| Animals and Plants that prove God |
| All the cells in your body prove God |
| 20 Questions for Evolutionists |
| Essays on Origins |
| Proof of God |
| The hopeful Monsters of Evolution |
Animals and Plants that prove God
| There
are many Animals and Plants on earth today that prove
God. From them i picked up the top 2: OPHRYS ORCHIDS Certain varieties of the Ophrys orchid have on their
petals what appears to be a three-dimensional picture of
a female wasp, http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-V2/2evlch12.htm FALSE-EYED FROG The South American false-eyed frog is an interesting
creature. Generally about 3 inches [7.62 cm] long, it is
brown, black, blue, gray, and white! |
All the cells in your body prove God
| Each
and every one of all the living creatures inside the cell
do the work of a science engineer yet they have NO BRAINS!! (they cannot think that is mentally handicapped) What's more they move around doing complicated work in their environment and yet THEY HAVE NO EYES!! (they cannot see - blind) Well it's impossible for them to have eyes or even a brain because they are way smaller than a single cell. Eyes or brain to exist need millions of cells. So my question is: WHO is guiding their vision and their thinking, all zillions of them inside every human body in all the world? If God is not guiding them then WHO or HOW they are guided, all zillions of them inside every human body in the whole world??? I'm seeking a good reasonable scientific answer to dismiss God from the equation. That answer i will post here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSasTS-n_gM close the subject and believe that maybe God does not
exist after all!! |
20 Questions for Evolutionists
| 1.
Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the
mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital
organs? How, for example,could a caterpillar evolve into
a butterfly? 2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both? 3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches? 4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source? 5. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve? 6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards? 7. Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old? 8. Where did all the helium go? 9. How did sexual reproduction evolve? 10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?" 11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends? 12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics? 13. How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce? 14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen? 15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks? 16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough? 17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA? 18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin? 19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate? 20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following twenty-one features of the earth:The Grand Canyon and Other Canyons Mid-Oceanic Ridge Continental Shelves and Slopes Ocean Trenches Seamounts and Tablemounts Earthquakes Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor Submarine Canyons Coal and Oil Formations Glaciers and the Ice Ages Frozen Mammoths Major Mountain Ranges Overthrusts Volcanoes and Lava Geothermal Heat Metamorphic Rock Strata Plateaus Salt Domes Jigsaw Fit of the Continents Fossil Graveyards If so, I will point out some obvious problems with your explanation and refer you to 77 pages that explain them all as a result of a global flood. For the Answers to these questions....... Go to: |
Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
|
| Proof of
God - Intelligent Design
|
The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution
by David N. Menton, Ph.D.
Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind of organism. This has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists -- but they have made it clear that they will not be dissuaded by the mere lack of evidence, nor will they turn to a Creator to explain this enigma. Rather, evolutionists hope that monsters may come to their rescue!
All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are not preceded by continuous transitional stages. While some of these fossilized organisms have become extinct, many have persisted right up to the present time in what appears to be essentially their original form, showing only a limited range of variation. Bats, for example, appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat" ancestors. Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in bats today, including extraordinarily long webbed fingers on their fore limbs and "backward" facing hind limbs. (Bat knees and toes face to the rear!) Even the distinctive shape of the bat skull, which serves to channel sound to their ears for navigation by sonar (echo location), is found in fossil bats just as it is in all modern bats.
The absence of even a single example of a continuous fossil sequence showing the progressive stages of evolution of any plant or animal would certainly seem to be an insurmountable problem for evolutionism. Evolutionists have long been aware of this problem and have felt compelled to try to explain it away by any means possible, short of abandoning their faith in evolutionism itself. In 1944, the evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson spoke of these missing transitional forms in his book Tempo and Mode In Evolution:
“Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, off hand, be imputed to chance, and does require some attempt at special explanation as has been felt by most paleontologists.”
Paleontologists have indeed been trying to imagine some "special explanation" for how progressive evolution could occur without leaving any fossil evidence. Since evolutionary speculations have rarely been restricted by the demands of experimental verification, evolutionists have allowed their imaginations to run free and have now devised a really outrageous explanation for their lack of evidence.
In the 1930s, paleontologist Otto Schindewolf concluded that the missing links in the fossil record were not really missing at all, but rather were never there in the first place! Schindewolf proposed that all the major evolutionary transformations must have occurred in single large steps. He proposed, for example, that at some point in evolutionary history, a reptile laid an egg from which a bird was hatched! This bizarre notion was championed in 1940 by the geneticist Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Like Schindewolf, Goldschmidt resigned himself to the fact that true transitional forms were not found despite over a hundred years of searching for them, and that evolutionary theory would simply have to accommodate this fact.
Goldschmidt sought to advance Schindewolf's notion of evolution through single large steps by trying to imagine a plausible mechanism for it. He suggested that the answer might lie in what are known as embryological monsters, such as the occasional birth of a two-legged sheep or a two-headed turtle. Goldschmidt conceded that such monsters rarely survived very long in nature, but he hoped that over a long period of time some monsters might actually be better suited to survive and reproduce than their normal siblings. Goldschmidt named this monstrously hopeless speculation the "hopeful monster theory." Since there was not even the slightest shred of evidence to support the hopeful monster theory, it was dismissed with derision by almost all evolutionists of his time. But Goldschmidt was quick to point out to his critics that there wasn't the slightest evidence for their gradual evolution either!
The hopeful monster theory would have joined the "recapitulation theory" in the scrap heap of abandoned evolutionary speculations, were it not for Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge. In 1972, these influential evolutionists resurrected the long-discredited hopeful monster theory and gave it a more respectable name -- "punctuated equilibrium." This theory speculates that the intermediate stages in the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because these transitional organisms were short-lived, extremely unstable species which, as luck would have it, quickly evolved into stable species. Thus, the evolution of any organism is characterized by long periods of equilibrium (no evolutionary change) during which time many offspring, and thus many fossils, are produced -- punctuated by relatively rapid bursts of evolution that left no fossil record. In the May 1981 issue of Discover magazine, Gould explained that "two outstanding facts of the fossil record -- geologically sudden origin of new species and failure to change thereafter" actually "predicted" this new evolutionary theory!
While most evolutionists have now reluctantly accepted punctuated equilibrium as the only way out of a difficult situation (i.e., no evidence), a few stubbornly cling to classical Darwinism, and indeed it is this discredited version of evolution that is generally taught as "fact" in our schools. Eldredge challenged classical Darwinists by reminding them that they could disprove punctuated equilibrium theory if they were to find so much as a single series of intermediate forms in the fossil record; no one has. Of course the sudden appearance of relatively unchanging organisms in the fossil record is perfectly consistent with special creation, but most evolutionists find the idea of an omnipotent Creator to be simply unthinkable.
Many of the arguments that Eldredge and Gould have used to refute the beliefs of classical Darwinists sound like they are actually trying to support special creation, but this is hardly their intent. For example, in his regular column in Natural History magazine (May 1977 pp. 12-16), Gould chided the gradual evolutionists for appealing to the "extreme imperfection" of the fossil record in an effort to explain the missing links. He countered that even if we were to grant this "traditional escape," it still would not answer the biggest question -- the viability of the transitional forms themselves. Gould pointed out that it is difficult to even imagine how transitional animals passing through the intermediate stages of evolution would be benefited or even survive. He asked:
“Can we invent a reasonable sequence of intermediate forms, that is, viable, functioning organisms, between ancestors and descendants? Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?”
Now that's a good question: One only needs to imagine a mouse-like creature slowly transforming into a bat to appreciate what Gould is saying. The reader may well ask at this point, of what use is evolutionary speculation itself -- and why is it being taught as a "fact" in our schools?
Originally published in St. Louis MetroVoice, June 1994, Vol. 4, No. 6 © 1997-2004 Missouri Association for Creation, Inc. All Rights Reservedhat would constitute objective proof of God?