Evolution
Does one have to be a ‘scientist’ to believe either evolution or creation? No, for both are taken by faith. In the evolution theory no one was there so many many assumptions are made but in the creation account God was and He has left a detailed account of that event. You may read it in Genesis.
‘When Dr. Marcus Ross was asked about being in the film IS GENESIS HISTORY he was ‘…asked what he thought was one of the most fascinating evidences for a global flood. He immediately said “trackways.”
Trackways? I had never heard of trackways.
He explained they were basically fossilized footprints. The impressions left by a creature walking or crawling in soft sediment had hardened and left identifiable tracks. Although fossil footprints were not unusual in themselves, it’s where they occur in relation to other fossils that’s so unusual: trackways consistently appear in rock layers below the bones and teeth and shells of the animals that made them.
But why is that curious?
He said if you think the earth is billions of years old, then those layers of rock represent millions of years of history. How is it possible that footprints could appear millions of years before there’s any evidence of the hard parts of the same animals? If there are footprints, there have to be creatures – where are their fossils? How could millions of years pass with millions of creatures dying (all with bones and teeth and shells) and none of them remain behind?
But there’s another solution. If you think the earth was covered by a global flood, then finding trackways below body fossils makes a lot of sense. Those animals that made the trackways were lifted up and carried higher, their bones and teeth and shells eventually being buried by the rising floodwater. As a result, their body fossils would be found consistently higher than their tracks.
It’s a pattern we see everywhere.
A CURIOUSLY CONSISTENT PATTERN
Marcus emphasized it’s the consistent pattern that that makes this so compelling. It’s a pattern found in trilobites (little marine creatures), in amphibians, and in dinosaurs. According to the old earth paradigm, tracks are being found millions of years before body fossils.
How many years are we talking about? 10 million between trilobite tracks and trilobite fossils; 35 million between amphibian tracks and amphibian fossils; and 10 million between dinosaur tracks and dinosaur fossils. That is a curious pattern indeed.’ The rest of the article may be read at https://isgenesishistory.com/fossil-footprints-curious-evidence-flood/?utm_source=Is+Genesis+History%3F&utm_campaign=38c8f28617-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_01_30_11_36&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_052697a034-38c8f28617-150261953&mc_cid=38c8f28617&mc_eid=2abe4a38b0
‘Blood tests, x-rays, CAT scans were being taken; heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen levels were being monitored; intravenous flows of medicine were being administered and adjusted with feedback from the blood tests. As I sat with my relative for several days, I couldn’t help but think that evolution had nothing to do with any of the science involved.
There were at least six doctors of different specialties seeing him – Infectious Disease, Cardiologist, Gastro-Intestinal, Pulmonologist and Nephrologist, plus, of course, his Primary Care Physician. Not one of them needed to use evolution to look at his case or to analyze the various tests and results. Evolution, you see, does not rely on the Scientific Method and does not have any real application in the practice of ANY science. Rather, it is an attempt to explain biological origins and developments without God. In other words, evolution merely provides “just so stories” to teach the secular notion that we have NOT been designed and built by our great Creator.
Yet, we see a continuing deception about how supposedly “Charles Darwin” should be “the one rallying cry” for all things scientific! Such is the pernicious deceit of evolution. Indeed, this month in secular academic and progressive circles, there is another push to celebrate “International Darwin Day” (February 12, Darwin’s birthday) – for 
“principles of intellectual bravery … scientific thinking, and hunger for truth as embodied in Charles Darwin.” Darwin Day is primarily pushed by such groups as The American Humanist Association (a society advocating for atheists) and their leftist allies in media, government and academia.
My recent experience at the hospital, though, revealed to me once again that science treats human bodies as precisely designed-and-specified complex machines. This, of course, begs the logical inference that with such design and specification, there must be a great Designer!
The doctors were monitoring everything. Was body temperature normal at 98.6 F? Were oxygen levels in the blood above 90%? Was blood pressure normal? Were heart rates normal? Were key enzyme, protein and sugar levels in the blood normal? Was urine output normal? In other words, was the human body functioning according to design specification?
Doctors know what to expect for healthy function of heart, lungs, liver, kidneys and other organs. Outside of the normal range, people get sick and die. The normal range does not change.
But to the modern ear, the theme of everything is “change”. Change is the master key. This is a philosophy that has grown out of evolution … applied not only to biology but to human society. Nothing is fixed, everything evolves. The belief that everything evolves has had a disastrous effect in many areas – much of which has been discussed in these letters.
Not only does this philosophy of change – of the evolution of all things – go against biblical truth, it goes against what has been called “self-evident” truth. The American Declaration of Independence includes these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
These are transcendent and eternal truths – we are all equal before the cross of Jesus Christ, and by extension, therefore, before the seat of justice. We have a Creator, and He has endowed us with a right to life and freedom as individuals!
Here is another reason why we need to keep proclaiming the truth about evolution. Evolutionism has made “change for the sake of change” tolerated – even when the change has perverted eternal and transcendent truths! We now redefine marriage! We redefine genders! We redefine the taking of innocent human life and call it good! Fortunately, we still have freedoms in this country – but other nations are losing them. Sadly, we are moving in that direction, but for now, in spite of abortion law, we are still free to protest and to lead people to honor the Sanctity of Human Life – as was just celebrated again this January in America!
Under evolutionism, change is to be embraced and facilitated. It is supposedly inevitable. And it is given a positive term – “progressive”. This is actually the same as what the Nazi leaders at the Nuremberg Trials of 1946 claimed when they famously defended their actions in the Concentration Camps by arguing that they were simply “giving evolution an assist”.
We can basically make society whatever we want it to be because constant change means that nothing is permanent, eternal or transcendent. Indeed, with such a philosophy, traditional values must be fought against so mankind can move out of its “current state of imperfection” and toward the enlightened end of evolutionary progress – which tends to be the whims of a dictator.
But this is just not biblical. In fact, it is diabolical. We should not want to celebrate evolutionism with “Darwin Day”. Rather, we should want to continue to expose it for the anti-science, anti-God, destructive, authoritarian-supporting force that it truly is! As Christians, we must keep proclaiming the truth, the whole truth of God’s Word, which does not change but “abides forever” (1 Peter 1:25).
Most important of all, we must continually cleave to the truth of the living Word, Jesus Christ, who does not change but is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever”.’ https://creationmoments.com/newsletter/see-why-the-belief-that-everything-evolves-has-been-disastrous/?mc_cid=7a49f3c368&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
This is another excellent short video from Creation Moments. I continue to be amazed how people believe the religion of evolution.
Genesis 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
‘According to secular scientists, the Moon is roughly 4.5 billion years old. It supposedly formed right after the Solar System did. But there’s a growing body of evidence that this old-age assessment is incorrect.
(Of course, this isn’t the only problem for secular ideas of the Moon’s formation. The “giant impact” model is known to be wrong. It is still being taught today anyway, but only because secular scientists don’t have any better ideas.)
The Moon’s supposed age of billions of years was never correct, of course. But it was easier for secular scientists to make that claim a few decades ago—back when we didn’t know as much about the Moon as we do now.
The challenges arise from simple, well-understood physics:
- Hot things cool off.
- Small hot things cool off more quickly than large hot things. (Small objects have a high surface-area-to-volume ratio. Thus, they lose heat more quickly.)
The Moon is a small object. According to secular theories, it should have cooled from its formation long ago. A small, cold body would have no source of energy for geological activity. (Although there are tidal interactions between the Moon and Earth, these don’t supply significant amounts of energy.)
Therefore, the Moon’s geological activity also should have ceased long ago.
But apparently it didn’t. Here are three indicators of recent tectonic activity within the Moon:
- Volcanic eruptions
- TLP (Transient Lunar Phenomena)
- Seismic activity (moonquakes)
Here’s why these discoveries are interesting.
If the Moon is (or recently was) geologically active, this activity indicates that it’s still hot inside. And if it’s still hot inside, it hasn’t cooled off yet.
And if it hasn’t cooled off yet, then it isn’t billions of years old.’ https://www.creationastronomy.com/articles/
It seems that the world (whatever that word might mean to you) has pretty much taken over every possible area of thinking. For instance, many people today accept evolution as a fact and that we must be told quite often that it is true. Well here is an article that just might dispel that.
‘Take the word “evolutionary” out of most science articles. It serves no purpose but to twist data and mislead readers.
What has Darwin done for you lately? Probably very little, and possibly a lot of harm. Science writers and researchers have a bad habit of inserting “evolutionary” into their writing. It’s not history; it’s evolutionary history. She’s not a biologist; she’s an evolutionary biologist. It’s not paleontology, it’s evolutionary paleontology. Enough already! Show some actual value that evolution has contributed to the writing, or else delete the word.
New evolutionary insights into the early development of songbirds (Science Daily). People want insights, but why “evolutionary insights”? The sophoxymoronic phrase is a contradiction in terms. If it’s evolutionary, it’s not insight. If it’s insight, it’s not evolutionary, otherwise it would be blind and unguided insight, which is not insight at all. The work was done by “evolutionary biologists.” Why not just biologists? They talked about germline restricted chromosomes (GRCs) in birds, which are important for preventing “somatic cells from possible negative effects.” So why must they desire to speculate about the “evolutionary history” of GRCs? The moment they insert the useless word, the perhapsimaybecouldness index rises as the scientific value falls.
Divers of the past: Plesiosaur research reveals rapid increase of blood cell size (Phys.org). Plesiosaurs appear in the fossil record as capable swimmers and hunters in a variety of forms, without ancestors. Looking for an evolutionary tale to spin, German researchers from Duisburg-Essen University analyzed thin sections of bone from plesiosaurs and think they found slight increases in blood cell size over time. They say,
From an evolutionary perspective, this change is obviously still useful. Today`s whales, seals and penguins also have unusually large red blood cells, but their close relatives on land and in freshwater do not. “This supports our assumption that this is a significant adaption of warm-blooded marine life,” says Kai Caspar.
From a “biological perspective” is adequate. Better, “from a design perspective.” Evolution had nothing to do with it. The data are too ambiguous, for one thing, and Caspar did not rule out other, more plausible reasons for the inferred cell diameters than the Stuff Happens Law. He certainly did not trace chance mutations that might have gotten selected blindly. That would clearly be difficult or impossible. The word “evolutionary,” therefore, serves no purpose. It’s distracting and misleading.’ https://crev.info/2019/12/evolutionary-a-useless-adjective/
In the Defined King James Bible, page xxiv, there is THE GOLDEN RULE OF BIBLE INTERPRETATION. It says ‘When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. Therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages, and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise. God, in revealing His Word, neither intends nor permits the reader to be confused. He wants His children to understand.’
A good question for all of us to ask is ‘Did the eye evolve from a simple layer of photo-sensitive cells into the eyes that we have today? Darwin remarked that … “several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light” … but how do photo-sensitive cells work? Is the invertebrate eye really wired the wrong way round? Dr George Marshall an expert in anatomy, who specialised in the human eye for several years answers these questions and many more.’ This video is from http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/12 which has many more excellent videos that declare the glorious work of our Creator.
Psalm 19:1 “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.”
Paul Taylor of Creation Moments has ‘…discussed in previous Creation Moments how those who believe in the Big Bang Theory (let’s call them Big Bang Believers) have a sophisticated model of star formation into which they plug a number of interesting observations which could easily be interpreted in another way. For example, they would claim that certain gas molecule clouds, such as the Eagle Nebula, which contain small, bright stars, are, in fact, nurseries where stars are born. They then make the claim that they have observational evidence for the birth of stars, but this is, logically, a circular argument. The observed nebula is interpreted as the birth of stars only because it is interpreted according to their Big Bang Belief. The nebula cannot then be offered up as evidential proof for the very theory which is used to interpret it.
In a similar manner, Big Bang Believers have a theory of planetary formation. In most cases, they assume that a cloud of gas and dust orbits the newly formed star and that, following a disturbance by something such as another star passing by, clumps of rock begin to aggregate under gravity until planet-sized lumps are formed.
One cloud of gas was recently reported as emanating from an observed star 685 light years away. The star has an evolutionary age of 2 million years. But what was actually observed is a large stellar flare. A Big Bang interpretation does not constitute proof and cannot undermine the Scriptural position that God made such objects on Day Four.’ https://creationmoments.com/sermons/do-baby-planets-exist/?mc_cid=14f2b34814&mc_eid=00c1dcff3c
The above video is Professor John is Head of Reactive Chemistry at St Andrews University and a Fellow of the Royal Society for Chemistry speaking on the origin of life. .
Matthew Cserhati wrote in CREATION magazine Vol. 42, No. 1, 2020 pages 46, 47 that ‘ACCORDING TO evolutionary theory, living things developed from simpler to more complex organisms over billions of years via several major innovations. One such big step was the evolution of multicellular organisms from single-celled ones. This is a crucial phase of evolution, because multicellular organisms allow for multiple cell tissue types. This in turn permits more variability in living beings, allowing for mutations and natural selection to supposedly create a larger variety of organisms.1
Evolution in a test tube?
You might have heard evolutionists make bold claims about experiments which have supposedly shown this important hypothetical step in evolution actually happening. One example involves laboratory experiments with green algae. These algae include single-cell species from the genus called Chlamydomonas (see fig. 1). Another algal taxon (group) is called Volvox, which includes multi-celled globeshaped algae species of up to several thousand cells (see fig. 2). Between these two forms there are several other taxa with intermediate numbers of cells (see fig. 3);2 e.g. Gonium, which is made up of 8–32 cells. Evolutionists propose that the multicellular Volvox once evolved from a unicellular algal species like Chlamydomonas, through several intermediary stages with progressively greater cell numbers.
The experiment
Researchers took several groups of the single-celled Chlamydomonas and put them into test tubes with a singlecelled predator (the protozoan Paramecium tetraurelia) which could consume them. After 750 generations, the researchers discovered that some of the Chlamydomonas had taken on a multicellular form. This way the algae were large enough so that the predators could not eat them.3 They were not ‘fully’ multicellular, breaking apart into single cells before dividing, but seemed to go through a coordinated life cycle. Evolutionists claim that this is a demonstration of at least a significant part of evolution from single-cell forms to multicellular forms, repeating a portion of the history of life. But is it?
The genetics of multicellularity Chlamydomonas and Volvox are very similar at a genetic level even though they look very different.4 What caused this change from single-celled existence to at least a form of multicellularity in Chlamydomonas? Certain genes necessary for multicellularity exist in Volvox. One such gene codes for a protein which is sticky. The cells secrete this sticky material, which keeps them anchored in it, creating a multicellular form. Volvox, the multicellular species, has more copies of this gene than the single-celled Chlamydomonas. It is significant that both species have the same gene, leaving the question unanswered as to how this gene, necessary for multicellularity, supposedly evolved in the first place. Researchers also found that several thousand (up to 20% of) Chlamydomonas genes behaved differently after the test tube experiments than at the beginning.5 This suggests that the environment (the presence
of the predator species) caused the Chlamydomonas cells to take up a multicellular form by switching genes on or off (called epigenesis). Evolution from microbes to men requires new genes with new functions to arise, but these experiments show no evidence of any such new genes. It was known that the genes for the multicellular form already existed in the single-cell species. In other words, the single-celled form already had the potential for multicellularity, needing only to be ‘switched on’ by this environmental cue. Whether it was enhanced by the natural selection of types with high sticky-protein production or not is an interesting question, but the point is still the same—no new genes, no new information, no evolution. This process of a single-celled alga becoming multi-celled involves thousands of genes, and it is in any case inconceivable that they would all evolve in such a short time. But it takes only a short amount of time for these genes to merely change their expression and/ or be selected for, as opposed to the genes themselves arising over millions of years of evolution. It is even possible that these algae species devolved from the multicellular Volvox form to the single-celled Chlamydomonas form through genetic loss. This would certainly be consistent with biblical creation, and with the mutational deterioration going on in living things.
Summary and conclusion
Evolutionists would have us believe that they were able to rapidly ‘evolve’ a species exhibiting a type of multicellularity from unicellular forms in a very short time. This would give us the impression that a major and important evolutionary step has been observed happening, and that it can occur easily and rapidly. However, this picture is false, as we have seen. There is no evidence of a single new gene being produced, and not the slightest indication of how the genetic machinery for multicellularity could have evolved in the first place. When we look at the finer details, as usual we see that the evidence supports creation and not evolution. The evidence implies that these organisms used a highly complex genetic mechanism for switching from a single-celled state to a multicellular state. This mechanism didn’t evolve but already existed, simply needing to be activated. It was created so as to permit this effect. According to Genesis 1:12, “The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds”. Neither plants nor green algae such as Chlamydomonas evolved, but are rather the result of God’s creation. The Creator designed even singlecelled algae to be incredibly complex and with a built-in capacity to adapt to various environments.’
whatyareckon 