Could a car such as the 1962 413 Max Wedge dart have been conceived by a brain that just evolved out of the miry muck? Not to mention the big-block-killing SLANT SIX!
I don’t think so.

I believe that scientists theorize that it all started with the basic Ford, and after many millions of models and offshoots, such as Mercury, the new species was born.

The Chevrolet! This is obviously a "missing link" which never has used the full potential of its’ power house between the front wheels. Again Many millions of models pass by with many more classes and phylum of autos evolving from the original. The most noteworthy is the Oldsmobile of the Pre-fuelinjection era. Finally at the top of the of the evolutionary scale came the Chrysler. After shedding all final engineering flaws, the Chrysler reins supreme.

What is the theory of evolution, and what proof do scientist give for that theory? Have you any knowledge of evolution? Can scientists provide the answers?

No one can provide the answers to evolution. Science is the study of the universe by theoretical explanation, experimental investigation (testing the theory) and repeatability. By scientific standards and principles, a theory must be tested and be able to be disproved (if the theory is false)by that testing. Evolution can not be tested scientifically. It cannot be observed, dissected, forced to happen or tested in any way. Therefore, science cannot prove evolution.

How do we evaluate what is correct, evolution or no evolution? The only thing that we can do is create a model. There are two basic models, Evolution and Creation. A basic model must be created which shows the characteristics that would exist in the world if Evolution were true and if Creation were true. Once the model is made, we can look at the evidence and see which more closely fits.

One note before we start. When we talk about evolution, we are talking about a change in a species. Natural selection (survival of the fittest) has been observed over and over. It is an obvious reality, and is indisputable. However, this has never resulted in a species transforming into another.

The moths in England are still moths, and the squirrels in S. America are still squirrels. We are looking for mutations which add attributes to a species which will change it into another species.

For example, skin color is an attribute all humans have. Humans come in a wide range of color, but we all have a chromosome that provides that attribute. However, to become cold-blooded, something (a lot of something) would have to be added to our DNA, something that humans do not already posses.

Here is another, simpler example. If you have ten jars of different colored marbles, there are millions of combinations that you could have by mixing the jars.

The same applies to ten jars of mixed nuts. Millions of variations would be produced as the ten jars where mixed. However, you will still only have jars of marbles and jars of nuts. If you began adding a few marbles to a jar of nuts each time you mixed it, eventually the marbles would be at a high enough concentration to give you a new kind of species. Something new has been added from the outside, the nuts did not begin mutation into marbles.

I hope this helps.



The Evolutionary model:

1. The earth would be extremely old

2. The geologic column would be stable and uniform.

3. The second law of Thermal dynamics would be untrue (Entropy of a closed system would decrease).

4. There would be millions of fossils of fully formed and intermediate animals appearing gradually over millions of years in the geologic column.

5. Add any other part to the model that you can think of.





Verification of the evolutionary model:

1. There are many evidences that point to an old earth, and this places some difficulties on the idea of creation for most non-Christians. Most of the evidence for an old earth rests on radiometric dating. This is a dating method which uses radioactive isotopes and there known half-lives to determine the age of a particular rock. Some of the old age rocks include lunar rocks, meteorites and deeply buried rocks in the earth’s crust (usually in millions or billions of years).

Another measurement for an old universe is the "red shift" dating method. This method basically uses the size of the universe (which is determined using Hubbell’s law) to determine the age of the universe.

The third evidence for an old earth is the absence of naturally produced radioactive nuclide with a half-life < 80 million years. This seems to show that the earth is so old, that the nuclides have simply decayed away.

Carbon 14 dating is only used on once-living creatures and is only usable up to 30,000 years.



2. The geologic column is not uniform.

3. The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of energy in a closed system will always decrease, decay or become less complicated unless directly effected by an outside source. Since we are talking about Universal evolution (The Big Bang), we must take the universe as a closed system. If evolution is true, then the universe is becomeing more and more complicated, and is gaining energy. Is the universe gaining energy? Is the overall Entropy of our universe decreasing? Is Einstein incorrect?

4. There have been millions of fossils found throughout the world. However, not a single transitional form has been uncovered. Reptiles evolved from fish. We have fossils of fish and fossils of reptiles (namely the dinosaurs), so where are the intermediate fossils? Birds came from reptiles. We have fossils of birds and reptiles, so where are the fossils for the intermediates? Mammals came from birds. We have fossils of birds and mammals, so where are the intermediate fossils? Then mammals became sea dwelling mammals. Again, where are the transitional fossils?



The number one, sought after "missing link" is for man. Have scientists found man’s missing link? I’m sure that you have heard of Neanderthal, and possibly Australopithecus (Lucy). Do you know anything about them. Neanderthal is still used as an example of evolution, and it has been proven (and accepted by evolutionary scientists) to be a modern man with rickets. Rickets is a bone desease which causes the body to be stooped. Why is Neanderthal still used? Because people still accept it as truth, even though proved false.

There are many others that you can read about from the past 100 years of evolutionary science. Ramapithecus was proven to be an orangutan. Orc man was proven to be a donkey. Piltdown was proven to be a hoax.

Nebraska man was proven to be a pig. A PIG! How could scientists make that mistake? How could a pig skeleton look like a man? It didn’t. All the scientists had was a single tooth, and a whole species was born. As a matter of fact, a picture was presented in the London Times in 1922, showing what Nebraska man looked like. Do you see why science cannot prove evolution.

People (including scientists) are bias to their own beliefs. An evolutionist believes in evolution, and what he finds will prove evolution, whether it’s a pig or a man. A creationist will always see creation in what he finds.

The largest evidence pointing to evolution is the apparent age of the universe/earth, and this in and of itself does not prove evolution at all. It merely says the earth has been here a long time. However, this would disagree with biblical truths (age of the earth is 4000-10000 years), so it is important to test the application of these dating methods. The one problem with radiometric dating is the assumption of an initial level or concentration of radioactive isotopes and the assumption that it has been undisturbed. Essentially, scientists estimate the age of a rock by finding the amount of a certain isotope that remains in it. This would work perfectly, if we knew the initial level. Here is a simplified example:

There is a lake on Mars which has 700 million gallons of water. There is no other water supply on the planet, therefore, it has not been added to. There is a creek which is draining the lake at 5 gallons an hour, and has been for the life of the lake. How old is the lake?

I have given you all the evidence that scientists have when using radiometric dating. They know the end concentration (700 gallons of water). They know it has been undisturbed (no more water added to the lake), and they know the decay rate (5 gallons an hour). If you cannot find the age of the lake using this simple grade school story problem, how can scientists find the age of a rock using vastly more complicated nuclide data? By the way, Carbon 14 dating has the same assumption problems.

The "red-shift" and absence of nuclides showing an old age must be answered theologically, and we are trying to stay within scientific explanations. Therefore, it will not be discussed. I’m sure if you are not a Christian, you will appreciate this; and if you are interested in an explanation, feel free to e-mail me. Again, an old earth/universe is only a piece of the puzzle not proof of evolution.

Before we go over the creation model, I want to reiterate that creation, just as evolution, cannot be scientifically proven. That is not to say that scientific evidence does not support creation, it just cannot prove it as fact. Creation could be proven due to the sheer impossibility of such an enormously complex system developing from nothing on it’s own. However, we are discussing the scientific proofs, and there are none. No one was there when creation happened. Or was someone there at the beginning?



The Creation Model:

1. The earth would be appr. 6,000 years old.

2. The geologic column would be erratic and not uniform.

3. The universe would be decaying.

4. The fossil record would contain all animals, in all geologic regions, fully formed.



1. There is much evidence for a young earth. *The salt content in the oceans would be extremely high if the earth were millions of years old. Too high for normal life to live in, they would be "dead" seas.

*The amount of lunar dust on the moon is much less than scientists were expecting because they made calculations based on an old earth.

*The rate at which the moon is moving away from the earth indicates a maximum age of 30,000 years.

*The decay of the earth’s magnetic field makes life impossible greater than 20,000 years ago.

*The Earth’s decreasing spin indicates a young earth.

*A reasonable population growth formula shows only thousands of years required for the current population, not millions.

*The oldest living things are only 5,000 years old (pine trees in California).

*Early civilizations date back only a few thousand years BC, not tens of thousands of years.

*The fossil record shows a major increase in the death rate about 5,000 years ago.

*Calculations based on the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms indicate that life forms cannot be more than several thousand years old and still be as free from defects as they are today.



The only reason evolutionary scientists push for an old earth is because the theory of evolution requires an old earth. This is a bias position. Scientists start with an idea and force all the evidence to fit, rather than theorizing and testing to see if the theory is correct.

2. The geologic column is erratic and is not uniform world-wide. There are places in which entire trees grow through millions of years of geologic deposition. Fossils from all eras are found at all levels of the column. Modern animals are found at levels lower than some of the most primitive. Even mountains and canyons have been seen to form quickly.

MT St. Helens in Washington state is a great place for geological studies, do to the quickly changing terrain.

3. The universe is decaying. People grow old and die. Diseases are produced faster than we can cure them. The energy sources on earth are being depleted. Stars all over the universe are "going out". Even our sun will eventually collapse. The soil is becoming depleted of its nutrients, and vitamin/mineral substitutes are more and more necessary. The universe is slowly dyeing.

4. The fossil record has all the characteristics of a world wide flood (as recorded in the Bible). The fossils are buried in all layers of the earth’s crust, and primitive and modern fossils are found together (including Man & dinosaur). The fossils appear fully formed, with all general species at the same time period.

So, the evidence would seem to show in favor of creation.

One last thought on the "unscientific theory" of evolution. If science cannot prove evolution or creation, and the weight of the evidence we can examine fits the creation model; why is only evolution taught in school and proclaimed as scientific fact on TV, movies and science books? I hope that since you have taken the time to read this, that evolution/creation is important to you. If it is important to you, then I would encourage you to look into the facts of evolution.

There is one more piece of evidence that doesn’t stand up to most people, but is true. I asked above "Was someone there at the beginning of the universe?". The answer is yes, there was. There was someone there and He wrote a book about it.

It’s called the Bible.

This is a fascinating topic, and I love discussing it. If you have any questions, comments or disagreements, please write me on E-mail at: Michael_E_Hoffman@amat.com. E-mail is a pretty safe way to have a reasonable discussion.



THIS LAST PART IS FOR THE CHRISTIAN EVOLUTIONIST.

Are you a Christian who believes that God used evolution to create the world? If you are I would like to ask you a few questions, and I hope you think about them before continuing to read. Do you believe that David was the second king in Israel? Do you believe that God sent a flood to destroy the earth? Do you believe that Elija, Isaiah, and Daniel were prophets of God? Do you believe that Abraham was the father of the nation Israel? Do you believe that Jesus Christ lived on earth? Do you believe that He died for all of mankind? Do you believe that by His shed blood you are forgiven of your sin? Do you believe that you will receive an inheritance of eternal life in heaven just by believing in Jesus Christ? Do you believe that Jesus Christ will return and reign forever?

If you said yes to any or all these questions (which are all true, by the way), I have one more question for you. Why do you believe any of it?????

Do you believe it because the Bible says so? Did you miss the part about creation? If you think that the Bible leaves any space for evolution, you’re reading with the wrong glasses on. If you don’t believe parts of the Bible, how can you believe any of it?

You must stop riding the fence! "Don’t you know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God?

"Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." (Jms 4:4) Believe in the Lord and His perfect word.

I think many Christians who believe evolution is true, do so because of the scientific evidence. If you do, then you have been fooled. Care to guess who has fooled you? There are so many contradictions between evolution and Genesis. Lets look at one of the biggest.

Evolutionist geologists, believe that the geological column was formed slowly and steadily over a vast period of time, has not been effected by major disruptions and physical processes have always functioned in the past essentially the same as present day. This is uniformitarianism. Now if you believe that the earth is old because the geological column says it’s old, and therefore God could have used evolution to create life, you probably accept the "Gap theory".

However, if God sent the flood, the geological column has been disturbed, and would not be accurate according to uniformitarianism. Thus there is no reason to believe in the age given by the geological column. If, however, God did not send the flood, then you have denied another part of the bible. Of course you could believe that it was a localized flood limited to the region of ancient Mesopotamia. Then I would wonder why Noah built that big old arc for 100 years rather than just moving to a different part of the earth.

This is a fascinating topic, and I love discussing it. If you have any questions, comments or disagreements, please E-mail at: ME

E-mail is a pretty safe place for rational, non-violent discussions.

GO BACK