In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood

[Soldier4Christ]

The brittlestar, an animal similar to a 5-arm starfish, has, as part of its skeleton, thousands of eyes, each smaller than the diameter of a human hair. Each eye consists of a calcium carbonate crystal that acts as a compound lens and precisely focuses light on a bundle of nerves. If an arm is lost, a new arm regenerates along with its array of eyes mounted on the upper-back side of the arm. While evolutionists had considered these animals primitive, Sambles admits that “Once again we find that nature foreshadowed our technical developments.” Roy Sambles, “Armed for Light Sensing,” Nature, Vol. 412, 23 August 2001, p. 783. The capabilities of these light-focusing lenses exceed today’s technology.

c
   

. “To my mind the human brain is the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe and no geologic period seems too long to allow for its natural evolution.” Henry Fairfield Osborn, an influential evolutionist speaking to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in December 1929, as told by Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention (New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc., 1987), p. 57. [Even greater capabilities of the brain have been discovered since 1929.  Undoubtedly, more remain. W.B.]
u    

“And in Man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know, is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.” Isaac Asimov, “In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even,” Smithsonian, August 1970, p. 10.
    

Asimov forgot that the brain, and presumably most of its details, is coded by only a fraction of an individual’s DNA. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that DNA is the most complex and orderly arrangement of matter known in the universe.
u    

The human brain is frequently likened to a supercomputer. In most respects the brain greatly exceeds any computer’s capabilities. Speed is one area where the computer beats the brain—at least in some ways. For example, few of us can quickly multiply 0.0239 times 854.95. This task is called a floating point operation, because the decimal point “floats” until we (or a computer) decide where to place it. The number of floating point operations per second (FLOPS) is a measure of a computer’s speed. As of this writing, an IBM computer can achieve 70 trillion FLOPS (70 teraFLOPS). Within the next few years, petaFLOPS machines (peta: 1015) will be commonplace. One challenge is to prevent these superfast computers from melting. Too much electrically generated heat is dissipated in too small a volume.
    

Overall, the human brain seems to operate at petaFLOPS speeds—without overheating. One knowledgeable observer on these ultrafast computers commented:
        

The human brain itself serves, in some sense, as a proof of concept [that cool petaFLOPS machines are possible]. Its dense network of neurons apparently operates at a petaFLOPS or higher level. Yet the whole device fits in a 1 liter box and uses only about 10 watts of power. That’s a hard act to follow. Ivars Peterson, “PetaCrunchers: Setting a Course toward Ultrafast Supercomputing,” Science News, Vol. 147, 15 April 1995, p. 235.
    

How, then, could the brain have evolved?

d
   

. “The human brain consists of about ten thousand million nerve cells. Each nerve cell puts out somewhere in the region of between ten thousand and one hundred thousand connecting fibres by which it makes contact with other nerve cells in the brain. Altogether the total number of connections in the human brain approaches 1015 or a thousand million million. ... a much greater number of specific connections than in the entire communications network on Earth.” Denton, pp. 330–331.
u    

“... the human brain probably contains more than 1014 synapses ...” Deborah M. Barnes, “Brain Architecture: Beyond Genes,” Science, Vol. 233, 11 July 1986, p. 155.

e
   

. Marlyn E. Clark, Our Amazing Circulatory System, Technical Monograph No. 5 (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976).

[Soldier4Christ]

9.   Fully-Developed Organs

a
   

. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston, Texas: St. Thomas Press, 1972).
    

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:
        

The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner. Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

b
   

. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.
        

The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.  Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.
    

And yet, Darwin admitted that:
        

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 degree. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.
    

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.
        

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.
u    

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell, “Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.
    

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:
        

Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye. Ibid.
    

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed, “Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta” [or the eye of any organism].  Ibid.
u    

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c
   

. “Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[Soldier4Christ]

10.   Distinct Types

a
   

. And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.”  Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.  Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.
u    

“Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark, “Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.
u    

“When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.
u    

“The fact that all the individual species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.” [emphasis in original] Denton, p. 132.

b
   

. “... no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[Soldier4Christ]

11.   Altruism

a
   

. “... the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225.
u    

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b
   

. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well-known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.
    

Adoption is another example.
        

From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order.  Cleo Sullivan, “The Adoption Paradox,” Discover, January 2001, p. 80.
    

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.
u    

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others.
        

... it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do not appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives. Tim Clutton-Brock, “Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.
    

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

c
   

. “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.”  Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

d
   

. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.
        v    

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]
        v    

“... altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time led to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.
        v    

If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.
        v    

If X did not inherit the altruistic trait but got it from a rare mutation, then probably no brothers, sisters, or cousins have the trait. No matter how much the individual’s clan benefits, the trait will become extinct. From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits had to originate this way. Therefore, altruistic traits cannot survive the first generation.
        v    

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

[Soldier4Christ]

12.   Extraterrestrial Life?

a
   

. The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed. [See Richard A. Kerr, “Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

13.   Language

a
   

. G. F. Marcus et al., “Rule Learning by Seven-Month-Old Infants,” Science, Vol. 283, 1 January 1999, pp. 77–80.

b
   

. Arthur Custance, Genesis and Early Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975), pp. 250–271.
u    

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998), p. 294.

c
   

. “Projects devoted to teaching chimpanzees and gorillas to use language have shown that these apes can learn vocabularies of visual symbols. There is no evidence, however, that apes can combine such symbols in order to create new meanings. The function of the symbols of an ape’s vocabulary appears to be not so much to identify things or to convey information as it is to satisfy a demand that it use that symbol in order to obtain some reward.” H. S. Terrance et al., “Can an Ape Create a Sentence?” Science, Vol. 206, 23 November 1979, p. 900.
u    

“... human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.” Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (Chicago: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1968), p. 59.

d
   

. “No languageless community has ever been found.” Jean Aitchison, The Atlas of Languages (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1996), p. 10.
u    

“There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [in language development between apes and man] are bridgeable.”  Chomsky, p. 60.

e
   

. “... [concerning imitation, not language] only humans can lose one modality (e.g., hearing) and make up for this deficit by communicating with complete competence in a different modality (i.e., signing).”  Marc D. Hauser et al., “The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?” Science, Vol. 298, 22 November 2002, p. 1575.

f
   

. David C. C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (Chicago: Moody Press, 1976), pp. 83–89.
u    

George Gaylord Simpson acknowledged the vast gulf that separates animal communication and human languages. Although he recognized the apparent pattern of language development from complex to simple, he could not digest it. He simply wrote, “Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex.”  He then shifted to a new subject. George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969), p. 116.
u    

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed. ... Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. ... The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.”  George Gaylord Simpson, “The Biological Nature of Man,” Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.
u    

“The evolution of language, at least within the historical period, is a story of progressive simplification.” Albert C. Baugh, A History of the English Language, 2nd edition (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957), p. 10.
u    

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.” Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

g
   

. “It was Charles Darwin who first linked the evolution of languages to biology. In The Descent of Man (1871), he wrote, ‘the formation of different languages and of distinct species, and the proofs that both have been developed through a gradual process, are curiously parallel.’ But linguists cringe at the idea that evolution might transform simple languages into complex ones. Today it is believed that no language is, in any basic way, ‘prior’ to any other, living or dead. Language alters even as we speak it, but it neither improves nor degenerates.” Philip E. Ross, “Hard Words,” Scientific American, Vol. 264, April 1991, p. 144.
u    

“Noam Chomsky ... has firmly established his point that grammar, and in particular syntax, is innate. Interested linguistics people ... are busily speculating on how the language function could have evolved ... Derek Bickerton (Univ. Hawaii) insists that this faculty must have come into being all at once.”  John Maddox, “The Price of Language?” Nature, Vol. 388, 31 July 1997, p. 424.

[Soldier4Christ]

14.   Speech

a
   

. Mark P. Cosgrove, The Amazing Body Human (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), pp. 106–109.
    

“If we are honest, we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain].”  Ibid., p. 164.

b
   

. Jeffrey T. Laitman, “The Anatomy of Human Speech,” Natural History, August 1984, pp. 20–26.
u    

“Chimpanzees communicate with each other by making vocal sounds just as most mammals do, but they don’t have the capacity for true language, either verbally or by using signs and symbols. ... Therefore, the speech sound production ability of a chimpanzee vocal tract is extremely limited, because it lacks the ability to produce the segmental contrast of consonants and vowels in a series. ... I conclude that all of the foregoing basic structural and functional deficiencies of the chimpanzee vocal tract, which interfere or limit the production of speech sounds, also pertain to all of the other nonhuman primates.” Edmund S. Crelin, The Human Vocal Tract (New York: Vantage Press, 1987), p. 83.

[Soldier4Christ]

15.   Codes, Programs, and Information

a
   

. The genetic code is remarkably insensitive to translation errors. If the code were generated by random processes, as evolutionists believe, life would have needed about a million different starts before a code could have been stumbled on that was as resilient as the code used by all life today. [See Stephen J. Freeland and Laurence D. Hurst, “Evolution Encoded,” Scientific American, Vol. 290, April 2004, pp. 84–91.]
u    

“This analysis gives us a reason to believe that the A–T and G–C choice forms the best pairs that are the most different from each other, so that their ubiquitous use in living things represents an efficient and successful choice rather than an accident of evolution.” [emphasis added] Larry Liebovitch as quoted by David Bradley, “The Genome Chose Its Alphabet with Care,” Science, Vol. 297, 13 September 2002, p. 1790.

b
   

. “No matter how many ‘bits’ of possible combinations it has, there is no reason to call it ‘information’ if it doesn’t at least have the potential of producing something useful. What kind of information produces function? In computer science, we call it a ‘program.’ Another name for computer software is an ‘algorithm.’ No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organisms with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms’ genomes programmed?” Abel and Trevors, p. 8.
u    

“No known hypothetical mechanism has even been suggested for the generation of nucleic acid algorithms.” Jack T. Trevors and David L. Abel, “Chance and Necessity Do Not Explain the Origin of Life,” Cell Biology International, Vol. 28, 2004, p. 730.

c
   

. For example, a computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. That information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. After compression, the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or component.
    

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.
    

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the right information could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects or living organisms.
    

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.
u    

Werner Gitt (Professor of Information Systems) describes man as the most complex information processing system on earth. Gitt estimated that about 3 x 1024 bits of information are processed daily in an average human body. That is thousands of times more than all the information in all the world’s libraries. [See Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, 2nd edition (Bielefeld, Germany: CLV, 2000), p. 88.]

d
   

. “There is no known law of nature, no known process and no known sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.”  Ibid., p. 107.

e
   

. Because macroevolution requires increasing complexity through natural processes, the organism’s information content must spontaneously increase many times. However, natural processes cannot significantly increase the information content of an isolated system, such as a reproductive cell.  Therefore, macroevolution cannot occur.
u    

“The basic flaw of all evolutionary views is the origin of the information in living beings. It has never been shown that a coding system and semantic information could originate by itself in a material medium, and the information theorems predict that this will never be possible. A purely material origin of life is thus precluded.”  Gitt, p. 124.

f
   

. Based on modern advances in the field of information theory, the only known way to decrease the entropy of an isolated system is by having intelligence in that system. [See, for example, Charles H. Bennett, “Demons, Engines and the Second Law,” Scientific American, Vol. 257, November 1987, pp. 108–116.] Because the universe is far from its maximum entropy level, a vast intelligence is the only known means by which the universe could have been brought into being. [See also “Second Law of Thermodynamics” on page 27.]

g
   

. If the “big bang” occurred, all the matter in the universe was at one time a hot gas. A gas is one of the most random systems known to science. Random, chaotic movements of gas molecules contain virtually no useful information. Because an isolated system, such as the universe, cannot generate nontrivial information, the “big bang” could not produce the complex, living universe we have today, which contains astronomical amounts of useful information.

[Soldier4Christ]

17.   Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design?

a
   

. “... the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).”  Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.
u    

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.”  Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b
   

. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

c
   

. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship ... it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units, ...”  Nilsson, p. 1143.
u    

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Johathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d
   

. Fix, pp. 189–191.
u    

Denton, pp. 142–155.
u    

“Therefore, homologous [similar] structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today. W.B.; emphasis in original] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e
   

. “Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

[Soldier4Christ]

18.   Vestigial Organs

a
   

. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b
   

. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c
   

. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1985), p. 2609.
u    

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.”  N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

[Soldier4Christ]

19.   Two-Celled Life?

a
   

. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.
u    

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.
u    

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.
    

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

[Soldier4Christ]

This is not the entire book. Many of the figures, tables, references and explanatory notes have been left out. If you would like to see the entire book you can contact me and I will be glad to give you the information on how to get it.

[Paul2]

     I had planned on starting a thread introducing Walt, Brown's Book which he gracously posted online believing the material is to important not to share. I advise anyone who witnesses to have a copy of this book. I've been using it as a witness tool since 1995 but I just found out that it has been made available of free. God bless Walt Brown for being generous enough that he may lose sales of the book because he has given away the material to strenghten the Church universal.

     Anyways while I was looking for the right place to post it, I found that you are way ahead of me and have already done so. Well done!

   I love the picture of the human footprints fossils with shoes that had heels and crushed a trilobite which was supposed to be extint for 240 million years. Theres another great photo of a tree growing against a canyon that has been fossiled and has hundreds of strata layers which sceintists say is millions of years yet it never decayed. Those two photos have helped me wake up a bunch of brainwashed people. Once they see those pictures they seem to respond to reason and that book helps explain so many things. People feel like they have gone 10 rounds with Ali when I start debating with that book on the table.

    I use this book for those who are stuck on science, and then I hit them with the fact one of my eyes doesn't see. I looks fine, Does everything an eye should do except see. I expain that according to Darwin someday it might evolve and turn on, so I'm just waiting for that to happen. Then I ask them the question of what if both of my eyes were like the blind eye. I explain that the eye is a basiclly an organic camera and all the componets must work together perfectly for the camera to operate. One of my organic cameras has a bad wiring connection somewhere in the organic computer we can the brain. We copied ourselves when we built computers. We dream and arrange our files when we sleep just as a computer has a hard drive so do we. My organic camera called "my eye" is not wired perectly so the eye does not work.

        I explain how far my eye must has evolved and yet it still does not function. My eye didn't evolve, it couldn't have. Without a designer that knew how to completely wire my brain so that a bunch of tissue actually become an organic camera, it would never happen. Think people, how many generations would it take without a designer for a eye to form and then function? One generation forms a bunch of jellylike tissue, the next generation adds eyelashes, next generation a lens, next gerneation ... Yet the eye doesn't work until everything is perfect.

       I am walking living proof that Darwin was an idiot. I use my blind eye as a witnessing tool. I believe I was equiped to be ME! And I see my blind eye as a blessing.
 My BLIND EYE helped me to SEE through Darwin lie and to SEE the truth, That I was wonderfully made, with a purpose, and those things some would see as a curse I know are my blessings!

 Psalms 139:14  "I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well"

    Thought I'd share that with you,.

[Soldier4Christ]

Hello Paul2,

It's great to see you back on the forum again. I have always enjoyed reading your posts.

I agree. This book is one of my favorites outside of the Bible and I have used it extensively many times. I am really grateful that he has made it available in this manner.

[Paul2]

       
Hello Brother,

         I should do a thread on My Blind Eye, but where should that go?

[Soldier4Christ]

      
Hello Brother,

         I should do a thread on My Blind Eye, but where should that go?

That would depend on what it is about. I've not heard of it.