CREATION / EVOLUTION – PART II
JEFF BUSH, MAY 14TH 2014
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow
and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human
tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this
world rather than on Christ.
Colossians 2:8
www.bushconsulting.com/creation
www.bushconsulting.com/creation
1.Only the Young Earth Creation (YEC)
Model properly points to Christ.
2.YEC is more logically solid than all other
origins models, particularly Evolution.
3.Scientist are biased, opponents are
hostile, the public is clueless.
MORE REVIEW:
• YEC based on faith in God and His Word. Everything is based
on scripture.
• Faith is one of the elements of the model.
• There is scriptural support for Varying Appearance of Ages
• The overall model is logically solid and Evolutionists can only
conclude:
“We don’t like your model.
But we can’t criticize it”
CHALLENGES TO CREATIONISM
•
Radiometric Dating
•
Distant Starlight (Already answered in Part I)
•
Bio-geography (how’d those animals get there from the ark?)
•
Fossil progression
•
What about the Dinosaurs??
•
Noah’s Ark/Global Flood
•
Human History – Chinese, Egyptian
•
Not discussed here, but placed in Hidden Slides or Notes section:
• Ice Layers
• Varves
• Coral Reefs
• Chalk cliffs
RADIOMETRIC DATING
1.
In the past, this has certainly been our most significant challenge. But
much has changed in the past two decades.
2.
Source of dating for a variety of ‘Millions’ or ‘Billions’ of Years dates:
• Age of the Earth
• Age of rock layers **
• Age of fossils
• When some animal went extinct
“Few habits better serve the agenda of building strong belief
in millions of years than the constant reiteration in popular
news, media programs, and secular science reports that
such-and-such fossil is so-and-so millions of years old” *
* [Emphasis mine] From the book Creation Basics and Beyond
** see notes section on rock layer formation and time
RADIOMETRIC DATING – A BACKGROUND
Uranium
Lead
2 ASSUMPTIONS
Starting Amount
Rate
RADIOMETRIC DATING – OUR ANSWERS
•
Appearance of Age
• We have evidence that challenges the starting amount
•
Indications of rapid decay in the past:
• We have evidence that shows potential for rapid decay during the Flood
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVvGDu9mDuQ
RADIOMETRIC DATING – INCONSISTENT AGES
Often tests on rocks of known ages result in ages of Millions of Years.
Location (Actual Date) Radiometric Date
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 1.6±0.16 Ma; 1.41±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (122 BC) 0.25±0.08 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (AD 1972) 0.35±0.14 Ma
Mt. Lassen plagioclase, California (AD 1915) 0.11±0.03 Ma
Sunset Crater basalt, Arizona (AD 1064-1065) 0.27±0.09 Ma; 0.25±0.15 Ma
Akka Water Fall flow, Hawaii (Pleistocene) 32.3±7.2 Ma
Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii (AD 1959) 8.5±6.8 Ma
Mt. Stromboli, Italy, volcanic bomb (September 23, 1963) 2.4±2 Ma
Mt. Etna basalt, Sicily (May 1964) 0.7±0.01 Ma
Medicine Lake Highlands obsidian,
Glass Mountains, California (<500 years old) 12.6±4.5 Ma
Hualalai basalt, Hawaii (AD 1800-1801) 22.8±16.5 Ma
Rangitoto basalt, Auckland, NZ (<800 years old) 0.15±0.47 Ma
Anorthoclase in volcanic bomb, Mt Erebus,
Antarctica (1984) 0.64±0.03 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<200 years old) 21±8 Ma
Kilauea basalt, Hawaii (<1,000 years old) 42.9±4.2 Ma; 30.3±3.3 Ma
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436
RADIOMETRIC DATING – INCONSISTENT AGES
Directly from: The Global Flood:
Historical volcanos that have extruded “datable” lavas. When dated by the standard technique, all date millions of years
older than their actual ages.
Starting Conditions: Perhaps a more telling assumption involves the starting conditions. This amounts to the claim that a
specimen “born” in historic times should date “too young to measure.” This one is directly testable,
Seldom, however, does the radioactive date agree with the observed age, often the ages calculated are embarrassingly
high.
The point is, when the method can actually be checked,
it fails measurably.
This important result of creationist research should
be of tremendous encouragement to Christians to
hold fast to scriptural truth, particularly in regard to
the age of the earth and its physical history
RADIOMETRIC DATING – INCONSISTENT AGES
• Anything with C-14 in it cannot be more than 70,000 years.
• C-14 Found in all layers, including diamonds said to be 1-2 Billion years old
• Conclusion: we DO NOT accept 1-2 billion years!
RADIOMETRIC DATING – INCONSISTENT AGES
Original, pliable, marine worm tube tissue found in Pre-Cambrian fossils.
“Fresh-looking material like this
soft chitin and its associated
proteins should not cause
researchers to merely doubt the
worm fossils' 551 million yearold age assignment, but to
utterly reject it.” [Emphasis mine]
http://www.icr.org/article/8059/
For more like it: http://www.icr.org/fresh-fossils/
RADIOMETRIC DATE – OTHER AGE TESTS
•
Estimated 90% of other Earth Age indicators disagree with 4.5 Billion years *
• Earth’s magnetic field
• Sediments in the ocean
• Salt in the ocean
• Erosion of the continents
BILLIONS of years?
Really?
• Helium in the atmosphere
• Human history & genetic entropy (more later)
•
From Astronomy:
• Faint Young Sun paradox
• The moon is still here
• Comets
• Stars too young, Saturn too young
• Solar system bodies too warm
* See notes section
For a long list:
creation.com/age-of-the-earth
RADIOMETRIC DATING – POTENTIAL FOR RAPID
DECAY DURING THE FLOOD
• Zircons retained surprisingly high amounts of Helium *
• Radiometric dating: 1.5 billion years
• Helium release dating: ~6000 years
• Radiohalos *
• “This work has been published in some of the best peer-reviewed scientific
journals, and its strong case against evolution’s millions of years is so far
unanswered by the evolutionary community.” [Emphasis mine] **
* See notes section
** http://creation.com/the-collapse-of-geologic-time
RADIOMETRIC DATING – WRAPPING UP
• Our biggest “Challenge” isn’t the significant challenge
evolutionists think it is
• To evolutionists: “Why are we supposed to accept your
millions of years, and all the problems along with it?”
BIOGEOGRAPHY – HOW’D THAT GET THERE?
(NOTE: There are several hidden slides on this topic)
• A challenge for Evolutionists also
• We have answers they don’t have:
• Post-flood ice age lasted about 400 years, connecting most continents
• HUGE natural rafts
• Human transportation
• God:
• For thus says the Lord, … who formed the earth and made it …, he
formed it to be inhabited!) – Isaiah 45:18
• “…two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. “ – Gen 6:20
• “Bring out every kind of living creature that is with you… so they can
multiply on the earth and be fruitful and increase in number on it. – Gen
8:17 (2)
BIOGEOGRAPHY - MARSUPIALS
• Evolutionists frequently bring up Marsupials in Australia
• Consider:
• Marsupials carry their young. They would have reached Australia
quicker than others.
• On Australia, they had few predators. In Asia, they went extinct.
• To the evolutionists: How do YOU explain marsupials in North and South
America?
FOSSILS – APPARENT INCREASE IN COMPLEXITY
Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear.
—J. Shreeve, “Argument over a Woman,” Discover 11 no. 8 (1990): 58
“what we find in the fossil record is
that the jawless fishes (agnaths)
first appeared in the deepest layers,
followed in higher layers by the first
appearance of bony fishes, followed
in yet higher layers by the first
appearance of reptiles, which in still
higher layers were followed by the
first appearance of mammals.” *
* http://www.freethoughtdebater.org/2011/12/30/evolution-converging-lines-of-evidence/
HOW ABOUT THAT ‘INCREASED COMPLEXITY’?
“There are of course gaps in the fossil record.” - Richard Dawkins, Leading Evolutionist
“the origin of marine
invertebrates from single-cell
life is a huge problem for
evolution. …they make a
strong case for creation and
aggressively argue against
evolution
Evolutionists STILL have not
solved this one. And never
will.
“what we find in the fossil record is
that the jawless fishes (agnaths)
first appeared in the deepest layers,
followed in higher layers by the first
appearance of bony fishes, followed
in yet higher layers by the first
appearance of reptiles, which in still
higher layers were followed by the
first appearance of mammals.” *
Their “Good Argument” has a lot of baggage!
See Notes Section for references and details
From an evolutionists: “This
is one count in the
creationist’s charge that can
only evoke in unison from the
paleontologists a plea of nolo
contendere”
From an Evolutionists:
“Each species of mammallike reptile that has been
found appears suddenly in
the fossil record and is not
preceded by the species that
is directly ancestral to it.”
WHAT ABOUT THE PLANT FOSSIL RECORD?
•
Reptiles and Mammals represent a SMALL FRACTION of the fossil record
•
Plants are better represented in the fossil record, but are bigger problems
•
Read this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v19/n4/did-plants-evolve
•
Particularly this line:
“In all 18 chapters, not a single fossil series was quoted or illustrated to support the
phylogenetic trees! Many groups have excellent fossil records, but not once does he
indicate that there is unequivocal evidence of transition from one to another, as evolution
requires. “
•
And from: http://www.icr.org/article/flower-fossils-100000000-years-out/ :
“This new finding challenges conventional evolutionary assumptions as scientists
struggle to account for what they interpret as an enormous time gap.”
•
Also: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v24/n1/plants and
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/720/295/
COMPARING PREDICTIONS OF THE TWO
MODELS IN RELATION TO THE FOSSIL RECORD
Evolution’s Predictions
Creation’s Predictions
All things originated and developed
through time, chance, and natural
processes based on the properties of
matter.
•
All basic types originated abruptly
through supernatural processes.
•
Organisms diversified within limits from
original created kinds.
•
Basic types of organisms developed in
stages from previously existing types.
•
Each kind experienced either stasis or
extinction over time.
•
Basic types proliferated over time.
•
Complexity was present from the start.
•
Complexity increased over time.
•
•
Living things were buried and fossilized
by processes possible today.
Burial and fossilization occurred through
extreme processes that are unlikely
today
•
From: The Fossil Record by John D. Morris, Frank J. Sherwin
See Notes section for more details
WHAT ABOUT DINOSAURS?
Evolutionists: Lived millions of years ago based on:
• Radiometric dating
Creationists: Lived thousands of years base on…
DINOSAUR SOFT TISSUE
“Researchers have detected molecules
such as proteins, sugars, pigments, and
DNA—as well as intact cells and, in some
cases, skin, ligaments, retinas, bones, and
blood vessels —in fossils that are
supposedly many millions of years old.”
“Paleontologists and others who insist on
millions of years of Earth history have no
credible explanation for these soft tissue
discoveries.”
“Original tissue fossils of dinosaurs and other creatures provide very
strong scientific evidence that the world is as young as the Bible plainly
describes.”
Chapter 40, Creation Basic and Beyond: ORIGINAL TISSUE FOSSILS CANNOT BE MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD Brian Thomas, M.S. :
C-14 IN DINOSAUR FOSSILS
• C-14 in Dinosaur fossils
• Dinosaurs cannot be over 70,000 years old
DINOSAUR FOLKLORE
•
“Ancient historians described dragons as real, living creatures, right alongside their
descriptions of other creatures more familiar to today’s readers.”
•
“History is littered with such accounts.” “Dinosaur depictions occur in carvings,
sculptures, bas reliefs, paintings, mosaics, tapestries, sculptures, pictographs, and
petroglyphs from all over the world”
•
“The late popular cosmologist Carl Sagan considered the historical evidence for
dragons such a serious threat to the evolutionary paradigm that he tackled the
subject in his 1977 book The Dragons of Eden. In it, he speculated that unknown
human ancestor primates may have encountered dinosaurs millions of years ago.
The memories of those interactions were so traumatic that they were indelibly
stamped onto the primate genes so that ancient humans inherited and drew their
dinosaur pictures based on those memories”
Chapter 43 Creation Basics and Beyond: - DINOSAURS AND DRAGON LEGENDS Brian Thomas, M.S.
Also: http://www.icr.org/article/there-some-truth-dragon-myths/
DINOSAUR ARTWORK
NOTE: The next hidden slides talks about one fraud
DINOSAURS – SIDE BY SIDE
Millions of years base on:
Thousands of years base on:
• Questionable Radiometric
Dating found around the
dinosaur remains
• Soft Tissue found in the
dinosaur remains
• C-14 found in the
dinosaur remains
• Dinosaur Folklore
• Dinosaur Artwork
Conclusion: Dinosaurs did NOT live millions of years ago
WHAT ABOUT NOAH, THE ARK, THE ANIMALS???
• Evolutionists try and discredit the flood story with multiple challenges:
• How could he have built it that large?
• How did he go get all those animals? And how could they all fit?
• Why didn’t they all eat each other?
• How’d they care for them? How’d they have enough food?
• Two basic answers:
• Scriptures shows the Flood event from beginning to end had God’s
intervention
• Creationists have actually done feasibility studies. Evolutionists haven’t.
HUMAN HISTORY
•
Occasionally you will meet someone who tries to use human history as an argument
against Creationism.
•
Human History supports Creationism
• Chinese calendar starts 2000 BC. Has some ancestry prior to that (pre-Noah) *
• Egyptian calendar within a valid range of the flood (see notes section!)
• Several other civilizations appearing at the same time
• “Flood narratives abound in cultures around the world” – Dr. John Morris. **
* http://www.icr.org/article/how-can-chinese-dynasties-extend-back-many-thousan/
** http://www.icr.org/article/7863/
FLOOD STORY FROM MIAO TRIBE IN CHINA
“The ancient Miao tribe of China has a detailed history that is memorized by nearly everyone and sung at festivals. The “history” is
very precise, and dates from a time long before Christian missionaries encountered the tribe and taught true biblical history.
Yet the parallels are striking.” *
Here are SOME of the lines:
Nuah (Noah), his wife was, their sons Lo Han (Ham), Lo Shen (Shem) and Jah-u (Japhett)
“(People) fought with each other defying the Godhead”
“God’s anger arose”
“So it poured forty days in sheets and in torrents.”
“The waters surmounted the mountains and ranges.”
Nuah “Built a boat very wide. Made a ship very vast.”
“Their household entire got aboard and were floated, The family complete rode the deluge
in safety.”
“The animals with him were female and male. The birds went along and were mated in
pairs.”
Etc…
* FROM: The Global Flood, by Dr. John Morris, Chapter 5
See Notes section for the complete song
LASTLY A FEW MISCELLANIES “CHALLENGES”
• See the notes sections on were to find detailed answers for:
• Ice Layers
• Varves
• Coral Reefs
• Thick Chalk Beds
CONCLUSION ON CHALLENGES TO YEC
• One of YEC’s greatest strengths: FAR fewer ‘challenges’
• Of the very few (or one) remaining: God may have left them there for a
purpose (Narrow is the road to eternal life, few will find it)
• Again, evolutionists can only say “We don’t like it”, but not criticize the logic.
• Our question: “Why should we give up our better model for your weaker
one?”
FOR THOSE WILLING….
•
The best rebuttal I’ve found against evolutionists is saying that you’ve read every
argument against Creationism.
•
Then ask if they’ve done the same for evolution
•
I have yet to meet ONE evolutionists willing to. (And if they do, they will not remain
excited about evolution!)
FOR THOSE WILLING… (CONT)
•
What follows are what I believe what evolutionists would say are to be the best sites that criticize
Creationism.
•
It will take some time to do this research, and the better you understand the Creation model, the
faster it will go. You’ll learn to skip the many non-challenges.
•
Understand these may seem challenging at first, but read on.
•
In time you will see they generally fall into these categories:
• **Old, outdated Creationist claims. There are MANY.
• A complete misunderstanding of the Creationists model, and not a argument at all
• An argument that is also a problem for Evolution. Or by now, ONLY a problem for them.
• Slowing becoming either a non-issue, or in fact an argument FOR Creationism
• Lastly, in researching it, you’ll find a valid answer somewhere. I have yet to find one that
doesn’t
•
Once you’ve done so, you will have the best rebuttal to any evolutionist.
•
Eventually you will enjoy reading anti-Creationism arguments, and pro-evolution articles
BEST ANTI-CREATIONISTS SITES, WITH COMMENTS, PART I
•
Evidence against a recent creation - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation
• Ironically points out the fact that there are MULTIPLE age indicators for the age of the earth. As discussed earlier,
when ‘appearance of age’ is applied, these are actually support for Creationism, and a challenge for Evolutionists!
Many show an age much younger than Evolution needs.
•
Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fabnaq.html
• See the rebuttal here (Note, the ordering is different): http://creationwiki.org/Talk.Origins_FABNAQ
•
Problems with a Global Flood? – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
• Rebuttal found here: http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp
•
The whole silly Flood story - http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=475
• Read through them. In most, you should be able to pick out the obvious flaw. The rest you can research on. Bottom
line: Although these ‘seem’ challenging to evolutionists, in reality, they are not.
•
TalkOrigins – Arguments Against Creationism: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html
• Although this looks like a lot of material, most of their claims are outdated. It took a lot of wading through the
nonsense to find actual arguments against Creationism. I found the same basic anti -creationism arguments.
• There were two that gave a larger number of “challenges”:
• “An Index to Creationist Claims” - CreationWikie has a rebuttal:
http://creationwiki.org/Index_to_Creationist_Claims
• The FABNAQ page has the following rebuttal: http://creationwiki.org/FABNAQ
TalkOrigin’s ‘Flood Geology’ - http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html
• Many outdated arguments, the rest you can easily research.
•
BEST ANTI-CREATIONISTS SITES, WITH COMMENTS, PART II
•
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/
• This is actually a defense of Evolution, but definitely worth the read because I found none of their answers substantial,
and some actually humorous.
•
Six Flood Arguments Creationists Can't Answer!!! - http://www.christianforums.com/t20186/
• Just one I recently found. Needs to be renamed “Six Flood Arguments Creationists CAN Answer!!!”
•
Why do people laugh at creationists? - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAC3481305829426D
• This is a popular youtube channel by ‘Thunderf00t’, as of this writing, 42 videos. This guy is very intelligent, has
obviously spent a lot of time on his videos. And although these may seem overwhelming, I assure you they are not!
I’ve watched EVERY one. They majority fall into these categories: 1) Outdated and/or ridiculous statements by a few
enthusiastic (but well intended) creationists (with no credibility). Yes, good for a laugh by them. 2) A defense of
Creationists claims against evolution (as opposed to challenges TO creationism). 3) Attacks on Intelligent Design,
and political issues related. Conclusion: None actually challenge Creationism. Warning: Be prepared for all the
“These Creationists are Retards!” comments by the ignorant evolutionists, unwilling do to their own research.
•
How to Debate a Young Earth Creationist - http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4065
• First, his arguments are rather outdated, second, it’s actually a defense of Evolution, and not challenges to
Creationism.
•
Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Branches_of_science_you_have_to_ignore_to_believe_in_young_Earth_creationism
• Utterly ridiculous. Read this for a good laugh, and a glimpse at how badly these people want to TRY and discredit
Creationism.
•
Things Creationists hate - http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=499
• Same as the one above, utterly ridiculous. They sound desperate.
CHALLENGES TO EVOLUTION
1. First Cause
2. Abiogenesis
3. Failure to observe sufficient ‘beneficial’ mutations
4. IF I have time: misc. on genetics and microbiology
1) “FIRST CAUSE”
So the universe created itself… before it even existed. That’s impressive!
• Every effect had a cause
• Trace “Cause and Effect” back far enough and you get a Cause-less First
Effect
• Regarding the Big Bang, continue to ask an evolutionist: “What caused that?”
http://www.icr.org/cause-effect/
http://www.icr.org/causality/
BTW: OTHER ‘BIG BANG’ PROBLEMS
• Horizon problem (their ‘distant starlight’ problem)
• Mature distant galaxies (too old)
• See Notes section for others
• “Inflation” – an attempt to fix some of the Big Bang problems
• NO supporting evidence
• Q: What starts it? What stops it?
http://www.icr.org/cause-effect/
http://creation.com/god-created-not-quantum-fluctuation
2) ABIOGENESIS – OR “FIRST LIFE”
In early 1860s Louis Pasteur performed simple
experiments and concluded:
“Never will the doctrine of
spontaneous generation
recover from the mortal
blow of this simple
experiment!”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v1/n1/louis-pasteurs-views
ABIOGENESIS
“The question of how life first arose on Earth is perhaps the
greatest obstacle for the evolutionary paradigm. While the whole
concept of biological evolution itself is full of serious problems, the
origins of the first biomolecules and the first cell (not to mention
the enormous amount of information contained within the cell) is a
complete impossibility from a naturalistic perspective.” [Emphasis
mine]
-THE MYSTERY OF LIFE'S BEGINNING Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.
THE MYSTERY OF LIFE'S BEGINNING Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. From the Book Creation
Basics and Beyond, Chapter 26.
STATEMENTS FROM NON-CREATIONISTS:
“Anyone who tells you that he or she knows how life started on earth some 3.4 billion years ago is a fool or a
knave. Nobody knows.”—Professor Stuart Kauffman, origin of life researcher, University of Calgary,
Canada.45
“…we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any
biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” —Franklin M. Harold, Emeritus
Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Colorado State University.46
“Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised themselves into the first living
cell.”—Professor Paul Davies, then at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.47
“The novelty and complexity of the cell is so far beyond anything inanimate in the world today that we are left
baffled by how it was achieved.”— Kirschner, M.W. (professor and chair, department of systems biology,
Harvard Medical School, USA.), and Gerhart, J.C. (professor in the Graduate School, University of California,
USA).48
“Conclusion: The scientific problem of the origin of life can be characterized as the problem of finding the
chemical mechanism that led all the way from the inception of the first autocatalytic reproduction cycle to the
last common ancestor. All present theories fall far short of this task. While we still do not understand this
mechanism, we now have a grasp of the magnitude of the problem.”49
“The biggest gap in evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself… the gap between such a collection of
molecules [amino acids and RNA] and even the most primitive cell remains enormous.”—Chris Wills,
professor of biology at the University of California, USA.50
http://creation.com/origin-of-life at the bottom:
BOTTOM LINE:
• Belief in Abiogenesis is ridiculous
3) “BENEFICIAL MUTATION” FAILURE
• For years we’ve been told that all the variety of life we see
around us is the result of “beneficial” mutations.
• We’ve been ‘sold a bill of goods’.
A LITTLE BACKGROUND: DNA
• DNA and Genes: The code inside each
living organism that defines it’s
appearance and behavior.
• There’s plenty of genetic variation to
account for a variety of life
• There are also limits to this variety
A LITTLE BACKGROUND: DNA
Each of the original kinds
was created with a vast
amount of information. God
made sure that the original
creatures had enough
variety in their genetic
information so that their
descendants could adapt to
a wide variety of
environments.
-
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati (1)
The question to the evolutionists: where did all that
genetic information come from?
(1) Sarfati, J., Refuting Evolution 2, Creation Book Publishers, 2011
THE CHALLENGE: “SHOW ME THE CODE!”
• It’s not Micro vs Macro evolution*.
• It’s NOT:
• See how these bird beaks changed
• See how their color changed
• See these fossils
• The question: Is an observed change the result of
genetic variation (‘shuffling’), or actual modification
of the DNA?
• In other words: Show me the code!
BTW, if any evolutionists tries to call Natural Selection “evolution”, call them on it! *
*See notes section
EVOLUTION: ALL ABOUT MISTAKES (MUTATIONS)
• All of Evolution hinges on mistakes being
made in the copying process of DNA
• These mistakes are called mutations
• Evolutionists put all their hope in
“beneficial” ones accounting for everything
we see
• BTW:
• Single mistakes are called point
mutations
• For molecules-to-man evolution to
occur, often steps of multiple
mutations will be required.
EVOLUTION REQUIRES ‘BENEFICIAL’ MUTATIONS
•
Now that we can track ‘beneficial’ mutations, are there enough to justify evolution?
•
As I researched these, I’ve found two serious problems:
• The “Beneficial” ones they found were within a specific context, yet had negative
side-effects
• The observed mutation is far too rare statistically to justify evolution
“BENEFICIAL” WITH SIDE-EFFECT ANALOGY
Example: Warriors with various enemies, one enemy only attacks their feet
Experiment: Place them in an environment with only “Feet attackers”
CONT…
One day, one is born with out feet (via ‘mutation’)
CONT…
Over time, the foot-less warrior becomes the most ‘fit’ for survival
Evolutionists will call this a “Beneficial Mutation”…
And be excited about it!
COMMENTS REGARDING “BENEFICIAL” MUTATIONS *
• “practically all beneficial mutations observed have been losses
of specified complexity”
• “Even among evolutionary apologists who search for examples
of mutations that are beneficial, the best they can do is to cite
damaging mutations that have beneficial side effects (e.g.…”
• “In order for big-picture evolution to work, adaptation rates
should at least be constant, if not increasing, instead of
decreasing. In other words, adaptations are going the wrong
direction.”
• “Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little
information to the genome.”
*See Notes section for all reference details
[Emphasis mine]
CASE STUDY: E. COLI. BACTERIA
•
“Microbiologist Richard Lenski is renowned for managing the most extensive and
intensive evolutionary experiment on bacteria” *
• E. Coli placed in an artificial environment
• To date, this experiment has gone on for over 20 years and has seen 50,000
generations
•
During the experiment one event did occur that the evolutionists got excited about.
They thought they finally saw evolution in action! (see notes section)
•
A New Scientist article proclaims:
‘Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists’
- Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. **
* http://www.icr.org/article/7083/
** Holmes, Bob, Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab, NewScientist.com news service, 09 June 2008
LENSKI’S EXPERIMENTS – OUR TAKE *
• This supposed “evidence” for evolution was really nothing more that the
equivalent of a ‘broken switch’,
• Not only was this hardly ‘evolution’, these supposedly ‘improved’ E. Coli were
actually LESS fit to survive in nature, and would be “dead on arrival”!
• 50,000 generations In terms of human evolution is the equivalent of over a
million years
“Lenski’s research underlines how
impossible the grand scheme of
microbes-to-man evolution is.”
- CMI’s Dr Don Batten and Dr David Catchpoole*
* For all reference, see Notes section
THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION: THE SEARCH FOR THE
LIMITS OF DARWINISM BY MICHAEL J. BEHE
The most damaging evidence against
evolution I’ve found
A REVIEW OF THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION *
• Odds of a ‘double mutation’:
• Looking at chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium – a
double-mutation (very rare)
• In human terms, it would take a billion years to have a
chance of getting a double mutation like that needed for
chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium
* http://creation.com/review-michael-behe-edge-of-evolution
CAN THIS BE TRUE?
• Information in this book is a SERIOUS problem for evolutionists
• Surely the critics would tear this book apart if they could
CRITICS OF THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION
“The response to Behe has been predictable.
The editors of the major print media have
assigned known enemies of ID to trash the
book - Richard Dawkins for The New York
Times; Coyne for The New Republic; Miller for
Nature; Ruse for Toronto's Globe & Mail. A
large part of each review is ad hominem,
concerned with Behe's alleged religious
agenda, his minority status among biologists,
and other irrelevant matters. In Dawkins'
review, the science is barely touched, and it's
not clear from Ruse's review that he has even
opened the cover of the book. Behe deserves
better. The Edge of Evolution makes a serious,
quantitative argument about the limits of
Darwinian evolution. Evolutionary biology
cannot honestly ignore it. “
From The Philadelphia Enquirer: http://archive.today/KNx1I
CRITICS OF THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION (CONT)
• During a radio interview**, when the interviewer asked Behe about his
material being ‘reviewed’, Behe replied:
“So far, with all the reviews of my books and all the
arguments…that have occurred over the past decade, I have
not seen a scientific argument which answers my scientific
doubts about Darwinism.”
* http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2007/11/response-to-ian-musgraves-open-letter-to-dr-michael-behe-part-1/
** From an interview here, about 17 minutes into it: http://www.pointofinquiry.org/michael_behe_the_edge_of_evolution/
MISC ON GENETICS
• “All modern scientific evidence points to the decay and destruction of original good
design. It’s like good design getting worse.” (2)
• Evolutionary geneticist Alexey Kondrashov asked, “Why aren’t we dead 100 times
over?” (1)
• “explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet
originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.” (3)
• “We conclude that no one has proposed a workable naturalistic model that shows
how a genetic code could evolve from a simpler into a more complex version.” (4)
• ‘Genetics has no proofs for evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one
looks at the evidence for evolution the less one finds of substance. In fact the theory
keeps on postulating evidence, and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates
(…). This is not science (5)
See notes section for all references
“NEW GENETIC-CLOCK RESEARCH
CHALLENGES MILLIONS OF YEARS”
• “Ticking within every species is a “clock” of sorts that measures the length of
time that a species has existed on the earth”
• “These biological facts create a new venue in which to compare the youngearth creation timescale to the secular timescale head to head.”
• Secular scientists have measured the mitochondrial DNA mutation rate for
four species—humans, fruit flies, roundworms, and water fleas
http://www.icr.org/article/8017/
CONCLUSION FROM GENETICS AND
MICROBIOLOGY RESEARCH:
• We did not evolve.
LASTLY…
• Bias & Hostility
• How to interpret Evolutionary material
• How to witness
BIAS, HOSTILITY
• “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people
loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into
the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed.” - John 3:1920
• Atheist call Evolution “A Fact” – because they HAVE TO
• Evolutionists are becoming threatened by Creationism, and it
shows
BIAS AGAINST THE SUPERNATURAL
‘Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science
because it is not naturalistic’ (1)
- Dr Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University:
‘Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent
evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible’ (2)
- Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day,
‘Science is fundamentally a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule:
Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and
material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the
supernatural.’ (3)
- Evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.
D.M.S. Watson, Adaptation, Nature 124:233, 1929
R.E. Dickerson, J. Molecular Evolution 34:277, 1992; Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith 44:137–138, 1992
PREJUDICE AGAINST CREATION SCIENTISTS
“Many creationists have lost their job because of their
conclusions. Dr Jerry Bergman has documented not
dozens, not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of accounts of
genuine scientists' being abused for their belief in
scientific Creationism/Intelligent design. Some teachers
have been fired just for teaching the two model approach.
Around 12 percent of those interviewed received death
threats.”
[emphasis mine]
http://creationwiki.org/Scientists_are_pressured_not_to_challenge_established_dogma
“This powerful
documentary is all about
the persecution and
censorship of any scientist
who dares to oppose the
Darwinist paradigm, by
even suggesting the
relatively modest
hypothesis that the
universe shows detectable
evidence of design.” (1)
(1)
(2)
http://creation.com/cracking-the-wall-in-science
Quote from The producer, Mark Mathis
“As long as religious people
stay in their churches, that’s
OK … But as soon as they get
into the science arena, the
atheists and materialists
consider this their exclusive
domain. It’s an elitist, arrogant
position, and it’s the very
opposite of what science
ought to be” (2)
IF STUDENTS HEARD CRITICISM OF EVOLUTION,
THEN THEY MIGHT NOT BELIEVE IT!
“In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for
critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary
schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about
evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major
themes in science.” [Emphasis mine]
- Atheistic anti-creationist Eugenie Scott, leader of the
anticreationist National Center for Science Education
http://creation.com/eugenie-scott-admits-if-students-heard-criticism-of-evolution-they-might-not-believe-it
“HOW SCIENCE WORKS”
At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how
scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is
that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as
they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how
the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through
hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe
something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will
convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a
desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing
in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after
experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.
[Emphasis mine]
- Boyce Rensberger
Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works (NY: William Morrow 1986), p. 17–18.
Molecular biologist being interviewed by George Caylor of The Ledger:
G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"
J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. …."
G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public
writings?"
J: "No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to
hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe
in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be
insane to say you don't believe in evolution. All government work,
…would stop. I'd be out of a job…"
[Emphasis mine]
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/760/296/.
Molecular biologist being interviewed by George Caylor of The Ledger:
G: "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest."
J: "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures
to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to
live with the 'elephant in the living room'."
G: "What elephant?"
J: "Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves
around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps
into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an
elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!"
[Emphasis mine]
http://www.icr.org/articles/view/760/296/.
HOW TO READ AN EVOLUTIONARY ARTICLE
A quick review from Part I:
How do we handle news articles like the following?
“A new study claims the Grand Canyon took
approximately 17 million years to form”
“Earth Life May Have Originated
at Deep-Sea Vents”
Or a picture like this:
Migratory patterns of early humans
UNDERSTANDING
WORLDVIEWS
Formations like these are
problems they must solve.
And they’re going to solve them
the best they can within their
worldview.
Now these should make a little more sense
“A new study claims the Grand Canyon took
approximately 17 million years to form”
“Earth Life May Have Originated at
Deep-Sea Vents”
Evidence? No, an excuse for a problem
HOW TO READ EVOLUTIONARY MATERIAL
Because once you get educated enough, and know what to look for, it’s actually fun.
• FIRST: Know that ‘supposed’ evidence for Evolution is NOT
evidence against Creation
• Questions to ask:
• Is this an excuse for a problem?
• What are they NOT saying?
• When in doubt, do a quick search on icr.org or creation.com.
• Wait it out! SO Many times evolutionists’ ‘in your eye’ comment
about some new piece of evidence later becomes “much ado about
nothing”
HOW TO WITNESS
• Avoid tail-chasing arguments
• They can’t argue with confidence
• Focus on the fact that you know it’s more logically solid than evolution
• Ask: “Why should I give up my better model for your weaker one?”
• Leverage off of the fact that we’ve gone over the challenges to Creation
• When they boast about some great evidence, say “ok, I’ll go look that up”
• Encourage them to check out icr.org/topics or creation.com
• Lastly, again: Focus on your confidence
1.Only the Young Earth Creation (YEC)
Model properly points to Christ.
2.YEC is more logically solid than all other
origins models, particularly Evolution.
3.Scientist are biased, opponents are
hostile, the public is clueless.
Best Books
on
Creationism
If you only plan on
reading one, read
“The Global Flood”
WEBSITES
• *www.icr.org – Institute for Creation Research
• Especially www.icr.org/topics
• *www.creation.com – Creation Ministries International
• www.answersingenesis.org – Ken Ham, Answers is Genesis
• www.creationwiki.org - Creation Wiki
• My stuff is on: www.bushconsulting.com/creation
• This link is also on the COP facebook page