Wednesday, November 17, 2010

What is Evolution



Page Contents:
For something to truly evolve, it has to acquire genetic material that its parents or other ancestors didn't already have. It has to acquire new genetic material that isn't already in its genes. For a reptile to evolve into a bird, it would need to acquire the directions to grow wings, in addition to the DNA it already has.

The Definition of Species

The definition of species has changed just in my lifetime. This is the previous definition of species:
"If two animals can mate and produce fertile offspring then they are the same species."
That definition does not work for evolutionists any more because there would not be enough species to "prove" evolution. Now, they give a new species name to every little variation in a plant or animal.



For example, all dogs are the same species, Canis familiaris. If the various breeds of dog were wild and not domesticated they would be labeled as different species. For example, Poodles, St Bernards, Great Danes, German Shepherds and Old English Sheepdogs they would all be labeled as different species because they look so different.

But, wolves and coyotes, which can both produce fertile offspring with dogs, are given many species names for minor differences. For example, according to the National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals the Grey Wolf (Canis lupus) and the Red Wolf (Canis rufus) are called different species. In reality, wolves and coyotes are just another breed of dog. Please see my page Using the Dog-Kind of Animal to Disprove Evolution for more information.

Here is another example. Ornithology is the study of birds. Bird identification field guides for North America (where I live) list birds in the agreed upon evolutionary order per the American Ornithologists' Union. (See below). Ornithologists give the label "species" to very minor differences in birds. A sparrow with a different sized spot or streak on the breast or around the eye is labeled as a different species.

I'm a bird watcher. There are many different "species" of sparrows. Some are extremely difficult to tell apart and you have to see them several days in a row before you can see that extra spot or stripe on the breast or around the eye to positively identify it.

Creationists believe that God created the basic types of plants and animals, and then genetic variation went on from there. God made the basic types of birds including: hummingbird, woodpecker, parrot, pigeon, sparrow, duck, and so forth. Each type had a lot of capacity for genetic variability as we see in dogs.

Example: A Listing of Bird Species

I am a bird watcher. I have several bird identification guides. Most bird field guides arrange the birds in their supposed evolutionary order. Below is a quote from this book:

Stokes Field Guide to Birds
Stokes Field Guide to Birds: Eastern Region
Donald Stokes and Lillian Stokes


Color Tab Index

Facing the front and back covers is the Color Tab Index to Bird Groups. This provides access to the birds by groups - heronlike birds, shorebirds, woodpeckers, sparrows, and so forth. The color tabs are a fast way to automatically turn to the right portion of the guide. In addition, this index and the Species Accounts are arranged in phylogenetic order, that is, according to their believed evolutionary relationships, thus familiarizing all users with the only order of birds generally agreed upon by scientists and birders in North America.

Species, Names, Order

All regularly occurring species within the range of the guide are included. Their scientific and common names and order are in accordance with the July 1995 supplement to the 6th edition of the American Ornithological Union Checklist of North American Birds.
The actual bird list of the American Ornithological Union is very long so bird books give a index of the major groups of birds, such as the list below from Stokes Field Guide to Birds: Eastern Region

This book also lists a "Quick Guide" listing the major groups of birds:
Quick Guide to the Most Common Birds

Seabirds - Loons, Grebes, Shearwaters, Pelicans, Cormorants
Heronlike Birds - Bitterns, Herons, Egrets, Ibises
Swans, Geese, Ducks - Whistling-Ducks, Swans, Geese, Ducks
Hawklike Birds-Osprey, Kites, Eagles, Hawks, Falcons
Chickenlike Birds - Pheasant, Grouse, Turkey, Quail
Marsh Birds - Rails, Gallinule, Moorhen, Coot, plus Cranes
Shorebirds - Plovers, Stilt. Avocet, Sandpipers, Dowitchers, Phalaropes
Gull-like Birds -Jaegers, Gulls, Terns, Skimmer, plus Alcids
Pigeonlike Birds - Pigeon, Doves
Owls and Other Nocturnal Birds - Owls, Nighthawks, Whip-poor-will
Swift, Hummingbirds -Swift, Hummingbirds, plus Kingfishers
Woodpeckers - Woodpeckers, Sapsucker, Flicker
Flycatchers - Flycatchers, Phoebes, Kingbirds
Shrikes, Vireos - Shrikes, Vireos
Jays, Crows - Jays, Crows, Ravens
Swallows - Martin, Swallows
Chickadees, Nuthatches, Wrens - Chickadees, Titmice, Nuthatches, Wrens
Thrushes, Mimics - Bluebird, Thrushes, Robin, Catbird, Mockingbird, Thrashers
Warblers - Warblers, Parula, Redstart, Ovenbird, Waterthrushes, Chat
Tanagers, Grosbeaks, Buntings-Tanagers, Cardinal, Grosbeaks, Buntings
Sparrows - Towhees, Sparrows Junco, Longspurs
Blackbirds, Orioles - Blackbirds, Grackles, Cowbirds; Orioles
Finches - Finches Crossbills, Redpolls, Goldfinches
These are all the categories of birds in North America. All of the birds in North America are in one of the groups above. All of the groups are distinct categories. However, evolution is said to be a very slow progression of gradual change from one type of animal or plant to another type of animal or plant.

And yet even just among birds there is not a gradual change between species. For instance, hummingbirds and woodpeckers are like no other birds. They are very specialized. There is a large gap between hummingbirds and all other birds and there is a large gap between woodpeckers and all other birds.

There is not evidence of a gradual progression of minute changes from or to either of them from or to any other bird either in the fossil record or in live birds.

What the examination of the different groups of birds does show is that woodpeckers, hummingbirds and all other birds are separate and distinct groups. What the examination of birds shows is that birds were created by God.

All People are of One Blood

Where Did the Races Come From? There are no "races". We are all the same "race" because we are all related. We just look different, that is all.

Biblical Creationists (like me) believe that all people on earth came from two people created by God, Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve had every possible gene that we see now. All of the original gene pool was just these two people. They had all the different genes for hair color, eye color, height, skin tone. One child got one group of genes and another child got another group of genes. Adam and Eve could have had children who were light skinned, dark skinned and everything in between because they were carriers of all possible genes.

There was an incident at the Tower of Babel when God gave people many different languages. As the people scattered to populate the earth they divided into isolated populations with the other people who spoke the same languages. The original created people, had the genetic capability to have lots of different traits for different eye color, hair color, skin color, height, build, hair texture, facial features, etc.

As they settled into the different isolated areas, differences started to appear, some communities had gotten more of certain genes than others. The more time went by, the more different people looked. Some were dark skinned with dark hair; some were light skinned with light hair, etc. According to Biblical creationists, all people on earth are family.

We see this type of thing all over the world with dogs, roses, birds, fish etc. Plants and animals are bred for certain characteristics, including size and color. For instance, breeds of dogs are made by isolating a population and allowing the dogs only with certain desired characteristics to mate.

The original kinds of dogs, like wolves, coyotes, dingoes, look different because they all live in different places, like breeds of dogs. These original wild dogs that God made had the genetic capability to have lots of different traits for different sizes, color of fur, ear shape, tail shape, etc. Nothing new is added when people make a different type of dog. It's just differently combining the genes that are already there.

But, when you intentionally breed certain dogs with certain traits together, you can gradually change what the dogs look like. This doesn't take very long. A dog can have puppies when it is less than a year old. So a lot of generations of dogs can happen in a short period of time. This is how all breeds of dogs have been developed. If all dogs were let out of their yards and allowed to mate with each other in just a short period of time the puppies would be getting close to what wild dogs, wolves and coyotes, look like.

Ota Benga: The Man Who Was Caged in a Zoo

In 1904 a 23 year old man named Ota Benga was captured in the Belgian Congo with the intent to put him on display as a missing link. Ota Benga was a black man, a Pygmy. You can read the true story of Ota Benga, and what he went through, in this book:

Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo
Ota Benga: The Pygmy in the Zoo
Phillips Verner Bradford

After being on display at the World's Fair for a while, Ota was taken to the zoo in Brooklyn, New York and displayed with monkeys in a cage.

Ota was mistreated and captured and put in a zoo only because of the belief in evolution. This happened over one hundred years ago. At the time the reasoning was that if man has evolved from ape like creatures then it is only natural to assume that some races are more evolved others. Since apes have dark skin, it was assumed at the time that the darker the skin the less evolved. Here's an online article about Ota Benga:

Ota Benga: The man who was put on display in the zoo!
Posted by at

What is Science



Page Contents:

Truth is Not Determined By Majority Rule

Scientists used to examine evidence and then make conclusions. But, The field of science has been redefined to insist that everything have a natural explanation. That determines the desired conclusion before the evidence is examined. That process is anything but scientific.

I'm told repeatedly that most scientists are evolutionists so creation by God is not true. The fact is, most people who go into a field of science are evolutionists already, and they examine the evidence based on that mindset.



Many scientists who are creationists now weren't creationists until they examined the evidence for themselves. They found things that just did not fit into the naturalistic framework. They found things that required intelligent design.

Here is a very interesting book:

In Six Days
In Six Days
Edited by John F. Ashton PhD.

This is the sequel:

On the Seventh Day
On the Seventh Day
Edited by John F. Ashton PhD.

These books have essays by scientists, each with their own story about how they came to believe in God and creation. Each essay gives evidence from that scientist's field of science for why they don't believe that life came from inorganic chemicals and gradually developed into all life on earth. There are many reviews of this book, both pro and con, on the Amazon.com page if you'd like to see what others have to say about this book. I have many more books on my Recommended Reading page. See for yourself what scientists who believe in creation have to say.

Yes, Creationists Can Be Scientists

Contrary to what you might have heard, creationists can be real scientists. Atheists like to say that creationists do not publish in peer reviewed science journals. In fact, Many scientists who believe in creation have published in peer reviewed science journals.

I have links below to a site with the qualifications of many people who believe in creation and the science journals where they have published. (Not everybody on the lists are scientists with a Ph.D. Some are medical doctors for instance.)

These are not the ONLY scientists who believe in creation. The people on this list volunteered to be listed to show that God exists :
Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

The Definition Of Science

Scientists who believe that life came from non-life have redefined what science means. It used to mean "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation and theoretical explanation of phenomena". But the newly "evolved" definition of science is: things that happen without the help of a superior being.

According the book "Men of Science/Men of God" by Dr. Henry Morris, many of the great early scientists believed in a superior being including the following: da Vinci, Kepler, Pascal, Galileo, Brahe, Copernicus, Newton, Faraday, Babbage, Morse, Mendel, Pasteur, Kelvin, Lister and Carver. All these men were men of science but they all believed that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Many scientists today still believe that God created the heavens and the earth. They are called creation scientists. The Institute for Creation Research has many scientists associated with their organization.

The Red Team and the Blue Team

The red team was challenged by the blue team to play a game of football. Before the game started, the red team took a vote and concluded that the blue team was not a football team. Then the red team, having no other team to play, declared themselves victorious.

And they never had to compete in the game.

This little story refers to the debate between scientists who believe in evolution and scientists who believe in creation. It is widely reported that all scientists support evolution, and this is not true.

The scientists who believe in evolution have decided that if a scientist concludes that evolution is not supported by the evidence than he is not really a scientist. What, then, is a scientist?

What is a Scientist?

If a person has a PhD in a field of science then they are a scientist, even if they determine that creation is supported by the scientific evidence. Many think that all scientists believe in evolution. That is not true.

Creation believing scientists do a lot of research. However, the "peer" reviewed scientific journals are reviewed by peers who are evolutionists. They reject anything that supports creation scientifically. Creationists must post in their own scientific journals and in books, magazines and websites. However, as long as they are not talking about creation, they are published in scientific journals and many have.

Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
Posted by at

Origin of Life

Page Contents:

A Computer is Designed, but the Designer came by Chance?

Some think that God is an imaginary being that people believe on faith to make them feel good. However, it also takes faith to be an atheist. An atheist must believe that DNA is the result of chance. The DNA molecule is like a very complicated computer program.

Nobody would believe that Windows 7 is the result of chance, but many believe that the human brain that created Windows 7 is the result of chance.

Below is a picture of Mount Rushmore. Four faces were carved out of solid rock. It was caused by a process of time and chance. Over the course of many years, wind, rain and blowing sand carved the faces in the rock:

Mount Rushmore. Four faces were carved out of solid rock. It was caused by a process of time and chance

That sounds ridiculous to claim that erosion carved the faces into the rock, right? But, many people believe that the men who are depicted in the rock carving and the people who carved the rock are a result of a process of time and chance. I myself believed it for many years. A living thing is much more complex that a rock. It should sound just as ridiculous to say that life began by a process of time and chance.


One-celled Life is not Simple. It is Incredibly Complex

Years ago, microscopes weren't nearly as good as they are now. The cell used to look like a blob and it was easy to think that a blob could come about by accident. We have better microscopes now. According to Michael Behe, a biochemist, a cell is run like a really a big city with freeways to deliver nutrients and garbage to their destinations. For more information, see his book:

Darwin's Black Box:
The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. BeheDarwin's Black Box

There are other people besides Biblical creationists who do not believe that life is a process of time and chance. These people support the Intelligent Design Theory. Michael Behe is a major proponent. He believes that the scientific evidence supports the notion that life requires a designer and that the cell is too complex to be a product of time and chance. The black box in the title of his book refers to the cell.

There is an illustration of a Bacterial Flagellum on the front flap of "Darwin's Black Box". This is the little gizmo that turns the little hairs on a bacterium so it can move around. The parts are all labeled, bushings, universal joint, rotor, drive shaft, and so on. It is a microscopic machine just to turn one little hair on a little bitty bacterium. Henry Ford invented the Model T a long time before the microscopes were very powerful otherwise, I might think he used this as an example of an efficient motor.

Spontaneous Generation was Disproved Long Ago

Spontaneous Generation is a theory that was developed many years ago. It said that living organisms developed from non-living matter. It was proven false by Louis Pasteur. Here is an except of an address that Louis Pasteur delivered at the "Sorbonne Scientific Soiree" of April 7, 1864:
No, there is not a single known circumstance in which microscopic beings may be asserted to have entered the world without germs, without parents resembling them. Those who think otherwise have been deluded by their poorly conducted experiments, full of errors they neither knew how to perceive, nor how to avoid.
Pasteur said this in 1864, yet many people still prefer to believe that life can come from non-life rather that attribute the origin of life to a miracle.

People Still Believe in Spontaneous Generation

Even many scientists today can see the problems with proving it, but they believe anyway, even without the proof that it needs.

For example, this biologist says flat out says he believes in something that he knows is not proven:

Wald, George, The Origin of Life, in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (Simon & Schuster, 1955), 270 pp. p. 9
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are — as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.The important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event, … given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once …

Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles.
He believes this on faith, and he admits it.

An Example of Doublethink

One semester in health science class I was taught about how Spontaneous Generation had been disproven. In the Biology class, the same semester, I was taught that is was proven that life emerged from inorganic chemicals.

In his book "1984", George Orwell coined the word "Doublethink" to mean the belief of two contradictory things at the same time.
  • Spontaneous Generation: False
  • Abiogenesis: True
I was able to hold both thoughts for several decades, then I gave up and had to choose one.

DNA Could Not Have Happened By Chance

The DNA molecule contains all the directions to make life, every component, the skin, the heart, the brain, the bones, the muscles, and so forth. I would like to challenge any one of you to make a computer program to do any O
NE thing where the program fits on an information storage device so small you cannot even see it. When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA they did not really see it, they saw its shadow and from the shadow they hypothesized what the shape was.

DNA can only work in the cell, and a cell is made by the directions in the DNA. The whole kit and caboodle had to come about by chance all at the same time or it would not even work. Scientists do not quite understand DNA yet. It took years to map the genome. If DNA is so simple that it happened by accident, why did it take so long to just write a list of all of its parts?

Life Requires More Than Biology

Why do bodies die in the emergency room? Why cannot the repair be made and the body jumpstarted back to life? Life is said to have come from the gathering of random inorganic chemicals. If that is so, why does a body die? There are just as many chemicals before death as after death.

My comments refer to the origin of life. If creation by God is not an option, then random chemicals got together and formed the first living cell. If this could happen (it has never been proven) how are we sure it would be alive? A dead body has as many cells as a live body.

"Life" is something outside of just the physical components of biology.

How did life begin?

I was too hard headed to just up and believe that there is a God, especially at my age. However, through a process of elimination while I was studying the proof for life arising spontaneously from nonlife, I was able to determine scientifically and logically that it was not true. This was a big surprise to me, I tell you what! I had believed it all my life, and remember I was in my forties. My beliefs were fairly set in stone. However, when I found no proof that life began without god, the basis of my disbelief in god had no justification.

How do Birds and Butterflies Migrate?

Some birds and butterflies migrate thousands of miles to places they have never been to before. Science does not know how they navigate. People need maps and other navigational aids to fly somewhere in a plane. Should not a highly evolved human being be better at navigating than a butterfly? Science does not know exactly how birds and butterflies navigate. If creation by God is not an option, then birds and butterflies evolved capabilities that more highly evolved creatures, humans, do not have. Evolution is about the improvement of life. Butterflies are insects, far down on the evolutionary scale. How could they have such an advanced capability that humans, the most highly evolved life, does not have?

Our Technology Cannot Improve Upon Nature

There are many things in nature that our technology cannot replicate, much less improve upon. Why? Things in nature are said to be a product of chance. It seems that our technology would be able to improve upon things that happened by chance.

Here is an example:

I am a birdwatcher. This is something I think about often. Birds can land on a piece of wire or branch about as big around as their eyeball. Airplanes are designed by human beings, highly evolved human beings. Why cannot an intelligently designed machine do something as well as a random happenstance bird? Why cannot man design an airplane that slows down, grabs onto a perch, and remains upright? Why cannot an airplane land on something as big around as the cockpit window? Why cannot an airplane maneuver as well as a bird? If a bird is just a random chance occurrence, and humans are the most advanced life on earth, why cannot humans come up with a design that works better than a random chance?

Life On Earth Was Designed

God designed life on earth. God designed his creations in such a way as to demonstrate his existence. The evidence is there.
Posted by at

Charles Darwin

Page Contents:

Charles Darwin Proposed a Theory, and Listed What Evidence was Necessary to Prove it

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote this book:

The Origin Of Species
The Origin Of Species
by Charles Darwin

Are you surprised that I am giving a link to this book? Actually, you might be surprised to know that there is nothing in this book that is any threat to somebody’s faith in God as creator.

Darwin proposed a theory, but he has two entire chapters that state the evidence his theory required that was missing. He assumed the evidence would be there some time in the future.

The entire book can be read online for free here: The Origin of Species. Here are links to the two chapters I am quoting from so you can read the quotes in context:
Chapter 6 – Difficulties on Theory

Chapter 9 – On the Imperfection of the Geological Record

The Evidence Darwin Says is Necessary to Prove the Theory is Does not Exist

At this writing, it is 2010, over one hundred and fifty years later. If the evidence to support Charles Darwin’s theory was going to be found, it would have been found by now. Evolutionists are always looking for evidence to support their faith in evolution.

Some even go so far as to make fraudulent proof for evolution. See my website page: Evolution Frauds. As I say on that page, if there was real evidence, fraudulent evidence would not be needed.

This book is promoted as the bible for evolution but it actually has evidence against evolution, in my opinion. I’ll quote a few excerpts from Chapter Six: “Difficulties on the Theory” and Chapter Nine: “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record”.

Darwin Admitted it is Absurd to Believe that the Eye Could have been Formed by Natural Selection:

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist

Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.”
He expected to see certain evidence in the fossil record if his theory is true, but it is not there.

In chapters Six and Nine, he was honest about which evidence was lacking. Included excerpts from those chapters, typed up from the yellow highlighted parts of my own copy of Origin of Species, are included in this post:

Darwin Admitted that Events like The Cambrian Explosion would be Fatal to the Theory:

Darwin says himself the lack of these fossils would be fatal to the theory:
If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification though natural selection.
The fact is, many species, in fact many major groups of animals, appear in the lowest part of the fossil record. This phenomena is called The Cambrian Explosion.

Please see information about The Cambrian Explosion on The Fossil Record: Evidence of the world wide flood of the Bible page of this website.
“I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed at the commencement of the tertiary series This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. ”

“The case most frequently insisted on by paleontologists of the apparently sudden appearance of a whole group of species, is that of the teleostean fishes, low down in the Chalk period.”

“On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossilferous strata: There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”

“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”

“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”

“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.”

Darwin Admitted what Necessary Evidence is Missing, so There is no Proof for the Theory

Darwin was concerned that the lack of transitional fossils disproved the theory. He hoped that in the years to come there would be more fossil finds that would prove the theory as he stated it.

It has been about 150 years since he wrote that book, and countless more fossils have been found as people search for missing links, but the innumerable transitional forms have not been found.

X
Posted by at

The Fossil Record

Page Contents:

How Fossils are Dated

Contrary to popular belief, the dating of fossils is very subjective and arbitrary. Sometimes fossil dating is really a circular reasoning:
  • The ages of rocks are used to date fossils
  • The ages of fossils are used to date rocks.
Here is a quote from a peer reviewed science journal saying just that:
"The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales." (O'Rourke, J.E., "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53) (emphasis mine)
When a date is assigned to a fossil, it is also very important to pick the "correct" date. There are dates that are already accepted by evolutionists, and the date of a new fossil has to fit so as to not disrupt what has already been decided.



The classic situation of the problems with dating a fossil was the dating of fossil skull KNM-ER 1470. It took ten years for scientists to agree on the age of one skull. The ten year process was discussed in depth in this book:

Bones of Contention
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils
by Marvin L. Lubenow

This book analyzes all of the hominid fossils. The appendix has a very detailed discussion of the dating of the fossil skull KNM-ER 1470. The science journal "Nature" is where the researchers published their research regarding this skull and their papers in "Nature" are quoted extensively. According to the many quotes from "Nature", fossil skull KNM-ER 1470 took ten years to date. Bones of Contention follows the process step by step. Over the ten years the work was published in many issues of the English scientific journal "Nature". The book took ten years of many articles and quoted them profusely.

When this fossil was found, many different radiometric dating methods were used and many different ages were given. The scientists took ten years to analyze all of these dates. The "bad" dates were thrown out because the geological levels have all been previously dated based upon the assumption that evolution is true.

They had to pick a "good" date, one that fit in good with their preconceived assumption that evolution is true. There weren't many "good dates" to pick from. They ended up, at the end of ten years, to give the skull a date based on some fossil pigs found nearby that had already been assumed to be a certain age also based upon the assumption that evolution is true. None of the ages from any of the radiometric techniques were used. They were all "bad" ages.

Here is an article by Marvin L. Lubenow, author of the book Bones of Contention discussed above. It is a summary of the appendix in the book where he discussed this fossil: The Pigs took It All

The Geologic Column

The layers of the "geologic column" were dated before radiometric dating was invented. The index fossils were not dated radiometrically. Their age was assumed initially by the belief in evolution, how long they supposedly took to evolve. Then the rocks are given that age. The assumption that evolution is true is used to support an old age for the earth.

What Do the Fossils Show?

The fossil record is evidence of a world-wide flood. Dead animals do not just lie there and wait to be fossilized. They rot or get eaten. Fossilization requires immediate covering with sediment. The minerals gradually replace the living tissue. All of the fossils are of separate and distinct types of animals, all of which have living representatives today.

Each basic kind of animal appears in the fossil record complete, with no ancestors in an incomplete form. There are no in-between forms. We are told that mammals evolved from reptiles although the method by which they evolved has not been discovered. All 32 orders of mammals appear as distinct groups in lower Tertiary rock. The most highly specialized, the flying bats and swimming whales, appear at the beginning of the mammal explosion as fully developed and separate kinds.

All fossils are of distinct types. For example, reptiles and mammals are just plain different, totally, and there is nothing in between. There is no fossil evidence of reptiles slowly turning into mammals over millions of years. All the fossils are of the same basic types that we still have, nothing in between. Fossils are of birds, or amphibians, or mammals, or fish, or etc. There is just no proof in the fossil record that any one kind of animal evolved into another.

Punctuated Equilibrium - Another theory of evolution

The lack of the "transitional forms" was thought to be such a big problem for the theory of evolution that evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould came up with a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium which explains why there are no transitional forms.

The theory is basically this:

1. Evolution happened.
2. There are no transitional fossils, therefore.
3. Evolution was done in giant leaps, leaving no evidence.

So basically, one theory of evolution with no evidence replaced another theory of evolution with no evidence.Here is some excerpt from an article Steven Jay Gould wrote about transitional fossils:
Gould, Stephen Jay, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July 1977), pp. 22-30.p. 22 "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it-selection can operate rapidly."p. 24 "As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt's postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages."p. 24 "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."p. 28 "The ess
ence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well."

The Cambrian Explosion

Here is an excerpt of an article which talks about the Cambrian Explosion and says what it is:
Douglas, Erwin, James W. Valentine, and David Jablonski, "The Origin of Animal Body Plans," American Scientist, vol. 85 (March/April 1997), pp. 126-137.p. 126 "All of the basic architectures of animals were apparently established by the close of the Cambrian explosion; subsequent evolutionary changes, even those that allowed animals to move out of the sea onto land, involved only modifications of those basic body plans. About 37 distinct body architectures are recognized among present-day animals and from the basis of the taxonomic classification level of phyla."
These men are all evolutionists. Here are links to their credentials:

Douglas Erwin
Research Paleobiologist and Curator Paleozoic Mollusks, Interim Director National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C

James W. Valentine
Active Emeritus Department of Integrative Biology University of California, Berkeley, CA

David Jablonski
Chair and Professor: Committee on Evolutionary Biology Professor: Department of Geophysical Sciences Charles Schuchert Award, Paleontological Society Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Here is an excerpt from another evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould:
Gould, Stephen Jay, "A Short Way to Big Ends," Natural History, vol. 95 (January 1986), pp. 18

"Studies that began in the early 1950s and continue at an accelerating pace today have revealed an extensive Precambrian fossil record, but the problem of the Cambrian explosion has not receded, since our more extensive labor has still failed to identify any creature that might serve as a plausible immediate ancestor for the Cambrian faunas."
He believed in evolution but did not believe that the fossil evidence supported that belief. He was so concerned about the lack of transitional fossils that he developed a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium that says evolution happened so fast it did not leave the fossil evidence. In short, he developed a new theory with no proof to replace another theory with no proof.

What Does This mean to Creation?

Here is an article about what the Cambrian Explosion means to creation: Exploding Evolution

Here is an excerpt of that article:
Creationists have long pointed out the problem for evolution theory, namely that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors. This is why evolutionists refer to it as an 'explosion' of evolution. There are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla, and geologically these phyla 'seem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneously'.....

Evolutionists at present have no real answer. However, the paradox vanishes when one removes the glasses of evolutionary presuppositions and sees the data in the light of biblical creation/Flood. The entire set of unique body plans ever created is represented in all rocks bearing substantial numbers of animal fossils. The 'Cambrian' creatures, many of which are now extinct, are not 'primitive ancestors' to today's, but are complex creatures in their own right, with no trace of evolutionary ancestors.
If there are no ancestors to these animals in the fossil record then there is no proof that evolution took place.

X
Posted by at

Noah's Ark and the Flood

Page Contents:

How Big Was the Ark?

Contrary to popular belief, Noah's Ark was not a little boat. Noah's Ark was an enormous boat with plenty of room for all the animals..

Noah's Ark to scale showing it was larger than a 747 jumbo jet

Genesis, the first book of the Bible, gives the dimensions of the ark:


"So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Make a roof for it and finish the ark to within 18 inches of the top. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks." Genesis 6:14-16

As the picture shows, the ark was almost twice as long as a 747 jumbo jet. representatives of all animals, including dinosaurs, had plenty of room to fit in the art.

(The dimensions in these verses differ slightly with the picture below. In the original Hebrew the measurements are given in cubits, and there is not one set measurement for how long a cubit is. A cubit was the length of a man's arm from the elbow to the middle finger.)


The Global Flood

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. Genesis 7:11-12

The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days. Genesis 7:24

I've read Genesis many times. The only parts that some people don't believe is the first 11 chapters. The rest is accepted as factual and historic. The first 11 chapters are only suspect because of the belief that the world is millions of years old.

However, the world is only thought to be millions of years old if you accept the fossil record as a record of millions of years of evolution. Creationist believe that the fossil record is a record of a worldwide flood.

Floods do a lot of damage. A worldwide flood would bury all the animals not on the ark. At the time of the flood, the Bible says that the fountains of the deep burst open. This means that water and mud spewed forcefully out of the ground. Creationists believe that this action is what caused the mid-Atlantic ridge and the shapes of the continents. The water whooshing back and forth with the tides for a year would create layers of sediment of different densities.

Try this, get a mayonnaise jar and fill it with teaspoons full of dirt from various places in your town till it's almost half full. Then fill it to the top with water. Put the lid on and shake it up good and set it somewhere for a while. Gradually, the different densities of dirt will settle into layers. This is why the sides of a canyon show layers. Animals that just die will rot or be eaten. An animal needs to be covered quickly to fossilize; the minerals replacing the live bone matter. Therefore, the fossil record really is a record of a massive world wide flood.

Noah's Ark was an enormous boat with plenty of room for all the animals.


What Did The Carnivores On The Ark Eat?

There were no carnivores on the ark. All living things were vegetarian until after the flood. After the initial creation God said this:


And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-- everything that has the breath of life in it-- I give every green plant for food." And it was so. Genesis 1:30

Some time after the flood God said this:


Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. Genesis 9:3

How Did All the Animals Fit on Noah's Ark?

You might ask: "aren't there too many kinds of animals for them to all fit on the ark?" No, there are not too really that many kinds of animals. God created the basic types of plants and animals, and then genetic variation went on from there since the flood. For example, God made the basic types of birds including: hummingbird, woodpecker, parrot, pigeon, sparrow, duck, and so forth. Each type had a lot of capacity for genetic variability as we see in dogs so we have different types of hummingbirds, woodpeckers, parrots, and so on like we have different types of dogs. This genetic variability works within fixed limits. These animals will never turn into anything else; they will just develop into different varieties of the same thing.


God's Created Kinds

There are a lot of different looking dogs, but they are all the same species. Also, wolves and coyotes can both mate with dogs and produce fertile offspring. They are all the "dog" kind of animal along with foxes and others of the dog "kind".

See these pages for more information about God's Created Kinds of animals:


I have a friend who has exotic animals. One of his zebras had a fertile offspring with one of his donkeys meaning they are both the horse "kind" of animal.

Lions and tigers look different because they have isolated gene populations on different continents, but lions and tigers have mated in captivity and produced fertile offspring. They are both in the cat "kind" of animal.

Buffalo and cattle are often mated together to produce beef with less fat. These are both of the cow "kind" along with oxen.

Every animal, when it has offspring, has an offspring like it. We don't see dogs having any type of animal except another of the dog kind.

There is no evidence that if it goes on long enough that new species can be produced. In fact, each separate type of animal cannot mate with others outside of its type of animal. Bears, cats and dogs are all in the same order, carnivore, when according to evolution means that they are related.

However, bears and dogs can not mate and produce fertile offspring. Neither can dogs and cats. One has to assume that long ago and far away it was possible for an animal to have babies that was a different type than it is, but that has never been known to happen. It is assumed to have happen because of the belief in evolution.

All Noah had to have on the ark was representatives of each of the different "kinds" as stated above. There was plenty of room for representatives of all of the animals. All the dog-type animals have developed from the two on the ark. As the animals multiplied and traveled to different parts of the world they grouped into isolated gene pools so that now we have different looking dogs all over the world. Some might call this "evolution" but, no matter how much they change they are always a dog. They never were and they never will be any other type of animal.

Back to Top


Why Hasn't Anybody Found the Ark?

I'm not concerned that the ark hasn't been found. Maybe Noah used it to build houses or for fire wood. Everything was buried under a bunch of mud. It would have been hard to go look for building materials and fire wood.

The ark would have been 4400 years old right now. Around here, there are wooden houses less than a hundred years old that are falling apart and tipping over flat. I'm not worried that a 4400 year old boat isn't still around.

Back to Top


The Age of the Earth

There is a lot of evidence that the earth is young. Some indications include the fact that there aren't enough people in the world, there is not enough salt in the ocean, the moon is getting further away every year, the oldest tree is too young and the oldest coral reef is too young. There is an excellent book that describes the evidence that the earth is not millions or billions of years old:

The Young Earth
The Young Earth
by John D. Morris, PhD

The author, a geological engineer, describes the geological systems of the earth and shows that they have been made within thousands, not millions, of years.

Back to Top


What Does the Bible Say?

According to the Bible, the earth is about 6000 years old. This age is derived from the belief in the six day creation as told in the Bible. Also, it is derived from the genealogies in the Bible. The genealogies say the age of each man at the time he had his children. If somebody accepts the genealogies as literal history, as I do, then from Adam to Jesus is about 4000 years, then about another 2000 from Jesus to the present.

Back to Top


Why Does it Matter How Old the Earth Is?

The earth is only thousands of years old and not millions of years old, therefore, there has not been enough time for the origin of life to occur by chance. Also, there has not been enough time for the process of evolution to develop all the creatures on earth. Because the earth is young, this indicates that life on earth was created by God.

X

Posted by at

Dinosaurs and Creation

Page Contents:

Dinosaurs May be Alive Today

Dinosaurs are reptiles that are supposedly extinct. The smallest dinosaur was about the size of a chicken. The reptiles below are living today. Iguanas can get up to six feet long. Komodo dragons can get up to ten feet long.

Iguana
Iguana

Komodo Dragon
Komodo Dragon

The only reason that iguanas and komodo dragons are not called dinosaurs is because dinosaurs supposedly went extinct 65 million years ago. Well, iguanas and Komodo Dragons sure look like dinosaurs to me!



Creation scientists believe that dinosaurs were created by God and they lived with man in the beginning. Dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago only if you date the earth with the preconceived notion of evolution being a fact. The long ages were determined by how long evolution has taken place, also based on the belief in evolution.

Dragons are said to be mythological giant reptiles. Many cultures have dragons in paintings, literature and history. Some of the paintings of the dragons look like various kinds of dinosaurs. How could it be that so many cultures independently made up the thought of a giant reptile? These sound a lot like dinosaurs to me. Dinosaurs were created along with man and all the other animals.

Later on, there was a worldwide flood which drowned and buried all life on earth except people and animals in a very large boat called the ark. There was plenty of room for dinosaurs. The biggest dinosaur egg was only about the size of a football. Young dinosaurs were very small. The large ones were old ones as they grew all their life. The young ones with a long life ahead of them were on the ark, not the old, big ones.

The ones that got buried quickly with sediment fossilized. Also, all of the lush vegetation was buried and later turned to gas and oil. After the flood, which lasted a year, the earth's climate was changed because it was the first time it had ever rained. Before the flood the earth was covered with a canopy of misty water which made it into a giant green house.

This was the beginning of the ice age. The earth was no longer a giant green house which enabled reptiles to live so long. Reptiles grow their entire life, but they are cold-blooded and need to live in a warm climate. (All reptiles now are very short, with their legs out sideways, so they are close to the earth's warmth.) Also, in addition to the climate change, people killed off the leftover large dinosaurs because they were a menace to the towns. That's why there aren't any grizzly bears in New York City any more.

Then, many years later, after people forgot that dragons were real, the first dinosaur bone was "discovered" in 1822. It was named iguanodon (meaning iguana tooth) in 1825. The discoverer thought it came from a giant iguana. You take an iguana and put it in a warm, moist world and let it grow to a few tons, and you'll have a dinosaur.

These large dinosaurs were the dragons. There are some very old books which list dragons as actual, but rare, reptiles.

I don't think dinosaurs are extinct; they just got smaller over time because they don't live as long and so don't grow as big. All the lizards around are just teensy dinosaurs. But, there are sightings of large dinosaurs all around the world in jungles and large out-of-the-way lakes. Loch Ness is enormous. The descriptions of the Lock Ness Monster sound like a plesiosaur. Also, in the rivers of the Congo there have been sightings of apatosaurus-type creatures.

So, God made dinosaurs, but they weren't called that yet. They were called dragons. Then, the big ones died out and people forgot that they were ever real, and they became part of myth. Then, when the dragon bones were dug up and they were given a new name, dinosaur.

Were Dragons Really Dinosaurs?

The quote below is from this web site: What happened to the dinosaurs?
A Sumerian story dating back to 2,000 B.C. or more tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.

When Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.

China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery and carvings.

England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.

There is the story of a 10th century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.

In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Animalium, listed several animals that we would call dinosaurs, as still alive. A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on 13 May 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.

What Happened to the Dinosaurs?

New Answers Book, The by Ken Ham, et al (Read The Answers Book Online) says this about the end of dinosaurs:
Page 253: If you were to ask at the zoo why they have endangered species programs, you would probably get an answer something like this:
We've lost lots of animals from this earth. Animals are becoming extinct all the time. Look at all the animals that have gone forever. We need to act to save the animals.
If you then asked, Why are animals becoming extinct, you might get an answer like this:
It's obvious! People killing them; lack of food; man destroying the environment; diseases; genetic problems; catastrophes like floods - there are lots of reasons.
If you then asked, "Well, what happened to the dinosaurs?" the answer would probably be,
We don't know! Scientists have suggested dozens of possible reasons, but it's a mystery.
Maybe one of the reasons dinosaurs are extinct is that we did not start our endangered species programs early enough!

Are Dinosaurs in the Bible?

There were mentions of dragons and two other animals, Behemoth and Leviathan. The verses below are God speaking to Job about two of his creations. Read these descriptions and see what they sound like to you:

God's Description of Behemoth

"Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God, yet his Maker can approach him with his sword. The hills bring him their produce, and all the wild animals play nearby. Under the lotus plants he lies hidden among the reeds in the marsh. The lotuses conceal him in their shadow; the poplars by the stream surround him. When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose? Job 40:15-24

God's Description of Leviathan

"Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook? Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words? Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life? Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls? Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants? Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering. No one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me? Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. "I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form. Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle? Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth? His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together; each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn. Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke pours from his nostrils from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth. Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him. The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable. His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing. The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him. A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance. His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair. Nothing on earth is his equal -- a creature without fear. He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud." Job 41:1-34
Posted by at

My Testimony


Page Contents:


Hi there! My screen name is "X-Evolutionist", but please call me "X" for short. I'm a Christian married lady in my fifties. I've only believed in God for a very short time considering my age. This site is about the things I learned that got me to believe.


I Was Raised Without a Belief in God

I was taught that life on earth came about by a process of time and chance from as far back as I can remember. It was all I had ever known. There was no need for God in my philosophy as the world made sense this way. Even though my world made sense without God, I was still curious if he existed. I know now that we were designed by God to have a desire to know him.

Over the years, I would often come across Christians and I would ask them why they believed in God. I always got the same two answers: either "I've always believed in God" or "The Bible tells me so". Neither of these explanations were compelling arguments for the existence of God as far as I was concerned.

However, my world was about to turn upside down...
Back to Top

I Met Some Friends Who Were Creationists

When I was over forty, I met some people who were Christians, and like always, I asked them why they believed that God existed. Surprisingly, they had something totally different to say. They said that they knew God existed because, according to them, the scientific evidence points to creation, and not evolution, and thus to a creator. Of course, I knew that they were ignorant, and I told them so.

But, they were very confident in what they believed. They basically dared me to read a book to see if they were right. I fought it for months, but, I ended up deciding that it wouldn't hurt to read a book.
Back to Top

They Dared Me to Read A Book about Fossils

They loaned me a book about fossils. The book didn't really have anything different than I had always been taught over the years in science classes, natural history museums and television nature shows, but it used some logical arguments that I had never heard before.

Fossils: Key to the Present
Fossils: Key to the Present
Duane Gish and Richard B. Bliss

It showed that the fossil record consists of separate and distinct types of animals with no blending in between as we are led to expect from the theory of evolution. The conclusion was that the basic types of animals were created by God and then genetic variation took off from there and developed the different types of animals within each group. For example, Collies, German Shepherds and St. Bernards are just different types of dogs, as are wolves and coyotes. Please see my page: Using the Dog-Kind of Animal to Disprove Evolution

Back to Top

I Read a Book about the Origin of Life - Life Required a Creator

They loaned me another book about the origin of life, how complicated life is, and how difficult it would be for life to be a product of time and chance. The book concludes that life had to be created by God.

Origin of LifeOrigin of Life
Richard B. Bliss

We in the United States are taught in public school that life was formed over time by chance. But, I have learned that this is not supported by scientific evidence.
Back to Top

I Read a Book about How the Scientific Evidence Matches What Is In the Bible

I read yet another book. This book, like the others, concentrated on the scientific evidence against evolution and for creation. By the time I started reading this book I had an insatiable curiosity to read more and more books.

Many Infallible ProofsMany Infallible Proofs
Henry M. Morris

This book explained that events in the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis in the Bible fit in with the scientific evidence of the world. For instance, this book shows that the fossil record was actually caused by a world wide flood.
Back to Top

I Was Surprised To Find That So Many Scientists Did Not Believe In Evolution

Most of the books I read were by scientists. This really surprised me because all my life I'd been told that evolution was "scientific" and creation was "religious". Now, I was reading books by scientists who believed that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" as it says in the first verse of the Bible.

I was particularly interested in the scientific information because I had always been interested in science. But, as the authors were Christians, they always wove the reasons they believed the Bible through the books.

As I was learning about the fossil evidence and geology, etc, I was also learning how these things fit with what the Bible said about creation, the flood and the Tower of Babel, among other things. I learned that the Old Testament was compatible with physical and biological evidence.
Back to Top

Meanwhile, I Started Going to Church - And Still Read More Books by Scientists

My insatiable reading continued and I read many books. During this time, I also began dating and then fell in love with one of my friends who initially told me why he believed in God. I started going to church with him. Before church he would rehearse with the other musicians that did the music for church and I would read my books.
Back to Top

At Some Point, I No Longer Believed In Evolution, but I Did Not Believe In God, Either

At some point into my reading I stopped believing that evolution was supported by the scientific evidence. But, on the other hand, I still did not believe in God or creation, either. This was a very confusing period of time for me. I also was reading the Bible by this time even though I did not believe in God. During church I would listen to the music and the sermon politely, I but never believed any of it - until one morning about nine months after I started reading that first book about fossils.
Back to Top

Suddenly, I Was Filled With the Holy Spirit

One Sunday morning during rehearsal I was reading one of my books and I suddenly started to cry. I didn't know why. But I kept reading. I started to shake and continued to cry, but I kept reading. All of a sudden, I felt something that I can only describe as being filled by God. I suddenly believed everything. I believed in God, I believed that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" and I believed that Jesus is the name of God.

My boyfriend was still rehearsing, but he could see that something was happening to me. When rehearsal was over he came to sit by me and we both cried during church. After church, the pastor's wife came running over to me. It was obvious what was happening to me.
Back to Top

I Accepted Jesus as My Lord and Savior

At this point I couldn't talk because I was crying and shaking so much, but she led me through a prayer and I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior and became born again as a Christian.

This all happened during nine months during the year 1996. Since then, I have kept reading more books. Each book gives me more and more confirmation of what I now know to be true.
Back to Top

Now I Want To Tell You Why I Believe In God

Now, I want to share the things I've learned with others. I want others to know that there is scientific proof that God exists.

I feel that God has a plan for me. I believe that He had me wait until now to believe in God so I would be passionate about telling others why I believe.

By the way, a short time after I became a Christian my boyfriend proposed marriage and we are now very happily married.

Thank you for reading this far down!

Sincerely,

X
Back to Top
Posted by at

Summary of my Website

Hi there! My screen name is “X-Evolutionist”, but please call me “X” for short. I’m a Christian married lady over fifty. I’ve only believed in God since 1996 - a very short time considering my age. I made this website to tell you the things I learned that convinced me that God exists:

My Christian Testimony: How I Came to Believe in God

Here is the story about how I came to believe in God. I had lived over 40 years before I learned there was scientific evidence that God exists. Read More

How Do Dinosaurs Fit in With Creation? Are dinosaurs alive today?

The smallest dinosaur was about the size of a chicken. Reptiles that lived with dinosaurs still live today. Iguanas, up to six feet long, and Komodo dragons, up to ten feet long, are not called dinosaurs only because dinosaurs are supposedly extinct. There is no problem with dinosaurs fitting in with creation by God. Read More

Noah’s Ark and the Global Flood

The Global flood as described in the Bible caused the fossil record. The Ark was very large, and had room for representatives of all kinds of animals. Read More

Charles Darwin described the problems with his theory in his book “Origin of Species”

Charles Darwin gave many reasons why his theory is not true. This page has quotes from his book, Origin of Species, stating what evidence is missing. Read More

Recommended Reading: Books with scientific evidence that God exists

This is my short list of my very favorite books that have scientific evidence that God exists. These books are either by scientists or quote profusely from peer reviewed science journals. Read More

The Origin of Life: How did life begin? DNA could not have happened by chance

The cell and the DNA molecule are too incredibly complex to have happened by chance. DNA is made in the cell, and the cell is made from the instructions in the DNA. The cell must have been designed. Read More

What is Science? Is scientific fact determined by majority rule?

Scientists used to examine evidence and then make conclusions. But, the definition of what is science has been redefined by some to insist that everything have a natural explanation before the evidence is examined. Making a conclusion before examining the evidence is not scientific. Read More

Most of what people call “evolution” is really genetics

Genetic variability is mistakenly called evolution. For something to truly evolve, it has to acquire genetic material that its parents or other ancestors didn’t already have. It has to acquire new genetic material that isn’t already in its genes. Read More

Why Are There Evolution Frauds if Evolution is a Proven Fact?

Fraudulent evidence is used as proof for evolution. It is printed in scientific books and magazines and taught in textbooks. If actual evidence existed to prove the evolution from particles to people, it would not be necessary to make it up. Read More

Using the Dog-Kind of Animal to Disprove Evolution

I use the dog-kind, dogs, coyotes, wolves, etc, as an example that animals are in distinct groups, such as dogs cats or bears, with no overlapping between groups. But, that each group has a lot of varieties that are able to mate and produce fertile offspring (the definition of the term species). There is no evidence in living things, or in the fossil record, that any basic kind of animal changed into any other basic kind of animal. Read More

The Fossil Record: Evidence of the world wide flood of the Bible

Living things fossilized after a global flood. Dead animals do not just lie there and wait to be fossilized. The rot or get eaten. Fossilization requires immediate covering with sediment. The minerals gradually replace the living tissue. The fossils give no evidence for the gradual development of animals over time. Only minor differences within species can be found. With no evidence for evolution that only leaves creation by God. Read More

Genesis Chapter 1: The Creation

The text of the Bible book of Genesis, showing the creation, and the description of the days of creation. Read More

Christians: Jesus was a Creationist

Jesus believed and taught a literal and recent creation. Christians, at the very least, should should believe Him. Read More

My favorite Bible verses, Bible translation, online Bible software and scientific creation websites

My favorite Bible verses, Bible translation, online Bible software, scientific creation websites, worldwide Christian radio station, and more. Read More

Contact Me

My Blog

Posted by at
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)