I am going to use creation science to prove the existence of God. I know you’re probably thinking, “creation science is an oxymoron”, but it’s not. In fact when you see the evidence, and I’m going to just name a few, you’ll see that it best supports the creation model, over the evolution model.
Let’s begin with the little BOMBADIER BEETLE. This tiny beetle is 1/2” long, but it has a very mighty weapon. When an enemy is closing in behind him, and just about ready to eat him, an explosion occurs right in the face of the enemy with a very bad smelling gas that shoots out from two tail tubes, the temperature of boiling water. How did he do that?
He was studied by two German chemists who discovered that it has 2 chemicals in it’s body, 1) hydrogen peroxide, and 2) hydroquinone. When mixed together you get an explosion. Now how can he carry these chemicals around in him without exploding. He carries a 3rd chemical which is called an inhibitor. The 2 chemicals are mixed with the inhibitor and stored in 2 chambers in it’s body until needed. Then when an enemy approaches, the little beetle squirts the two liquids together and adds a 4th chemical...... and “anti” inhibitor. Then the resulting action is BOOM!!! A hot irritating foul smelling gas is blown right into the face of the predator.
Now the fact that he is able to do that is in itself a marvel, but even more interesting, is how he could have evolved that feat. Imagine billions of years ago this little beetle evolves from a...... whatever and has contained in his little body all of these chemicals. Now comes along someone who wants him for lunch. Now keep in mind, he’s the first of his kind to have evolved with this gift. Now he has to figure out just how much hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone to mix with the inhibitor, and how much of everything to mix with the anti-inhibitor, and at what moment to do so. He has to also keep in mind that if he doesn’t get it exactly right the first time......BOOM! There goes the family tree, along with any future descendants. No, he HAD to be created that way.
Then there’s the 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS. The evolution model would have you believe that we began as some kind of swamp goo and through chance-random process, evolved into the complex piece of humanity that we are now. The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that everything runs down, not up. Complex things break down, life becomes more disorganized, time and chance make things worse, not better. If you look around, everything starts out beautiful and then deteriorates. Trees, people, buildings, everything. Yet the evolutionists want you to believe that ONLY where evolution is concerned are we to disregard the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
THE SHRINKING SUN. Since 1836, the diameter of the sun has been measured to be shrinking about 5 ft. per hour. By going back in history and studying solar eclipses, scientists say that this shrinkage appears to be constant. Extrapolating backward, we find that the sun would have been so large one million years ago that no life at all could have existed on this earth. If we went back 20 million, which is still far short of the 5 billion many evolutionists claim as the age of the solar system, the edge of the sun would have touched the earth. The earth would have exploded long before the sun ever got that close.
INTERPLANETARY DUST. Meteors and meteorites have been the source of dust on the moon. Dr. Harold Schlusser said, that the dust that is deposited on the moon is doing so at the rate of 14.3 million tons per year. After 4 to 5 billion years, the layer on the moon would have been extremely deep. So the NASA scientists constructed the lunar lander to be able to land on that blanket of dust without sinking through it, but equipping it with huge feet. When Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon, everyone at NASA was amazed that there were only 3 inches of dust. They couldn’t explain why. But 3 inches comes much closer to the biblical/creation view of our existence. 3 inches equates to about 8,000 years.
CONSIDER THE HUMAN EYE. What animal, or back further, what piece of algae decided one day that we needed to see? And then began the billion year process of forming an eye, with all of it’s intricacies and marvels. Can we really be led to believe that we EVOLVED the eyeball.
CONSIDER OUR REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM. Scientists can’t explain how THAT all came about either. They just want you to believe it. Remember, the very first ANYTHING had to have already evolved the reproduction system, in order to carry anything on to it’s descendants.....in order to HAVE descendants.
These are but six very convincing evidences for a creator. Virtually all of the evolution model theories have been dispelled, however, they’re still taught in our science classes as fact. DNA, Amino Acids, Radioactive dating (Carbon 12, carbon 14, potassium argon, uranium lead methods), atmospheric helium, Noah’s catastrophic flood, the missing link - or lack thereof (Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Neanderthal man, Peking man, Java man, Nellie and Lucy have all been discredited as evidences of evolution), the fossil record, earth’s magnetic field, dinosaurs, Grand Canyon, and the planet’s population, all point to the creation model.
Now I know that after that last paragraph you have a million questions. I can't post all of the evidences here, but I can suggest a plethora of books that contain such evidence if you’d like the list.
Did you know that you could call ANY anthropological museum on the face of this planet and ask them if they have ONE.......just ONE transitional fossil (a fossil between plant and animal, or animal to man, or even from one species of animal to another species) and they will ALL tell you no. There has never, since the beginning of time been one transitional fossil found anywhere. Now don’t you think that if we’d been around for billions or even millions of years, taking into account that there are literally millions of other fossils in museums all over the world, that we’d have at least ONE transitional fossil to show as evidence for this evolution theory? One would think so. But there are none, much to the evolutionists dismay.
Listen to what some of the world’s leading evolutionary scientists have to say about evolution/creation:
Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London). Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 11/5/81“One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over 20 years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for 20 years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with the evolutionary theory. Naturally, I know there is nothing wrong with me, so for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people......”Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ”I do know one thing - it ought not to be taught in high school”.”
H. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK),”Origins of Species”, in” Letters”, New Scientist, 5/14/81, page 452.“Darwin’s book - Origin of Species - I find quite unsatisfactory: it says nothing about the origin or species; it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on “Difficulties on theory”’ and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record”...... “As a scientist, I am not happy with these ideas. But I find it distasteful for scientists to reject a theory because it does not fit in with their preconceived ideas.”
Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research), as quoted in The Advocate, 5/8/84, page 17.“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”
Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.“I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.”
H. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), “A physicist looks at evolution.” Physics Bulletin, vol.31, 1980, page 138.“If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? There is another theory, now quite out of favour, which is based upon the ideas of Lamarck: that if an organism needs an improvement it will develop it, and transmit it to its progeny. I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”
Dr. Isaac Asimov (biochemist; was a Professor at Boston University School of Medicine; internationally known author), “In the game of energy and thermodynamics you can’t even break even”. Smithsonian Institute Journal, 6/1970, page 10.“And in Man is a 3 pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.”
Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), “Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?” Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), 1/1980, page 127.“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution.”
W.E.Swinton (British Museum of Natural History, London), “The Origin of Birds”, Chapter 1, in Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, A.J.Marshall (editor), Vol 1,Academic Press, New York, 1960, page 1“The evolutionary origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved.”
Robert B. Eckhardt, Ph.D.(human genetics and anthropology) (Professor of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, USA), “Population genetics and human origins”. Scientific American, vol.226(1), 1/1972, page 94“Amid the bewildering array of early fossil hominoids, is there one whose morphology marks it as man’s hominid ancestor? If the factor of genetic variability is considered, the answer appears to be ‘no’ “.
Referring to comments made by Richard Leakey (Director of National Museums of Kenya) in The Weekend Australian, May 7 & 8 1983, Magazine, page 3.“Echoing the criticism made of his father’s habilis skulls, he added that Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of paris”, thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to.”
Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, J.M.Dent & Sons, Ltd. London, 1971, page 167“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distance, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.”
Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge university), as quoted in”Hoyle on Evolution”. Nature, vol 294, 11/12/81, page 105.“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that “a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.”
Frederick B. Jueneman, FAIC, “Secular catastrophism”. Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, page 21.“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such “confirmation” may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.”
Mark Ridley (Zoologist, Oxford University), “Who doubts evolution?” New Scientist, vol 90, 6/25/81, page 831.“In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”
So if the evidence is even enough to put doubts in the minds of evolutionists, what could possibly be the reason they all stand so firmly on the sinking sand of evolution?
Let world renowned evolutionary biologist, Sir Julian Huxley, sum it up for them..... "We all jumped at the Origin of Species because the idea of God, interfered with our sexual mores.”
And that speaks volumes. After all, if children find out they were created by a God that they are accountable to, it will become more difficult to promote the pagan “do what thou wilt, for that is the nature of man” world view. It comes down to this: Either we are a result of chance random process, or intelligent design.
If we are a result of evolution, then there is no God, there are no rights or wrongs, anything goes, there is no sin. Murder is only wrong because someone may think that it is.....not because it is. Moral relativism reigns.
John Dunphy wrote in the January 1983 Edition of the “Humanist Magazine, “The Bible is archaic, outmoded, and an incredibly dangerous book. I am convinced that the battle for the future of humankind must be waged and won in the classroom, to convey humanistic values. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; the rotting corpse of Christianity, and the new faith of humanism, the classroom is the battleground.”
John Dunphy was right. The children have lost sight of who they are, and as a result, have no respect for themselves or for anyone else for that matter. And we wonder why our classrooms have become war zones.
That humanist thought resulted in the summary a high school student wrote describing what he had learned during his four years of high school science classes:
“In the beginning, there was a small dense cosmic egg, no one knew where it came from or what it was doing in space. And darkness and nothingness surrounded the egg. Suddenly, for no apparent reason, the egg exploded throwing off matter and energy in all directions. After billions of years, the galaxies formed, though no one knows how or why. Through a series of chance-random happenings, the solar system formed with the earth-moon system. After more billions of years, elements and chemicals on the earth combined into larger molecules and life arose from the non-living elements, struggling for survival in a crucial environment. From a slimy primeval goo, developed more complex forms of life, suitable for swimming in the water, crawling on the land, and flying in the air. Then one day, one of these new forms of life stepped forth and said, “I am the epitome, the culmination of this undirected chance-random process of fortuitous development.” It called itself homosapien and there was eons and eons, billions and billions of years of meaningless, purposeless, chemical development. This homosapien looked at everything that had luckily come into existence, surveying the vastness and the complexity and said, “Isn’t it amazing what accidents can produce?” So what is life all about anyway?”
So which do you think applies:
From goo to you by way of the zoo?
Or....
Intelligent Design........“In the beginning, GOD CREATED the heavens and the earth.....”
CREATION REFERENCE BOOKS:
The Genesis Solution, by Ken Ham, Paul Taylor
VIDEOS:
By Henry Morris:
By Dr. Duane Gish:
By John Morris:
By Steve Austin:
By Ken Ham:
You are visitor number
E-mail us for ordering information
