Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

Evidence From Creation Foundation

September 27th, 2009

Bible Many Christians consider creation irrelevant. They believe it makes no difference whether God used creation or evolution to create mankind and the Bible can be interpreted in many ways. Atheists have a much better understanding of the importance of this issue, as shown by the following quote from American Atheist Magazine, 2/78, p. 19,30:

“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will [always] fight to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary…Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. [You will] take away the meaning of his death…If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!”

Logic allows no other alternatives. If God used evolution to create us, then we came from some sort of apelike creature. Therefore Adam and Eve must be a myth. Where is the Fall of man? At what point did the apes (ruled by instinct) rebel against their creator? Why do we need a Savior if we were created from apes and are just doing what comes natural to us? The Bible calls Jesus the “second Adam.” Was the first Adam a man or an apelike creature? What does that make Christ? Did God create the current world (with all of its problems and suffering), or is this fallen state a result of man’s rebellion? Acceptance of evolution is a poison which will destroy true Christianity. The evidence for this can be seen in the decline of the evangelical belief in Europe as the acceptance of evolution has increased.

The above document was written by Bruce Malone and quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:47 NKJV)

…just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin… (Romans 5:12 NKJV)


Evidence From Biology

September 13th, 2009


Some animals, such as the duckbilled platypus, have organs that completely confound any evolutionary explanation.
The platypus has a mixture of features from animals completely unrelated to its supposed ancestry. For instance:
1. The warm-blooded platypus feeds its babies milk like other mammals.
2. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for eliminating its waste, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle like most reptiles.
3. It can detect electrical currents like some fish.
4. It has webbed feet like an otter, a flat tail like a beaver, and the male can inject poison into its predators like a snake.
5. It has a bill like a duck.

It would seem that animals such as the platypus are God’s reminder of His unfathomable creativity. These animals
combine features from many unrelated creatures and have no logical place on the “evolutionary tree.” There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals (or plants) arose from any other group. Completely different types of animals are only observed going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.

The above document is from  In the Beginning, 7th Ed., p.7 as quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

Great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; his greatness no one can fathom….I will meditate on your wonderful works. They will tell of the power of your awesome works, and I will proclaim your great deeds. (Psalm 145:3,5,6)


Evidence From Mathematics

August 11th, 2009

simple cell drawingDrawing of a cell membrane from Wikipedia.

At one time living cells were considered no more than empty table tennis balls. As biochemists have learned more about the complexity of life, it has become increasingly apparent that thousands of specific and complex chemicals are required for any form of life to survive. Evolutionist Harold Morowitz estimated the probability for chance formation of even the simplest form of living organism at 1/10340,000,000. By contrast, only 10²º grains of sand could fit within a cubic mile, and 10 billion times more (10³º) would fit inside the entire earth. So the probability of forming a simple cell by chance processes in infinitely less likely than having a blind person select one specifically marked grain of sand out of an entire earth filled with sand.

There is nowhere near enough time nor matter in the entire universe for even the simplest cell to have formed by chance combinations. Even if all the correct chemicals somehow came together in the correct place, you still wouldn’t have life. This is exactly the situation every time a living organism dies. Immediately after death, all the right chemicals exist, in the right proportions, and in the right place – yet the creature is still dead!

Five billion years is nowhere near long enough for evolution to have taken place. In reality, all of eternity would not provide enough time for random processes to form the enormous complexity of life.

This document was taken from Energy Flow in Biology, Academic Press, NY, 1968, p.99 and quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence, by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

I will proclaim the name of the LORD.  Oh praise the greatness of our God! He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all His ways are just. . .  (Deuteronomy 32:3,4)

Paul Amos Moody

August 2nd, 2009

Paul Amos Moody, a superb scientist, wrote Introduction To Evolution published by Harper and Row. In it, he admits to his students that the more he studies science, the more impressed he is with the thought that “this world and universe have a definite design–and a design suggests a designer.” He goes on to say, “It may be possible to have design without a designer, a picture without an artist, but  my mind is unable to conceive of such a situation.”

The above exerpt was taken from The Schwarz Report, April 2009, Volumn 49 Number 4,  p.2

Dr. Colin Patterson

August 2nd, 2009


On November 5, 1981, the late  Colin Patterson (who at the time was the senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History in London, the editor of the professional journal published by the museum, and one of the world’s foremost fossil experts) delivered a public address to his evolutionist colleagues at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. In his speech, Dr. Patterson astonished those colleagues when he stated that he had been “kicking around” non-evolutionary, or “anti-evolutionary,” ideas for about eighteen months. As he went on to describe it:

One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me, or there was something wrong with evolution theory (1981).

Dr. Patterson said he knew there was nothing wrong with him, so he started asking various individuals and groups a simple question: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence.” He tried it on the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all he got there “was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—it ought not to be taught in high school.’ ” He then remarked, “It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not to be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.”

Dr. Patterson went on to say: “Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way.” But more important, he termed evolution an “anti-theory” that produced “anti-knowledge.” He also suggested that “the explanatory value of the hypothesis is nil,” and that evolution theory is “a void that has the function of knowledge but conveys none.” To use Patterson’s wording, “I feel that the effects of hypotheses of common ancestry in systematics has not been merely boring, not just a lack of knowledge, I think it has been positively anti-knowledge” (1981; cf. Bethell, 1985, 270:49-52,56-58,60-61).

Dr. Patterson made it clear, as I wish to do here, that he had no fondness for the creationist position. Yet he did refer to his stance as “anti-evolutionary,” which was quite a change for a man who had authored several books (one of which was titled simply Evolution) in the field that he later acknowledged was capable of producing only “anti-knowledge.”

The above article was taken out of an article published in the Apologetics Press :: Sensible Science 

Is Evolution a “Fact” of Science?

by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.


July 30th, 2009


Evolutionary scientists believe that matter spewed from exploding stars was used to form planets. They teach that the solar system and the sun formed from this great cloud of compacting gas. Yet they have no undisputed explanation for why Mars, Earth, Venus and Mercury do not have the same high percentage of hydrogen and helium as our sun and the rest of the visible universe. Less than 1% of these planets are composed of hydrogen and helium.

How could this be, given the current prevalent theory that our solar system is the result of a condensing  cloud of hydrogen gas? How could 99.86% of the mass within our solar system (our sun) be made of hydrogen and helium, while the four planets closest to the sun are composed almost entirely of heavier elements?

Something is seriously wrong with the theory of solar system evolution, which is being taught to our children as if it were a fact.

The above was taken from In The Beginning, 7th Ed., p.19 as quoted in A Closer Look At The Evidence, by Richard & Tina Kleiss.

Praise Him, you highest heavens and you waters above the skies. Let them praise the name of the LORD, for He commanded and they were created.  (Psalm 148:4-5)



July 17th, 2009

The following definitions are taken from the Oxford English and the World Book Dictionaries and is quoted here from an article written by Dr. Dave Demick, M.D. in Think & Believe published by Alpha Omega Institute, September / October 2005.

SCIENTIFIC LAW—- A regular pattern of occurrence of natural events, so regular and predictable that there are few or no exceptions. The fewer the exceptions to a law, the better established it is.

FACT —- That which exists, something witnessed firsthand, a datum of experience (plural: data)

—- A framework of scientific explanation concerning a certain phenomenon or group of phenomena, which has gained validity by showing predictive power or explaining newly observed facts.

HYPOTHESIS —- A tentative scientific explanation for a set of observed facts, subject to future proof (or disproof) through further observation / experimentation. The usual progression is that a hypothesis graduates to being a theory.

CONJECTURE —- An opinion or conclusion based on incomplete information; a guess.

Take every statement made about evolution and judge that statement according to the above definitions. You will find that each evolutionary statement falls short of  each definition except conjecture. Every “proof” that has been touted as “proof of evolution” has eventually been exposed as a fraud or seriously misrepresented. See future posts for many examples of these misrepresentations.