in May 1980-1982 clearly demonstrated the need to look at geology through catastrophic eyes.We see that one hundred feet high canyons are not m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years in the building. There was one volcano with three significant events over two years.These events took only a combined several hours. Before the volcanic eruption of 1980 there were no canyons.Two years later one hundred feet high canyons that to one viewing them resembled Grand Canyon.Textbooks state Grand Canyon was formed over m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years.We now know that many geologists believe Grand Canyon was formed, at least in part, rapidly. Yet, the teacher presents uniformitarianism as if there is no conflict regarding it. It is taught as if the only truth about Earth geology.We must remember that neither Darwinian evolution nor uniformitarianism is more than an imagined theory.
Why is the failed evolutionary ideology taught in the elementary and secondary school systems?Why is uniformity taught in the school? Who will answer to God for this?It is not the school that will answer to God for this contradictory belief system being taught to our children.We, as parents, are given the responsibility for the education of our children.(Read Deuteronomy 6:4-7; Deuteronomy 11:17-20; Psalms 34:11-15; Proverbs 22:6)Thus we should, at the very least:
1)protest against the big bang evolution ideology being taught as the 'belief system' in the public schools.
2)Christian parents, if at all possible, should not allow their children to attend public schools.
The eternal destiny of your child is at risk.Therefore, can we allow our children to be in the public school?If your child must be in public school, you must protest against them teaching evolution.If you protest, your child will KNOW that you believe the Bible.You may also argue that teaching evolution big bang, as the explanation, violates your right to freedom of religion and speech.Why?You are not given equal time to respond with your religious views.But more importantly it is an attack upon God and the Bible.It could affect the child’s eternal destiny.
Please join me in prayer:
Heavenly Father,
We know you are God and beside You there is no other.You are Creator and Lord.You have all the answers.Cleanse my mind from the untruths that have been told to me since I was in elementary school by teachers and others.Cleanse me form the worldviews.Forgive me where I have failed to believe You and believe in You.I repent.Cleanse me, I pray.I thank You, Lord for allowing me to draw closer to you than ever before.Help me to know You, Lord in a deeper and more intimate way.This I ask in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord.Amen and amen.
While you are thinking on these things, evolution, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and offending the little child’s belief in Jesus, let me tell you or remind you of what the non-Christian, non-believing world teaches on the ultimate question: the origin of the universe.
The Origin Of The Universe
The Bible explicitly instructs us IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. . .,yet, the usual non-Christian assumes men of science have some proof for the big bang theory.You know the one that says, astronomers believe that 18-20b-i-l-l-i-o-n years ago, the universe started in a giant hot explosion. It said the solar system and all stars came flying out from an energy dot not much bigger than a period at the end of a sentence. (All earth, or even one star of the sun were compressed into a dot not bigger than a period???)Then the story goes on that Earth and moon came to rest in their orbit precisely where Earth is, all by chance. Next they allege Earth was a hot molten mass and that it rained on Earth for m-i-l-l-i-o-n-s of years.You may remember it from public school. Remember, it is the one that we explained if you believed in it (without further proof) it proved you had accepted the evolutionary worldview?If you are not a Bible believing Christian (Jewish or other) person who accepts as true God is Creator, then you probably believe something like that.
However if you believe that the universe just happened, the greater question would be: Why does the universe exist at all?Why is there anything, rather than nothing? This is truly of great concern to philosophers.They know that there is more chance (mathematically and by the rules of probability) that the universe should not exist, rather than it having come into being by the big bang, without a Creator.What do you mean, Brother Hughes, when you say, It is mathematically more probable that the universe should not exist?Allow me to try to explain by giving a brief history of the belief system.
Centuries ago, some argued about the why of the existence of the universe.Agreat German mathematician-philosopher, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) reasoned and proposed the existence of a metaphysically necessary Being.This Being must “in and of itself or Himself, constitutes the sufficient reason for the existence of everything else in our universe and for His existence as well.”Leibniz identified this Being as God.This view prevailed against the Aristotelian view of the eternal Earth universe for several decades.The church and the majority of Europe believed the Bible.
However, there was a Scottish skeptic philosopher, David Hume (hyoom),(1711-1776) born five years before Leibniz’s death.Hume was educated and then became best known as a naturalist.Hume only believed in things that could be seen, touched, heard, tasted or otherwise experienced with the senses.Hume also confronted the Leibniz proposition with one of his own.David Hume asked (in opposition to the Leibniz necessity of God): Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent (eternal) Being. . . ?Hume was not speaking of God.Hume was not implying that the universe was God.Hume was suggesting the universe had existed eternally.Therefore, there was no necessity of God.Hume continued, 'How can anything that exists from eternity, have a cause?' These two positions, of Leibniz and Hume, created an impasse between those who believed in an eternally existing or fixed universe; and those who believed in Creator God to begin or hold the universe in place. The stalemate was disintegrated in 1917.
In 1917 a dramatic break through in the cosmology (universe that is in the heavens) concepts was announced by Albert Einstein.He made a cosmological application of his newly declared General Theory of Relativity.This cosmological premise would not permit an unchanging or eternal model of the universe.Why?The concept suggested an expanding universe.If it is expanding, it had a beginning. WOW?Then in the 1920s Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre were able to formulate equations consistent with and predicting an expanding universe. [fn[19]]Up to this time the idea of expansion of the universe was not accepted by evolutionary astronomers. In fact, since Hume’s hypothesis, an expanding universe had been ‘beyond comprehension.’
Naber, speaking of the non-believer's position on the universe, erroneously declared:
"Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable." (Gregory L. Naber, Spacetime and Singularities: an Introduction [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], pp. 126-27)
If the Friedman-Lemaitre model was correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as an unchanging or eternal entity.Rather the universe, if expanding, by correlation, has a history and a beginning point from which it is expanding.This would be strong evidence for creation.
In 1929 Edwin Hubble (another former attorney) measured the red-shift light from spiral galaxies.This seemed to indicate a continual recessional motion (expansion).It provided a dramatic verification of a changing universe and of the Friedman-Lemaitre model.Why was that so important?What did it imply?Why did John Wheeler say of this measurement?
Of all the great predictions that science has ever made was there ever one greater than this, to predict, against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe? (John Wheeler, Some Strangeness in the Proportion 1980)
Why has the expansion of the universe so great an implication?Well, if the universe is expanding outwardly, that has a forceful, amazing significance.As one reverses expansion, it recedes back to a beginning.The astronomers call this a 'singular state' or 'singular event.'P.C.W. Davies comments,
... On this view the big bang represents the Creation event; the creation not only of all matter and energy in the universe, but also of space-time itself.
Can you imagine how this must have shattered men who had devoted themselves and their lives to the prevailing scientific view of the previous two hundred plus years?They had set their faith in an eternal universe.This was in place of eternal God.Now they were face to face with the God of the universe, the Creator.Can you begin to understand having your hopes and faith shattered?They had believed Hume and placed their eternal hope in an illusion?What illusion?The false illusion that the universe was uncaused and eternal. Now they, who had believed Hume, had to admit to a beginning.If a beginning, the universe was not uncaused.It was caused.If it was caused, what or Who caused it to come into being?
The implication is that many had reasoned there was no God.They may have reasoned: if the material universe is eternal, then there is no Creator God.Therefore what?They could do as they pleased.But, if the universe was created, there is a Creator God.WOW!What a fracturing of the naturalistic belief.What would those who so believed do?One of their own, Edwin Hubble, had looked to the heavens.What did he see?Expansion.And if the universe is in expansion, then the universe had a beginning.If the universe had beginning, then did it also have a Beginner?They would have to at the least admit to the possibility and great probability of a Creator.A Creator (Cause) more powerful and larger than the universe they could see in the sky or imagine in their minds.They had come face to face with the Almighty, Ever Living, Eternal, Unchanging, All Powerful, and Fathomless GOD!The Bible and Leibniz had been correct!Hume and naturalism was wrong.The universe had a Creator.The Psalmist, under the inspiration of God has stated, The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. (Psalms 19:1)
The evolutionist astronomer should have run to the closest clergyman and inquired, as did the Philippian jailer, 'What must I do to be saved?' Did they?No, not all. Why?Even with all of the evidence before their very eyes, not all of them were ready to admit that there was a Creator God.As St Paul wrote:
21) Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,Romans 1:21-22
These evolutionists had always relied upon their own reason (unbelief).They began to desperately search (in vain) for another answer that did not include Creator God.Why?Because, since the standard big bang universe had a beginning, it was an effect.The universe had a cause.The most natural belief was a Creator as the Cause of the universe. Who said this, a pastor?NO.A famous British astronomer, Sir Arthur Eddington declared this belief of springing into existence out of nothing would bring insurmountable scientific difficulties unless, he concluded, "we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."
This standard big bang model thus describes a universe that is not eternal.The big bang theory was so named by Sir Frederick Hoyle, in an uncomplimentary manner, as he searched for an alternative to it.
Presently a major group of astronomers teach that without a supernatural creative act, the universe does not seem possible. Science has a created universe.It was NOT eternal or infinite.One can no longer maintain Hume's position: The universe is just there and that's all.Hume put forth the position, that there was no Creator God necessary for the universe.Hume’s eternal universe no longer existed. The fixed universe was not scientific.Why?If the universe is expanding, it is expanding from a beginning point.Therefore, the universe is not just eternally there; rather it came into being.The universe is contingent or dependent upon a beginning, a Creation.One scientist said the Cause was by a necessarily preexistent Being.If the universe had a beginning and there was a Cause.The cause or reason for its existence could be (and was) Almighty Creator God.It was evidence for IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED THE HEAVEN AND THE EARTH. . .
The only alternative to Creation would be to say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of . . .absolutely nothing.This is not considered scientifically possible.The axiom in physics says from nothing, nothing comes.
The fact of the origin of the universe is to Bible believing astronomers and scientists appealing and to non-believing astronomers, revolting!Appealing because they follow the Biblical directive to look to the heavens and there indeed they would find the glory of God.It would thus be revolting to non-believers, as they could not rationally deny the same truth: supernatural creation.
Our old friend, astronomer, astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle could not accept either an uncaused universe or a supernaturally caused origin of the universe (Creator God).With respect to the first alternative, he wrote: I quote:
This most peculiar situation is taken by many astronomers to represent the origin of the universe.The universe is supposed to have begun at this particular time.From where? The usual answer, surely an unsatisfactory one, is: from nothing!
Equally unsatisfactory to Hoyle was the assumption of a supernatural cause.Hoyle continued, in his comments:
To many people this thought process seems highly satisfactory because a >something’ outside physics can then be introduced at τ ‘ Ο.By a semantic maneuver, the word >something’ is then replaced by >god, ‘ except that the first letter becomes a capital, God, in order to warn us that we must not carry the inquiry any further. (F. Hoyle Astronomy and Cosmology: A Modern Course 1975 p.658)
Hoyle did attempt to carry the inquiry further past the beginning to formulate, in 1948, the Steady State Model of the universe.It was the first and most formidable opponent of the standard big bang model.This may be technical and not easily explained, but according to the Hoyle theory, the universe is in a state of isotropic cosmic expansion.As the galaxies mutually recede, new matter is drawn into being (created or comes into being) ex nihilo (from nothing) to replace them.The universe thus constantly renews itself and so never began to exist.With this Hoyle hoped to take us back to David Hume and the Greek worldview of the eternal unchanging universe. Did Hoyle's theory succeed?No.
This Hoyle steady state model never was proven.Never.It was however accepted by many of the evolutionary community.Why?The appeal of the Hoyle theory was purely metaphysical.Those who embraced it no longer had to agree to Creator God or the alternative that the universe sprang into existence from nothing.
However, the discovery of more radio galaxies, at ever greater distances, seemed to indicate a continuing expansion of the universe.This undermined the steady state model.If there is more and continual expansion to far greater distances than even Hubble had at first recorded, then there is no evidence of amutual receding.
There were two more discoveries in the outer atmosphere that spelled the end of the steady state theory.One was about microwave radiation; the other was about the inability of the supposed production of heavier and more complex elements from hydrogen in the stars.Both the discovery of microwave radiation and the proof of the inability of the heavier more complex element production indicated a universe that was developing or growing and expanding.Therefore, the universe had a beginning event or a creation event and was not in a ‘steady state’ of production.
Following these two discoveries Ivan King wrote:
The steady-state theory has now been laid to rest, as a result of clear-cut observations of how things have changed with time. (The Universe Unfolding 1976 p.462)
Did the evolutionary community give up and surrender to God?Not at all.They kept trying to apply their reason.There followed several other models trying to dislodge the standard big bang model as they searched for a way back in an attempt to return to the eternal universe model of Hume.However, try as they would, there has been no serious challenge to the astronomical A singular event (beginning) since that time.Consider this quote:
The absolute origin of the universe, of all matter and energy, even of physical space and time themselves, in the big bang singularity contradicts the perennial naturalistic assumption that the universe has always existed.One after another, models designed to avert the initial cosmological singularity--the Steady State model, the Oscillating model, Vacuum Fluctuation models--have come and gone.Current quantum gravity models, such as the Hartle-Hawking model and the Vilenkin model, must appeal to the physically unintelligible and metaphysically dubious device of "imaginary time" to avoid the universe's beginning.The contingency implied by an absolute beginning ex nihilo points to a transcendent cause of the universe beyond space and time.Philosophical objections to a cause of the universe fail to carry conviction.
A fossil is the remains of a once living organism: plant or animal. It is found impressed in the rocks, i.e. imprint, skeleton, bone, tooth, footprint, etc.; thus part of the Afossil record.@
1.Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, May 1977, p.14
But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and
whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. Revelation 21:8
2.Stephen Jay Gould; Natural History, volume 87 No. 4 American Museum of Natural History (1978)
3.I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, New Research Publications, Inc. NY (1984) p.18
AND to prove to you it is possible to have happened only by chance and accidentally,
without any Designer or Director or Creator, men design systems, direct experiments in laboratories in an attempt to create some amino acids.What foolishness.They tell you it was purposeless and without intelligence or design. This process has never been seen occurring anywhere in God’s creation?So they use intelligence, design, direction in an attempt to create amino acids, the precursor of cells. Rather than having amino acids or the primordial chemicals appear by chance, somewhere, they produce an environment for them. They use their intelligence to have them mix together.So if they get life from a laboratory, what will they have proven?That it took intelligence, design and direction and a planned environment.They will be proving the opposite of what they propose to prove.How can one use his intelligence and design to set up a system in which to produce life and then say this proves it happened by chance !How invalid would that make their claims. The more they Ahelp@ the more they prove it cannot be done by random blind chance.It obviously takes intelligence and design.Well let us return to the speculation of the Darwinians.
6.Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City decades ago (November 5, 1981).Dr. Colin Patterson (p.29of this paper)A. . .one person said, AI do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school@.
4.Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. James 2:19
Johnson defines creation-science as referring to young-Earth, 6 day, Special Creation people who believe every word of the Bible, as written, is the absolute truth.He is not one.
7.Gallup Poll Analyses(December 24, 1999) Almost nine out of 10 Americans (86%) say that they believe in God, even when given the choice of saying that they "don't believe in God, but believe in a universal spirit or higher power" (chosen by only eight percent). In fact, only five percent of the population choose neither of these choices and thus claim a more straightforward atheistic position.
6.Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
7.&The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us‑ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. II Peter 3:9
8.And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. Romans 12:2
15)Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.16)
Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly. 17) He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.18) His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron.19)He [is] the chief of the ways of God: He that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].20)Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.21)He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22)The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.23)Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.Job 40:15-23
Genesis 1:24-31 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,
and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.25)And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.26)& And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27)So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28)And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29)& And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30)And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein [there is] life, [I have given] every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31)& And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, [it was] very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Job 40:15-19 & Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee;he eateth grass as an ox. 16)Lo
now, his strength [is] in his loins, and his force [is] in the navel of his belly. 17)He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18)His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass; his bones [are] like bars of iron. 19)He [is] the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach [unto him].
Genesis 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.
4HEBREW LEXICON ─ STRONG'S NUMBER 8577 tanniyn {tan‑neen'} or tanniym (Ezek. 29:3)
9.A. Friedman, "Uuber die Kruummung des Raumes," Zeitschrift fuur Physik 10 (1922): 377-86; G. Lemaitre, "Un univers homogeene de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des néébuleuses extragalactiques," Annales de la Socieetee scientifique deBruxelles 47 (1927): 49-59.}
End Note 1.
Fourth Grade ‑ Science ‑ Lesson 19 ‑ Geology
Objectives
Devise a workable inch‑to‑year scale for a geologic time line in the classroom.
Measure and create a geologic time line to scale for each era.
Sequence the geological eras on the time line.
Write a poem or story about a prehistoric animal trapped in the tar pits (optional).
Materials
Pictures of insects in amber from Suggested Books
Pictures of mammoths and saber‑toothed tigers from Suggested Books
Sample of amber if available
For each student: Geologic Eras sheet (attached)
For each of four groups: a ball of yarn or roll of paper receipt tape, yardstick
Suggested Books
Arnold, Caroline. Trapped in Tar: Fossils from the Ice Age. New York: Clarion, 1987.
Benton, Michael. The Story of Life on Earth. New York: Warwick Press, 1986.
Examines each geologic era and shows positions of the continents and
illustrations of the life that existed then. Contains very good pictures and
information on Pleistocene animals including a picture on page 70 of a mastodon caught in a tar pit being stalked by a saber‑toothed cat and on page 23, an insect trapped in amber.
Burton, Virginia Lee. Life Story: The Story of Life on Earth from Its Beginning Up to Now. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1962. Burton cleverly portrays Earth's time as a drama with scene changes every few million years or so. The last section documents how the arrival of humans affected the scene. She ends, "And now it is your Life Story and it is you who play the leading role. The stage is set, the time is now, and the place wherever you are. Each passing second a new link in the endless chain of Time."
Cole, Joanna. Saber‑Toothed Tiger and Other Ice Age Mammals. New York: Morrow, 1977.
Farndon, John. How the Earth Works. Pleasantville, NY: Reader's Digest, 1992.
Grimaldi, David. Amber: Windows on the Past. New York: Harry Abrams, 1996.
This book by a curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York accompanied the museum's exhibit of Amber in Nature and Art. The color photographs are exceptional and include many examples of insects and flowers locked in amber. The text discusses origins of amber, what types of trees are most likely to produce it and focuses on some of the ancient communities preserved in amber.
Lauber, Patricia. Dinosaurs Walked Here and Other Stories Fossils Tell. New York: Bradbury, 1987."One day, forty million years ago, a gnat was crawling over the bark of a pine tree..."
On page 13 Lauber describes how insects were preserved in amber and how the bodies of woolly mammoths became preserved in ice. There is a large color photo on page 12 of the gnat in amber.
Levy, Elizabeth. A Mammoth Mix‑Up. New York: Harper Collins, 1995.
A brother and sister find a mammoth tusk in the backyard and use it for a science fair project in this funny mystery.
Matthews, Rupert. Ice Age Animals. New York: Bookwright, 1990.
Includes illustrations of mammoths and mastodons as well as Smilodon, a saber‑toothed cat.
Osborne, Mary Pope. Sunset of the Saber‑Tooth. New York: Random House, 1996.This story of two children who travel back in time is part of the Magic Tree House series.
Russell, William. Fossils From the Earth. Vero Beach, FL: Rourke Corp., 1994.
Shehan, Angela ed., Prehistoric World. New York: Warwick, 1975.
Full of illustrations of fossils including an insect in amber on page 14. On page 146 there is an illustration of dire wolves and a saber‑toothed cat attacking a mastodon mired in tar.
Taylor, Barbara. Earth Explained: A Beginner's Guide to Our Planet. New York: Henry Holt, 1997.
Web site http://www.amnh.org/Exhibitions/Amber
This American Museum of Natural History web site features pieces of amber; click on them to see close‑up photos of the creatures trapped inside.
Teacher's Note
Yarn, string or paper receipt tape can be used to make a time line. Yarn of different colors can distinguish one era from another. Be sure to give the Precambrian Era group the lion's share of the yarn, string or paper because their time line represents 80% of geologic time, 33.5 feet.
While they are called the "tar pits," the substance in the excavations at LaBrea is not tar. It is asphalt. Crude oil bubbles up through the Earth's crust. The more volatile part evaporates leaving asphalt. The tar pits formed about 40,000 years ago and are still entrapping animals today.
Procedure
Ask: What are fossils? (remains of living things preserved for thousands or millions of years) Remind the students that last lesson they learned how fossils were formed. Remind the students that under the right conditions, evidence of plants and animals such as bones, teeth, shells, tracks and impressions in mud, can be preserved in stone.
Show the students pictures of animals or plants preserved in amber from Suggested Books.
Ask: Does anyone know what amber is? (hardened tree sap)
Ask: How do you think insects came to be inside the amber? (They crawled or landed on the sticky sap and became trapped and then covered with it. Over time, the sap became petrified and preserved the insects inside.)
Tell the students that frogs and small reptiles have been preserved in amber, too. If available, show the students a sample of amber. Read them the following poem written by a British amber collector:
Amber ‑‑ the freezing gold
That is not hot and is not cold
Has caught within its dreaming arms
The insects and the flower's charms.
Time has kept as still as death
Holding instant, every breath
Now from out our fading past
A scene which can forever last. - Garry Platt
Tell the students that another way animals were preserved was in asphalt.
Ask a student to describe hot tar or asphalt. (very sticky, oozy)
Ask: What do you think would happen if an animal stepped into a pool of asphalt? Would it be easy to get out?
Tell the students that there are places in Los Angeles, California where black, sticky asphalt comes oozing out of the ground and up through cracks in the sidewalk. This is the area of the LaBrea Tar Pits. Tell the students that about 40,000 years ago there were open pools of asphalt all over this area. When it rained, water covered the tar. In summertime, when the tar became hot and sticky, animals came to the pools to drink and got stuck in it. Mammoths, horses, camels, bison and giant ground sloths were caught in the tar and became easy prey for dire wolves and saber‑toothed tigers. The predators jumped on the trapped animals but then became stuck themselves in the sticky tar. Scavenger such as vultures, condors and eagles landed on the dead bodies to feed and they, too became stuck in the tar. Eventually the bodies of the animals sank and were preserved by the asphalt.
Show the students pictures of mammoths and/or saber‑toothed tigers from Suggested Books.
Ask: Are there any mammoths or saber‑toothed tigers alive today? (No. They died out, became extinct.)
Tell the students that scientists who study fossils are called paleontologists (PAY‑lee‑on‑TOL‑oh‑jests). Write this word on the board and point out that paleo means old or ancient. What do you think paleontologists can learn from studying remains of animals in the tar pits or insects and lizards trapped in amber or fossilized dinosaur bones? (Accept all answers.)
Tell the students that paleontologists study fossils to find out what the world was like in the past.
Fossils are a record of life on Earth. Show the students pictures of other prehistoric animals from Suggested Books. Tell them that from looking at the many fossils of extinct plants and animals, paleontologists have guessed that for every species of living organism today there are at least 100 other species who lived in the past but became extinct.
Ask: How old do geologists think the Earth is? (four and a half billion years)
Write 4,500,000,000 years on the board. Tell the students that these 4.5 billion years, beginning with the formation of the Earth until now, are called geologic time.Tell them that geologic time is different from human time. When humans think about time they usually think in terms of lifetimes ‑‑ seventy or eighty years. We can picture how many years have passed since our grandparents were children. We can even count the years backward to the Revolutionary War, or count the centuries back to the building of ancient cities. But nothing people have experienced gives them the scale they need to count back 4.5 billion years to the beginning of the Earth.
People only began writing things down 6,000 years ago.We call the time before that prehistoric because no one was recording events ‑‑ it was pre‑history. The only record of events we have for that huge expanse of time is the record of clues in rocks and fossils. Rocks and fossils tell the story of prehistory.
Tell the students that decades, centuries and millennia are much too small for geologic time. Instead geologists divided geologic time into four eras. Divide the class into four groups to represent the four eras of geologic time. Name the first group Precambrian (pre‑CAM‑brie‑in) Era, the second group Paleozoic (PALE‑ee‑oh‑ZOH‑ik), the third group Mesozoic (MESS‑oh‑ZOH‑ik) and the fourth group Cenozoic (SEN‑oh‑ZOH‑ik). Write these names on the board. Give members of each group the sheet for their particular era (attached) and a ball of yarn.Tell them that the yarn can be unwound, tied into one long string and stretched out around the classroom to make a geologic time line of the Earth's 4.5 billion years.
Remind the students that just like making a map, they need to establish a scale for the time line. Write 1 inch’1 year on the board.
Ask: If our scale was 1 inch of yarn for every year of the Earth's existence, how many inches of yarn would we need? (4.5 billion) Would that be a practical scale? (no) What if we made each inch of yarn represent 1 million years? Write 1 inch’1,000,000 years on the board.
Ask: How many inches of yarn would we have in the time line?
Count the number of zeros in one million and cross out that many zeros in 4.5 billion.
Tell the students that by dividing 4.5 billion by 1 million, they can find out how many 1 millions, or inches of yarn would be needed for a time line with this scale (4,500 inches) Is that a practical scale for the classroom? Are there 4,500 inches of yarn in these balls of yarn? (no)
Write 1 inch’10,000,000 years. Divide and cross out the zeros. Ask the students to change the 450 inches into feet (37.5 feet)
Ask: Is this a practical scale for the classroom? (yes)
Erase the other scales. Show the students that the scale for the time line will be 1 inch’10,000,000 years.
Tell the students that each group will create their part of the time line. Give each group a yardstick. Ask them to determine with the scale on the board and the information on their sheet, how long their part of the time line should be.
Use the yardstick to measure the yarn and cut the proper length to be tied into the time line.
When the groups have completed time lines for their eras, have the groups come together, arrange the eras in the proper order and tie them together to make one
long time line around the room representing all of geologic time.
Ask: Which is the longest geologic era? (Precambrian)
How long did the Precambrian last? (4 billion 30 million years)
Tell the students that during the Precambrian Era the Earth began ‑‑ oceans formed, mountains began to rise, oxygen built up in the atmosphere, life formed in the oceans. Paleontologists have found very few fossils from this very long time period.
Ask: Why do you think that is? (Life on Earth was just beginning.)
Tell the students that the only Precambrian fossils are of algae and bacteria.
Ask: What was the next era called? (Paleozoic)
How long did the Paleozoic last? (345 million years)
Tell the students that at the beginning of the Paleozoic there was an explosion of life in the oceans.
Ask: What kinds of plants and animals appeared during the beginning of the Paleozoic? (sea plants, jellyfish, coral, sponges, trilobites, fish, sharks)
What kinds of plants and animals had appeared by the end of the Paleozoic? (land plants ‑‑ mosses and ferns ‑‑ insects, amphibians, reptiles)
In which era did dinosaurs appear? (Mesozoic)
What else appeared in the Mesozoic? (mammals, birds, flowering plants)
When did the dinosaurs die out? (at the end of the Mesozoic)
Which is the shortest era? (Cenozoic)
Point out that the Cenozoic Era is 65 million years long.
Ask: What life appeared in the Cenozoic? (many mammals ‑‑ horses, woolly mammoths, giant sloths, humans)
Remind the students that humans and human ancestors have been around for only 4 million years. Show the students the little less than 2 inch at the end of the time line that represents human existence.
Ask the students to compare the amount of time that dinosaurs were on Earth during most of the Mesozoic to the amount of time humans have been on Earth.
Ask: Were humans and dinosaurs on the Earth at the same time? (no)
Ask: How do we know about these animals that appeared and disappeared before humans were on Earth? (fossil evidence)
Possible Homework
Ask the students to write a poem or story about an animal that becomes trapped in the tar pits.