“Either Way, It's Evidence For Evolution!”

In my last post, I discussed the tired complaint of evolutionists that it's not fair to compare living things to created things. I think some people have missed the point, namely that it's precisely because similar created things are not biologically related to each other that we know similarity between creatures is not necessarily evidence that similar, living creatures are biologically related. I'd like to go one step further on that same theme.

I get the concept that animals with similar features could be related via a common ancestor. It's not an entirely unreasonable conclusion. However, we also see similarities in animals that are not closely related according to evolutionary theory. There's the example of marsupial moles and placental moles. Marsupial mammals and placental mammals supposedly split tens of millions of years ago. Marsupial/placental moles are not supposed to be as closely related as humans and chimps are supposed to be yet I believe the different moles resemble each other far more than humans and chimps do. If similarity is supposed to be evidence for common descent, then why are the different moles (who are far more distantly related) more similar than humans/chimps (who are supposed to be more closely related)?

When animals that aren't closely related resemble each other, evolutionists say that it's the result of convergent evolution. They say that form-follows-function and since both moles live in similar environments, over “millions of years” of undirected mutation, they evolved similar traits. The Encyclopedia of Science put it this way, “One of the reasons that convergence happens is that some body structures and shapes are simply the best biological solutions to basic problems in physics.... Convergent animals may look alike but it is easy to show that they are entirely different creatures with very unlike ancestors – their resemblance in appearance is not due to close relationship. The structures which give the resemblance often do not develop from a common feature in an ancestor.”

That's interesting. OK, it's not really that interesting; I mean to say it's revealing. It's an example of evolutionists wanting to have it both ways. Creationists have attempted to point out to evolutionists that similarity is not necessarily evidence of common ancestry. To demonstrate this, we sometimes point to similar created things as examples. Evolutionists object saying it's not fair analogy to compare living things with created things. However, in the case of moles we see two living things that are similar and not closely related. What's their objection now?

So let me get this straight: similar features between creatures could be due to common ancestry (as in humans and chimps) or not due to common ancestry (as in marsupial/placental moles). Is that right? How convenient that, either way, evolutionists still see it as evidence for their theory! It seems to me that evolutionists already know that similarities between creatures is not de facto evidence that they are closely related in an evolutionary sense. We've been trying to tell them that for years! What I wonder is why do they keep trotting out similarities between humans and chimps like it's somehow proof of something?

What we're left with is a bifurcation: similarity is either the result of common ancestry or convergent evolution. They stubbornly leave out the third option – similarity is the result of design!

It's because they're designed that makes it a good analogy!

In my last post, I asked, “How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?” Most people get the joke. My list of possible answers are actual comments that creationists often hear from evolutionists when discussing the subject of evolution so I just applied those same responses to changing light bulbs. I think maybe I should have added an “F” option: “It only takes one evolutionist to change it but he doesn't know how the first light bulb got there because that's not part of the theory.”

Anyway, I posted a link to the post to a creation group on Face Book. One evolutionist responded with his own question: “How many creationists does it take to tell the difference between inanimate objects and animate objects?” He didn't seem to get the joke. Instead, he seemed to be rehashing a usual point made by evolutionists – namely, that it's not a fair analogy to compare living things to created things because created things can't reproduce and, so, can't evolve.

This response is usually used by evolutionists when creationists point out similarities in created things. Evolutionists sometimes claim that similarities between different kinds of animals are due to their evolutionary relatedness. However, creationists correctly point out that things that aren't evolved can also be similar. An airplane, for example, has certain things in common with a car. A bridge has certain things in common with a building. When creationists raise “similar created things” examples, it's then that evolutionists respond by saying that created things are not good analogies of living things because created things don't reproduce.

I wrote a post a couple of years ago talking about this point. In that post, I quoted an evolutionist who used this very objection when Kent Hovind raised the “similar created things” argument. Kent had talked about similarities in different types of bridges and here are the exact words of the evolutionist:

“That has nothing to do with evolution... because a bridge is a horrible analogy to a living thing. I mean, it has nothing in common with a living thing.... And they [living things] reproduce which is one of the fundamental tenets of evolution. I mean, a thing can't evolve unless it reproduces. Here, we're talking about reproducing systems. Explain to me what this has to do with a common Designer because I really don't get it.”

He obviously doesn't get it. Neither did the evolutionist on Face Book get it. As a matter of fact, most evolutionists who use this objection don't get it. Thankfully, I'm here to help them.

Like I've already said, evolutionists often use similarities between animals as evidence of evolution. For example, they say humans and chimps are similar because they share a common ancestor. However, a boat has certain similarities to a car but we know that the boat didn't “evolve” from a car nor did the car “evolve” from a boat. So we see that similarity between two things is not necessarily the product of evolutionary relatedness.

Created things can be similar for various reasons. They might be built using similar materials. They might be built for similar purposes. They might be built by the same person who added his own particular style. But any similarities between various created things are certainly not the result of evolution! In like manner, then, the similarities between a dinosaur and a bird could just as easily be explained by design.

Something that is created does not reproduce. It doesn't share a common ancestor with any other created thing. That's why we point to the similarities between created things as evidence that the similarity between living things isn't de facto evidence for evolution. Pointing out similarities between created things is a fine analogy. It's precisely because they're designed that makes it a good analogy!

Get it?

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?

I've heard hundreds, maybe thousands of light bulb jokes and I thought I should make one about evolutionists. I can't decide on a punchline, though. What do you think?

How many evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?

A) None. Individual light bulbs don't change. Populations change.

B) None. Under just the right conditions, a light bulb can just appear uncreated.

C) None. The kind of change we're talking about takes millions of years.

D) None. If the light bulb burned out, it was obviously unfit.

E) None. Creationists are just lying, ignorant, stupid liars and they only want the light bulb changed because they insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Feel free to vote in the comments. Maybe someone out there has a better one.

Natural Selection, Evolution, and Watermelons

I live in Louisville, Kentucky. Louisville lies on the banks of the Ohio River which borders Indiana. Like many bordering states, the people of Louisville have a sort of friendly rivalry with the people in IN. I could tell you a hundred jokes about Indiana but today I'm only going to tell you one.

One day, a Hoosier (people from IN are called, “Hoosiers”), decided he was going to start his own business. He knew about a farm in KY that grew delicious watermelons so he drove his truck across the river and bought a truck load at the cheap price of 3 for $1. He drove back home and set up a roadside stand where he sold them for 25 cents each!

The watermelons were very popular and the man sold out very quickly. He drove back to KY for more and those too sold out almost immediately. This went on for a couple of weeks and the man began driving back and forth nearly every day for more watermelons. It wasn't long, however, before the man began to notice he had less money after each trip.

The man's father stopped by to see how his son was doing. The struggling marketer told his father how the watermelons were very popular and sold like crazy but he still seemed to be losing money. Of course he also told him about the great price he was getting on the watermelons in KY. The father scratched his head for a while and considered the situation. Suddenly, an idea occurred to him. He slapped his son on the back enthusiastically, “Cheer up, boy, I've got it! What you need to do is buy a bigger truck!”

They say a joke isn't funny if you have to explain it. Where this Hoosier went wrong seems fairly obvious but I'm going to explain it just in case anyone missed it (after all, there may be Hoosiers reading this). He was buying watermelons at 33.3 cents each and selling them for 25 cents. In other words, he was losing 8.3 cents on each watermelon. You will never make money by losing a little bit at a time – it doesn't matter how long you do it. A bigger truck only means he would lose money faster.

Natural selection is an observed phenomenon where traits not suited to the environment are removed from the population. In the famous, peppered moth example of “evolution,” birds would eat light or dark colored moths as environmental factors changed. Over time, the ratio of light/dark moth in the population would change and evolutionists call any type of change, “evolution.” According to evolutionists, these little changes (microevolution) will accumulate over time to become big changes (macroevolution). It's lie number 5 of the five lies evolutionists tell.

My question to evolutionists has always been, “how long would birds have to eat one color of moth until new colors appear?” The significance of the question usually escapes them but the answer is obvious. You cannot create new colors by continuously removing one color. It doesn't matter how long you do it. It would be the same in a population of white and black mice, if someone continuously killed the white mice. Eventually it would be a population of only black mice. The descendant population will have fewer colors than the original population. Duh!

For evolution to occur, new traits have to be added to the population. For a dinosaur to become a bird, you have to add feathers. The supposed first ancestor did not have feathers. Neither did it have hair or scales or even skin. Nor did it have bones, blood, or organs. For a bacterium to become a bird, there must be a continuous parade of novel features added. That is the only way for one kind of creature to become another kind.

Evolutionists love to bring up examples of natural selection and say it's evolution. They believe the change just needs to happen for a long enough time. If natural selection REMOVES traits and evolution requires animals to ACQUIRE traits, then we have a problem. Natural selection is the opposite of evolution. Continuously removing traits will never add traits no matter how long it continues. It's like trying to make money by losing a little bit at a time. The idea that microevolution plus time equals macroevolution is a joke. It's a joke funnier than the one above because the one above is fictional and the evolutionists are serious.

I agree that populations change. I don't agree that “change” over a long time could ever amount to evolution. Time is not the savior of evolution. Time is the “bigger truck” of evolution.

Tracks Before Trilobites

Answers in Genesis is a wonderful resource. I certainly learn a lot from them. There are many times when they make such great points that I'm tempted to repeat them here but I resist for a couple of reasons. First, I know there are some Christian bloggers out there who simply plagiarize AiG articles. That's just wrong. Also, if people want to hear what AiG says, they could visit there instead of my blog. I try to write original material and give people a reason to come here. Certainly I know that many of the points I raise have been raised before, but I at least try to put them in my own words and put a fresh spin on them. You won't find any cut and paste posts here.

Having said all that, AiG has one particular article that nails it so wonderfully that I cannot make a more interesting point than the obvious one. I still am not going to cut and paste the article but I will discuss it in great detail here.

A frequent visitor to my blog, one Steven J (a nice guy and rather rational for an unbeliever), made some comments on my blog about the fossil record. He didn't raise this point directly but some of his remarks reminded me of a point made by other evolutionists about fossils. If the fossil record was primarily made during the events surrounding the Flood, how do creationists explain trace fossils – like footprints – in different layers?

Like I said above, I can't explain this any better than has already been explained on AiG's website. In an article titled, Tracks But No Trilobites, author Kurt Wise talked about this very phenomenon. When describing a visit to Death Valley, he made this observation:

I found a trilobite trackway—the only fossil I found in that layer. In the next layer I found several more tracks, but no remains of the trilobites themselves. As I went up, the tracks became more abundant, but I found not the slightest hint of the animals that made the tracks.

Then suddenly I came to a layer jam-packed with trilobite “shells.” I had been concentrating so hard on finding just one little fragment of a trilobite that the abundance startled me.

Odd. Why would dozens of feet of rock have tracks but not the animals that made them? This finding is especially mysterious if you believe the rock was deposited over thousands of years.

That's very interesting. We have several layers of tracks, which represents “millions of years” in evolutionary reckoning, before finding any fossils of the critters who made the tracks. Wise said this find is rather usual. According to him, “Tracks are found before trilobites everywhere that the lowest trilobite layers are known.”  If evolution were true, we would expect to find tracks and trilobites mingled throughout the “millions of years.” That's not what we find at all.

I believe the Flood scenario is a far better explanation. As the Flood waters began to prevail, tsunami like waves would ebb and flow, depositing sediment on top of trilobites. At each ebb, the critters would scurry to the surface only to be buried again in the next wave. This happened over and over until the poor things were finally overwhelmed. That this is the correct explanation seems obvious to me. It certainly fits the evidence better than the evolutionary explanation.

Let me say one more thing in closing: I know the Flood was a real event because the Bible describes it as a real event. I'm not looking for any more evidence for the Flood. However, knowing that the Flood was real helps me understand why the world looks the way it does. When we find evidence like tracks before trilobites, I almost have a, “Well, duh” reaction. Of course there should be tracks before trilobites!

The 6th Lie that Evolutionists Tell: Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order.

"Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours." Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.

This quote just annoys me (I mean, besides the peculiar, European way that Dawkins spelled, “colors”). I think I'm going to add it as a 6^th lie to the “Five lies evolutionists tell.” Dawkins may have made this particular quote but I've heard a similar sentiment expressed many times in different ways. You may have heard someone say something like, “Evolution would be disproved if we found a rabbit in the Cambrian.” It's all a lie! It's a lie on so many different levels that I'm not sure if I can cover them all sufficiently in a single post – but, of course, I'll try.

First, there is a very subtle lie that most people completely overlook. Dawkins used the phrase “date order.” By doing this, he immediately projects the idea of time onto the fossil record; thus, fossils found lower in the fossil record are “older” than the ones above them. The reality is that the order in which fossils are buried simply demonstrates the order in which they were buried. It is the long age assumptions of their theory that says lower fossils are older.

According to YEC theory, most of the fossil bearing, geological column was formed during the Flood event. The lower fossils may have buried first but they're not necessarily “older.” If I filled a glass with ice, the cubes on the bottom were laid down first but they're not “older” than the cubes above them. By referring to where fossils appear as the “date order,” Dawkins is creating the false impression that their sequence represents, de facto, when the creatures lived. It's a lie.

From there, we next must understand that evolutionists have constructed their history of life on earth according to where they have found the fossils. We have found shark fossils, for example, very low in the fossil record so most scientists believe sharks lived very long ago. We find dinosaur fossils above shark fossils so scientists assume dinosaurs evolved after sharks. Of course, sharks are still alive today and dinosaurs are extinct; one might ask where are the shark fossils above the dino fossils that represent the “millions of years” sharks have continued living since the dinos went extinct? I ask rhetorically because that's not my point right now. I'm merely demonstrating how evolutionists piece together the history of evolution using the fossil order. Species found at the bottom lived first; species found higher evolved later.

If evolutionists construct their theory according to the order in which fossils appear, then how could any fossil possibly upset the theory? If the fossil of some particular species is found “out of order” from where it was previously expected, the theory is just tweaked to accommodate the new find. I wrote about this common phenomenon in a post titled, “A lot of things seem to have evolved 'earlier than thought'” where I cited a few headlines like, “Complex vision evolved earlier than thought” and “Ants evolved much earlier than thought.” “Out of order” fossils are rather ordinary. When a fossil appears out of sequence (which we often find), we simply see a new headline that says, “New find pushes evolution of this species back to earlier than thought.”  It's a lie to say that such a find would “easily disprove” the theory.

Now, even though evolution is so plastic that it can be stretched to accommodate nearly any discovery, we have occasionally found fossils that present rather thorny difficulties for evolutionists. A few years ago, I wrote about a controversial find in Mexico where dozens of modern looking, human footprints were found in volcanic ash that was dated via radiometric dating to be 1.3 million years old. That means either modern humans were walking around in Mexico 1.3 million years ago or the ash layer isn't really 1.3 million years old. Neither comports well with evolution. In order to rescue their theory, scientists decided the footprints really belonged to cows. No, I'm not kidding.

You can see then how scientists brazenly twist the evidence in order to force it to fit their theory. If a rabbit were ever found in the Cambrian, I predict we would read a headline something like, “Ancient species of lizard looked exactly like a modern rabbit!”

Dawkins quote is fluff. He speaks it with confidence in order to bolster evolution and make it seem unassailable but it's all smoke and mirrors. Evolutionists are constantly redrawing all the lines of evolutionary history every day as new evidence overturns their previous theories about the evidence.  For them to boldly say the theory stands up to every new find is laughable. Could that be what Dawkins meant when he said evolution is “The Greatest Show on Earth”?

What we need to find is a cassette tape in the Cambrian. Wouldn't that be funny? I know it can't happen since we know the Cambrian was already formed before cassette tapes were invented. Even so, I wonder how the evolutionists would explain that away?

Monkeys For Uncles

I posted a video from the group, Apologetix, several months back. At that time, I had seen a few of their videos and thought they were great. I still think they're great but now I've seen many more of their videos. It seems they've written a ton of songs and I keep finding new ones. Here's one I just came across that I felt I had to share. I don't know how I missed it for so long!

I know it lampoons evolution more than it offers compelling arguments against it.  I do think there's a lot of truth in it but I'm not posting it in order to persuade anyone. I just think it's funny! “Monkeys for uncles”... what a riot!!

Enjoy!

I Demand A Plan From Hollywood!

I'm not exactly sure why the majority of celebrities are liberal but I have a few theories.

First, liberalism goes hand in hand with elitism. Since celebrities receive adoration from the masses, they tend to think they're important people which is only a small step away from thinking they're better than everyone else. They quickly develop the belief that everything they say is wise and often use their celebrity status as a platform to tell everyone else what is best.

Second, I believe people derive satisfaction from hard work. Since celebrities don't really work hard, they often engage in charitable causes in order to feel they're doing something worthwhile. However, instead of serving (like most people do when they help with a charity) celebrities feel they need to tell other people what to do. As I said above, their attitude of self importance makes celebrities think they know what's best for everybody and their idea of benevolence is to force everyone else to "be good."

The problem is that liberalism is hopelessly intertwined with hypocrisy. To be a liberal is to be a hypocrite and celebrities are no exception.

Liberals think that guns cause gun violence and they believe that if we can just restrict more people from having guns, it will reduce the violence. They don't seem to take into consideration the “disregard for life” mentality held by the people who commit crimes with guns. What inspires a person to pick up a gun and kill someone? Such an idea is anathema to Christians who believe that we are created in God's image and murder is literally a crime against God. On the other hand, the Bible says that people who hate God love death (Proverbs 8:36). Perhaps the root of the problem isn't guns but is a violent culture that rejects God and glorifies killing in movies and video games.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook (and other mass shootings), several liberal celebrities have lent their celebrity status to promote a video called, “Demand a Plan” where they call on their fans (i.e. “the masses”) to demand that legislators pass more gun laws. By appearing in the video, I suppose the celebrities hope their fame will move people to action. I guess it's not unreasonable to think a celebrity can induce people to act since businesses pay celebrities millions of dollars to advertise their products. But if these celebrities think their appearance in a video can influence people to lobby against guns, why don't they also see that, by starring in movies where they use guns, their fame and influence might be promoting the same violent culture they're trying to combat?!

Here's a hilarious video where images of celebrities shooting and killing people are added in between the same celebrities' calls for more laws restricting guns. I don't need to explain why the video is so powerful. The hypocrisy of the liberals who profit from gun violence - and even use guns themselves - while they claim to want to end gun violence is plain to see.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not asking for laws that restrict the use of guns in movies. There is the First Amendment, of course, and I recognize that people have the right to make offensive movies. I'm for liberty and wouldn't have it any other way. Celebrities, too, usually cloak themselves in the First Amendment to hide the shame and guilt of the trash movies they star in. I wish that they would champion the Second Amendment like they do the First.

What I am calling on is a little self control from Hollywood. Why don't they lead the charge and start making films that edify instead of dehumanize? I'm not even saying all movies have to be G-rated; just cut out some of the wanton, gratuitous stuff.  Instead of using their fame to call for gun control, these celebrities should tell movie producers they're not going to star in films as murderers who shoot people with guns.

I demand a plan from Hollywood!

Praise God this New Year!

And this man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice unto Jehovah!
1 Samuel 1:3