FLAWS IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION

First of all here is a simple description of what this theory states.

First of all a lot of scientists say that probably the universe came into existence when a giant ball or primeval atom exploded. This is the big bang theory and so this original ball blew up and so the universe came into existence. The sun, it is speculated, came into existence when an enormous cloud or disk of dust and gas condensed or came together. The earth they say probably came into existence the same way but a little later than the sun. Theory says the earth is around 4,500,000,000 years old (4.5 billion years). Recent speculation is that it may be much older perhaps up to 10 billion years or so.

Now how did life start ? Well the theory states that the earth in its early years probably had a lot of gases and liquids on its surface. There probably wasn't an atmosphere like the one today. The sun shone down on earth but there was no atmosphere like today. So certain rays such as ultra-violet could get right through to the surface. So the scientists speculate that there was storms on earth with much lightening, and this combined with all the liquids and gases and the solid earth along with the sun's heat and rays, formed a sort of soup. This it is said probably led to the formation of very simple molecules such as sugars and amino acids.

In some way these very simple structures came into existence and over eons of time, millions of millions of years, these tiny structures combined together to form bigger and more complicated molecules. Eventually they came alive or life began. These little bits of life called molecules then came to be able to reproduce themselves. At first there must of been one kind of molecule, but over the course of time they diversified, and so there were many different kinds of molecules (A molecule is the smallest part or an element or compound). Gradually over multimillions and millions of years these molecules changed and combined together in different forms until today we have an amazing diversity in living organisms. The varieties of these early "living" molecules which competed most successfully for the resources available and reproduced most rapidly apparently must have pushed out and overcome other less competitive molecules. So the process just continued on and on. One set of molecules gradually became organized together and became more and more complex.

Self-reproducing molecules are called by science nucleic acids and the most vital of these is DNA or deoxyribonucleic acid. These acids organize matter around them to form cells. The cell is a functional unit containing the machinery for maintenance, growth and reproduction. So organisms consist of cells or organized groups of cells. So if the cells are higher organized and with many doing specialized jobs you end up with a highly evolved creature like man. So man is a complex organism.

So there is your theory of evolution. I could go into more detail but my brain may not be able to handle the strain. So to be on the safe side we shall leave it at that. It is very difficult to write on this subject.

You look into these books explaining about evolution and the words are not too common. They give you all the Geological Periods and it is almost impossible relating to them. Here are some of the names for geological periods; Quaternary, Tertiary, Cretaceous and Permean. Then the names given to dinosaurs are simply beyond my ability to even pronounce some of them. Iquanodon, Rhamphorhynchus and Brontosaur are just a few and it is almost impossible to relate to such creatures. Probably many people are simply overwhelmed by all the graphs that the evolutionists make and the strange kind of names for ages and creatures. A person hears about all these old bones - er fossils that they dig up and they say it belongs to such and such a dinosaur, that lived in whatever age they say, and so many millions of years ago, maybe 10,000 million or 50,000 million - who knows.

Now you begin to think that surely these guys have it all figured out. They are the products of our best universities and golly they are well educated, so they must know something. So surely we must just shut our mouths and listen to these people, because they have to be on the right track.

But how can we be sure what they say happened ? No one was there and the fossils have been dug up, but how can we prove whether their interpretation of them is accurate ? Can we see evolution at work right before our eyes ? Can it be proved to be true by personal firsthand observation and reasoning in the living world ?

Perhaps the educators will say that ordinary folks like us are not educated enough to understand these things on our own. We need the help of experts. Yeah right ! This is the same thing your Priest, Minister, Lawyer, Economist or Politician will tell you. Just believe and trust them, because they have the right answers !! Well I will believe it when I see the proof, and if it can't be proved firsthand to my own satisfaction, then I will throw it out. If it can be proved then I shall accept it.

1. One huge enormous flaw in the theory of evolution is that they can't explain where the big ball came from. The big bang theory says there was this huge ball, or primeval atom, which suddenly blew up thus creating the universe. But where did it come from ? The evolutionists have no answer! Where did matter come from ? The evolutionists have no answer ! The big ball and matter was just there, sort of like magic. Some scientists will even try to convince you that our vast universe, which is so enormous that we can't see the end of it - just came from nothing. Yeah sure ! And Santa Claus flies in the sky in a sleigh pulled by reindeer, and the Tooth Fairy exists !

Scientists have not been able to find out how big the universe is, or how many stars there are. The limits of the universe are unknown by mankind. Perhaps there are no limits, but this is mere speculation. There are known to be millions of galaxies of various sizes and shapes. Galaxies contain millions, even billions of stars of many types. There may be billions of galaxies, because mankind has not been able to see the end of the universe. It is not even possible for a mortal human being to comprehend the size and mass of the universe. So where did the matter that makes up the universe come from ? The evolutionists have no answer, except to suggest that it might have just come from nothing !!! What kind of idiots do they think we are ?

It is unreasonable and unscientific to suggest that the vast universe just popped into existence from the void, like magic, and randomly, without any intelligent guiding force behind it. I thought scientists didn't believe in mythology and magic. I thought they used reason and logic. Does it seem logical to you that our earth, sun and moon (not to mention the whole seemingly limitless universe with its multiple millions of galaxies, with each galaxy containing millions and perhaps billions of stars) could have just come into existence from nothing ? That is what the true believer evolutionists are trying to tell you. Talk about blind faith.

Apparently they speculate there are some sort of particles, or is it non-particles, or some things that are just able to bring matter into existence from nothing. What a joke !

So where did matter come from ? Where did the big ball that supposedly blew up, come from ?

Let me quote the famous British astronomer Mr. Patrick Moore, from his book ' The Unfolding Universe ' page 242: " Finally I come back to the point of view which I have given many times in the past, and which has even been regarded as a particular hobbyhorse of mine. I maintain that nobody has yet discussed the origin of the universe. We must start from something; matter must have been created in some way, and no theory, steady-state, big bang or oscillating universe, has given the slightest inkling of how this happened......"

Those of us who know God, have the answers for the origin of matter and the universe.

Hebrew 11:3 " Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. "

Spiritual energy from God (which we can't see) was transformed into the material universe we can see. A good analogy to help understand this is electricity. We can't see electricity with our eyes, but electricity can be transformed by a light bulb into light , for example. Electrical energy can be transformed to do all sorts of things, but it has to work through some sort of instrument, or tool, like a heater, radio, TV, Computer, pump, vacuum cleaner and so on. So also spiritual energy from God was transformed into matter through the act of creation. Very simple stuff ! Well not really. Of course there must be a natural means that God uses to do that. There must be some natural tool, that God uses to transfer the spiritual energy of His into matter. Whether science will ever be able to discover the mechanism used is pure speculation.

The nature of matter is very interesting. It is really locked up energy. The splitting of the atom, and the invention of the atomic bomb, shows us how much energy is locked in there. One of the smallest building blocks of matter is the atom. Atoms are made of a nucleus that contains protons and neutrons, and electrons that orbit the nucleus. Atoms have a certain number of protons, neutrons and electrons. This is what makes one atom different from another.

So basically these little bits of matter are in motion. Spiritual energy from God has been harnessed and locked into matter, and this is one of the basic building blocks, God uses to create things.

2. Another enormous flaw in evolutionary theory is that the evolutionists will have you believe life evolved from non-life. This is unscientific. Why ? Because we can easily prove that only life begets life. This is a scientific fact. Life just doesn't spontaneously pop up from non-life. The theory of evolution is basically unscientific, because it is a proven fact that life can only come from life.

However, the true believer evolutionists will want to sell you their snake oil, and have you swallow the myth that life evolved from non-life over eons of time. Yet this cannot be proven and is unscientific !!

Of course those of us who know God exists, have no problem explaining how life came to be. God created life. But the scientific establishment has rejected God and the Bible.

I have only one response Psalms 14:1 " The fool has said in his heart, There is no God. "

3. Another flaw in the evolution theory is that when a person observes nature they see that kind reproduces after kind. There are different species of one kind, but they are all still of the same family. You can't observe in nature where one kind makes a sudden jump to become a different kind. This principle agrees with the Genesis record of creation where it is said that kind was only to reproduce after kind ( Genesis 1: 11-12, 21, 24-25 ).

Now there are many different species of grouse and ptarmigan in Alberta but they all belong to the same family or kind. There is the ruffed grouse, sharp-tailed grouse, sage grouse, and spruce grouse, blue grouse, greater prairie chicken for example, and high up in the mountains the willow ptarmigan, and white-tailed ptarmigan. Each of these is a separate species with habits all their own, but they all are still of the same kind.

There are times that adaptation occurs and new species come to exist. There is no doubt about this. A certain group gets cut off from the larger population and begins to interbreed and you can get a new species develop. This happens all the time in nature, but adaptation is not the same a evolution. You just can't see a ruffed grouse for example trying to mate with a duck or an owl. In fact ruffed grouse do not interbreed with sharp-tailed grouse even when their territories overlap.

Each species has developed a different custom or ritual in mating. For this reason the two do not mate together in nature ( there certainly may be some rare exceptions).

The sharp-tailed males congregate on dancing grounds and perform displays before other males. Females are attracted to them because the sounds they make can be heard for long distances. So mating is more in a social context. The ruffed has a whole different way of going about this. Each male stacks a territory off for himself and finding a fallen tree they stand on it and beat their wings rapidly which makes a drumming sound. Such sounds are very common in the spring time in grouse habitat. Now I don't know very much about the full sex lives of these birds, but the females obviously hear and are driven by the urge just like the males. So a ruffed grouse will not make the mistake of mating with a sharp-tailed or spruce grouse or any other species other than their own, unless something extremely unusual happens.

There are many species of ducks for example, but they are still all ducks. Many species of cats yet they can still be recognized as cats - all the way from the house cat to the tiger. The basic nature of the kind stays the same, but there can be a tremendous amount of variation and adaptation of different species. This is because habitat or environment is not the same. So when a creature moves into a different environment they gradually adapt to it and so eventually a distinct species develops. Sometimes also, very rarely there are beneficial mutations, which are passed on.

Adaptation of the species to the environment happens. Natural selection happens. These are well documented scientific truths. However, this is not the same thing as evolution. Evolution teaches that one kind changes into another kind. Evolution teaches that life began with so called simple cells (actually cells have been found to be extremely complex). Then life slowly evolved over millions and millions of years from one kind of creature, or plant to another. Mankind is supposed to be the most highly evolved creature on earth. So please understand that true science agrees with natural selection. However, evolution theory is fundamentally unscientific, because much of it can't be proven.

4. Another flaw in evolution is the tremendous shortage of intermediate kinds of animals in nature. All creatures are adapted to their environments to survive. They become a part of the habitat. You cannot for example see a half dog, half cat in nature. But there are some very unusual and strange creatures indeed.

In nature different kinds of animals do not interbreed. You just can't see it happening in the wild. The main reason I believe is that the habitats, and breeding customs are different. So there can be no confusion about this business. A robin and a blue jay for example are similar in size. It is conceivable that a robin could mate with a blue jay but it never happens. The reason is that each goes through their own mating rituals. Each is a different kind of bird and that's all that's to it.

Even different species of the same kind do not normally interbreed. Coyotes and wolves for example can mate together, but it does not happen too often in nature. These are both of the dog family but in the wild, coyotes and wolves are enemies and wolves sometimes eat coyotes. Interbreeding does occur, but not very often. But interbreeding between different kinds of creatures does not happen in the wild.

Every family of creatures has a nature. Dogs all have similar characteristics even though they may vary greatly. All men share the same nature but all human beings are not of the same race, or speak the same language. There are tremendous differences but yet we still have the same human nature. That nature does not change no matter where we live.

Each kind of animal, plant and bird also has a distinct nature which stays basically the same. The outward form change but the basic nature is the same.

Now people may give the example of certain amphibious creatures such as frogs and toads or salamanders which can live in water or dry land. The fact is that these creatures are perfectly adapted to their environment and not some half way creature. They reproduce after their own kind and it just so happens that their nature is that they spend a part of life in water and another on land.

Porpoises and dolphins are also given as examples of creatures which are half mammal and half fish. They live in the water but must surface for air regularly. The evolutionists claim that these were once land dwelling creatures which have returned to the sea. Their front legs have been turned into useless flippers and may disappear all together. Their hind legs have been joined together and so they have tails now. Now in this case we see a perfectly adapted creature. Where are the remnants of this race which stayed on the land ? Where are the dolphins which are not yet fully evolved, and so spend part of their time in water and part on land. You can't find any of them walking around.

Now it is claimed by the evolutionists that birds are descended from reptiles. Birds have scales on their feet and so this is supposed to be a remnant of their reptilian past.

Yet when you look at each kind of bird you see a perfectly adapted creature. Birds also lay eggs but these are warm blooded, and not like reptiles. They have feathers and very light bones for flying. Now if evolution is true then we should be able to see many half bird, half reptiles all over the place especially in the fossil record. Where are the reptiles that are still evolving into birds ? Where are the half formed wings and half formed feathers ? There is no kind of creature which is a real link between them. You can't find it in nature.

If evolution is true then we should actually see more half way creatures than fully adapted creatures. It is true that creatures adapt and so their bodies change gradually. The most adaptable survive and reproduce and pass on those genes to their offspring. I was over to the game farm and saw some of the antelope from Africa. These small antelopes live on the savannah where it is important to be able to see enemies coming. The ones who can see the predators coming and can escape most often are the ones that survive and pass their genes on to their offspring. So the head has become elongated and the eyes have moved further to the top of this animals head. So when they are grazing their eyes are able to see more clearly to avoid enemies. Also the front legs have become longer than the hind ones and this also helps then to see over the tall grass. Therefore the ones who survived passed on their genes to their offspring and so you get an antelope with an elongated head and face with eyes higher on the head and longer front legs.

This is not evolution but merely adaptation of the creature to the environment. Evolution teaches that one kind evolves into another kind. The animal is still an antelope, but it has changed over the years no doubt. But the basic antelope nature has not changed but the outward appearance has. They are still antelopes only now with long narrow heads and long front legs and higher shoulders.

5. Another point is that to the evolutionists man is just an animal. So they have taken that particular point of view. Therefore everything they study and which they discover about man in interpreted from that point of view. So all that is learned is just seen from that particular angle.

Also scientists dig up fossils which they believe to be links between man and ape like creatures. However, not all scientists agree with each other as to what these bones exactly are. So they cannot agree as to what any particular bones may be. There isn't unanimous agreement within the scientific community.

6. The fifth point is that scientists who dig up and study fossils, for the most part have their minds made up as to what those bones may mean. They have been taught to see these fossils from the evolutionary point of view and so this is how they interpret them. So a person enters into this search with a certain vision in one's head. Then when a fossil of an ape like creature is found, the fossil is placed into a certain pre-arranged order.

Also in the natural world these people interpret nature from the evolutionary viewpoint. Evolution is considered to be proved and no longer a theory. So they only see nature from that angle and ignore looking at this from the the other side. The study is no longer an objective search for truth, but rather a subjective search for evidence which will confirm pre-conceived ideas. The process is unscientific because of its subjectivity. Evolution is considered to be accepted and proven by many so-called educated people, and so other possibilities are ignored.

It is also a question of only seeing what they want to see. The entrenched scientific establishment has for the most part accepted the theory of evolution and based their ideas on it. To question the premise would put a scientist at odds with the prevailing doctrines. It is not the in thing to do - to question the theory of evolution. So a big part of the problem has to do with politics in the scientific community. A biology professor for example, who does not go along with this theory, will not be able to teach that subject in any prestigious university in the country. He will not be hired for the job. The entrenched political scientific establishment plugs their ears and will not listen to the other side of the story.

7. The evolutionists have plugged their ears from hearing anything about how God could have created the universe and life. This is another major flaw in this theory because any other possibilities are ignored. The idea that God could have created life is rejected before it is even considered. This is an unscientific approach because men refuse to look at the subject from all angles. Scientific objectivity and the search for the facts is shunned. Instead a subjective manner is followed. The scientific establishment for the most part has simply decided beforehand to leave God out of the picture.

8. Another flaw in this theory is that many scientists have failed to recognize that creation is happening right before their eyes. Life is being created daily, but many people fail to realize this. Evolution says life began billions of years ago and there was no such a thing as an act of creation. Life is evolving is the teaching. Yet if a person looks they are able to see life being created right near your back door. Babies are being born everyday and this is a creation. You and I are created beings, because 100 years ago we did not exist. If you are married and planning to have children then you are helping to create new life.

Too many scientists fail to believe that there could be a God that works through His creation. They fail to see the earth and the environment as instruments in the hand of God through which He creates daily. Life is being continually renewed and plants and animals which never existed before are born right under our noses, and we can't seem to understand. Birds nesting and raising a family, crops growing, a continual cycle of birth and death. The sparrow that lives in the woods is a unique individual creation and there will never be another one like it again. Evolution is some mindless process and creatures are not considered unique. Yet these creatures never existed before and these few years are all they have.

Yes - but people may say that this is not creating anything. Life is just being passed on from one generation to another and so it is just a natural process and has nothing to do with God. So the argument is that life is just evolving and it began a very long time ago and just keeps going on its own.

People who say this just see life from one particular point of view. They cannot conceive of the possibility of a God creating life in the manner I described. They have a pre-conceived idea that when God creates something he just causes it to be there out of nothing. Zot ! People have a narrow point of view as to how God creates and how He may work.

It seems that most of mankind does not wish to think that they could be anyone's tool or instrument. They are loath to admit that they are not in control of their destiny, and refuse to admit that they are merely products of a greater force and power. Yet an objective study into this subject reveals to us that we are indeed just victims of circumstances and products of our environment. We are created beings. Evolutionists refuse to take into consideration that there may indeed be a Supreme Being, who shapes and molds his creation by working through the creation, through nature. Too many men refuse to consider that there may be a God who controls and alters the environment in order to create the kind of person and creature He wants.

9. Another flaw in the theory is that scientists have failed to understand the record of Creation described for us in the book of Genesis in the Bible. An assumption is made is made that the Bible teaches that the universe and the earth and all life was created about 6,000 years ago. This is a false assumption because what you read in Genesis is a process of renewing the earth.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

So the Bible teaches there was a beginning, but we are not told how long ago that was. The earth and heaven were created and it does not say that life was not created at the same time. Nothing is said about dinosaurs or any such pre-historic life. Yet there is room for them in this scripture.

Genesis 1:2  "And the earth was (or became) without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

The reader would be advised to go over the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. It is quite clear that what we have here is a renewing of creation. This is not the original creation, but simply a restoring of life and order to the earth and heavens. The earth was covered by water and thick clouds and empty of life. We are not told how long life had existed on earth, since the original creation as described briefly in Genesis 1:1. This would include all the prehistoric life forms such as the dinosaurs and huge plants that lived at that time. It is not shown how long the earth was in a state of destruction and covered by water. There is just no record and so it is impossible to really say.

God began the process of repairing the earth, and the solar system so that life could be sustained on earth. The account in Genesis is the description of a restoration of the earth and not the original creation. Life could have existed for millions and billions of years prior to that, there is no record given. What happened during these eons of time is anyone's guess, but there is evidence in the rocks. Dinosaurs were not created 6,000 years ago as many people think. God did not create an earth with ready made fossils in the ground just to trick people. These creatures did exist, because we find them buried in the ground as fossils. The account given in Genesis is describing a renewing of life and not the original creation. There was a universal catastrophe on earth and life perished.

Now if you would go on further you will read that in the days of Noah God brought another universal flood on the earth, but saved Noah and his family in the ark. This account is considered by many educated people to be pure myth, but there it is in the Bible. I myself have many unanswered questions regarding Noah's flood. So I certainly do not purpose to know all the answers.

The Bible shows us that there have been periods in the past where there was worldwide destruction of life. This explains the abrupt disappearance of the dinosaurs and many other prehistoric life forms. It appears that Noah's flood explains for us why life forms such as mastodons and saber- toothed tigers disappeared suddenly from the scene. It seems to explain why there have been found many fossilized creatures all in one location. This is because the waters carried masses of dead animals and plants and deposited them in mass graves. This is one way coal if formed. Scientists however rule out the possibility of such worldwide catastrophe . These are just stories and myths dreamt up by superstitious pagans according to them.

10. Another flaw in the theory of evolution is how scientists view man. They look at the fossil record and see creatures who were ape like, but resembling man. So they conclude that man is descended from an ape like creature and has evolved from them. The account in Genesis is dismissed without even giving it any consideration.

Genesis 1: 26 - 27 " And God said , let us make man in our image, after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the foul of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth " .

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he them, male and female created he them.

Genesis 2 : 7 " And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and created into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

Adam is described as the first man. Man is made in the image of God. The scientists and evolutionists have failed to believe that the record in Genesis does not disallow the existence of any ape-like creatures existing prior to man's creation. There could very well have been such beings who lived prior to Adam. There is nothing that tells us they could not have been using primitive tools and stone like weapons. These ape like creatures could even have been able to use fire. There is nothing in the Bible that says such creatures did not live. They could have and this does not contradict the record in Genesis.

Adam it was said was the first man.

1 Corinthians 15: 45 " And so it is written, the first man Adam was made a living soul, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. "

The difference between a man and an ape, or an ape like creature is that mankind is made in the image of God and the others are not. Man is a separate distinct kind of creature. He was made to have a relationship with his Creator and become like Him.

Adam was offered the tree of life which would impart to him eternal life. No other creatures have been given that chance, because only man is made in God's likeness. This explains to us why only mankind has something called a religion. Humans were made so that they needed God and needed to build and orientate their lives around God and to become like Him. We are made in the likeness of God, but God is a spirit. Mankind is made of flesh - in God's image, but has the potential to be made into the Spiritual image of God. There are no other creatures who are given the opportunity to come to know the spiritual. Only man of all creatures is able to comprehend the spiritual.

This is probably the biggest most gigantic flaw in the theory of evolution. Prehistoric ape like creatures could have existed. They may very well have had the knowledge of how to make fire and primitive tools. Their tribes may have been very well organized. They could have been cooking their food over fires. Yet they were not men. Their physical powers and strength could have been far superior to ours. However they were not men. Man only is made in God's image. These were only beasts and not men. None of the beasts have been given the chance to become like God and none of them are allowed to worship God. They were not made for that purpose.

11. The last point is that scientists don't seem to realize that apes exist at this very time on earth. These are your gorillas, chimpanzee and orangutan and a few others, which are alive and with us today. There is a tremendous barrier between apes and man. It can be clearly seen that we are not of the same kind. They are apes and we are men. Gorillas are not just hairy sub-humans, but are an entirely different kind of animal. Sure there are similarities, but there are also similarities between man and squirrels, grouse, wolves and yes even pigs. Pigs always get kicked around, but man and hogs have much in common. I hope that science does not teach that we are first cousins or something.

If man evolved from ape like creatures then why aren't those modern forest dwellers coming down from the trees and evolving a little faster. Seems like they would rather sit there eating bananas than come down and turn into men. Maybe they look at us out from their jungle vantage point and talk it out at conferences. The old wise chief chimp stands up and says " Look boys why become like men - we have everything we need here in the jungle. Besides men don't have as much fun as we do and must work hard all the time. " Everyone agrees and decides not to leave the friendly confines of their beloved forest.

12.  In conclusion perhaps we should all eat some humble pie and admit that none of us has all the answers regarding the creation and the universe. We are all very small and have been here only a few brief years. None of us human beings were there at the beginning of life here on earth, and none of us were eye witnesses to the birth of the universe. I do have some perplexing questions regarding the record of creation in Genesis and Noah's flood. I certainly do not purpose to have all the answers.

Moses wrote the book of Genesis (or perhaps he served mainly as compiler and editor of the material in the Book of Genesis passed down via the line of the patriarchs listed in Genesis). Moses saw God and talked with Him. There is a lot of symbolism in the Bible. Did Moses get the whole picture regarding the creation from God (or from the material that could have been passed down from former generations) or was he given just the rough outline ?

One thing is certain though. God exists and He did create the universe, the earth, and life on it. What remains a mystery is just exactly how was it done. Perhaps we shall never find out.

"Nothing can be created out of nothing."

Lucretius c.94 - 55 BC