http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=876345The above link is to an article at
Huffington Post entitled,
"Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution." Say
whaaat???I'd really say that "Honesty Requires Rejecting Evolution." By now, my readers know why. But where does that author get off saying all Christians gotta reject Creation and accept Evolution? Well, the dude gives his seven main reasons "why" in the article. Let's list them and deal with the seven of them each one at a time.
The list is so simplistic, so juvenile ... it is only a re-hash of the standard Darwinist blather but ... let's humor them and go through it ... one by one ... bit by bit ... step by step ... with all seven of them.
This is something an evolutionist -- never -- expects anyone to do with the words that he just "claims out" when he speaks. According to their mantra's ... it is just "not fair" for us to demand that they actually account for the words that they say. Never mind what they "think" is "not fair." Let's do it anyway.
Let's look at each of the seven so-called reasons why Christians should accept evolution. Here they are below, with the rational and reasonable responses to each one.
========================================
No amount of talk about "worldviews" and "presuppositions" can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.
We don't really have the need to talk in terms of "worldviews" ... except when we are talking to professing Bible-believers about their own consistency with their professed beliefs. It does no good to talk to anyone (professing Christian or not) about their "worldview" ... unless they already profess to have a Biblical worldview when in reality it can be demonstrated that they do not.
But "presuppositions" is another matter of concern. All of evolution is indeed based upon worldview. But that worldview claims to be justifiable in pure-logic and objective terms -- which it is not. All of evolution and atheism is based upon their accompanying presuppositions -- which by definition are non-proven starting points in their arguments. Oh, they will refuse to use the term "presupposition." So just tell them that you are referring to their professed "axioms." You might better get through their fog bank of wiggle-words, if you'll just go to this other word that also still means the same thing as "presupposition" for all practical purposes in this matter.
Let's now check out, in detail, the seven great claims of the "failures" of the Creation Model.
[One:] It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.
"Failure" one actually rests squarely upon ... nothing ... save the presuppositions of the three examples that the obviously uninformed and indoctrinated-only author tosses out as proof-positive that the Creation Model is a failure. He assumes that birds have the genes to make teeth. You may have heard the saying, "rare as hen's teeth." Actually, hen's never do have teeth. What they may get, on rare occasions, is a rippling or wavey serrated edge on their beak. Birds do not have teeth. That's because birds do not have a gene for the development of teeth. Evo's will find a gene that doesn't seem to do anything (the old disproven idea of "Junk DNA" genes) and see if it looks enough like a gene the --wished-- it once was ... and will try to pawn it off as the once-evolved "vestige" of an old trait from back in the day before some modern organism evolved from some previous-life organism in the "evolution story" of the history of life. In this case, they are trying to claim that birds evolved from reptiles, that feathers evolved from scales, that beaks evolved from teeth perhaps.
Well just because the gene no longer works, and just because the Darwin-inspired imaginations of the evo-atheist "think" they can see a resemblance to the gene for the development of teeth in --other-- organisms ... doesn't mean it's automatically so. There is a huge amount of inference here. There is a great lack of actual proof that such a claim has more than a zero amount of merit to it at all ... oh ... unless you --already believe-- in evolution anyway. And then, in that case, this is the only way of looking at the genes that makes any sense at all ... to your Darwinian-blinded way of thinking.
"I love humans -- always seeing patterns where there aren't any." British sci-fi character Dr. Who.
Birds do not have teeth. Why do they say they have the genes for teeth. If they do, then why don't any ever have any teeth today? Whales do not have legs. Why do they say whales have the genes for legs? If they do, then why don't any ever have legs today? A few years ago a mutated dolphin had an extra set of fins. This prompted evolution-believers world-wide to announce that this was an old "leg gene" popping up in modern times, and offered it as "proof" that the ancestors of modern dolphins once walked upon the land. That would never stand up in court. It can never stand up to true genetic nor physiological scrutiny. The bones that float freely in the hindquarters of modern whales, are not the "vestiges" of legs of any kind at all. They are actually something else altogether. These bones are vital for the anchoring and stabilizing of the organs of sexual reproduction in both male and female whales. The genes for the developing of these bones ... are not ... genes for the development of legs. These bones are also where the muscles critical in the calving process (birthing of a baby whale by the mother) are anchored.
Do humans have tail genes? No. We have genes for our backbones, but never for a tail. Extremely rare medical cases are held up high by evo-believers, showing photographs of humans that are born with a "tail" ... supposedly proving that we have the genes for tails handed down to us from our rat-ancestors like the missing-link fossil known as the Morganucodon oherli (found in Triassic rock only). Is it really a tail? No. A tail has a set of vertebrae (backbones) extending out from the spinal column and going all the way to the end of the tail. No human has ever been documented with such a structure. Nor has any gene for a tail ever been assuredly determined in any human DNA. So what is this structure, when it has occurred? Many people are familiar with the birth defect called "spina bifuda" or "open spine." A deficiency of folic acid in the diet of an expectant mother, can be a cause of this deformation. The single serving of orange juice every day, provides enough folic acid to prevent this developmental mishap from occurring. One of the first scaffoldings that forms in an embryo, making way for the development for the layout of the rest of the body's general structures, is the spinal cord and spinal column. Once laid down, it must be enfolded by the surrounding and developing tissues of the dorsal (back) region. Much like a zipper, this flesh grows, surrounds, and closes over the previously exposed structure of the backbone. If it fails to do so, then we have a permanent exposure of the underlying structure. But the enfolding can take another developmental wrong-turn other than this. It could just continue extending and enfolding that extension, until it goes beyond the coccyx (the end of the backbone) and then protrudes outward from the lower back in a fatty mass at the buttocks. This has the appearance of a tail. But it has no bones. It never could. It has no muscles to control such a "tail" structure. It is just an extra glob of tissue, not much unlike a large wart or a birthmark of some other kind. The record has been an extended enfolding of about a foot. Keep in mind, this is extremely rare. It is a development defect. There is no gene in the human genome that we "carry" that is a "tail gene." This is merely the malfunction of the normal development that is encoded for in the real human genes for the formation of a backbone and its accompanying structures of function and support. It is not a tail. Humans do not "carry" a tail gene.
[Two:] It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.
"Failure" two is backward reasoning, and has further flaws than that. Oh yes, evolution makes very precise predictions about the position in the evo-story of the history of life ... where the "missing link" fossils are supposed to show up. Case in point -- why do you think that these are still called missing link fossils? Hmm.
Evolution predicts ... by its story of the history of life, and by its explanation for the formation of the fossil-bearing rock layers of the earth's crust ... the exact layers where the fossils having the exact expected missing-link structures ... should be. But they are not there. Evolutionists try hard to make the square-peg fossils that they do find ... to fit into the round-peg segments of their evo-story -- but they can't. This is because there is no real established missing-link fossil that has ever been found. Evolution does make very precise predictions. But not one of them has ever been accurate. The predictions have never come true.
There is a much longer and more detailed explanation of many of the specific failures of the presuppositions of evolutionary missing links on this blog site on a page called
"Top Ten Missing Link Myths." You may go there for fuller details on this important point.
[Three:] It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.
"Failure" three is also just not true. The order is not at all precise in any way. It is very generalized per layer ... going from simple to complex structures. There are some very simple organisms ... in the very top layers. There are some very simple organisms ... living right now today. The Great Flood of Noah, recorded in the historical record of the Bible ... completely explains this not-precise but very general order of simple organisms found in the deeper sediment rocks layers to more complex life forms found more toward the surface. Think about it. That's the way it is today. At the bottom of our ocean (the deepest part of the earth's zones where living things can exist today) we find only the simplest of all living organisms. Deep under the muds are only the bacteria. Further up in the muds, we find the worms and other simple burying life forms. Nearer the top of the mud we may find beds of living clams. On the surface are simple "primitive-looking" bottom-feeders like snails and crabs. Higher up in the water layer are the swimming fishes. Higher still, near the land-water boundaries, are the amphibious life forms. Higher up onto the land are the dry-land egg-laying life forms -- the reptiles and the birds. Also, more intelligent and mobile, are the mammals, most of which are non-egg-laying live-bearing reproductive creatures.
If Noah's Flood were to happen today -- it would bury things in this order, in similar layers of rock, as this same order in the layers that we see that indeed were -- laid down by the cataclysm of the Flood of the Bible. There is no "failure" on the part of the Creation Model to explain this "order." Such an order is necessarily a prediction of the Flood of the Creation Model.
And one other important thing to note: the Flood of Noah would only have assembled organisms from simple to complex, from bottom layer to top layer ... for the vertebrate sequence, the way that we see that it exists today -- not for the invertebrate life forms (things without a backbone). Therefore, the rest of the living world -- would not in any way reflect this simple-to-complex pattern in the rock layers. Guess what. The rock layers don't reflect simple-to-complex in invertebrate forms. That is why the "evo-story" for all invertebrate forms from-water-to-land ... is a total nightmare for the evo-researcher! This lack of pattern would affect the fossil records then of ... all of the plant forms, all of the insect forms, and all of the mollusk forms. That is why the "evolution" of plants from water to land, insects from water to land, mollusks from water to land ... are totally unsubstantiated by the facts of the evidence. Only the vertebrate sequence seems to hold any of the features that the evo's have wanted, even though those features are still very scant. However, this is the only sequence -- the vertebrate sequence -- that the Flood would have assemble that way -- anyway ... whether evolution was true or not!
[Four:] It has failed to explain why today's animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.
"Failure" four is a similarly trumped-up charge against the Creation Model. There is a general pattern of fossil species in the same geography as living species. But that makes perfect sense. Biomes are the latitude zones within which only specially designed creatures can live. Tropical plants and animals live today in the tropical latitudes, just as would be expected. Polar plants and animals -- both fossil and living -- also tend to match up to the polar latitudes in both cases only.
What the evo-article fails to mention are the exceptions to this rule. Dinosaurs were found on every continent. Dragon legends are found in every continent's ancient human cultural traditions. Marsupials are not only found on Australia ... opposums are marsupials and are found just about world-wide in the fossil record, too.
Fossils of camels and alligators have been found in Alaska. Why are these out of place? They are not there today. The climatic changes and the continental shifts predicted by the most common versions of the Flood Geologic Model today ... insist that this would be the case ... not contradicting such evidences!
[Five:] It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don't find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.
"Failure" five has a more-than-slight problem, too. Oh true, nobody has reported say, mammal bones in the stomachs of dino fossils. But -- we do have proof of dino bones in the stomachs of mammal fossils! The dog fossil (about the size of living pit bull dogs) Repenomamus robustus was found in 2005 with baby dino bones in its stomach! (Nature, vol 433, Jan 13, 2005) So dino's and mammals did live together, as per the evident proof ... one way or the other!
[Six:] It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.
"Failure" six is also based totally upon a presupposition that cannot be verified. These "broken genes" -- what are they? They are strings of DNA that may seem not to have any function. Many of them may. It was once thought (by evolutionists) that 98% of our genes were "broken" and "functionless." Now we know that this is simply not true. We just hadn't discovered yet what those genes were really doing.
But are some of our genes broken? Yes, and that would be consistent with the pronounced effects of the Fall of Creation and the Curse of the Fall. Much of our biology has malfunctioned since then -- otherwise we would not die, nor live such short life spans as we do these days.
Also, how do they know that any of the really broken genes, are the same ones that still do work in the lower life forms? If they are broken, don't they look different now? Aren't the DNA sequences changed around after millenia of random mutation position-shifting events? Sure. But if a gene "looks" like what they are looking for, and it serves their purpose to pronounce it "the same gene, but now in a higher organism" ... then --presto-- it must be the same.
The most famous of these is the so-called vitamin C gene in humans. Most other mammals can make their own vitamin C, because they have a gene that enables them to make the enzymes that can do this. Humans do not. Humans do have a gene that looks very much like the C gene. It may still be doing something that we don't know about. Or, it may truly be a "broken" gene. If it is broken, it would have begun to change drastically with every new generation, and at random. So why does it still look anything like the C gene in dogs and mice? It could be that it just never changed after it broke. But that would be totally against everything we know about genetic drift, mutational processes, and natural selection (all real and provable processes, unlike evolution itself). It could be that it was a gene that looked very different from how it looks now. Or it could just be a broken gene that bears enough resemblance to the working C genes in mice ... that evolutionists are willing to buy the idea that this is exactly what it once was.
I find this highly unlikely to be true, both for scientific reasons and for reasons of Biblical historical biology. Didn't God tell Adam and Eve to eat fruits? The only mammals today that cannot makes their own vitamin C are the primates and the fruit bats. Both must eat a lot of fruits to be fully healthy (to get all of the vitamin C that they need). So must we humans -- we all have heard of "the fruit group" in our dietary plans for the most healthy eating habits.
[Seven:] It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.
"Failure" seven is the most ridiculous of the charges, really. In every human family, we can see demonstrated how some very great changes can occur, in only a few generations. Think of what could happen in the 600 generations since Adam and Eve once birthed the rest of the human race. Even the leaders in evolutionary thought have asserted, most "evolutionary diversity" would have to happen in very fast bursts of diversification. That is the whole point of the evo-theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. There is a page on this blog site that goes into great detail of how the genetic situation of mankind not only could -- but must -- have gotten into its present situation in only a matter of 6000 years, and not a time span of anything like 200,000 years ... and certainly not anything like 2 million years! This page is entitled
"Genetic History of the Human Kind" and contains much more detailed information on this important matter.
Posts
