Counterpoint to evolution, part 5

This commentary on the Biology textbook published by Pearson/Prentice Hall and written by Miller and Levine will continue with an analysis of the “evidences” for evolution that the book presents. The key counterpoint: the “evidences” consist of rock formations and fossils. And these are much younger than supposed.

The Big Lie…

Creationists often hear that there is much evidence for evolution. The reference is usually to a long list of transitional fossils that most evolutionists do not know has been proven to be either invalid or fraudulent over the years. And so the lie continues, verifying the validity of a popular propaganda ploy:

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

History has shown that often repeated lies are often believed by the public. This article will discuss a few of those “evidences” for evolution that are presented in this textbook. As usual, textbook quotes will appear with the same emphasis as in the textbook.

…and the counterpoint

Page 382 states:

Evidence of Evolution

Darwin argued that living things have been evolving on Earth for millions of years. Evidence for this process could be found in the fossil record, the geological distribution of living species, homologous structures of living organisms, and similarities in early development, or embryology.

Counterpoint – This statement prefaces what will follow, leading the student to believe that the evidence is incontrovertible. If that were true, this series would not be written. Since a format such as this cannot provide the room necessary to address in detail every topic presented above, I will only address the fossil record and the geologic argument being presented. Note: embryology was addressed in Part 4 and an argument against common descent in the fossil record was addressed in Part 3 of this series.

Page 382, Figure 15-13 contains pictures and diagrams of cephalopods. It states:

Darwin argued that the fossil record provided evidence that living things have been evolving for millions of years. Often, the fossil record includes a variety of extinct organisms that are related to one another and to living organisms. The four fossil organisms shown here are cephalopods, a group that includes squid, octopi, and the chambered nautilus. The fossil record contains more than 7500 species of cephalopods, which vary, as these fossils show, from species to species with short, straight shells, to species with longer, coiled shells. Darwin and his colleagues noticed that the sizes, shapes, and varieties of related organisms preserved in the fossil record changed over time.

Counterpoint – The first four sentences are true. However, the conclusion in the last sentence is simply an interpretation of the facts assumed by Darwin in order to support his theory. The diversity of cephalopods in the fossil record exists. However, all are cephalopods without transitional fossils of one cephalopod developing into the next existing in the fossil record or data that supports that these variations evolved over time. Furthermore, today we still have squid, octopi and chambered nautilus – as shown in the diagram. If they evolved one from another, it should be clear in the fossil record. It is not. AGAIN – impartial documentation in the fossil record to support Darwin’s claim does not exist.

The fossil record: circular reasoning

Page 383 – continued.

The Fossil Record

By Darwin’s time, scientists knew that fossils were the remains of ancient life, and that different layers of rock had been formed at different times during Earth’s history…Darwin, like Lyell, proposed that the Earth was many millions – rather than thousands – of years old…By comparing fossils from older rock layers with fossils from younger layers, scientists could document the fact that life on Earth has changed over time as shown in Figure 15-13.

Counterpoint – In this case the first sentence is a mix of truth and fiction. Fossils do tell a story about species of life that continue to exist today, as well as others that have become extinct. However, the claims regarding the existence of transitional fossils are deceptive. Also, the widely held concept that rock layers were formed at different times during Earth’s history is another assumption made to support the theory that the earth was many millions of years old. Millions of years instead of thousands of years lends credibility to the notion that given enough time, perhaps the impossible is possible and things could have happened as Darwin proposed, so it permeates the entire foundation for evolution and is repeated throughout the textbook’s chapter. Additionally, Pages 419, 420 and 421 contain narratives that assume this conclusion when offering the evolutionists’ explanation for the fossil record and the fossil index.

The theory further asserts that the strata layers worldwide and at the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form. Supposedly, the lower layers represent older eras. This became the basis for assigning ages to both the rock layers and the fossils that appear in them, which is called the fossil index. The rock layers in this assumption are used to assign an age to the fossil and then the fossil is used to assign an age to the rock layers, which is a perfect example of circular reasoning – no matter how scientific it sounds.

The geologic time scale: foreshortened!

Page 421 of the text states:

Geologic Time Scale

Paleontologists use divisions of the geologic time scale to represent evolutionary time… Scientists first developed the geologic time scale by studying rock layers and index fossils worldwide. With this information, they placed Earth’s rocks in order according to relative age …These times were used to mark where one segment of geologic time ends and the next begins- long before anyone knew how long these various segments actually were.

Page 421 and 420 states that radioactive dating techniques were also used to assign specific ages to the various rock layers.

Page 420 accurately describes half-lives and then radioactive dating. It states:

Radioactive dating is the use of half-lives to determine the age of a sample. In radioactive dating, scientists calculate the age of a sample based on the amount of remaining radioactive isotopes it contains.

Counterpoint – If one thinks these claims through, they should be asking the obvious questions:

  • Why are these layers so distinctive?
  • What caused the sudden change in color obvious in the different layers?
  • Why isn’t there any evidence of erosion in these layers?
  • Why are many of the fossils found in these layers sea-dwelling creatures?

And, why do millions of fossils in these layers, such as nautiloids and ammonites (which are cephalopods) appear in a thick 5000 square foot mile limestone layer in the Grand Canyon – with 15% of them fossilized standing vertically on their heads? Isn’t this evidence of a rapid burial, or would you have us believe that these nautiloids stood on their heads for millions of years while the rock layers were deposited over and around them? And would you have us believe that while they stood on their heads waiting to be buried during these millions of years, they did not decay and other scavengers did not take advantage of them standing still on their heads?

Mount St. Helens provides a counterpoint to the entire "science" of radiometric dating. Dacite found in the lava dome had an apparent age up to 2.8 million years. What, in short, is up with that?

Mount St. Helens releases plumes of steam, October, 2004. Photo: United States Geological Survey.

And… would you have us believe that the rock layers that were laid down by the Mount St. Helens explosion in 1980 did not happen over a 24-hour period as many of us observed, but that the whole process took millions of years and we simply imagined what we saw?

And…what about the RATE project (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), which was conducted by seven well-accomplished scientists, including a geologist, geophysicist, Hebrew scholar, several physicists and a meteorologists? Didn’t they’re professionally done investigation conclude that the age of the geologic layers that are thought to be millions of years old are woefully inaccurate – by millions and millions of years?

And…what about the soft tissue and blood cells recently discovered in T. rex bones that are included as a fossil index and thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago? Are we to believe that somehow these blood cells and soft tissue survived for 65 million years in better condition than the mummified remains of Egyptian pharaohs?

One ancestor? Really?

Page 450 includes an illustration of Linnaeus’s hierarchical system of classification that uses seven taxonomic categories. The illustration begins with a brown bear at the bottom of the pyramid. The second level of the illustration includes the brown bear and a black bear. The third level includes a brown bear, a black bear and a panda bear. So far, so good. It is reasonable to claim that the bear family began with a brown bear, which through natural selection produced a black bear and a panda. However, the next level includes the bears and a fox, and then the next level includes all of the others plus a squirrel. The next level includes all of the others plus a snake, and the next and final level includes all of the others plus a sea star.

Counterpoint – Where is the evidence for such outrageous claims? Are we to believe that somehow a fox, squirrel, snake and sea star evolved from a bear? If so, where are the transitional fossils between a bear and a fox? Are these evolutionists aware of the physical changes that would have to transpire in the genome in order for a bear to transform into a fox – or a squirrel – or a snake – or a star fish? Surely there would be innumerable transitional fossils to document such drastic changes. This is not only scientifically unsupportable; it is logically absurd.

Page 451 states:

In a sense, organisms determine who belongs to their species by choosing with whom they will mate!

Counterpoint – It is true. Animals chose their mates. HOWEVER, they cannot reproduce outside of their species, so their reproductive choices are limited. This limitation is bound by genetics, and does not allow for the addition or deletion of information needed within the genome to produce species other than the ones they belong to.

There is certainly more that can be written to argue the evolutionists’ positions on all the arguments discussed in this article, but I have already stretched the limits of this format. Hopefully enough food for thought has been provided to inspire everyone involved in education and everyone concerned about the immoral and anti-biblical culture that is developing to take this to the next step. The information is there and the facts are on our side. Hosea 4:6, and Proverbs 5:23 and 10:21 agree. The people of God perish for lack of knowledge. It is time we start to reclaim our culture – and we can easily do it by factually educating our people.

Reprinted from The Daily Rant, copyright 2015 Mychal Massie. Used by permission.

2 thoughts on “Counterpoint to evolution, part 5

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.