Atheism And Evolution

Atheism is the most unintelligent approach to Religion. It is merely saying that there IS no God.

But what basis are they saying this off of? Science?

I Pose a simple question to all the Atheists out there!

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics,

Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

So where did the Energy come from?

God?

Even if the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity does not exist, that does not mean that there is no God at all. We cannot fully comprehend God, therefore we cannot be completely sure that He possesses or does not possess certain qualities (such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence). Thus, any argument that attacks these qualities in an attempt to disprove the existence of God is ultimately irrelevant, since we do not know if God has these qualities or not. However, I believe in the Christian God, so my arguments will defend the existence of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity.

The air we breathe cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched, yet it most certainly exists. The force of gravity cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or touched, yet we know that it exists. Emotions, values, beliefs, and thoughts cannot be found by using any of our senses, yet they are as real as rocks or trees. Emotions can be “felt“, but this feeling is not physical. Thus, simply because something cannot be found through the use of the five senses does not mean that it does not exist.

Some atheists say that no God has been found through the use of the senses, therefore no God exists. But simply because God cannot be found by way of the senses does not mean that He does not exist. Christians believe in a supernatural or non-material God. They believe that God has manifested Himself in material form and in material ways on certain occasions (such as the Incarnation, and when He spoke audibly to Moses at Mount Sinai). However, God is spirit (John 4:24), and in His “normal” state He cannot be found by the use of the senses. Therefore, any attempt to reach God by way of the senses would be virtually pointless.

Wind can only be seen indirectly (leaves moving, dust scattering, trees swaying, etc). Christians believe that, like wind, God can be seen indirectly. They believe that He can be seen indirectly through Creation (Nature), conscience, morality, etc. They also believe that a “touch” from God can be “felt”. This feeling is spiritual, though sometimes it may produce physical or emotional sensations. Thus, even though a natural or material God does not exist, that does not mean that there is no God at all. A supernatural or non-material God can be just as real as a natural, tangible God.

The word ‘conscience‘ can be defined as “the internal sense of what is right and wrong that governs somebody’s thoughts and actions, urging him or her to do right rather than wrong.” This ‘conscience’ is consistent, it always urges us to do right, and is not merely one of our desires or preferences. Feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Suppose you hear a cry for help from a drowning man. You will probably feel two desires: one desire to give help, the other a desire to keep out of danger. But you will find inside you, in addition to these two desires, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. This thing that judges between the two impulses, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. This third thing is our ‘conscience’.

What is peculiar about this ‘conscience’ is that everyone has it. It is not specifically for the kind, the intelligent, or the strong, but it is found in every human being all over the world. This ‘conscience’ is inside us; it is not something that we ourselves have made or something that has been given to us by other people. If we did not make this ‘conscience’ and it was not given to us by others, then where did it come from? We might say that it was in the subconscious part of our brains, and it revealed itself at that very moment and let us know what the right thing to do was in that certain situation. But how would our subconscious know what is right or wrong in a situation? How would our subconscious know the difference between right and wrong? Thus, there must be something or someone else who put those ideas of right and wrong into our subconscious. The question is: “Who or what put those ideas there?” For the answer we must turn to the two main world views.

One world view is the Materialist world view, which basically states that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a series of chances, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. The other world view is the Religious world view, which basically states that the universe and everything in it was created by a Being, a God. This Being is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. We can hardly expect matter and space to know the difference between right and wrong, so the only option left is the Being, the God.

But why would this God give us a conscience? I believe that the reason is this. God has given us a conscience so that we will know what the right thing to do is in a certain situation. God wants us to obey our conscience and do what is right, so that we can live in harmony with our fellow man. Some might say that this is an invasion of privacy. They say: “Why doesn’t God just leave us alone and let us do what we want?” But indeed He does just that. God does not force you to obey your conscience. He gives you a conscience so that you will know what is right: it is your choice if you obey your conscience or not. God gives you both options, lets you know which one is best, then leaves the choice to you.

Rational thought (Logic, or reason) is used constantly by human beings. We use it in our sciences, we use it in our businesses, and we use it in our everyday lives. Many times we use it to seek and find truth. But, where did rational thought come from? What is the source of rational thought? If there is nothing but Nature, then the universe is the greatest thing that exists. The universe is made up of inorganic matter, energy, and space. One can hardly expect inorganic matter, energy, and space to possess rational thought, thus something besides the material universe must have produced the rational thought used by human beings. Rational thought cannot be an invention of man, for it would take rational thought in order to produce such an invention.

Since rational thought (reason) could not have come directly from the material universe, it must have come into existence by a historical process. The type of mental behavior we now call rational thinking must have been “evolved” by Natural Selection, by the gradual weeding out of types less fitted to survive.

Once, then, our thoughts were not rational. That is, all our thoughts once were, as many of our thoughts still are, merely subjective events. Those which had a cause external to us at all were responses to stimuli. Natural Selection could operate only by eliminating responses that were biologically hurtful and multiplying those which tended to survival. But it is not conceivable that any improvement of responses could ever turn them into acts of insight, or even remotely tend to do so. The relation between response and stimulus is utterly different from that between knowledge and the truth known. Our physical vision is a far more useful response to light than that of the cruder organisms which have only a photo-sensitive spot. But neither this improvement nor any possible improvements we can suppose could bring it an inch closer to being a genuine knowledge of light. It is admittedly something without which we could not have had that knowledge. But the knowledge is achieved by experiments and inferences from them, not by a refinement of the response. It is not men with especially good eyes who know about light, but rather men who have studied the relevant sciences. In the same way, our psychological responses to our environment–our curiosities, aversions, delights, expectations–could be indefinitely improved (from the biological point of view) without becoming anything more than responses.

Apart from Natural Selection, there is also experience. Experience that was originally individual, but then was handed on by tradition and instruction. There are some experiences that may account for rational thoughts. For example, if a man drinks from a river he will learn that the water in the river quenches his thirst. He may pass this information on to others, and then they will also know that the water in the river quenches thirst. Thus, this experience eventually becomes the rational thought that water from a river quenches thirst.

But experience cannot account for all rational thoughts. The concept and invention of money was an act of reasoning, a usage of rational thought, which could never have come into existence by experience. The concept and invention of proper names, as a way to identify someone or something, was another act of reasoning, another usage of rational thought, which could never have come into existence by experience. The written alphabet, the metric system, spoken language, and sign language are inventions which came about by rational thought, not experience. Similarly, one must use rational thought in order to create an organized game. A person may learn by experience that he can kick or throw a ball. Yet it does not follow that he will create a game called “Football” based solely on that experience. The inventor had to use rational thought in order to create the specific rules and regulations used in the game. Thus, experience alone could never have produced the game of Football. Likewise, every organized game came about by rational thought, not by experience.

If rational thought did not come about by a historical process, then how did it come about? It must have come about by a different process and from a different source (one other than the material universe, Natural Selection, and Experience). Since the rational thought used by human beings was not produced by the universe, and it did not come into existence by a historical process, it must have been produced by something other than Nature. This “something other than Nature” must be rational, otherwise it could not have given rational thought to man. This rational something that is other than Nature is God. Therefore, one must conclude that the source of rational thought is God, and the process is that God gave human beings the ability to use rational thought.

Of all the questions asked about the universe and human existence, the greatest is “Why?” Why does the universe exist? Why are we here? Atheists claim that the universe has no meaning, and therefore human existence is ultimately without purpose. But if the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. If we have no purpose, we should never have found out that we have no purpose. If the universe and mankind have no reason for being here, we should never have been able to discover that they have no reason for being here. The Bible states that God made mankind to have a relationship with Him, and He made the Earth as a dwelling place for mankind. The Bible gives an explanation for the existence of Earth, and it states the reason why mankind was created.

The earth is in such a precise order that it is highly unlikely that everything just “appeared” and just “happened” to be in perfect harmony. The earth is positioned at just the right distance from the Sun so that all living things can tolerate the temperatures, it has the perfect combination of gases in the atmosphere, and a form of oxygen in the ozone layer protects the earth from the Sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays. These are only some of the hundreds of things that have to be exactly the way they are or else no living thing could survive on Earth.

The water cycle provides the earth with a bountiful supply of water, so there is enough for every living organism. The earth rotates on an axis, providing sunlight to every location on the planet. Because of this, vegetation is able to grow virtually everywhere, thus providing food and oxygen to animals and people. The weathering process transforms rocks into soil. Without soil, plants cannot live and grow. If plants cannot live and grow, then no other form of life can exist. In other words, there would not be life on Earth if the weathering process did not occur. Noting the complexity and necessity of these processes, it is nearly impossible to believe that they are merely a product of chance.

The process of photosynthesis has far-reaching implications. Like plants, humans and other animals depend on glucose as an energy source, but they are unable to produce it on their own and must rely ultimately on the glucose produced by plants. Moreover, the oxygen humans and other animals breathe is the oxygen released during photosynthesis. Humans are also dependent on ancient products of photosynthesis, known as fossil fuels, for supplying most of our modern industrial energy. Thus, virtually all life on earth, directly or indirectly, depends on photosynthesis as a source of food, energy, and oxygen, making it one of the most important biochemical processes known. This process reflects intelligent design, not chance. And every design has a Designer.

If there is nothing but Nature, then the universe is the greatest thing that exists. The universe is composed of inorganic matter, energy, and space. If all living things came into existence by spontaneous generation, then every living creature came from inorganic matter, energy, and space. So, if all living creatures were composed of inorganic matter, energy, and space, where did consciousness come from? How did we come to know that we exist, that we are human beings, and that we possess thoughts and desires? It is not conceivable that inorganic matter, energy, and space could possess consciousness. A rock does not know that it exists, light does not know that it travels at 186,000 miles per second, and air does not know that it is composed of many different chemical elements.

But perhaps consciousness came into existence by natural processes such as Natural Selection, mutation, and adaptation. Perhaps these processes, over time, produced the consciousness present in living creatures.

Natural Selection can operate only by eliminating those things that are biologically hurtful and multiplying those things which tend to survive. But Natural Selection cannot multiply something that does not exist. Consciousness had to exist before Natural Selection could multiply it. A multiplication of the senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste) by Natural Selection could never have produced consciousness, for the multiplied senses would simply be better senses; they would never turn into something else, namely consciousness.

Mutation and adaptation can change the physical characteristics of living organisms. For example, a mutated ant might have five legs (instead of the normal six), and a Siamese cat that has adapted to a cold climate might have thicker fur than a normal Siamese cat. But the physical is very different from the conscious. No amount of changes in an organism’s physical characteristics could ever produce consciousness in that organism. Another form of adaptation occurs when a creature purposely changes its behaviors in order to adjust to its new environment. But a creature has to be conscious of its own existence and of the existence of the environment before it can purposely change its behaviors. Thus, neither mutation nor adaptation could have produced consciousness.

But perhaps living creatures simply came to the realization that they existed, and from then on they were conscious beings. But, how did creatures without consciousness come to the realization that they existed? When a being realizes that it exists, it has the thought that it exists. In order to have thoughts, a being must have the ability to think. But thinking is a conscious behavior–a being is aware of what it is thinking and the fact that it is thinking. Since thinking is a conscious behavior, it can never be the cause of consciousness. Thus, a being could never have had the thought that it existed unless it already possessed consciousness.

Since the consciousness found in living creatures cannot be a product of the material universe, natural processes, and thought, it must have been produced by something other than Nature. This “something other than Nature” would have to be conscious in order to produce consciousness in other living beings. This “something other than Nature” must have the power and ability to give consciousness to living beings. The only “something” that is conscious and has the power and ability to give consciousness to other living beings is God.

All plant and animal life relies on the Sun’s presence. Earth would not have any life on it without the Sun’s energy, which reaches Earth in vast amounts in the form of heat and light. The oceans and seas store this energy and help keep the temperature of Earth at a level that allows a wide variety of life to exist. Green plants absorb sunlight and convert it to food, which these plants then use to live and grow. In this process, the plants give off the oxygen that animals breathe. Animals eat these plants for nourishment. The Sun’s energy also creates wind in Earth’s atmosphere. This wind can be harnessed and used to produce power. The Sun’s energy also produces the movements of water, which people harness to produce electricity.

The Sun’s gravitational pull holds the solar system together. The planets, asteroids, comets, and dust that make up our solar system are strongly attracted to the Sun’s huge mass. If it were not for the Sun’s gravitational pull, Earth would float off into space. After some time of floating off into space, Earth’s temperatures would become too cold to support life, and every living thing on Earth would perish. If the gravitational pull of the Sun was stronger than it currently is, Earth would be drawn closer to the Sun and the temperatures would be too hot for living organisms to survive.

The Sun gives heat and energy, produces electricity and power, propels the process of photosynthesis, and holds the solar system together by its gravity. The Sun is designed perfectly to conserve life on Earth. This perfect design hardly seems to be the product of chance.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in a system that is available to do work is decreasing. Entropy increases as available energy decreases. In other words, the purely natural tendency of things is to move toward chaos, not order, and available energy necessary for work is lost in this process. Eventually, the universe will run down and all life and motion will cease. This is the natural tendency of all things. Batteries run down, machines break, buildings crumble, roads decay, living things die, etc. Left to the natural state, all things would eventually cease to function.

If the universe were infinitely old, it would have reached a state of entropy long ago. But we are not in a state of entropy, therefore the universe is not infinitely old and must have had a beginning. The universe would require an infinite amount of time to become infinite in size. Since the universe had a beginning, it has not had an infinite amount of time to expand, therefore it is finite in size.

All natural events have causes. There cannot be an infinite regress of events because that would mean the universe were infinitely old. If it were infinitely old, the universe would be in a state of entropy, which it is not. Since the universe is finite and had a beginning, and there cannot be an infinite number of regressions of causes to bring it into existence, there must be a single uncaused cause of the universe. A single uncaused cause of the universe must be greater in size and duration than the universe it has brought into existence, otherwise we have the uncaused cause bringing into existence something greater than or equal to itself.

Any cause that is natural to the universe is part of the universe. An event that is part of the universe cannot cause itself to exit. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause outside the universe. An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe which is finite. An uncaused cause would be infinite in both space and time since it is greater than that which it has caused to exist. This uncaused cause must be supernatural. Supernatural meaning that it is completely ‘other’ than the universe, it is not natural to it. This would make the uncaused cause supernatural. There is only one option for this supernatural uncaused cause: God.

Some atheists have maintained that the existence of evil makes the existence of God improbable. But the existence of evil does not negate the existence of God. If God is evil then the existence of evil makes the existence of God even more probable. However, I do not believe that God is evil; I believe that God is good. If God is good, then why is there evil in the world? The answer is ‘Free Will’ or ‘Choice’. God allows human beings to have the freedom to choose between good and evil, and the choices a person makes can affect others as well as himself. Wars can be caused by the evil actions of a few individuals, but many will suffer the consequences. God even gives people the choice of obeying Him or not. God has revealed His will to mankind, and when people follow it great good is the ultimate result. But when people act in ways outside the will of God, great evil and suffering is the ultimate result.

For God to create beings in His own image, that are capable of sustaining a personal relationship with Him, they must be beings that are capable of freely loving Him and following His will without coercion. Love or obedience on any other basis would not be love or obedience at all, but mere compliance. But creatures that are free to love God must also be free to hate or ignore Him. Creatures that are free to follow His will must also be free to reject it. Thus, we conclude that God is capable of destroying evil, but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function.

Some people think that they can imagine a world where creatures have free will but have no possibility of doing evil. I cannot. If one does not have the choice of doing evil then one does not completely have free will. I can choose to love someone or choose to respect someone, both being good things. I have the ability to choose to do one or the other. But unless I am able to choose to hate that person as well as love or respect them, then I do not truly have free will. If I cannot choose to hate that person then I do not have every choice available, thus I do not completely have free will. To completely have free will, I must be able to make an evil choice (to hate the person) as well as good choices (to love or respect the person).

If the existence of evil makes the existence of God improbable, then wouldn’t the existence of good make the existence of God probable? The existence of evil makes the existence of Satan probable, not the existence of God improbable. There is evil in the world because there is a completely evil being that constantly causes suffering and pain. Satan influences people to do evil, thus people commit evil acts and many suffer as a consequence of those evil acts.

Not a great deal is known about animal evil, but it is obvious that some animals suffer because of evil acts committed against them. Man has the ability to choose between good and evil, and he has the choice of helping or harming other species as well as his own. Thus, some animal suffering is caused by humans. God gives animals free will also, and many times they use it to afflict pain on other creatures. The evil actions of one animal may affect many, such as a bobcat killing a mother duck may lead to the death of her newborn ducklings. Satan influences human beings to commit evil acts and afflict pain on others, thus Satan may have also corrupted the animal creation.

Some atheists say that the Christian God cannot be omnipotent because He cannot create a being more powerful than Him, He cannot undo the past, and He cannot create a triangular square. The following paragraphs are in defense of the Christian concept of the omnipotent God.

Can God create a being that is more powerful than Him? If God is infinitely powerful then nothing can be more powerful than Him. The only way something could be more powerful than God is if God’s power had a limit. But God’s power does not have a limit, thus nothing can be more powerful than Him. The question is not one of omnipotence, but rather one of existence. A being more powerful than God cannot exist, because God is infinitely powerful.

Can God create a rock too heavy for Him to lift? If God is infinitely powerful then He is able to lift anything. Thus, there can be nothing too heavy for Him to lift. The only way for there to be a rock too heavy for God to lift is if God’s strength had a limit. God’s strength and power do not have a limit, thus nothing can be too heavy for Him to lift. Once again, the question is not one of omnipotence, but rather one of existence. A rock too heavy for God to lift cannot exist, because God is able to lift anything.

Some might say that, because these things cannot exist, God is unable to create them, and therefore He is not all-powerful. They would say that He has a limit since He cannot create these things. But the whole reason why these things cannot exist is because God IS all-powerful. God has no limits, thus things that would surpass His limits cannot exist. Nothing can be more powerful than God, since He is infinitely powerful. Nothing can be too heavy for God to lift, since He is able to lift anything.

Some people say “Not even God can undo the past.” I will suggest that He can. God created all time: past, present, and future. Since He created it, He can do with it as He chooses. If He wanted to, He could turn back time, stop time, repeat time, or even undo time. This does not invalidate God’s omnipotence by any means.

Some people state that not even God could make a triangular square or a spherical cube. I would suggest that He can. God created both the triangle and the square, and if He chooses to, He could make an object containing qualities of both. Indeed, He could make an object that is both a triangle and a square. Just because we cannot comprehend how this is possible does not mean that it is impossible.

The Bible states that God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Some people say that, because God cannot lie, He cannot do everything, and therefore He is not all-powerful. God, as a being, has a particular nature. Just as a man as a being, or an eagle as a being, possess a nature of their own. For God to lie is for Him to go against His very nature. God can indeed lie, but not without ceasing to be God. If God lies then He goes against everything He is, and He then ceases to be God. For example, as a human being I cannot produce wings and fly among the clouds. That is against my human nature. If I were all-powerful I would be able to produce wings and fly, but not without ceasing to be a human being. An eagle, by its very nature, cannot dive into the water and begin to breathe with gills. If it were all-powerful it would be able to do so, but not without ceasing to be an eagle. Thus, God cannot lie: if He does then He ceases to be God.

What I mean by saying that God ceases to be God is that He ceases to be the same God. God is truth: and if God lies then He ceases to be truth. He would still be the Creator of man and the universe, but He would cease to be the truthful, omni-benevolent God that He is. In other words, God cannot lie without ceasing to be the same: He cannot lie without ceasing to be the God that He is. If God lies then His entire nature changes, and if His nature changes then He is no longer the same being. As was noted above, if I produce wings and fly then my nature is changed, and if my nature is changed then I would no longer be a human being.

So, by saying “There is No God“, you are being completely ignorant to your surroundings.
There is a God. And He loves you, and wants to forgive your sins and take you to Heaven!
Even if the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity does not exist, that does not mean that there is no God at all. We cannot fully comprehend God, therefore we cannot be completely sure that He possesses or does not possess certain qualities (such as omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence). Thus, any argument that attacks these qualities in an attempt to disprove the existence of God is ultimately irrelevant, since we do not know if God has these qualities or not. However, I believe in the Christian God, so my arguments will defend the existence of the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God of Christianity.

So, by saying “There is No God“, you are being completely ignorant to your surroundings.
There is a God. And He loves you, and wants to forgive your sins and take you to Heaven!

Evolution…

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the amount of energy available for work is running down, or entropy is increasing to a maximum. Entropy is a measure of the decrease in usable energy. If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is continually decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have already exhausted all usable energy and reached what is known as “heat death”. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the universe must have been created with a lot of usable energy and is now running down.

Ideas of an oscillating universe are undercut by the Laws of Thermodynamics, as each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means that every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. The multi-cycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past. Also, there is far too little mass to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, and no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical “big crunch”.

Since the universe cannot have existed forever, it must have had a beginning. The universe could not have been created out of nothing by purely natural processes because, according to the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, mass and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Also, the universe cannot be self-created–nothing can create itself because it would need to exist before it came into existence, a logical absurdity.

Everything which has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning, and therefore the universe had a cause. So, what was the cause of the universe? Since the universe could not have been caused by purely natural processes, and it could not have caused itself to exist, the cause of the universe must be something that exists outside of the universe. This cause would be supernatural. Supernatural meaning that it is completely ‘other’ than the universe, it is not within the boundaries of the universe. This supernatural cause which created the universe is God.

Some evolutionists claim that Earth and the other planets were created when another star crashed into the Sun. Matter was then torn loose from the Sun and formed the planets in our solar system. The Sun shows no sign of any such collision, and this theory leaves unexplained many of the mysteries of the energies and movements of the Sun and the planets. If the planets came from pieces of the Sun, wouldn’t they be miniature stars? If this theory is true, where did water come from? Water could not have come from the burning gases found on the Sun.

Darwin said that the method of natural selection, or the “survival of the fittest”, was the means by which one species slowly evolved into a new species. Those animals which are better able to survive because of color or some other characteristic unquestionably stand less chance of becoming extinct. But natural selection is not the same as evolution. Natural selection produces no new characteristics. Neither does it explain how new life forms come about or how one kind of organism can change into another kind or how an organism can develop new organs. Natural selection only produces a fitter animal, not a new one.

The Theory of Evolution states that all plant and animal life evolved over long periods of time from simple to more complicated forms through mutation and adaptation. Biologists can show experimentally that some organisms escape predators by trying to be inconspicuous and blend into their environment, and that other organisms change their behaviors in order to adjust to their environment. These tested cases are only a handful, however, and many supposed cases of adaptation are simply assumed.

One assumed form of adaptation is “mimicry”. Mimicry supposedly occurs when one species adjusts its physical or behavioral characteristics to imitate another species. Any form of mimicry must be intentional. A species must purposely change its physical features to resemble another species. But there is no power in the world by which animals can alter their own physical characteristics in such a way. No matter what they do, animals can never change their color pattern or reshape their physical framework. Thus, an organism could never physically adapt itself to mimic another organism.

Another form of adaptation is camouflage. Certain animals will use their coloration to conceal themselves by blending in with their surroundings. For example, the emerald tree boa is a vibrant shade of green. It takes advantage of its coloration when it hides among leafy foliage. This form of camouflage conceals it from its prey. Another example is the zebra. Its stripes resemble jungle grasses. The zebra takes advantage of its coloration when it hides in the tall grasses of the plains. This form of camouflage conceals the zebra from its predators. These are only two of the hundreds of animals that use camouflage as a means of protection from predators or concealment from prey.

Evolutionists claim that animals change their coloration in order to camouflage themselves. But the use of camouflage is a behavioral adaptation, and it does not indicate that these animals changed their coloration in order to blend in with their surroundings. These animals could have always possessed these color patterns, and they simply chose the best surroundings to match them.

Some so-called adaptations of certain species are not logical. For example, why would a Blue Jay adapt its feathers to be blue? Its blue feathers do not blend in with its surroundings and do not conceal it from predators. Why wouldn’t it adapt its feathers to be green in order to blend in with the leaves and conceal itself from predators? Another example is the Scarlet King Snake. Evolutionists claim that this snake altered its physical features in order to mimic the coloration of the Coral Snake, thus causing predators to believe that it was venomous. But if the Scarlet King Snake can truly alter its physical features, then why didn’t it adapt its coloration to be exactly the same as that of a Coral Snake? Why didn’t the Scarlet King Snake simply develop venomous fangs? Both the adoption of an exact replica of the Coral Snake’s color pattern or the development of venomous fangs would have been more beneficial to the Scarlet King Snake than its current physical structure, and neither would have been more difficult to develop than its current coloration.

Evolutionists claim that certain animals adapted their physical characteristics in a specific manner in order to conceal themselves from predators or prey. They claim that some animals purposely changed their physical features in order to avoid being eaten by predators or seen by prey. One example is the Leafy Sea Dragon. This creature has leaf-like appendages which enable it to hide among floating seaweed or kelp beds. Thanks to these appendages, the Sea Dragon can conceal itself from its prey and avoid detection by predators. But in order for the Sea Dragon to have purposely evolved in this manner, it would have had to choose to alter its physical structure. There is no power in the world by which animals can alter their physical characteristics simply because they desire to do so. A cat might desire to fly in order to catch a bird, but that does not mean that it will sprout wings simply because it desires to fly. Thus, the Sea Dragon must have done something in order to create these appendages. But what did it do? No amount of physical activity could have caused the Sea Dragon to produce these protuberances. Physical activity can only enhance an animal’s body; it can never produce new features on it. Also, no type or amount of food eaten by the Sea Dragon could have caused it to produce these protuberances. Like physical activity, food can only enhance an animal’s body; it can never produce new features on it. Nothing that the Sea Dragon could have done could have possibly enabled it to alter its physical structure in such a way. Thus, it is quite illogical to suppose that the Sea Dragon, or any other animal, could have purposely changed its physical characteristics to such an extent.

Mutation is “the event consisting of a change in genetic structure”. It is generally destructive to an organism. For example, people with three copies of the 21st chromosome are born with Down Syndrome. Mutants are usually weaker than normal organisms, they are usually unable to reproduce, and they usually live shorter lives than normal organisms. An albino alligator, for example, is a mutation of a normal alligator. It usually doesn’t live as long as a normal alligator for two reasons. One, it is born with very light colored skin, making it an easy target for predators. As a result, it is eaten while it is still young, and it never reaches adulthood. Two, because of its very light colored skin, it is seen by its prey and its prey escapes. As a result, the alligator eventually starves to death. As an organism evolves it is supposed to improve, but most mutation is a hindrance rather than an improvement.

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly.

Hermaphroditism, a type of mutation, is the presence in one individual, plant or animal, of both male and female gonads or organs of sex cell production. Most organisms that have this mutation cannot fertilize themselves. Flatworms, however, have a complete set of male and female gonads in each segment and regularly fertilize themselves. This might be considered a helpful mutation for some animals, but higher animals that have this mutation are usually sterile, and, when fertile, do not produce both fertile eggs and fertile sperm. Humans who have this mutation show functional disturbance of the endocrine glands, especially of the pituitary or adrenal glands, and do not possess two sets of functioning sex organs. Hermaphroditism never produces new sex organs, or any other kind of new organs, that are unknown to the species.

A few mutations might be considered helpful. One example is the wingless beetle on the island of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful. The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

Recombination involves a shuffling of the genes, and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. Genes, the genetic units of heredity, are merely reshuffled from one generation to another, but new genes are never formed. Gregor Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds, but it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there. Recombination is not to be confused with evolution. Recombination only creates variation within a kind, it does not cause one kind to become another. While Darwin saw the finches on the Galapagos islands as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today. Another example is the domestic dog. Recombination, along with selective breeding, has produced the many different varieties of domestic dogs found in the world today.

If all organisms evolved from a one-celled organism, then why do one-celled organisms still exist? Why did some one-celled organisms evolve and not others? If all birds evolved from a common flying ancestor, then why do some birds fly while others don’t? If they evolved differently then why is everything else the same between them? They all have feathers, beaks, feet, etc. Are flying birds more evolved than non-flying birds? Are non-flying birds continually evolving and will they fly someday?

Why did everything stop evolving? Why aren’t organisms becoming more complex? Is it because they have reached their evolutionary peak? A snail is not a very fast, powerful, intelligent, or complex animal. It is hard to believe that this organism has reached its evolutionary peak, yet it has not continued to evolve. What about the ostrich? It is a bird with large wings and many feathers, yet it cannot fly. If it had reached its evolutionary peak, wouldn’t it have the ability to fly?

Evolution teaches that man is the pinnacle of evolutionary perfection. Physically, man is less equipped for survival than several animals. Man is weaker than animals such as the lion, tiger, bear, elephant, and rhinoceros. Man’s skin is more fragile than a crocodile’s scales, a turtle’s shell, and a rhinoceros’ hide. Man doesn’t have horns, claws, or sharp teeth to defend itself from predators. Intellectually, however, man is the most equipped for survival. Man is the only living thing able to use large numbers of plants and animals for his own benefit. Man has been able to adapt himself to virtually any climate, he is the only living creature that can make and use tools, and he has the ability to reason. At the same time, man is the only living thing that slaughters millions of his own kind in war. Man is the only creature that continually creates weapons for destruction. Man has also destroyed many natural habitats and damaged many ecological systems. Man has killed so many animals that certain species have become extinct. If man has reached his evolutionary peak, then why does he generally harm his environment? Man is certainly a wonderful creature, but he has not reached perfection. If he has not reached perfection, then how can he be at his evolutionary peak? If he has not reached his evolutionary peak, then why hasn’t he continued to evolve?

Evolutionists state that Neanderthal man had a somewhat larger brain than modern man. When a being evolves it is supposed to improve, but going from a larger brain to a smaller one is not improvement. Did man reach his evolutionary peak and then go in reverse?

Man has been able to create new species of animals by mating two different species of animals. For example, a mule is produced by crossing a horse with a donkey. But the only way to obtain a mule is to force a horse and donkey to mate, because they will not mate with each other in the wild. They will only mate with their own species, donkeys with donkeys and horses with horses. Another important aspect about the mule is that it is sterile, it cannot reproduce. No new species can be formed because a mule cannot pass on its genes. The creation of the mule is not an improvement, but rather a failure. It is not stronger or smarter than its ancestors, and it is unable to reproduce. This shows that even when humans try to “help” the process of evolution, or “help” the transformation of one species into another, it still doesn’t work.

If evolution had occurred, thousands of intermediary stages would have been found in our fossil record. Various “links” between fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, and reptiles and higher animals would have been discovered. But no such “links” have ever been discovered. No intermediary fossils have ever been found. This would be expected if evolution had occurred over a short period of time. But, if evolutionists are correct, it took millions of years for the lowest life forms to evolve into the life forms that exist today. Since the time was very great, the fossils should be many. Instead, there are none. This fact provides a significant blow against the theory of evolution.

Evolutionists search for fossils to fill in the “missing links” of human evolution. But the majority of the “missing link” fossils that have been discovered have since been discarded and regarded as false.

At one time, evolutionists included in the human family tree a stage of development known as Nebraska man. This stage, based upon the discovery of a single tooth, has since been discarded because the tooth in now known to have come from an extinct pig.

Another human ancestor that has been discarded, Piltdown man, was reconstructed from a skull and some teeth found in an English gravel pit. It was later discovered to be a fraud, perhaps the work of an amateur fossil hunter named Charles Dawson. Dawson apparently placed the skull of a modern man and the teeth of an ape together where they would be discovered. To make his work appear authentic, Dawson filed down the teeth to make them appear more human, and he stained both skull and teeth with a chemical to give them the appearance of great age.

Eugene Dubois discovered bones of what he assumed to be a prehistoric human being on the island of Java. He claimed the bones of Java man were 500,000 years old. Dubois also discovered, in the same layer, a completely human skull – a fact he kept secret for 30 years. Obviously, if Java man had been buried in the same rock layer with modern man, he could not be man’s ancestor. Dubois eventually dismissed his discovery as being nothing more than a mixture of human and gibbon bones.

Peking man was another mix-up of human and ape bones. They were found together because the humans were eating the brains of the ape.

Louis Leakey discovered Ramapithecus, a handful of teeth and jaw fragments, and put them together incorrectly to resemble a human jaw. In 1978, more bones were discovered, and Ramapithecus was just an orangutan. Leakey also discovered “Skull 1470″ which is definitely more human-like and yet older than Homoerectus and Australopithecines. Perhaps this proves that man is older than his ancestors. Leakey also discovered the very old Australopithecines. Leakey thought it walked upright, but investigation by many others concluded that it did not, it swung from trees and is a type of extinct ape.

The first skeleton of Neanderthal man that was discovered was stooped in posture and bowed-legged, with a somewhat apelike skull. Other Neanderthal remains have been discovered in a number of other countries, but they do not show the same stooped posture as the first skeleton. It is now believed that most Neanderthals stood just as erect as we stand. It seems that the first one discovered happened to be that of an old man suffering from a form of arthritis. Neanderthal people were found to be 100% human.

Another “missing link” in the supposed evolution of man, Cro-Magnon man, was discovered in southwest France. At the time, Cro-Magnons were supposed to be our most-recent human ancestors on the evolutionary family tree. Evolutionists now admit that the Cro-Magnons were 100% human; they were merely a tribe of people that often dwelled in caves and hunted bison.

Evolutionists believe that the fact that the vertebrates all have many structures on the same plan proves that vertebrates all evolved from a common lower ancestor. Creationists believe that this fact merely indicates that God used the same pattern in making species of the same class. As it is written in the Bible, “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”(Genesis 1:25) The bodies of man and animals have a basic similarity in their overall design. Knowing that His creatures would all live under similar conditions, perform similar life functions, and feed upon similar foods, God made them with similar body systems.

Genetic and molecular biologists can now measure the degree of similarity between most forms of life by examining the sequence of the components of a specific protein. Relationship is established by the number of changes required to convert a protein of one organism into the corresponding protein of another – the fewer changes, the closer the relationship. This comparison can also be made using genetic material. There is no evidence on the molecular level for evolution. Each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated. For example, by isolating one protein (Cytochrome C) from a snake and comparing it with 47 different life forms, it was shown that the rattlesnake was most similar to man, not to any other reptile (based on that one protein).

By using comparative anatomy, the eye of an octopus is more similar in structure to the eyes of man than are the eyes of many species which are supposedly closer to man on the evolutionary “tree”. Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken, not the ape, is man’s closest relative. If evolution had occurred, these contradictions, and hundreds of similar ones, could not have been found.

According to evolutionary philosophy, fossils of those organisms which first evolved are found in the lowest layers of rock; these rocks are said to be the earth’s oldest rocks. The rocks said to be the youngest are found in the topmost layers of the crust; they contain fossils of organisms that are supposed to have more recently evolved and therefore resemble organisms alive today. Evolutionists call this order of rock layers the “geologic column”. In many places the order of the rock layers is exactly reversed from what the geologic column proposes, and frequently “older” rocks sit atop “younger” rocks with no evidence that the layers have been disturbed. This shows that the geologic column is nothing more than an imaginary arrangement of rock layers.

Evolutionists date the rock layers by checking to see what kind of fossils they contain, and they date the fossils by checking to see what age has been assigned to the rocks. This is circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.

Turning to the fossil record as proof of evolution, and proof of the antiquity of the earth, there are more problems. Evolution demands that its subscribers believe fossils were sediment encased over millions of years, but research shows the record is evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life. For example, many fossils show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions (such as jellyfish) that they were buried before they could decay. Many fossil animals show the contorted positions indicative of violent and rapid mass burial. Furthermore, many fossils have been found that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock. Finally, most sediment is laid down by water. All of these facts are more in keeping with what would occur in a worldwide, catastrophic flood. Such a flood is described in the Bible.

No “missing links” have been found among the fossils to bridge the gap between supposedly related organisms. Thus, the fossil record holds no evidence that fish evolved into amphibians, amphibians evolved into reptiles, or that reptiles evolved into birds and mammals. There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Evolutionists believe that over long periods of time, through mutation and adaptation, one species can evolve into another. Why do evolutionists think that time can make a difference? It has been thousands of years since the Egyptians domesticated cats, and those animals haven’t changed at all. Crocodiles have existed since the time of the dinosaurs, yet they haven’t changed at all since that time. In Fairy Tales, someone kisses a frog and in two seconds it becomes a prince. In Evolution, someone kisses a frog and in two million years it becomes a prince. Both are unrealistic. Whether it’s two seconds or two million years, a frog will never become a prince.

The earth is not as old as evolutionists claim it is. One way to prove this is by observing the celestial bodies. Interplanetary dust falls at a very slow rate, but to believe that the earth is 5 billion years old (as evolutionists believe), mathematically there was enough time for it to wash up millions upon millions of tons in the oceans. But by calculating the small amount we have by the rate it descends, brings the earth’s age to approximately 7-10 thousand years.

The moon has information of Earth’s age, as well as its own. According to NASA, who accepted the 5 billion year theory, the astronauts who landed on the moon were expected to find 54 feet of interplanetary dust on it. However, upon landing for the first time, they found only an eighth of an inch to three inches of dust. This is enough for the earth to be approximately 8,000 years old.

The gravitational influence of the moon is chiefly responsible for the tides of the earth’s oceans, the twice-daily rise and fall of sea level. The ocean tides are caused by the flow of water toward the two points on the earth’s surface that are instantaneously directly beneath the moon and directly opposite the moon. Because of frictional drag, the earth’s rotation carries the two tidal bulges slightly forward of the line connecting Earth and Moon. The resulting torque slows the earth’s rotation while increasing the moon’s orbital velocity. As a result, the day is getting longer and the moon is moving farther away from the earth. When the year is over, the moon will be 2 inches farther than it was at the beginning. There is no reason to believe that this process has not been occurring since the existence of the oceans. Thus, at this rate, two billion years ago the moon and the earth would be touching. Because the distance they are at now, multiply the rate by 2 billion years, and they will be touching only 2 billion years ago. Another observation is that, billions of years ago, the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, and they would have eroded away the continents.

The Sun is shrinking about one tenth percent every century. That means that every hour the Sun has burned off 5 feet of itself. There is no evidence that shows a change in the shrinkage, it appears to have been going on since the beginning of time. At this rate, twenty million years ago the Sun would be touching the earth, and the earth would have burned up. Thus, the earth can never be twenty million years old or older. One hundred thousand years ago, the Sun would have been twice its present size. If the Sun was twice its present size, the earth would be very close to it because of its strong gravitational pull, and if the earth was that close to the Sun, no life would be able to survive because of the intense heat. Thus, life could not have existed on Earth 100,000 years ago or more.

By showing that the earth is approximately 10,000 years old or younger, and not 5 billion years old, evolution has a significantly shorter time to take place. There is less time for fish to evolve into amphibians, amphibians to evolve into reptiles, and reptiles to evolve into birds and mammals. With less time, evolution seems even more improbable.

Scientists once believed that all dinosaurs had reptile-like skin, however, recent fossils have been found in Liaoning, China where certain dinosaurs had some type of feathers. Some dinosaurs might have had scales like reptiles and others had feathers, or all might have had feathers. Scientists don’t know enough about the skin of dinosaurs to make any concrete conclusions. Some evolutionists believe that these feathers evolved from scales, but there is no evidence that shows that these feathers evolved from anything. It is most likely that these dinosaurs always had feathers.

Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Some reasons why they believe this is because their skeletons have some similarities, they both laid eggs and, according to some paleontologists, traces of feathers are evident in some dinosaur fossils. These reasons do not provide enough evidence to prove that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Birds also share similarities with mammals, and lay eggs as do reptiles and amphibians, yet they are distinct.

Today the only organisms that have feathers are birds, but birds are not only related because of feathers. All birds have beaks, wings, and feet. They are all warm-blooded, they all have the same general anatomy, none of them have sweat glands, and they all possess a four-chambered heart. The fact that certain dinosaurs had feathers doesn’t mean that they evolved into birds, or that they were even closely related to birds. A rat has hair, and so does a man, but rats and humans are not closely related, and one did not evolve from the other.

As a being evolves it is supposed to improve, but the transformation of dinosaurs into birds is not improvement. The Velociraptor is said to be one of the smartest animals that ever lived, and it had the intelligence to hunt in packs. It was also one of the most agile and strongest dinosaurs on the planet, with razor-sharp claws on its forearms and a deadly toe claw. This dinosaur was a magnificent animal, so why would it evolve into a bird? No bird in the world is as strong or as smart as the Velociraptor was. Why would natural selection choose for a stronger, more powerful animal to evolve into a weaker, less powerful animal?

Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years before humans came into existence. They state that humans and dinosaurs would never have co-existed. The following paragraphs mention paintings, pictographs, and a Biblical story that seem to indicate that perhaps the age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly thought by evolutionists.

Several aboriginal peoples in Australia tell of a long-necked animal with a large body and flippers. Elders of the Kuku Yalanji aboriginal tribe of Far North Queensland relate stories of a creature which used to inhabit rain forest water holes. The Kuku Yalanji people made paintings which depict creatures with features remarkably similar to those of plesiosaurs. One such painting even shows an outline of the gastro-intestinal tract, indicating that these animals had been hunted and butchered.

Several rocks, with strange carvings on them, were discovered in Ica, Peru. On them, one will see known dinosaurs clearly depicted. Several hundred of them show humans and dinosaurs together. The oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. The credibility of this find is strengthened by long-necked creatures displayed on pottery in the museum of Lima and beautiful tapestries from the Nasca tombs (700 A.D.), with a repeating pattern that looks like dinosaurs. The depictions on some of the Ica Stones show the sauropod dinosaurs with a crest of spines much like that discovered by paleontologists.

The ancient Sumatrans produced multiple pieces of art depicting long-tailed, long-necked creatures with head crests. Some of these animals resemble hadrosaurs. One particular work depicts a creature that bears a striking resemblance to a Corythosaurus, which is being hunted by ancient Indonesian peoples.

A picture was drawn by North American Indians that lived in the area that has now become Natural Bridges National Monument in the western United States. Most scientists agree that the picture resembles a dinosaur. The brownish film which has hardened over the picture attests to its age. A native warrior and an Apatosaurus-like creature are depicted.

An urn from Caria, which was located in Asia Minor, was discovered. This artifact is estimated to be from 530 B.C. It depicts what appears to be a mosasaurus with several known sea creatures. On the artifact, the animal seen behind the sea serpent is a seal, while an octopus is seen below the sea serpent along with what seems to be a dolphin. The thick jaws, big teeth, large eyes, and positioning of the flippers on this creature match a mosasaurus skeleton very well. Some mosasaurus species also had a narrow cranial crest behind the eye that may have had a fin attached the way it is depicted on the Carian urn.

An Egyptian seal depicts a large pterosaur hunting a gazelle. The leaf shaped tail vane of the pterosaur is unmistakable. The long reptilian head has the double crest of a Scaphognathus above it. The two wings even exhibit the unique corrugated features seen in the Solnhofen Rhamphorhynchus fossil and the claws of a pterosaur. The level of detail is similar to that for the gazelle. The seal dates from 1300-1150 B.C. Similarly, an Egyptian statue residing in a Berlin museum depicts legs with toes and claws, three wing claws, a prototagium (a portion of the wing above the arm known from pterosaur fossil impressions), and a tail vane. That pterosaur is shown hunting a falcon and also appeared to have the dental structure of a Scaphognathus. If dinosaurs hunted birds, then obviously birds did not evolve from dinosaurs.

A certain archeologist discovered clay figurines buried at the foot of El Toro Mountain on the outskirts of Acambaro, Mexico. Eventually over 33,000 ceramic figurines were found in the area and identified with the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 B.C. to 200 A.D.). Several archaeologists have studied the figurines, and one professor conducted an elaborate investigation including extensive radiometric dating and thermo-luminescent testing. The work has survived numerous tests and has been found to be authentic. The dinosaur figurines are modeled in very agile, active poses, fitting well with the latest scientific evidence, and lending credence to the artists having actually observed these creatures. Like the Ica stones, some of the sauropods are depicted with a distinctive spinal frill.

A creature known as the ‘behemoth’ is described in the Bible (Job 40:15-24). The description fits that of an Apatosaurus. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, how could a writer of the Bible have accurately described the appearance, food, and habitat of this creature? The book of Job also mentions different types of birds. If birds and dinosaurs existed at the same time, then obviously one did not evolve from the other.

Creationism Is Right.

Our Blog

Atheism And Evolution

I Pose a simple question to all the Atheists out there!

According to the First Law of Thermodynamics,

Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed.

So where did the Energy come from?

God?

Evolution…

Pages

Archives

Categories

Blogroll

Meta