Creation or Evolution?
Did all life on earth evolve over millions of years, as evolutionists assert—or did an all-powerful God author it at creation? Some people assume evolution is true, just as those who believe in God assume His existence. It needs more “faith” to believe in the intellectual and fashionable evolutionary myth, than it does to believe in the existence of God. In fact, evolution is based entirely on faith, because no facts or proof have ever been found to support whatever it says! People have debated the existence of God for thousands of years. Some conclude that it cannot be proven. Atheists have concluded that God does not exist. But, there is absolute proof that God exists. Since the time, science has learned much more on God and evolution, God’s existence has become far stronger than at any time in history.
The Law of Biogenesis is that life only comes from life. There are many kinds of life, but each continues to reproduce the same kind over and over. This is indisputable. Life can never come from inanimate (non-living) objects. Evolutionists theorize that inanimate objects, under certain unknown circumstances in the misty past, somehow spontaneously gave birth to very primitive life forms. “The cell needs all its basic parts with their various functions, for survival; therefore, if the cell had evolved, it would have meant that billions of parts would have had to come into existence at the same time, in the same place, and then simultaneously come together in a precise order” Biologists understand that all cells can only come from pre-existing cells. It is impossible to have life without a lifegiver. Only God has Life inherent in Himself. This is, after all, what makes Him God. No one created God, because He has Life inherent in Himself. Stop and think! Consider all of the works of nature around you—both on earth and in the heavens.
First, consider different kinds of planets, stars and galaxies. Each is its own marvel. Second, consider all the species of plants on earth today. There are millions. We are more fascinated with these living plants, than with stars and other objects throughout the heavens.
Considered this: All food that exists on earth today is perfectly designed for either human or animal consumption. It is constructed so that it contains just the right amounts of different elements necessary to sustain various life forms. Every time science tries to alter or improve food, he seems to pollute, ruin, devitalize, inject with poison, genetically re-engineer, or in some manner reduce its perfection into something inferior to what he started with. If mankind could just leave food alone, and eat it as God created it, sickness, disease and every form of nutrition-related human infirmity would disappear. The germination, growth, development and maturation of plants into the many kinds of food, available just to human beings, represents its own series of miracles far too complex to recount. But think! Who is more intelligent? God—who made perfect food, or science—who find every possible way to alter and degrade it before consuming it? Take the time to ponder this question.
Third, consider the nearly million different kinds of creatures and insects. Because these creatures are animate, they are even more marvelous and fascinating than is the world of plants. What is the point? As fascinating, marvelous, beautiful and amazing as are all the things described here, surely nothing is as amazing as the human mind. It is the absolute pinnacle of all living organisms. None can doubt this.
However, all this creative genius has a simple limit. No man, or group of men, you and I included, can create anything as marvelous as the human mind. Everything that man creates is inferior to his own mind. Try to think of a single thing that has ever been created by men that is superior to the minds who created it. You will not think of anything.
Here is the question: Who or what created your mind—and you? King David said, “…for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psa. 139:14). Surely this is most true of the human brain. Be honest with yourself. Can you possibly believe that some kind of blind, power or force—of less intelligence than yourself, or of no intelligence—created your mind? Remember, you can create nothing superior to your mind. So, only a greater mind could create your mind.
Do not insult yourself by suggesting that your extraordinary creative powers of intelligence, reason, logic, thought, volition and ingenuity are a product of mere luck! Now be careful! Just as you do not want to insult yourself by believing that your mind is a product of luck, be sure that you do not insult God by suggesting that all of the universe and its contents could just happen into existence—entirely by itself! If there are ignorant, foolish atheists willing to believe that this could all occur on its own, then honest, intelligent people would never believe such folly, simply because ignorant men assert it! Science has proven that if there was not an eternal God-being to create the universe, there would never have been a universe. Since something can never come from nothing, God had to always exist! Unwittingly, science has proven God’s existence, while at the same time disproving evolution!
Evolutionists once referred more often to evidence from the “fossil record.” Does such evidence exist? Do bones and artifacts from millions of years ago tell a story—offer convincing proof—that man evolved from simple organisms? What is the truth of the scientific record? Remember, we want facts—proof—not theories requiring faith to believe them! This quote, from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, in a letter to L. Sunderland, summarized the “fossil problem”: “…I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils…I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a water tight argument.”
In the 1920s, a single tooth was found in Western Nebraska at the Snake Creek quarry. Scientists came forward offering this tooth as proof that evolution had occurred and purported it to be a “missing link.” Because of where it was discovered, the human-like sketch drawn around it was called “Nebraska Man.” Much was made of this discovery. It was big news. Evolutionists rejoiced. But a funny thing happened on the way to the theory of evolution. Five years later, someone decided to ask a farmer his opinion of the tooth. His answer was to identify it as a “pig’s tooth!” More excavation at the site of the “find” proved that the rest of the skeleton did, indeed, represent some kind of peccary (pig).
It is often bones, or even bone fragments (some are hoaxes) that cause evolutionists to assert that important “links” from the fossil record have been discovered. Merely because someone found a piece of bone, sophisticated artist renderings are then presented, assigned names and offered as convincing visual proof that evolution occurred.
“Orce Man” was based on what turned out to be the skullcap of a donkey. “Ramapithecus Man” was simply a baboon skull. “Piltdown Man” was a hoax and “Neanderthal Man” was determined to be severely bow-legged simply because he had rickets. He was assuredly not proof from the fossil record of a half-ape, half-man transitional creature. There is a desperation in the thinking and actions of many evolutionary scientists. The following quotes demonstrate their approach: “A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a human like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib… The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid [human] that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid [human] bone” (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, Univ. of California, Berkeley, New Scientist, April 28, 1983, p. 199). “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it” (H.S. Lipson, FRS, Prof. Of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK, ‘A Physicist Looks at Evolution,’ Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, 1980, p. 138).
Absolutely no transitional forms exist anywhere in the fossil record. While evolutionists will suggest that it took “50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian,” the simple truth is that there are no transitional fossil forms to prove this. There are no creatures found that can give evidence as partial fins, partial feet or partially evolved brains, legs, eyes, organs or other body parts which resembles human.
The following comes from the “father” of evolutionary thinking: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” (The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin, ch. 6.)
Consider a statement regarding how bone fragments are supposed to represent entire human skeletons within various stages of the fossil record. Dr. Leakey, considered the most famous fossil anthropologist in the world, said that the skull of his famous discovery, “Lucy” (known as Australopithecus afarensis), is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris.” He admitted that no firm conclusions could be made about what species she was.
So many people seem willing to fall for ridiculous ideas because they have been told throughout their lives that evolution is a fact and assume that it cannot be wrong if “everyone believes it.” One source admitted, “That living things are suited for their environment better explains the fact that they were created for it not that they evolved into it”
The fossil record has never revealed what evolutionists have hoped for. The record gives distinct evidence of one fact—sudden, special creation of all life in a fully-formed condition was created! To believe anything else is to be dishonest with the evidence. |
