Having seen that faith in the Bible and faith in evolution are mutually exclusive, how are we going to respond to those who say the evolution lie is true? Africa is called the cradle of humanity, not that God created us here, but because of the supposed early human fossils that were found here; are you going to accept that? Isn’t God our source? Aren’t we made of God and did He not put us in the Garden of Eden before we fell? Will you allow your children to be taught evolution as fact at school?
Some like to say I know evolution is a lie so why make such a fuss about it? Well you might not be misled but what about the people who we are suppose to evangelize and disciple? What if they get misled with this doctrine? Darwinism/evolution has the place of prominence on the television, on campuses and in government. I never heard somebody in government talking against evolution, and it seems not to bother anyone. It seems as if everyone who has influence just capitulated to this false doctrine and is too scared to say anything against it.
Why should an unproven hypothesis get such a prominence? The devil has a nice foothold with this nonsense and Christians should not let him get away with it. However let us pick up where we left off last time.
The Source of everything or the Creator:
What did Jesus say?
Mark 10:6-9 KJV “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female”.
Jesus emphatically states that it was God who made Adam and Eve, no ape-like creatures was involved in anything. The Bible says that God made them male and female. Do you think that there is any hint of millions of years and then Adam and Eve evolved from some primitive creature? If we were in a court of law and used hypotheses as proof for a case, we will be thrown out of court because a judge expects real evidence. This hypothesizing is what evolutionists do for a living, assume what they believe happened because the evidence is lacking. Like it was said before evolution is a belief system with its own philosophies their evidence (bones and fragments of bone, mutations etc.) is interpreted from an evolutionary viewpoint. By the way some of their evidences for man turned out to be a tooth of a pig that was thought to be extinct, (Nebraska Man, Hesperopithecus) and another was a fraudulent hoax (Piltdown Man, Eoanthropus dawsoni) so much for the evidence, but what about those scientific names?
You may argue that Christians do the same thing, believing that their faith and the Bible is right without evidence but that is where we go wrong. I also had the view that Christians had to believe the Word of God blindly, just because God said it, but that is not true, God’s Word is much more resourceful than that.
This is what the Bible say Romans 1:20 KJV “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power”.
What does that verse say?
It says that before God created, His power and His invisible attributes were not in evidence, but since creation it is SEEN. You can SEE the evidence of God’s handy work, even though the Bible says that God is pleased by faith in Him.
The fingerprints of God as it were, are left all over this world.
Scientists who are not blinded by preconceived evolutionary ideas see it; nevertheless those who mislead the world to believe the evolution lie do not. This is what Charles Darwin said about the human eye, note not the human body, just the eye, “To suppose that the eye, [with so many parts all working together] ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin”, The Origin of Species”, J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1971, pp. 292-293.
Of course it is absurd. Operational science, and testable evidence puts the Bible’s accounts of creation as the likely events that took place in history rather than the millions and billions of years the evolutionist’s model suggests. What is plain to see by the Darwin quotation is this, he saw the evidence that evolution could not explain the human eye and yet he did not give God the glory for creating it, he blindly, against his own wisdom followed his evolutionary hypothesis. Here is a joke to explain it; the evolutionist were flying over the Grand Canyon and exclaims, wow it sure looks like this was made very fast in one big flood, then he turns to his friend and say, but the Colorado River might have done it in millions of years. Why do evolutionists deny the obvious interpretation of evidence?
Can the Bible be proven by sources other than science? Yes, the people in the Bible, like Sargon the king of Assyria and Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and the city of Nineveh were once thought to be fictional and of course the Bible was ridiculed. But then these places and persons were found to have existed by archaeologists this means secular history also proved the Bible’s historicity. Science was moved far along through Bible believing men at first and others built on their foundations, therefore building on the Christian motivations for science. Something we should note is that Christians of today did not write the Bible, and Christians did not write the Old Testament on which the New Testament is founded.
Therefore as we humans get to the place where we can make logical and faith decisions we should consider what is truth in life. We cannot go through life like a wave of the sea tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. So if we forget the Christian badge that is put on God’s Word, and let us say you are an agnostic undecided on faith issues and that you are considering the Bible’s credentials, will you be open to what the Bible says? Now when God says that He made everything in six literal days, you must decide if you are going to believe this book called the Bible. So we look to see if it can be disproved, but up to now the evidence (science and history) shows other wise. So what will be your response? Nevertheless faith in the Bible does and should not depend on scientific or other approval.
The Bible can be judged like you judge a prophet, if the prophet want to tell you about your future, he must be able to speak about your past and your present so that you can judge if what he said is going to come to pass. If the things he says about your past are true and what he prophesied happens in your present time, then you can trust what he said about your future will also come to pass. Therefore if we look at the Bible in that way, what does it say about our past and about our present situations? It has a lot to say about our future but can we trust what it says about the past? Let’s see:
Bible claims relating to science and things that happened in the past:
It claims creation (Genesis 1-2)
It claims a flood (Genesis 7-10)
It claims all humans was made out of one blood (Genesis 3v 20 and Acts 17v 26)
Is there evidence for creation?
Yes, the fossil record shows no evidence of creatures going through transitional forms; everything in the fossil record is fully formed with their peculiarities finished just as if they were created. We will take this further later in this article.
Is there evidence for a flood?
Yes, why are fossils that can only be formed by living things suddenly trapped in mud found all over the world like it all happened at the same time? Why do you get mountains with radically bent sedimentary layers? How could the Colorado River cut out the Grand Canyon if it is a fact that the Colorado River starts about 3500m above see level up in the Rocky Mountains of western Colorado. By the time it gets to the Grand Canyon area, it’s at about 1500m above see level. And that is where the problem lies; the Grand Canyon is not a lowland valley. The North Rim of the Canyon is over 2500m high. For the Colorado River to carve out the Canyon, it would have to flow upstream for over 700m. We know that is impossible. Evolutionists no longer believe that the Canyon was cut out over a 60 million year period; something else formed the Grand Canyon, a massive flood.
Some of the above come from “The Creation Facts of Life” By Gary Parker, copyright 1994, Master Books
Is there evidence that we are all related (from one blood)?
Yes, it might sound strange to you, but we all have the same skin color, caused by the pigment melanin. All the human colors of people are just a variance of this pigment in our skin. Our DNA is 99.8 % the same, the difference of the 0.2% is the differences we see from the outside. A strange fact is that there may be more differences between people in say the same white group than between black and white people groups, that is why you can get that for organ donations that a black person might have a better tissue match than a white person for a white patient who need an organ, the opposite is also true of course. Scientists have also found out that we all came from one female via the testing of mitochondrial DNA which is only passed on by the mother to daughter. They actually call this woman mitochondrial Eve. Now believe it or not but in 1997 two separate research teams from the University of Arizona and Stanford University announced that they also “tracked down” the common male ancestor of us all. Sounds like Adam and Eve to me, but that is not what those scientists were putting forward, they suggest rather what they call a genetic bottleneck. It is alleged that our ancestors was some how bred or wiped out, except for those two who’s Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA shows that we all came from them. It still sounds like they discovered Adam and Eve to me and their explanations are just to refute the Bible.
Parts above sourced from “Where did the ‘Races’ come from?” by Ken Ham, Dr. Carl Wieland, & Dr. Don Batten, Answers in Genesis. The part concerning the common male ancestor from, Offline References Gibbons, Ann. 1997. "Y Chromosome Shows That Adam Was an African." Science October 31; 278: 804-805.
What in nature is used as evidence for evolution?
3 Natural selection
Fossils are created when layers of mud very quickly cover an animal or plant, oxygen is also cut out and scavengers cannot get to the dead animals and so in time they turn into fossils. This normally happens under water in floods. However the fossils like Darwin said himself does not support the evolution theory. And what he hoped would happen is that the missing transitional forms where animals change from e.g. an dinosaur to a bird in the fossil record would be found eventually, but it was never found.
Mutations takes place when DNA gets corrupted and are passed on to the next generation. When offspring inherits corrupted genes from both parents, mutations are produced. Now, evolutionists believe that mutations are good in certain instances, it does not sound like that to me, but they say that.
The question must be asked, how can corruption cause good to arise when the thing lived without the corruption just fine. This is why it is illegal to marry your brother/sister because of the heightened chance of deformities in children if they are produced. Here are some questions how and why did sight evolve? Taste? Touch? Smell? Hearing? By mutation of what? Can real love be a product of mutations?
Natural selection is basically the survival of the strongest and fittest, but nobody told the dinosaurs that because they are not around anymore. Natural selection is non other than an animal or plant being limited for choice. In other words natural selection is not selection at all, but making do with what you have, if it will be for the good or for the bad. Therefore if bacteria survives antibiotics in a hospital for some reason, but 80% of their pals does not, suddenly 80% of the gene pool is missing and the population can only repopulate from those with the resistance and consequently you get the resistance past on to the next generation of bacteria.
That is not evolution, but such resistance is usually caused by inherited mutation or inherent pre-existing resistance that was naturally in the bacteria. Now if for some reason this bacteria get outside into the real world, suddenly they die because their mutation only helped them against antibiotics in a sterile hospital, but not against the real life where the bacteria needs what mutation took away. This bacterium is colloquially called ‘super bugs’.
Creation is more provable in nature than evolution like we saw above, example, the fossil record. This record is where you get animals that supposed to have evolved to what we have today, but every paleontologist worth his salt will have to concede that every animal trapped in the fossil record appeared fully formed, with all its specialties in place. Very specialized animals like bats, with their sonar, kangaroos with their unique hind limbs for jumping, birds with their highly developed lungs for high altitude flying and very specialized feathers for flying, non-flying birds’ feathers are different to flying birds. All these animals appear very sudden very finished, no transitional forms to speak of in the fossil record. Mr Darwin also had this problem in his time with the fossil record not underpinning what he wanted it to prove and it is still the same today.
A quote from an anthropologist, “Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans—of upright, naked, tool-making, big-brained beings—is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.” Dr. Lyall Watson (anthropologist), "The water people". "Science Digest”, vol. 90, May 1982, p. 44.
How does the Bible explain what was mentioned above? God made everything complete and good, and Jesus teaches this, like the Bible says He is the Word of God and nothing that was made was made without Him therefore He should know better than most. Then because of sin corruption like death and mutations entered. Then after the flood of Noah the animals of the ark repopulated the earth and as they spread their choices got limited and they differentiated into all the species of animals we have today, however this differentiation should not be seen as evolution, but normal what is called natural selection. For example, dogs, from only one pair, male and female you can get many types of dogs because of the vast amounts of variation that lies in their genes, but they are still dogs and still in the same species although you get small Chihuahuas and big St Bernard dogs. The same happened to humans with all the differences we see today.
As we can see the Bible can be trusted because what it tells us of our origin and history can be proven scientifically. This means like with the test for the prophet, if we test the Bible like we test a prophet, the Bible passes the test of correctly speaking about our past therefore we can believe it when it speaks of our future.
The burden of proof lies with evolutionists to prove their conjecture, which they cannot, just check out the following quotations from evolutionists with references given. They do not have a creator who did the work, but a long tedious, undirected, unproven, non logical, mathematically impossible system which is based on evidence that really does not uphold their views if it is put to empirical tests.
"Darwin’s theory of natural selection has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true." Dr. David M. Raup (Curator of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago), "Conflicts between Darwin and paleontology". "Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin”, vol. 50 (1), January 1979, p. 22.
"... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader…?
Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in "Darwin’s Enigma" by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, USA, 1984, p. 89.
"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "The return of hopeful monsters". "Natural History”, 1977
"It would not be fitting in discussing the implications of Evolution to leave the evolution of the horse out of the discussion. The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse."
Prof. G. A. Kerkut (Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southampton) in "Implications of Evolution," Pergamon Press, London, 1960, pp. 144-145.
Jesus did not and never will agree with evolution ;we MUST believe Him. I do not know about you, but I never believed in evolution, but now with my new insights it is inconceivable to me at least that anyone can believe what these people postulate. I almost want to dare you who are not sure of whom to believe in relation to the evolution/creation debate to read up on what is put out in favor of evolution because it is an insult to the intelligence of everyone.
Why should we believe that our initial forefathers were chemicals that became alive then these chemicals became plants and animals and humans? This is how ridiculous the hypothesis is, “If you believe a frog turns into a prince instantly, that is a fairy tale; if you believe a frog turns into a prince in 300 million years, that is evolution”.
Threlkeld, Richard. CBS Television "Sunday Morning," November 23, 1980. Based on the evolutionists view that amphibians is in the lineage of man.
This is from other scientists, though not necessarily Christian:
“In the face of the enormous complexity that modern biochemistry has uncovered in the cell, the scientific community is paralyzed. No one at Harvard University, no on at the National Institutes of Health, no member of the National Academy of Sciences, no Nobel prize winner -- no one at all can give a detailed account of how the cilium, or vision, or blood clotting, or any complex biochemical process might have developed in a Darwinian fashion.”
Michael Behe, PhD Biochemistry Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University: Darwin's Black Box (1996) p.187
My experiences with science led me to God. They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun? Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering A letter to the California State board of Education September 14, 1972
Listen to Jesus,
Matthew 7:24-27 “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not; for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.”
What was some of Jesus’ sayings?
Mark 10:6-9 KJV “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.