Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The six days of creation

Rick,

And thank you too for that..So do you think that there is an unspecified period between Gen 1.1 and the start of Gen 1.3? A period when certain events took place that caused the need for a cleansing?

Regards,

Peter

I do.

I find arguing with someone who is not open and is planning his next "verbal" counter attack while I text is a waste of time. What it boils down to is even if you have full knowledge of science, archeology, history, and philosophy, all of which support orthodox Christianity, and still refute the living God, it's because you've decided you don't WANT to believe and be held accountable to Him. It's not based on evidence; your belief is based on will which, by the way, God grants you. He does not twist arms or kick the door in.

The Bible calls you "a fool", not me, though who am I to disagree with that? Atheism, Agnosticism, etc. are religions too, dogmas, as all of thinking, evidence, and nature presents evidence to the contrary. And while you don't accept Biblical scriptures for proof of same, let me tell you that as the gambler you are (you are you know, and betting against much more than a full house) you are betting that the verse--Roman 8:16--that tells you you "are blind" as an unbeliever and that you cannot perceive spiritual truth until you believe in Jesus Christ, is untrue. I know you don't have the hand to beat that--there is none..The verse actually says that the believer by faith has the truth confirmed to him by God's spirit communing with ours, the implication being the opposite too true (which I just stated)--that the unbeliever cannot know this and it is foolishness to him. Romans 8:16 is the unbeliever's Catch 22.

But carry on; though, if seriously questioning, I'm all yours.

I apologize too for my first comment which was not very helpful if you are truly seeking truth.

Such as the battle with Satan and the casting out??

1:1 is pretty clear:
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
God created the Earth, he did not find it.
If God created the Earth the earth evil it begs the question why?

Of course I appreciate the theological implications of your interpretation: Suns almost up, time to go to work.

We don't know but Lucifer was created by God for a purpose, as part of His plan. And Lucifer became evil by design, and has been instrumental in that plan.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
KJV


What we also know, from Isaiah, is the earth was not created empty or uninhabitable as it was found in Gen 1:2.

Isaiah 45:18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else.
KJV

Jerimiah had a vision of the original creation of God, I believe, after that creation fell.

Jeremiah 4:23-28

23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.

24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.

25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.

26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

27 For thus hath the Lord said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.

28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.
KJV

Did Lucifer fall as a result of something about a pre-Adamite creation? Maybe. Possibly even probably, but what I believe is the only thing of theological value to take away from it, is an explanation for the apparent age of the earth that is at odds with a young earth understanding.

Of course that is not to say, God could not have made a young earth to appear old. All things are possible with God. But there being many millions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, is also very possible with the God I know, and I believe the Bible supports that concept, otherwise I would not suggest such a thing. It's not a popular concept, and many have issues with it or are not even aware of it, but it does nothing to change the message of the Bible and the salvation offered in Christ.

God did not create the earth evil, but as can be seen above, He did create evil, and we know that evil was cast to the earth.

Why? Because it fits His plan. We would be wholly arrogant to believe that plan is all about us. I highly doubt it is. But we are a part of that plan, and in essence the purpose of evil is to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Of course it's interesting, as well as the implications...

When man starts understanding that it's the physical that is fleeting, even to it's micro analysis concerning God... maybe he will be able to embrace his and his fellow man's spiritual DNA.

Kent

John 4:24

"God is a Spirit. Those who worship must worship in spirit and Truth."

Is that a "yes", or a "no", or an "I don't know"?

Then truly we don't have to transform ourselves into something we already are...

Kent

Starting with the conclusion, then fitting the data to the conclusion is what progressive climatologist do, and it's exactly the method you've employed.

If you are asking if "yes", or a "no", or an "I don't know" about DNA, DNA is physical. God is spirit. Exactly like time, He created it and owns it, but does not have it like us.

We all do. It's that most of us don't realize it and even many those who do lie to themselves and say they are letting the evidence guide them. They don't, though. Their world view tells them what to make of the evidence.

Thank you for the response. Now that you make that statement I can understand what you mean. The posting of a single verse did not communicate that to me.

Of course, DNA is physical and God is Spirit. We have a spirit, also. I believe Kent was referring to the make up of that spirit and how it may, or may not be similar to God's in it's design.

I don't believe a discussion of spirit has similarity to time. God is timeless, as are we going forward. Neither do we know when our beginning is, as He knows us before our conception.

But Jesus was a man???? He must have had DNA. What do you suppose an examination of same would tell us?

That is a fun question. We have what is called the genetic load; which is a bunch of mutations. Jesus would have none. He was the second Adam. Adam was the original "very good" creation, so he had none. According to Genetic Entropy and the and the Mystery of the Genome the mutations started about 6,000 years ago at the present accumulation rate. The author has about seventy patents on gene splicing. He taught graduate students at Cornell University for twenty-five years, so he might know something about genes.

Thank You,

That is a very interesting answer.

Ok, for the mentally challenged, did not mean that evolution said anything about dust on the moon, the engineers and scientist who built the spaceship to land on the moon, used information from evolution regarding the age of the universe, and came up with the depth of the dust and designed the ship's landing equipment from that. As usual, any FACT that disagrees with evolution is ignored and never referred to.

I will say there is no way to prove the creation theory, but it is way more believable than the crock of BS evolution is.

here are some things to think on

DO ALL SCIENTISTS BELIEVE EVOLUTION?
While many scientists for one reason or other accept evolution, what of others who seriously question it or reject it altogether? To young
evolutionists it comes as a shock to learn that: (1) many evolutionists admit grave defects in the theory; (2) many supporters of evolution admit
the theory cannot be proved; (3) many scientists stand firmly against the theory. What, exactly, have some prominent men of science had to say
about evolution?
FROM THE FIELD OF BIOLOGY
Dr. Relis Brown admits: �The piecing together of the evolution story is comparable to the reconstruction of an atom-bombed metropolitan telephone
exchange by a child who has only seen a few telephone receivers.�1 Dr. G.K. Hebbert, British lepidopterist, says: �The evidence of fossils
very definitely favors creation and not the evolution theory. The evolution theory bristles with anatomical and biochemical differences.�2
Dr. Austin Clark of the United States National Museum, says:
�There is not the slightest evidence that any of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex, related, more or less
closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.�3
Dr. Kenneth Cooper of the University of Rochester says: �As is so often the case of writings of our modern evolutionists, natural selection as a
cause is deduced from effect, and the resulting arguments and conclusions are, of course, unconvincing.�4 Dr. Albert Fleishmann of Erlangen
University observes: �The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are becoming more and more apparent as time advances. It
can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge, nor does it suffice for our theoretical grasp of the facts.�5 Dr. Ambrose Fleming, past
president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, plainly stated: �Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.�6 Drummond,
the great English scientist, confessed: �I can live no longer on uncertainties. I am going back to my faith in the word of God.�7 Dr. Harold
Blum in his work, Time�s Arrow and Evolution, stated: �The riddle seems to be: How, when no life existed, did substances come into being
which today are absolutely essential to living systems yet which can only be formed by those systems?�8 Dr. H.J. Fuller of the University of
Illinois says: �The evidence of those who would explain life�s origin on the basis of the accidental combination of suitable chemical elements is
no more tangible than that of those people who place their faith in Divine Creation as the explanation of the development of life. Obviously, the
latter have as much justification for their belief as do the former.�9
FROM THE FIELDS OF GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY
Dr. Theodore Schwarze boldly states: �The doctrine of evolution would be an insult to anyone�s intelligence.�10 British paleontologist Dr.
L.M. Davies says: �The most extraordinary nonsense is sometimes talked in support of evolution...it has been estimated that no fewer than
800 phrases in the subjunctive mood (such as �Let us assume� or �We may well suppose,� etc.) are to be found between the covers of Darwin�s
Origin of Species alone...It was Darwin�s habit of confusing the provable with the unprovable which constituted to my mind his unforgivable
offense against science.�11 Dr. J.W. Dawson, Canadian geologist, says: �The evolution doctrine itself is one of the strangest phenomena of
humanity. It is a system destitute of any shadow of proof, and supported merely by vague analogies and figures of speech and by the arbitrary
and artificial coherence of its parts.�12 Dr. N.S. Shaler of Harvard University says: �It begins to be quite evident that the Darwinian hypothesis
is still essentially unverified...It is not yet proven that a single species of the two or three million now inhabiting the earth has been established
solely or mainly by the operation of natural selection.�13 Dr. H.W. Conn states: �Nothing has been positively proved as to the question at issue.
From its very nature, evolution is beyond proof.�14 Dr. Paul Lemoine, French geologist who once supported the evolution theory, declared:
�The theory of evolution is impossible.�15
FROM THE FIELDS OF PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY
Dr. R.E.D. Clark points out: �It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that if in past ages complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler
ones, the progress the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous.
For this reason the doctrine of evolution can never legitimately form a part of naturalistic philosophy...�16 Dr. Edmund Whittaker of the University
of Edinburgh notes: �Modern physical theory has to adapt itself to the concept of creation.�17 Whittaker�s conclusion, as has been felt
by many physicists and chemists, is based on studies of the laws of thermodynamics which will be discussed in a later chapter. British scientist
John Tyndall writes: �There ought to be a clear distinction between science in a state of hypothesis and science in a state of fact; and inasmuch
as it is still in its hypothetical stage, the ban of exclusion ought to fall upon the theory of evolution. I agree with Virchow that the proofs of it
are still wanting, that the failures have been lamentable, and that the doctrine has been utterly discredited.�18
FROM THE FIELD OF MEDICINE
Dr. Ferenco Kiss, Dean of the Medical Faculty, University of Budapest, says: �All the European teachers know the theory of evolution, but they
have never made it a foundation for teaching or research. We also understand why it is necessary for the evolutionists, in order to maintain their
theory, to collect similarities and to neglect the numerous differences.�19
Dr. McNair Wilson, former editor of the Oxford Medical Publications, states: �Increase of knowledge about biology has tended to emphasize
the extreme rigidity of type, and, more and more to discount the idea of transmutation from one type to another - the essential basis of Darwinism.�
20 Again from Dr. Wilson: �Modern medicine and surgery are founded on the truth enunciated by Pasteur, that life proceeds only from
life and only from life of the same kind and type.�21 Dr. Malcolm Dixon, Biochemist of the University of Cambridge, points out: �All life depends
on enzymes. Enzymes are proteins. Proteins are made only from enzymes, and it is extremely difficult to see how they could be formed
in any other way. If then enzymes are made only by enzymes, how did the first enzyme appear? I have stated this rather crudely, but it is a real
difficulty, and there are others which are more formidable.�22 And last, from the German pathologist, Dr. Rudolf Virchow: �It is all nonsense.
It cannot be proved by science that man descended from the ape or any other animal. Since the announcement of the theory, all real scientific
knowledge has proceeded in the opposite direction.�23

used with permission from the author

and

PROBLEMS FACING EVOLUTION
In this chapter are to be found over two dozen arguments lodged against the theory of organic evolution. These arguments involve problems
which evolutionists must face and overcome if they are to succeed on proving their theory. It is well to keep in mind that while these problems
expose the absurdity of evolution, they also establish the only alternative - special creation.
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
The renowned biologist, John W. Klotz, in his work Genes, Genesis and Evolution, points out that one of the greatest problems confronting
evolutionists is the origin of life.1 Evolutionists have no explanation for how life began. The law of biogenesis states that life comes from life.
Evolution, however, by its very nature and when forced to its logical end, demands that life came from non-life, that at one time life arose
spontaneously of itself. Julian Huxley, one of the world�s leading evolutionists, admits the truth of this conclusion.2 To show the enormity of
the problem and the absurdity of a spontaneous origin of life, Dr. Douglas Dewar explains what must have taken place if life arose by accident.
�Eugene Guye estimated that the odds against the formation of one simple protein molecule by chance combinations of atoms of hydrogen,
carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur are 100 multiplied by itself 160 times to 1.�3
One of the smallest living things known to man is a virus. It is made up of 600 stands of protein molecules. Each of these strands contains 400
amino acids. In order for this virus to live all of the amino acids in all of the protein molecules must be lined up in a specific order. If even one
of the amino acids is out of place the virus cannot live. Now what is the possibility of all these amino acids coming together simultaneously
at the same spot in the precise order needed? The chance of this happening is calculated to be 1 in 10240, or 10 followed by 240 zeros! This
means that it could never happen!!
The principle of philosophical necessity states: �Something cannot come from nothing, therefore, something always was.� There never could
have been a time there was nothing! Something has always been in existence! Something is eternal! But what was it that always was? All things
known to man must fall logically into one of two categories - mind or matter. One of these must be eternal, one of these is the original cause!
Now which is more reasonable? 1) To conclude that matter has always existed, and that from lifeless matter life and intelligence came? 2) To
conclude that mind or intelligence has always existed, and that from this supreme intelligence matter came? Which is more rational, logical and
believable?
Evolutionists have no alternative but to say that dead matter has always existed - there is no escaping this conclusion. But such is contrary to all
scientific knowledge. It is easy to see why evolutionists are uncomfortable discussing the origin of life. This illustrates the embarrassing position
to which they are driven by their theory.
THE ORIGIN OF PROTEIN
The question of the origin of the first protein remains unanswered by evolutionists. It constitutes an insurmountable problem.
Proteins are formed by living substance, yet living substance cannot exist without protein. They are interdependent, one cannot exist without
the other. Evolutionists, however, admit that if their theory is true protein existed before living substance. So, the question is: �At a time when
life did not exist how were proteins formed?� Or is it not more reasonable, and easier to conform to scientific fact, to simply conclude that both
protein and living substance came into existence at the same time - perfect and complete!
SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
Of all laws of physical science none are more basic and certain than the two laws of thermodynamics.4
The first law of thermodynamics states that while energy can be converted from one form to another the total amount remains the same. The
second law states that although the total amount remains unchanged, some of this energy becomes non-reversible heat energy. Or to put it
another way, it becomes less available for use. Thus, the amount of useful energy in the universe is always decreasing which means there is
a tendency toward greater randomness. As expressed by the great physicist, James Jeans, the universe is like a gigantic clock that was once
wound up and is now running down.
Evolution, on the other hand, suggests that instead of tendency toward greater randomness in the universe there is a tendency toward a higher
degree of organization. So instead of the clock running down evolution has it winding up! This is in direct contrast to the second law of thermodynamics.
As Dr. Henry Morris has observed: �It is hard to believe that the leaders in evolutionary thought, not to mention their hosts of
uncritical followers, have ever really confronted this gross contradiction between their theory of evolution (which they protest overmuch to be a
�fact�) and the second law of thermodynamics.�5
In responding to this some evolutionists have suggested that the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the living world. However, it
does, and in a very dynamic way! Such an argument shows the weakness of the evolution position. There is no possible way to reconcile evolution
and the second law. Evolutionists, therefore, are remarkably silent about this problem.
EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENTIFICALLY GROUNDED
That evolution is not based on science is easily shown in the following principle - �The theory of evolution can be denied without denying one
single fact of science.� This principle has been set forth by many who disagree with the Darwinian theory and has gone unanswered. The logic
in this argument is readily accepted when applied to other pseudo-scientific theories. For example, one might teach the theory that rats arise
spontaneously out of old rags. Challenging that position another might say: �I can deny that theory without denying any fact of science.� Since
the supporter of such a theory could not show any point of science which must be rejected, it is concluded that his theory has no scientific basis!
But when evolution is tested with the same logic, the conclusion is simply brushed aside. The following syllogism establishes the argument: 1)
A theory is unscientific if it can be denied without denying any fact of science. 2) Evolution can be denied without denying any fact of science.
3) Therefore, evolution is unscientific.
ORIGIN OF ONE-CELLED ANIMALS
The amoeba and paramecium are two examples of one-celled animals. Though each consists of only one cell these two minute organisms
exhibit highly complex and altogether contrasting systems. The amoeba has only a thin plasma membrane around its body of protoplasm. It
has no definite shape but is constantly changing to suit its surroundings. Its means of locomotion is called amoeboid movement describing the
pushing out of a �false foot� (pseudopod) in the direction in which it is going. The rest of the body then flows along with this movement. The
amoeba obtains food by an engulfing process. It approaches the food and simply flows over and around it until it is absorbed into its body.
On the other hand, in addition to a plasma membrane, the paramecium, has a tough, yet flexible, outer covering called pellicle. In contrast to
the amoeba the paramecium has a definite �slipper-shaped� body. Locomotion is caused by tiny hair-like projections called cilia (totaling about
2500). Instead of engulfing food as does the amoeba the paramecium has a definite mouth pore.
Evolutionists teach that these two forms evolved from a common ancestor. And, of course, if evolution were true there must have been a common
ancestor for these two animals. Yet, there is absolutely no evidence of this - it is merely assumed by evolutionists. Considering the great
differences between these two protozoa it would take a stretch of the imagination to even visualize a �common ancestor� from which both
could have evolved. Then, too, the fact that there are over 30,000 different protozoa greatly amplifies the problem.
GAP BETWEEN PROTOZOA AND METAZOA
As already mentioned protozoa are animals with only one cell. They exist in abundance in the forms of sarcodina, mastigophora, sporazoa,
cilata and suctoria. Metazoa, or many-celled animals, constitute the next step in single animal complexity. However, the simplest forms of
metazoa, such as the sponges and coelenterates, are made up of literally hundreds of cells! Now the remarkable thing about all this is that there
are no animals to bridge the gap between the protozoa and metazoa. There are no animals with 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, etc. cells and there is no
evidence that any such animals ever existed. And if evolution is still occurring, as evolutionists say is true, why are there no multi-celled animals
between these two groups living today?
SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF FOSSILS
Fossils are the impressions or traces of plants and animals found within various layers of the earth�s outer crusts. Literally millions of such
remains have been unearthed. In attempting to support their theory evolutionists appeal to the fossil record. And, indeed, this is supposed to be
the very best of evidence. Now if the evolution theory is true then certainly here, in the fossil record, evidence of the evolution of life should
be found in abundance. For example, at the base of the fossil record we would expect to find only the simplest of life forms. However, this
is not at all the case. At the very lowest point in the fossil record (Cambrian period) are to be found thousands of highly complex animals. In
other words, there is no slow increase of animal complexity in the fossil record. The evidence shows that complex life forms have been here all
along. The fossils reveal the sudden appearance of all sorts of life.
The earliest known sedimentary rocks contain no fossils...in the rocks laid down in the Cambrian period a host of well defined fossils occur in
many parts of the world, not only of simple, one-celled animals, but also of a great variety of sea creatures, many of them quite as complex as
anything to be found on the beach today. Fossils of no fewer than 5,000 different species have been found of jellyfish, corals, sea lilies and sea
cucumbers, worms, numerous kinds of crustaceans and a wide range of shellfish.13
If evolution were true one would not expect to find �well defined� assortments of complex animals at the base of the fossil record. Consequently,
for over one hundred years evolutionists have been trying to produce evidence of �pre-Cambrian� fossils, but with no success. Even Darwin
understood the conflict between his theory and the facts of the geological record. He could see that for life to have reached the complexity
found at the Cambrian level, life must have existed long before it was laid down. He admitted that if the evolution theory was true then long
before the Cambrian period was laid down the world must have �swarmed with living creatures.�14
All this is quite embarrassing to evolutionists, and especially so since the fossil record is the only means of direct evidence. The fossils are,
indeed, evidence that life appeared suddenly in all its splendor.
SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF FLOWERING PLANTS
In the previous argument it was pointed out that animals appeared suddenly in the geological record. However the same thing is also true in the
plant world. Of this, Klotz says: �One of the big problems of plant evolution, and especially of the evolution of flowering plants, is the fact that
the latter appear so suddenly in the geological record...Darwin called their origin an �abominable mystery,� and most evolutionists today still
agree.�15
There is absolutely no sign of gradual development in the flowering plants and no pre-existing forms from which they could have arisen. They
appear suddenly without warning. Evolutionists have nothing to explain this discrepancy with their theory.
NO INTERMEDIATE FORMS
As one looks at the world about him it is obvious that there are no living forms which represent intermediate or transitional links between
groups of animals. Many students of evolution are surprised to learn that the same thing is true of the fossil record. There are no missing links
and in spite of the zeal of many evolutionists to produce some, they are still missing! Actually, the whole chain is missing!
If evolution is true it stands to reason that the fossil record should be full of such transitional forms - forms of animals only partially complete.
But there are none. Every fossil remain exhibits an animal that was fully developed with all the features that distinguish the group to which it
belongs. It should be noted also that the lack of transitional forms is not due to the imperfection of the fossil record, but rather demonstrates
that such forms never did exist.
Because of the obvious lack of intermediate or transitional forms, some evolutionists have questioned the original �Darwinian� theory that life
evolved by small steps. As far back as 1944 George Gaylord Simpson, strong proponent of evolution admitted: Continuous transitional sequences
are not merely rare, but are virtually absent...Their absence is so nearly universal that it cannot, offhand, be imputed entirely to chance,
and does require some attempt at special explanation, as has been felt by most paleontologists.6 He went on to say: �It is thus possible to
claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transition but by sudden leaps in evolution.
There is much diversity of opinion as to just how such leaps are supposed to happen.� 7
Since then many more leading evolutionists have expressed similar concern about the lack of intermediate fossils. In the mid 1950s Richard
Goldschmidt revised Simpson�s idea. By most evolutionists his view was labeled the �Hopeful Monster� theory. In the 1970s and 1980�s Niles
Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History and Stephen Gould of Harvard, two of the most highly regarded men in their fields, proposed
this same theory, this time calling it �punctuated equilibria� or �explosive� evolution.
So, according to this newer theory we are expected to believe that radically new and different forms of life were produced by �sudden leaps�
from one generation to the next. After all, what else can be offered to explain why there are no intermediate fossils? Though this new idea is
almost laughable, yet, it is being widely accepted.
To any thinking person it should be obvious that the lack of intermediate fossils has caused evolutionists to scramble for an alternative explanation
for how evolution could have occurred.
UNBRIDGED GAPS BETWEEN BODY STRUCTURES
The theory of gradual change from one generation to the next is the backbone of standard evolution. For example, within the framework of
evolution we are told there was gradual change from reptile to mammal and also from mammal to the cetacean (marine mammals such as the
whale). However, such supposed transformations are shown to be impossible by the broad gaps between the body structure of these animals.
Concerning the �change� from reptile to mammal, the lower jaw of the reptile, with as many as six bones on either side, articulates with the
skull by means of the quadrate bone. In the mammal, however, the lower jaw, with one bone on each side, articulates directly with the skull.
What possible steps could there have been to bridge this gap? It should be noted that there are no fossils revealing such intermediate stages.
Furthermore, it is impossible to even imagine how this structural gap could have been bridged. And this is not to mention the difficulty this
creature would have had in eating!
Regarding the so-called change from land mammal to marine mammal, Dewar says: �Such a transformation would have involved a line of
intermediate types in which the pelvis was too small to enable the creature to walk on land, while too large to permit it to swim (as does the
whale) by the up and down movement of its tail.�8 He further states that such a hypothetical structure would demand a movement of the tail
which would �crush the reproductive opening of the animal against the back of the pelvis.�9 And again there are no fossils of such intermediate
stages between land and marine mammals. It would be interesting, however, to see sketches of the skeletons of such intermediate forms at the
quarter, half and three-quarter stages. But, of course, this gap, as well as the gap between reptile and mammal, involves a structural impossibility!
ORIGIN OF VERTEBRATES
Another extremely difficult problem evolutionists are unable to explain is the origin of the vertebrates (or animals with backbones). Evolution
teaches that vertebrates evolved from invertebrates (animals without backbones), and this would seem to be the case if evolution were true.
But the differences between the two are so pronounced that it is impossible to conceive how one could have arisen from the other. As Dr. Klotz
points out: �However, there is a tremendous gap between the highest invertebrate and the lowest vertebrate. None of the invertebrates has anything
which remotely resembles the vertebral column, which is one of the outstanding characteristics of the vertebrate. Furthermore, the body
plan of the invertebrates is quite different from the body plan of the vertebrates. For one thing, the annelids and arthropods have a ventral nerve
cord. The vertebrates all have a dorsal nerve cord. The invertebrate nerve cord is solid; the vertebrate nerve cord is hollow. The invertebrate
heart is dorsal; the vertebrate heart is ventral. Indeed, it would seem that a vertebrate is in many ways an invertebrate turned inside out.�10
No fewer than a half dozen different theories have been suggested attempting to explain how this change might have taken place, which in itself
shows evolution at this point to be nothing short of guesswork. And it should be noted also that the fossil record contains no evidence whatever
which bridges these two broad categories of life.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN ANIMAL ORGANS
Bodies cannot properly function unless they are essentially complete. All complex animals have organs which are useless unless fully developed
and, which, if not fully developed, make survival of these animals biologically impossible. Throughout the world there are millions of
examples that clearly illustrate this.
SPINNERETS OF SPIDERS
The web-spinning organ of the spider is essential for its survival and continued reproduction. It does not seem possible that at one time this organ
was only partially complete, yet, evolutionists are forced to assume that very thing. But what useful function could there be in a one fourth
or one half evolved web-spinning organ? During all those millions of years of so-called evolution while the organ was developing, how did this
little creature survive? That this organ had to be perfect and complete from the very beginning is the only reasonable conclusion.
POLLEN �BASKETS� OF THE BEE
As the little bee flies from flower to flower pollen clings to the hairs on its legs and body and is transferred to pollen �baskets� on its hind legs.
These baskets are made by a peculiar arrangement of hairs surrounding a depression on the outer surface of the legs. On the middle pair of legs
at the joint is a short, projecting spur used to pack pollen into the pollen baskets. The hind legs have �combs� used to scrape pollen from the
hairy body while the middle pair of legs are used to scrape pollen from the abdomen and second pair of legs. When the bee reaches its hive it
uses a spur at the tip of each front leg to push the pollen out of the pollen baskets and into the cells of the hive. The whole procedure is efficient
and practical - a wondrous design indeed!
Pollen is necessary for the survival of the bee. Had there been a time when the basket was only half evolved, survival of the bee would have
been impossible. It had to be complete at the start. And to this is added the fact that the wings and legs of the bee had to be complete from the
start. What good would only partially completed baskets, wings and legs have been to this little creature?
Literally millions of similar and even more complex examples could be cited demonstrating the necessity of original perfection in animal
organs.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN BOTH PLANTS AND ANIMALS FOR CROSS-POLLINATION
On the basis of the preceding argument it should be obvious that cross-pollination in many plants would be impossible without the completed
organs of various animals. The following examples serve to illustrate this even further.
YUCCA PLANT AND PRONUBA MOTH
The Pronuba moth flies to the Yucca plant (a bush of the western states), scrapes together a wad of pollen about three times the size of its head,
and carries it to another Yucca plant. Here the Pronuba lays eggs among the seed cells of the plant and packs this all down with the pollen wad
which, in turn, cross-pollinates the plant. The eggs soon hatch and the young moths eat approximately one fifth of the seeds. The remaining
seeds then supply the new Yucca plants. The survival and existence of the yucca plant depends on the proper function of the perfect and complete
organs of the Pronuba Moth. Likewise, the Pronuba could not survive without the proper function of the Yucca plant, since it is dependent
on the Yucca for reproducing offspring. Now, the question is, �What good would an incomplete Yucca plant be to the Pronuba moth?� Likewise,
�What good would an incomplete Pronuba moth be to the Yucca plant?� The fact is that both of them had to be complete and functioning
with perfection from the beginning.
LADY�S SLIPPER AND FLYING INSECTS
This is a flower shaped like a moccasin with a small hole at the �heel.� The insect goes into the flower but can only get out by way of the heel.
Here it brushes against the pollen grains and carries some with it when leaving. The insect then flies to another Lady�s Slipper and enters. Here
the pollen is rubbed off and cross-pollination takes place. In order for this to occur it is obvious that the Lady�s Slipper must be perfect and
complete and that the insects must, likewise, be complete, able to fly from flower to flower. However, according to evolution, both this flower
and flying insects were at one time incomplete. But of what use would a half-evolved heel be to the Lady�s Slipper and what good would partially
developed wings be to the insects. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that both were perfect from the beginning?
SALVIA AND BUMBLEBEE
Upon entering one of these flowers for nectar the bumblebee strikes the lower part of the stamen which brings the anther down on its back.
Pollen is dusted on its back and when it flies to another flower the pollen is scraped off by the same method, thus enabling cross-pollination to
occur. Had there ever been a time when the Salvia had no stamen and anther the survival of the plant would have been impossible. Likewise, it
would have been impossible had the bumblebee had only partially evolved wings. And, yet, evolution demands that at one time this flower was
not complete and the bumblebee did not have fully developed wings. But what good is a bumblebee without wings or wings only half-evolved?
Reason forces one to conclude that these forms of life worked together with perfection from the beginning.
PITFALL FLOWER AND INSECTS
This flower traps the insect in its bottle-shaped frame. It then dusts the insect prisoner with pollen and releases it. The insect then flies to another
Pitfall flower where cross-pollination occurs. But, this could never be accomplished if either the insect or flower were incomplete. It can
be clearly seen that perfection of organs in many plants and animals was necessary from the very beginning or survival or either of them would
have been impossible.
NECESSITY OF PERFECTION IN ANIMALS FOR COLONIAL LIVING
Nature abounds with cases where two or more animals are found living together in what is termed colonial living. A great many of these arrangements
are highly intricate and cannot be explained in terms of evolution.
PORTUGUESE �MAN OF WAR� AND NOMEUS FISH
The Man of War (or physalia) is a marine animal which has an air-filled membrane acting as a float that stays on top of the water. Long poisonous,
tentacles hang down several feet beneath the water�s surface. The Nomeus fish lives among these tentacles and lures larger fish into this
deadly trap. The Man of War devours the �meal� and the Nomeus gets the scraps. Never is the Nomeus harmed by the Man of War. Of this
complex system, Meldau says:
The thinking person who is honest must admit that such an involved mechanism of symbiosis (such an ingenious stratagem) must be the work
of a master mind and could NOT be developed by �gradual� or �random� mutations. Evolution could work in the dark for a billion years and
not come up with such an amazing mechanism. Note, further, that to work the system HAS to be perfected from the beginning. A gradual evolution
into such an intricate arrangement would not work until completely �evolved.� And so throughout the ages of �evolvement� one would
be confronted with a meaningless and incomplete �nothingness.� But such impractical incompleteness is never found in nature.11
NECESSITY OF PERFECT AND COMPLETE INSTINCTS
There are literally thousands of animals possessing highly complicated instincts which could not have possibly developed gradually. Following
are a few examples.
WATER SPIDER
This little spider has the remarkable instinct of building a nest under water. It spins a silken airtight sheet near the bottom of a pond and fastens
it to some stationary object. The nest is then connected to a surface object by a silken cord. However, before the new nest can be inhabited it
must be filled with air. The spider entangles bubbles of air among the hairs of its body and pulls itself down the cord to the sheet of silk, under
which the air is released. This process is repeated many times until the water in the nest is replaced with air. It is in this underwater nest that the
young spiders are hatched.
The Water Spider�s survival depends on this remarkable instinct to build an underwater nest. Could there have ever a time when this instinct
was only half-evolved? No rational person could entertain such an idea.
And another amazing thing is that the young spiders carry on with this remarkable process, and do it without flaw the very first time, even
though they never see their mothers building the nests. If this instinct evolved, how did the water spider manage to survive through all those
millions of years during which this transition was supposed to have been occurring?
SOLITARY WASPS
Such wasps have an expert way of providing fresh meat for their offspring. The wasp paralyses its victims and stores them among the her
unhatched offspring, which, incidentally, she never sees. When the young wasps hatch they live on the fresh meat. When matured, these new
wasps will duplicate this amazing procedure. This instinct could not have come about gradually by the blind forces of nature. Neither could the
wasp have learned this instinct, for it never sees the parent paralyzing a victim.
MARTIN�S NEST
Dewar gives the following description of the Martin�s nest building ability. �The nest, which is attached to a perpendicular wall, is composed
of mud collected by the bird in its bill from a puddle, mixed with bits of straw to toughen the mud. In order to get a foothold on the side of
the wall, and maintain its position and plaster the mud to the face of the wall, the bird not only clings with its claws but also uses its tail as a
fulcrum by pressing its tip against the wall. When a layer of about half-an-inch has been attached to the wall the bird ceases work for the day, to
enable the mud to harden before more is added. Next morning the work is resumed.�12
In about ten days the nest is completed and perfectly suited for all the Martin�s needs. This nest building instinct, if only partially developed,
would result in disaster. What good would such an instinct be if only half-evolved? Through the longs ages, while this instinct was supposedly
evolving, how did the Martin continue its life process? There is no way to explain how such a unique instinct came about gradually. It had to be
complete from the beginning.
NO NASCENT ORGANS
Evolutionists often cite so-called vestigial (degenerate) organs as evidence of evolution. The claim is made that as life evolved various organs
within animals became useless and, as time passed, degenerated. Obviously, if evolution occurred this would seem to be the case, for this is
fundamental to the theory. (Vestigial organs will be taken up in the next chapter.)
However, just as important to the theory of evolution is the development of nascent (newly appearing) organs. It stands to reason that if animals
evolved, and in the process lost various organs, they would also have developed new and more useful organs. After all, how could new and
different animals have come about? And this is the very point at issue -- whether or not animals evolved into more complex forms. But where
are these nascent organs? There are no examples of such in any living specimens. Indeed, it would seem that evolution, if it ever occurred, has
somehow stopped. In addition, there is no evidence of nascent organs in any animals of the fossil record.
One evolutionist, defending his theory in debate, when pressed on this point, made the brilliant discovery that the corns on his toes were nascent
organs.16 Into what could these corns possibly evolve? To many evolutionists the problem of the lack of nascent organs has proved fatal.
It is significant that evolutionary indoctrinated textbooks have very little or nothing to say about such organs.
TESTIMONY OF THE ENDOPARASITES
There are many animals which spend most of their lives inside other animals. One such example is the Taemia Solium (tape-worm) which normally
spends its adult life in the human intestine. Of the tapeworm, Dewar says:
Its flat tape-like body is many feet long and is composed, for most of its length, of loosely connected segments, which in the forepart of the
creature become small and narrow, terminating in a rounded head provided with a crown of hooks and four suckers, by means of which it
firmly attaches itself to the wall of the intestine of its victim (or so-called �host�). Each of the segments holds male and female organs, which
produce the eggs. These eggs cannot develop while they remain in the intestine of the host. As soon as the eggs in any segment mature, this
breaks off and passes out of the host with the feces. After being ejected the segment decomposes and sets free the eggs it contains. These eggs
perish unless they are eaten by a pig. As soon as an egg finds itself in the stomach of a pig it begins to develop into a larva which is provided
with six spines, and is called a pre-solex. This, by means of its spines, forces its way through the wall of the pig�s stomach, its leathery covering
having by this time become dissolved by the juices in the pig�s stomach, which do not harm the pre-solex. On leaving the stomach the pre-solex
forces itself into the muscles of its host, in which it takes up its abode and surrounds itself with a protecting case and then develops at its hinder
end a bladder filled with fluid. In this condition it is called a solex. This is the final stage of the tapeworm, unless the part of the pig in which it
is located is eaten by a human being. When it finds itself in the intestines of a man the solex breaks out of its case, and by means of its hooks
and suckers attaches itself to the wall of the intestine, where it grows into an adult tapeworm.17
The problem for evolution created by this endoparasite is enormous. It must be explained how the tapeworm, living inside another animal,
slowly evolved over aeons of time from a worm which lived in the open. So much is involved here that such a transition would have been
impossible. For example: 1) How could a free-living worm have entered into the stomach of another animal and continued there alive, surviving
the body acids? 2) How did it continue to breathe and nourish itself during this long period of transition? 3) What is the explanation for the
change from a free-living worm with a digestive system, to this endoparasite which has no digestive system?
But the problem for evolutionists is multiplied when noting the complexity of the life cycle of the tapeworm. Evolution cannot explain the
change from the reproduction process of a worm living in the open, to a tapeworm which depends on two different animal hosts for reproduction.
The gap between the free-living worm and the tapeworm is too broad for evolution to close. And this is only one of hundreds of endoparasites
all of which present equally difficult problems.
SKELETAL ARMOR
Most evolutionists believe that armored animals evolved from soft, naked animals. It is assumed that somehow these naked forms developed
a need for protection, and that by gradual change over long periods of time armor appeared. But how and why did these animals develop such
a need? And does not the concept of need imply purpose? And how can this be made to harmonize with the evolutionary principle of blind
chance working in nature?
Then there are some evolutionists who take an altogether different position, saying that armored animals came first and that from these the soft,
naked forms evolved.18
Now who is to be believed? And, remember, this constitutes a gigantic step in the evolution story. If the fossil record contained any information
as to which evolved first then there would be no disagreement among evolutionists, which points out that the fossil record contains no evidence
of any such evolving. If evolution is so clear-cut and if the evidence is so overwhelming, as we are sometimes led to believe, why this glaring
discrepancy? (Similarly, there is disagreement over which came first, thin-skinned or armored fish.)19
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
Photosynthesis is the means by which green plants convert sun energy into food. This process is carried on throughout practically the entire
plant world, even in the very simplest one-cell forms. Photosynthesis involves, in the words of Winchester: �A long sequence of very complicated
steps with many intermediate products being formed before the overall equation is completed.�20
Without laboring a detailed description of photosynthesis, let us simply point out that it is virtually impossible to imagine how this complex
mechanism could have gradually evolved into existence. It is such a remarkable system of processes that in order for it to work every step must
be functioning with perfection. It would be interesting to hear an explanation of how this profoundly complex network of processes evolved.
METAMORPHOSIS
Metamorphosis is a word describing the various stages through which certain animals pass before reaching their adult forms. The common butterfly
is a classic example. This little animal goes through four distinct stages: egg, larva, pupa and adult butterfly. It begins as an egg which, in
turn, develops into a worm like larva. The larva has a tremendous appetite eating almost constantly. When the larva reaches its potential growth
it goes into the pupa stage by spinning threads of silk around itself forming a cocoon. The transformation which occurs within the cocoon is
truly amazing, so amazing, in fact, that science has no adequate explanation for it. Meldau writes: �The encased caterpillar seems gradually
to melt into a jellied, shapeless mass; and before long, out of this melted caterpillar comes a gorgeous butterfly, having large, dainty, colored
wings, instead of the crawling, ugly caterpillar!�21
The entire system of metamorphosis is an embarrassing problem for evolutionists, for it is impossible for them to describe, or even visualize,
how such a process could have gradually evolved. Evolution simply has no explanation for metamorphosis as witnessed by the following. The
metamorphosis of the butterfly cannot reasonably be explained by any mechanical theory of evolution. The idea that this mysterious process, by
which a certain form of animal is changed comparatively suddenly into something entirely different, and which goes on with undeviating regularity
generation after generation, could have come about by the chance selection of chance variations or mutations, without plan and without
directing force, is so contrary to intelligence and so basically unscientific that it is...manifestly absurd.22
SOME ANIMALS HAVE NOT CHANGED
Informed evolutionists believe that evolution is inevitable, that it is a process of nature that cannot be helped, that there is a tendency in nature
for all life to evolve to higher forms. And this is certainly consistent with the overall picture of evolution. But, is evolution really inevitable?
Is there really a tendency in nature for life to evolve to higher forms? The answer is �No.� Abundant evidence substantiates the fact that from
the beginning many animals have not changed. At the base of the fossil record (Cambrian period, which evolutionists say was laid down about
500 million years ago) are found thousands of animals which are no different than their offspring living today. In view of this testimony one is
forced to ask: �Have animals ever really been subject to the organic change required by evolution?� Again, the fossil record and evolutionary
claims do not harmonize and the Darwinian theory has no explanation for this obvious inconsistency!
�EXTINCT� FORMS STILL LIVING
Another difficulty closely related to the previous argument is the fact that in the modern world several living specimens have been discovered
which, according to the evolutionary timetable, were supposed to have become extinct millions of years ago. This is true of both plants and animals.
In the plant world, for example, evolutionists once taught that the redwood, Metasequoiam, became extinct about 200 million years ago.
However, in 1944 a Chinese forester discovered living specimens of this tree in Central China.23 Likewise, for years it was thought that the
Coelacanth, a fish, became extinct at least 50 million years ago. However, in 1937 a specimen of the Coelacanth was taken alive off the coast
of west Africa.24 Since then many more of these have been discovered. And an even more amazing discovery is that of a mollusk, Neopilino
Galatheae. It was found in 1957 off central America at a depth of 11,700 feet.25 Evolutionists have claimed that this mollusk became extinct
over 200 million years ago!
Burdened with an already overworked theory, evolutionists are now forced to conclude that these forms, according to their own time-table,
remained unchanged for multiplied millions of years, while the rest of the organic world evolved. This conclusion is just a little hard to swallow,
and before these discoveries even evolutionists would have rejected such reasoning. How inconsistent can one be? Discoveries of these
so-called extinct forms have raised great suspicion regarding the extreme dates set by evolutionists.
NUMBER OF CHROMOSOMES
Chromosomes are the threadlike structures in the nucleus of the cell. These microscopic threads are the determining factors of inherited characteristics.
Assuming evolution to be true, when ascending the evolutionary timetable, one would expect to see a gradual increase in the number
of chromosomes of plants and animals. However, this is not at all the case. The following lists show some plants and animals in the ascending
order in which they are supposed to have evolved, along with their corresponding chromosome number. Note the great fluctuations.
PLANTS
Algae - 48
Moss - 40
Pine - 24
Onion - 16
Lily - 48
Peas - 14
ANIMALS
Earthworm - 32
Crayfish - 208
Chicken - 18
Horse - 60
Cow - 16
Man - 46
Evolutionists are heard to say that this reasoning is irrelevant, that it has no bearing on the issue. But we can rest assured that had there been, by
some twist of circumstance, a gradual increase in the chromosome number of plants and animals corresponding to the evolutionary timetable,
evolutionists would be preaching it as proof of their theory! It is amazing how often unfavorable evidence is so easily avoided.
STABILITY OF CHROMOSOMES
All species of both plants and animals have fixed chromosome numbers.26 Man has forty-six chromosomes and each generation of man has the
same number. The horse has sixty and its offspring also has sixty. And this is consistent throughout the entire biological world.
Evolutionists rely heavily on the idea of inherited characteristic. However, since chromosomes determine the inherited characteristics of plants
and animals, and since the chromosome number of each specie is fixed, how, then, could evolution have ever occurred? What is the strange
force that keeps the seed within its bounds? �And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding
fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth, and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his
kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind, and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after their kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and God saw that it was good.�27 Evolution cannot consistently
conform to this principle, and, needless to say, evolutionists refuse to even consider it.
THE BALANCE OF NATURE
Though it may at first seem to be insignificant, the balance of nature creates another real setback to the evolution position. The force of this
argument is best seen by noting that the world is full of small animals which, if not kept in check by higher forms of life, would reproduce to
such an extent that no life could exist. To put it another way, there never could have been a time when these animals existed without higher
forms of animal life existing at the same time! The following examples illustrate the point.
FROM THE INSECT WORLD
Most insects multiply at a tremendous rate. For example a single housefly can, in one season, lay as many as 500 eggs. Left unchecked, at the
end of one season the offspring of that single fly would number 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 or two hundred quintillion!
If all the offspring of a single pair of common houseflies lived to mature and reproduce, the earth would be covered beneath a layer of flies
nearly fifty feet deep in less than six months.28
Now the question is this: Could there have ever been a time when there were no higher animals to keep the housefly in �check�? It is reported
that a single spider will kill as many as 200 flies in its lifetime, and there are thousands of species of fly eating spiders. A single toad may eat as
many as 30 flies an hour. And a single swallow will eat hundreds of flies every day.
But what if there were no spiders, toads, swallows or other insect eaters? Surely disaster would soon overtake the world. Therefore, it is reasonable
to conclude that there was never a time when the fly was among the most advanced animals. And the fly is just one example among
thousands in the insect world.
FROM THE PROTOZOAN WORLD
The one-celled amoeba reproduces itself by means of fission. That is, it goes through mitosis and forms two cells of equal size. The time
required for this is about ninety minutes. Can we imagine how many amoebas there would be if such rapid means of reproduction were left unchecked?
In less than five years they would cover all known space -- if that were possible. Could there have ever been a time when the amoeba
existed without higher forms of animal life to feed on them?
And this is only one example of thousands in the protozoan world. But this is just a beginning. The argument based on nature�s balance extends
throughout the entire animal world and would require volumes for a complete review.
ORIGIN OF BIRDS
It is assumed by evolutionists that birds arose from the reptile world. However, this position faces several serious problems.
SCALES AND FEATHERS
Since birds are supposed to have evolved from reptiles, evolutionists maintain that there was some kind of transition between reptilian scales
and feathers of birds. However, there is no evidence in the fossil record of such a transition having ever occurred, and no plausible explanation
for how such could have ever happened. In fact, the earliest known fossil remains of birds (which, incidentally, evolutionists place at about 165
million years) show fully developed feathers. Such evidence is admitted by knowledgeable evolutionists.29
In addition to this there is wide disagreement among evolutionists as to just how birds developed. Some contend that they came from two-footed,
long tailed reptiles. It is believed that these reptiles:
...while running, oared along in the air by flapping their front feet, which were, of course, not in contact with the ground. This oaring movement
could become more effective if the breadth of these anterior extremities were increased to give a greater bearing surface. This is believed
to have been accompanied by increasing the size of the scales along the arm margin, and these gradually developed into the feathers. Similarly
scales are thought to have developed along the marginal of the tail for the same reason, and these, too, gradually developed into feathers.30
Other evolutionists, however, believe that birds evolved from tree-dwelling lizards, that these lizards developed wings and feathers for gliding.
Now which view is to be believed? Did birds evolve from two-footed, long tailed reptiles or tree lizards? This, together with the fact that there
is no fossil evidence of any transitions from reptile to bird, illustrates the guesswork so prevalent among evolutionists.
COLD AND WARM BLOOD
Reptiles are cold-blooded while birds are warm-blooded. The reptile has three chambers in its heart and its temperature varies with the temperature
of its environment. The bird�s heart, however, has four chambers (as does the mammal) and has a built-in �thermostat� or heat control
devise by which it maintains a rather constant body temperature. Quite obviously the problem here is to explain this transition in terms of
evolution. But is such a transition possible? And how could an animal undergoing this drastic change even survive? How did a cold-blooded
animal with three heart chambers develop a bird heart with four chambers? What good would there be to a half-evolved �thermostat�? Theorists
are at loss for an explanation.
The required change from scales to feathers and from cold blood to warm blood places before the evolutionist another rather uncomfortable
difficulty.
ORIGIN OF MAMMALS
Standard evolution teaches that mammals evolved from reptiles. There are, however, great differences between these two areas of life. For
example, mammals have hair, mammary glands and are warm-blooded, while reptiles have none of these characteristics. The gap between these
animal groups is too broad even for evolutionists to bridge. The fossil record shows no evidence of a transformation between reptile and mammal
and honest evolutionists admit this.
ODD CREATURES
Nature is full of odd creatures which seem to have no place in the world around them. These animals are so unlike even their nearest �relatives�
on the evolutionary timetable they are profoundly confusing to evolutionists.
AUSTRALIAN PLATYPUS
This is one of the strangest animals known to man. It has a heavy, squatty body about a foot and a half long, weighs about four pounds and
lives in burrows which start beneath water level. It has fur like a beaver, a bill and webbed feet resembling those of a duck, spurs with venom
like a snake, large cheek pouches for holding food like a monkey or squirrel, short legs parallel to the ground like a lizard, lays eggs like a bird
and nurses its young like a mammal.
Now, from what type animal did the Platypus evolve? From a mammal? But mammals don�t lay eggs. Did it come from a lizard? But lizards
don�t have fur. Maybe it came from a duck. But ducks don�t nurse their young. Could it have evolved from a snake? But snakes don�t have
webbed feet. Did it come from a squirrel. But squirrels don�t have duck bills. Actually it seems to be a combination of them all! Clearly, the
Platypus defies the theory of evolution. It just doesn�t fit in! It appears as a distinct creation.
PRAYING MANTIS
The so-called Praying Mantis is an �insect nightmare� if there ever was one. It is commonly about 2 inches long. It�s spiny, ferocious forelegs,
its protruding eyes that pop out from its head that appears to be a caricature of a snake�s head, its long body and ambling gait, and its bony
�armor� suggest �a prehistoric reptile in miniature.� It has no voice, and lacks real ears.32
In nature the closest �relative� to the Praying Mantis is the grasshopper. But it is so far removed from even the grasshopper that no evolutionary
kinship can be claimed. It seems to be completely out of place in nature. From what did it evolve? The answer! Nothing! Nature displays many
such remarkably odd creatures: the cicadas, sea horse, plankton, sting ray, oyster, grunion, palolo worm, electric eel, tilapia, deep-sea squid and
climbing perch, to mention only a few. There is simply no place for these animals on the evolutionary tree.
IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
A final, but extremely important point to be made, is the principle of irreducible complexity. To a large degree this principle can relate to many
of the things already mentioned in this chapter. Simply stated, irreducible complexity means that the complexity of a functional system cannot
be reduced without destroying the system itself.
The common mousetrap, though simple in design, has a degree of complexity. It is made up of a platform, a spring, a hammer, a holding bar
and a catch, all of which must function properly in order for the mousetrap to work. If any of its parts are removed or rendered incomplete the
mousetrap is useless. Hence, every part must be in place and fully functional. The complexity of the mousetrap cannot be reduced.
Throughout the living world all animals and plants contain multiple complex systems. As with the mousetrap, in order for these systems to
function, every part must be complete. For example, the system of sight in man. Among other things, human sight is made up of the eyeball
(containing the cornea, the lens, and the retina), the optic nerve, the midbrain junction, nerve fibers and the occipital lobe. With all these parts
working together man is provided with the remarkable ability to see. However, if even one of these parts is removed or rendered incomplete
there can be no sight. Every part must be in place and fully functional. The complexity of the system of sight cannot be reduced - irreducible
complexity!
However, this is what evolution requires! Evolution demands that if the system of sight evolved, at some point the parts of the system had to
be reduced and, hence, less complex. There is no escaping this conclusion! The point is clear. There never could have been a time when any of
the complex systems of the living world were less complex? Yet, this is what evolution says has to have happened! Evolution and irreducible
complexity are mutually exclusive.
EVOLUTION BUILT ON ASSUMPTION
The theory of evolution is built on assumption. It is somewhat like an inverted pyramid made of blocks, with one block at the base followed by
two, these followed by three, and so on, with each block representing a step in the theory.
From the very base this inverted pyramid is weak because it begins with assumption. It is assumed that life somehow just sprang into existence.
One widely distributed high school biology textbook, when explaining of how life was supposed to have begun, in two short paragraphs uses
over a dozen expressions such as �could have come,� �might have been,� �assumed,� �might have produced,� �we can imagine,� and so on.33
The idea of an accidental beginning of life is the foundation block upon which the entire pyramid rests, yet even that block is made of guesswork!
Ascending the pyramid one can see many additional assumptions, a few of which have already been discussed. Time and space would be exhausted
if every argument unfavorable to evolution was presented.
As Morris says: �Its nature is coming more plainly into focus and can be discerned as that of a vast framework of deductions built upon the
foundation of a false premise.�34

again with permission from the author, a freind of mine