Prove Evolution Is False Even Without the Bible

You are here

Prove Evolution Is False Even Without the Bible

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×
Downloads
MP3 Audio (9.89 MB)

Downloads

Prove Evolution Is False Even Without the Bible

MP3 Audio (9.89 MB)
×

Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere microevolution—small changes within a species—but macroevolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally—you!

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the "molecules to man" theory—we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves . . .

"All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind, 1970, pp. 60-62, emphasis added).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see limited changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed, while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on the other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which in high amounts in the air would be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place!

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.

You might also be interested in...

Comments

  • Xunn

    "F for Fossils"

    Imagine if every single extinct animal were all alive today, not just dinosaurs, but all of the animals from all the periods in the geological timeline. How could they all be living, all at once?

    Also, the fossil record clearly shows that tons and tons and tons of animals came into existence and went extinct during different spans of time on the geological time scale. Some animals only existed in the Jurassic period, while some only during the Permian period, etc.. It was Christians who first noticed this, and failed to explain it. Back in the 1800's, they proposed the idea of God destroying all life on Earth with tons and tons of antediluvian floods (i.e. starting from scratch over and over again), but it just didn't pan out.

  • Mario Seiglie

    Hello Ian,

    Thanks for your comment. Your point brings up what is found in the fossil record -- progressive creation with selective destruction. This all could have happened in the interval between the original creation of Gen. 1:1 and the final destructive layer before man´s creation in Gen. 1:2. From Gen. 1:3-25, we see the same species more or less that populate the earth today.

  • Xunn

    The problem is that no matter what the fossil record looks like, no matter what the entire Universe looks like, you can explain it with a supernatural explanation.

    There is theistic evolution, guided evolution, "progressive creation with selective destruction ", "multiple creation/flood events", etc. Even if you could observe the birth of the universe and its evolution, you could still just say "God created the universe" or "God created evolution". You can invoke a creation explanation for all possible observations. You could even say God just made it look like life evolved, but it really didn't.

    Going further, you could even explain the fossil record using supernatural evolution, where anything that has not been explained can be fixed by injecting supernatural phenomena that just doesn't invoke a supernatural entity as its source.

    That's why falsifiability and predictive power are so important in science. If you tailor any explanation to fit the evidence and/or invoke the supernatural to fix any holes, then you can come up with all kinds of explanations that cannot be proved false (e.g. Last Thursdaysim).

  • Utguy85

    Ian, what are you taking about? LOL. You have no idea what evolution even is. Please explain to me the science background you have. You have “some” evolution studies in high school for 2-4 weeks and google searches isn’t understanding or being an expert. If you don’t know the topic then you have no opinion that’s valid. You aren’t using terms correctly. There is NO supernatural or Theistic Evolution. I respect you are religious as I am not but I am spiritual. Please educate yourself on Science because you have no idea what you are talking about.

  • Mario Seiglie

    Hello Ian,
    Please remember, on the other hand, what the eminent philosopher Karl Popper concluded, "Evolution is not a fact. Evolution doesn't even qualify as a theory or as a hypothesis. It is a metaphysical research program, and it is not really testable science."

  • Utguy85

    Karl has denied some science concepts when he was younger. We have a lot of quotes of him saying he believes in evolution fully before he passed away in 1994. You are wrong to find an old quote that’s not current. He says “I blush when I have to make this confession; for when I was younger, I used to say very contemptuous things about evolutionary philosophies. When twenty-two years ago Canon Charles E. Raven, in his Science, Religion, and the Future, described the Darwinian controversy as "a storm in a Victorian teacup," I agreed, but criticized him for paying too much attention "to the vapors still emerging from the cup," by which I meant the hot air of the evolutionary philosophies (especially those which told us that there were inexorable laws of evolution). But now I have to confess that this cup of tea has become, after all, my cup of tea; and with it I have to eat humble pie. [Popper, 1972, p. 241]. DONE...stop making up stuff please. If you need references I’ll proved tons. A lot of what you speak of with Evolution is so wrong. I need much more the 1200 Characters to explain.

  • Xunn

    Mario, how does it not qualify as even a hypothesis?

    Its goal is to explain our observations and has predictive power. One of its first predictions was a mechanism for heredity (DNA), which was discovered some decades after. Had this mechanism been missing, natural selection would be impossible, thus falsifying it. That was a testable prediction.

    Another prediction was that we would discover more transitional fossils and forms, which is an absolute must for his theory. This prediction also came true and we continue to find more and more.

    The theory of evolution, like Newtonian mechanics, the general theory of relativity and the big bang theory, all made predictions that came true. This is how theories get momentum in the scientific community.

  • Skip Miller

    Hello Ian,
    How could all extinct animals be living all at once? I don't think they could.
    I'm not sure I follow your assertion that "Christians...proposed the idea of God destroying all life on Earth with tons and tons of antediluvian floods (i.e. starting from scratch over and over again), but it just didn't pan out." What Christians (or who specifically?)
    How many floods (who says this? where?) Which aspect "didn't pan out?"

  • Xunn

    Consider this ... "biota" is ALL life of a region or time period. IF evolution is true, then as time passes Earth's biota will change until it becomes vastly different over and over again.

    There are tons of time periods with their own biota. Humans were not present in most of them. There are millions of lifeforms, and they existed during different time periods. Two time periods that are separated by a huge amount of time look like different worlds (e.g. today, Jurassic, and Permian).

    Georges Cuvier) explained the fossil record as the result of a series of undocumented flood and creation events.

    "In 1842, Alcide d'Orbigny began describing the Jurassic fossils from the southwestern French Alps and soon recognized 10 different stages, each of which he interpreted as a separate non-Biblical creation and flood. As the work continued, it became more and more complicated until 27 separate creations and floods were recognized, which distorted the Biblical account out of shape. By this time, European geologists finally began to admit that the sequence of fossils was too long and complex to fit with Genesis at all. They abandoned the attempt to reconcile it with the Bible."

  • Xunn

    "How could all extinct animals be living all at once? I don't think they could."

    If all life (i.e. species or kinds) were created at the same time, then they would be sharing the same space on Earth. Fossils only represent a tiny amount of what species existed back then, since fossilization is a rare process. You wouldn't just have sea scorpions, sarkastodons, raptors, t-rexes, etc., but tens of thousands of undiscovered species roaming about.

    "How many floods (who says this? where?) Which aspect "didn't pan out?"

    Let me dig up some of the information. I'll leave a second reply for this.

  • joeinternet

    You talk about science needing proof. Where is your proof? Is it your, "deeply held personal belief"? Is that your proof?

  • thoranhaxmaul

    The character limit prevents me from pointing out every single thing wrong with this, however;
    *"Pterosaur" is an entire CATAGORY of winged dinosaurs,
    *Mexican walking fish exist right now,
    * the first egg-laying fish, the first pterosaur, the first bird, the first chicken and the first thing you would recognize as a chicken happened AEONS apart,
    *we've actually forced animals to evolve to our liking, including speciation. it's called selective breeding.

  • Paul Mucci
    Evolution is a self inflicted dilemma brought on by ignorant religion. Evolution underscores the Bible. Evolution doesn't need the Bible to prove it's true...nor does the Bible need evolution to prove It's true also.
  • Caleb.Breidenthal
    The article reads: "it is not testable according to the scientific method." Yes it is. Evolution predicts that a transitional form should appear at a certain time--between two known species. So scientists can look at rocks dated between these two species to find a transitional form--and they have. The article reads: "How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?" The Theory of evolution is the exact OPPOSITE of a random undirected process. Natural selection IS the process by which the theory of evolution takes place. Random mutation is only the FACTOR by which the PROCESS acts upon.
  • Skip Miller
    Hello Caleb.Bridenthal, Natural selection makes a great deal of sense! But who set it up?
  • Helen - Gramy

    Thank you Mr. Seiglie,
    This information really should be a ''read'' in every school of thought!
    We all take for granted what we read, that it is true, when in reality it is false teachings. When we stop and take the time to analyze, the truth prevails.
    Thanks again for ''opening'' the eyes on this subject!

  • Utguy85

    It’s not False Teaching. You just don’t know science or evolution and I’m assuming many other ideas. Out of respect what are your views on Climate Change, Global Warming, Homosexuality, Noah’s Arc and the Flood, Dinosaurs walling with humans, How old is the Earth? If you can give me real facts, dates, times, evidence, rational logic I’m very open. You are also talking to someone who is an Evolutionary Biologist and Neuro Psy with 10yrs of research, teaching, still studying and following research today. Once again, out fo respect if you don’t know topics back and Forth very well.::your opinion means nothing. Scientists as a whole strongly believes in Evolution...that’s what we call a Scientific Factual Theory....it’s the same level as LAWS which are math based and it’s all proven!

  • Join the conversation!

    Log in or register to post comments