Today we hear much about “the science”.
The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.'” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
This is the claim that facts are on the side of evolution. My questions regarding these facts are these — why is it that nowhere is there in existence a fossil record depicting any stage of the evolution of even one animal species to another? Not repeatedly confirmed is this portion of the fossil record. The change in man/woman over time — the change within given organisms, these are a given. There are obvious differences recorded even in the Bible, giants, etc. The “fact” is however that there are many multitudes of missing links. Not just one missing link. It seems logical that in order to get from the one celled life forms to where we are today through a process of evolution, which requires one species transforming into another, would require a multiplicity of transformations from one to another. Surely many transformative fossils would exist in the record showing the first animal whatever it was evolving from and into in order to create something new through evolution. There needs to exist in the record several stages of another animal, and the next and the next, even if each took 1000 or 1 million years — where are these half one animal and half another? There are none.
Secondly, if the “facts” as stated above by NAS are true and animals are evolving between species, for example: the claim is:
Microevolution looks at changes within species over time–changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. “may be preludes” is not really a fact, is it? Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
So again even if these changes within a given species is true, and it is; then where within the fossil record are the missing links between species? A RELATIONSHIP IN DNA is as much PROOF OF ONE CREATOR AS IT IS OF EVOLUTION. in fact it is more proof than it is of evolution due specifically to the problem of hundreds of missing links. Species may be related”, but then again they may not be the same. We have so called millions if not billions of years represented in the strata according to science. We have fossils of like and even somewhat changed species of various kinds, yet we have not even the evidence of one staged mutation of the one half one species in process to create a new species within all of this record to substantiate the theory of evolution. Speculation in my mind is not science. Saying that something could be is not science — Evolution is no different than any other religion — it’s born of faith.
Here is supposedly the scientific answer to this dilemma.
evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
So as I have attempted to validate this statement I find nothing like what is stated to be fact. The fossil record is largely without the evidence claimed. Instead there is man’s intervention in the creation of the different stages. Entire structures created from a portion of a jaw bone etc. and some of these bones are proven to be not of the Ape or Man species.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans. All of this to the point that factual evidence is scarce and even contradictory.
We are told that “New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.” But where are the half man half ape in the actual fossil record existing without man’s involvement in their creation.
So I am to believe that the monkey and the human have a common ancestor. I ask how is that any easier to believe, when no one can prove who that ancestor is, than to believe that God created us from the dust of the earth and breathed life into us. Both beliefs are in fact just that — beliefs; both require faith, and both give our origin to the dust of the earth; chemistry, but only one can explain life and where life comes from. Evolution only attempts to explain where man comes from. In fact science is unable to explain the origin of life, and they are even telling us that Aliens may have deposited the original life source. Just how scientific is that. We haven’t even proven aliens yet. So they won’t accept a creator, but they’re willing to consider that an alien deposited life, but that still doesn’t tell us where this life source originated even if they are able to produce an alien. In fact if the Bible is true, and we know that it is simply due to it’s multitude of prophetic messages which have evolved into truth. So then biblically there will be aliens produced. Satan himself a creature from the heavens will produce and manifest as an alien deception known as the Antichrist.
So you see, I do believe that Aliens are actually out there, but they are not space aliens, in the end they will be found to be spirit beings as recorded in the Bible. There is no human life form that can stand the g-forces produced by the UFO’s thus far documented. The sightings that we have “proof” of, offer evidence of UFO’s, and are by the way more easily provable than is the theory of evolution in so far as one being the source of all life forms on earth. Just my opinion of course. But evolution is really only other people’s opinion until “scientists” can produce the evidence.
Science has of course conquered ignorance in many areas, but science has not proven that believers in the Bible and in creation as it is taught in the Bible are not believing truth. Nor has it proven the Bible to be unscientific or irrelevant.
In fact the Bible calls the world a sphere, and science has proven that to be true. Archeological discovery has proven the Bible to be historically accurate. Chariot wheels and chariot frames have been found in the Red Sea. Jews have been returned to their land in the Middle East having been told by God of their dispersion and regathering due to their unbelief, and this even before man knew that they would not believe. Amazing stuff. Jesus came to earth at precisely the time prophesied in Daniel, Jesus died exactly as prophesied in Isaiah chapter 53. Interesting reads, and more amazing stuff. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70ad just as Jesus had said it would be. The disciples who fled at his arrest each later died for their faith in Him having witnessed His resurrection. No man in his right mind dies for a “may be”. To me the fulfillment of prophetic scripture proves the truth of the Bible, and gives me faith in creation over evolution. This does not change the fact that many have faith obviously in evolution.
Also the evidence for intelligent design to me is much more compelling than the evidence for evolution. Because I have found that if I put as much time and effort into attempting to prove or disprove that there is intelligence behind creation as I have put into the attempt to prove or disprove evolution, (because I try to keep an open mind no matter what I’m pursuing), but, I have actually been better rewarded for pursuing God. I say this because there is really only one way to prove God. I’ve found that I can not prove Him to someone else, but the Bible says if you draw near to God He will draw near to you. I personally have found that to be true. I know that’s not convincing to anyone else who has not made such a pursuit, because we are all on our own when it comes to finding Him to be the truth. So in reality if evolution were proven true, it would then only be the means by which God created.
I wish you no matter where you are in your pursuit of truth, all the best in your own quest for it/Him. Ellen and I both appreciate the friendship of many of you who still are seeking truth.
The book that one of you returned without reading it, is still available should you change your mind.