Question:
Why don't religious people believe in Dinosaurs? And why can't evolution be a part of God's plan?
Purplelicious
2006-06-24 20:52:32 UTC
I've actually heard relegious people claim Dinosaurs are a huge conspiracy, and that scientists only claim to have find fossils in an effort to turn people away from God. Also, evolution is about adaptation and survival.... why can't that be part of Gods plan to help the human race survive?
28 answers:
A Person
2006-06-24 20:56:34 UTC
A person who says that is ignorant. I find no contradition between religion and science. I am a Christian and I believe in evolution and the bing bang theory.
Martin S
2006-06-25 03:59:05 UTC
I don't know who the people you are talking about are but no main stream Christian teacher claims that dinosaurs didn't exist. As to why evolution can't be a part of God's plan, micro-evolution is definitely a part of His creative genius. God created animals to be able to adapt over generations to thrive and survive in this fallen world.



But claiming that an amoeba turned into a fish that turned into a frog that turned into an ape like creature that turned into human beings is ridiculous as well as running counter to the teachings found in the Bible.



Check out some of the articles about the fossil record and about evolution from the Answers button @ http://web.express56.com/~bromar/ and you'll see the proof of that.
Jan H
2006-06-25 04:09:28 UTC
I believe in Dinosaurs and in God. I don't totally believe the adaptation/evolution.

After all - it's widely accepted that alligators and crocodiles have been largely unchanged for thousands of years - why would they not adapt while others did? They are not the only ones. It doesn't make sense. In believing His word it states we were created in His image - not evolving from sea creatures.

In a more specific way - it's widely said that Thoroughbred horses were bred solely from Arabians. Arabians are distinctive in a shorter back and fewer ribs, lumbar vertebrae and tail bones than other breeds. To listen to some reports crossing lines of Arabians made a super horse - the Thoroughbred. Yet no other line of Arabians has ever changed physically - in thousands of years they have stayed largely the same. With that the case - and humans selecting and breeding them - how can I believe that if a horse doesn't change in all that time that there could be the vast differences from sea to amphibious to mammals. That part I am not convinced about.
frankyglitz
2006-06-25 04:01:13 UTC
Dinosaurs are pre-flood creatures. The Bible mentions dinosaur like animals like Leviathan and others. I do not see the contradiction. Fossils are proof of the Great Flood, but evolutionist like to call the findings part of the "Ice Age". You can find seashell on mountain tops, this proves the Great Flood theory.

Evolution is a theory. Academia, however, attacks and belittles any student who even questions the theory. A lot of people don't believe in evolution.

http://www.gotquestions.org/dinosaurs-Bible.html
Atheist81
2006-06-25 03:59:40 UTC
The problem with dinosaurs is that a lot of Christians believe the earth is only about 6000 years old. Evolution is just human knowledge explaining the process of the natural that no longer fall under the exclusive purview of God. As human knowledge expands, the power of God fades.
2006-06-25 04:00:37 UTC
Dinosaurs in the Noble Quran:



A questioner on my Message Board at: http://www.answering-christianity.com/cgi-bin/message_board/read_post.cgi?file_name=142/main.txt asked the question about why Allah Almighty never mentioned dinosaurs in the Noble Quran?



Allah Almighty did mention dinosaurs in the Noble Quran. While the word "dinosaurs" is a modern word that refers to the gigantic animals that existed perhaps millions of years ago, Allah Almighty referred to all created "beasts" as "dabbah". A "dabbah" in the Noble Quran consists of all animals, including the dinosaurs.



"Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which God Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise. (The Noble Quran, 2:164)"



"He created the heavens without any pillars that ye can see; He set on the earth mountains standing firm, lest it should shake with you; and He scattered through it beasts of all kinds. We send down rain from the sky, and produce on the earth every kind of noble creature, in pairs. (The Noble Quran, 31:10)"



Notice in Noble Verse 31:10, Allah Almighty said that He created the mountains to prevent the earth from shaking (which had been scientifically proven to be true. Please visit: www.answering-christianity.com/mountains.htm), and then after that He, the Almighty, created beasts and scattered them throughout the land. These first beasts that were created before mankind are what we call today "dinosaurs".
n9wff
2006-06-25 04:04:23 UTC
THe Bible does not disprove dinosaurs. The Bible disproves evolution. "In the beginning, God..." Can we explain that, if we were created in God's image, that this would come from an ameoba? Bible says that God created man out of the earth. These facts contradict each other.

Evolutionists believe we were created by chance. the Bible says that God created the heavens and the earth, created the birds and al l living things, including man. It also says that God BREATHED life into the man. None of these facts can relate to the theory of evolution.
Think.for.your.self
2006-06-25 04:06:22 UTC
You must either be not religious, raised in a creationist religion and have never learned about other religions or ignorant. I would urge you to inform your self more about what other religions believe. At least people don't know you here - but you might get laughed at in public for making such a blanket generalization.



Plenty of religions accept the theory of evolution. For example, I am Catholic. We do. We go by the spirit of the bible - not the letter.
2014-09-21 23:28:02 UTC
I was looking for a free download Letters from Nowhere 2 I found it here: http://bitly.com/1pnRAvt



Finally the full version is avaiable!

Classic arcade style games can be enjoyed by the whole family especially the kids.

It's the best game of its category.
bigjarom
2006-06-25 03:56:19 UTC
My dad always told me that God used rocks from other planets to make the earth and that some of those rocks already had dinosaur bones in them. What a load of crap. Needless to say I don't believe anything my parents say now. Religion IS the opiate of the masses.
?
2006-06-25 04:07:11 UTC
Why don't you ask God why He didn't make evolution a part of His plan He only knows. If there were any dinosaurs ,they were all killed in the flood ,
bikerpjb
2006-06-25 03:56:50 UTC
There's no explanation for the stupidity of some dogmatic people. And there are plenty of religious people who also believe in dinosaurs and evolution -- like me!
DIRT MCGIRT
2006-06-25 04:00:01 UTC
Because dinosaurs expose one of the many holes in the bible and they just can't handle it. As far as evolution being part of god's plan, I don't know. I am agnostic.
diamond
2006-06-25 03:59:57 UTC
If you do some research you would find that some do,especially Christians. They have some very interesting web sites with some way cool dinosaurs.
brown sugar
2006-06-25 04:04:23 UTC
No one knows what god put on this earth because they were not here at that time,and anyone that don't believe in god is a fool. man mess up everything he put his hands on now,can you imagine what the world would be like if he had to think up all of the things that god did. give me a break
2006-06-25 04:05:42 UTC
Only fanatics deny the existence of evolution. I think evolution and religion can both be the same and fit together.
lenny
2006-06-25 04:49:18 UTC
Evolution can't be a part of god's plan for the simple reason that gods don't exist.
Jrizzt J
2006-06-25 03:57:52 UTC
i have actually had a christian tell me that there were no dinosaurs that god just put all those bones here to mess with our heads and to reassure the faithful.
AMERICAN_YANKEE35
2006-06-25 05:07:52 UTC
hey i am a observant Jewish person and i believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth..there is hard core proof with all those really huge bones that were found lol lol
stpolycarp77
2006-06-25 03:58:59 UTC
Maybe some "religious" people believe that, but most don't. Check out this link



http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%2012.htm
fathermartin121
2006-06-25 03:59:24 UTC
I am religious. I believe they existed. I do not ask them for help, I hope they emjoyed their time on earth and I thank them for being so big and impressive, I guess I also have to thank them for dieing out so we don't have to fight them off.
Hadassa Marciano1994
2006-06-25 03:56:46 UTC
It depends on they're religion and the person.I'm Christian and believe in dinosaurs.
more than a hat rack
2006-06-25 03:55:42 UTC
i would say that i'm religious and i have no problem believing in dinosaurs.
rapturefuture
2006-06-25 04:11:08 UTC
We all have been lied to about early man get the book 'BURIED ALIVE' BY JACK CUOZZO
caitie
2006-06-25 03:55:50 UTC
THats is the mormons.
WiseGuyRobin
2006-06-25 03:56:03 UTC
r u religious?
2006-06-26 10:28:09 UTC
Darwinism, in other words the theory of evolution, was put forward with the aim of denying the fact of creation, but is in truth nothing but failed, unscientific nonsense. This theory, which claims that life emerged by chance from inanimate matter, was invalidated by the scientific evidence of clear "design" in the universe and in living things. In this way, science confirmed the fact that God created the universe and the living things in it. The propaganda carried out today in order to keep the theory of evolution alive is based solely on the distortion of the scientific facts, biased interpretation, and lies and falsehoods disguised as science.

Yet this propaganda cannot conceal the truth. The fact that the theory of evolution is the greatest deception in the history of science has been expressed more and more in the scientific world over the last 20-30 years. Research carried out after the 1980s in particular has revealed that the claims of Darwinism are totally unfounded, something that has been stated by a large number of scientists. In the United States in particular, many scientists from such different fields as biology, biochemistry and paleontology recognize the invalidity of Darwinism and employ the concept of intelligent design to account for the origin of life. This

"intelligent design" is a scientific expression of the fact that God created all living things.

We have examined the collapse of the theory of evolution and the proofs of creation in great scientific detail in many of our works, and are still continuing to do so. Given the enormous importance of this subject, it will be of great benefit to summarize it here.





(THE SCIENTIFIC COLLAPSE OF DARWINISM)



Although this doctrine goes back as far as ancient Greece, the theory of evolution was advanced extensively in the nineteenth century. The most important development that made it the top topic of the world of science was Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, published in 1859. In this book, he denied that God created different living species on Earth separately, for he claimed that all living beings had a common ancestor and had diversified over time through small changes. Darwin's theory was not based on any concrete scientific finding; as he also accepted, it was just an "assumption." Moreover, as Darwin confessed in the long chapter of his book titled "Difficulties of the Theory," the theory failed in the face of many critical questions.

Darwin invested all of his hopes in new scientific discoveries, which he expected to solve these difficulties. However, contrary to his expectations, scientific findings expanded the dimensions of these difficulties. The defeat of Darwinism in the face of science can be reviewed under three basic topics:

1) The theory cannot explain how life originated on Earth.

2) No scientific finding shows that the "evolutionary mechanisms" proposed by the theory have any evolutionary power at all.

3) The fossil record proves the exact opposite of what the theory suggests.



The power evolutionists impute to the three force they believe to have produced life—time, mud, and chance—is actually enough to elevate them into a trinity. They believe that the combination of these random forces gave shape to the human brain, intelligence, cognitive ability, judgment and memory.

In this section, we will examine these three basic points in general outlines:





The First Insurmountable Step:

(The Origin of Life)



The theory of evolution posits that all living species evolved from a single living cell that emerged on the primitive Earth 3.8 billion years ago. How a single cell could generate millions of complex living species and, if such an evolution really occurred, why traces of it cannot be observed in the fossil record are some of the questions that the theory cannot answer. However, first and foremost, we need to ask: How did this "first cell" originate?

Since the theory of evolution denies creation and any kind of supernatural intervention, it maintains that the "first cell" originated coincidentally within the laws of nature, without any design, plan or arrangement. According to the theory, inanimate matter must have produced a living cell as a result of coincidences. Such a claim, however, is inconsistent with the most unassailable rules of biology.



"LIFE COMES FROM LIFE"



In his book, Darwin never referred to the origin of life. The primitive understanding of science in his time rested on the assumption that living beings had a very simple structure. Since medieval times, spontaneous generation, which asserts that non-living materials came together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was commonly believed that insects came into being from food leftovers, and mice from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would originate from it after a while.

Similarly, maggots developing in rotting meat was assumed to be evidence of spontaneous generation. However, it was later understood that worms did not appear on meat spontaneously, but were carried there by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

Even when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from non-living matter was widely accepted in the world of science.

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, that disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said: "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."30

For a long time, advocates of the theory of evolution resisted these findings. However, as the development of science unraveled the complex structure of the cell of a living being, the idea that life could come into being coincidentally faced an even greater impasse.





The French biologist Louis Pasteur

The Russian biologist Alexander Oparin



The artificial atmosphere created by Miller in his experiment actually bore not the slightest resemblance to the primitive atmosphere on earth. Today, Miller too accepts that his 1953 experiment was very far from explaining the origin of life.



(Inconclusive Efforts in the Twentieth Century)



The first evolutionist who took up the subject of the origin of life in the twentieth century was the renowned Russian biologist Alexander Oparin. With various theses he advanced in the 1930s, he tried to prove that a living cell could originate by coincidence. These studies, however, were doomed to failure, and Oparin had to make the following confession:

Unfortunately, however, the problem of the origin of the cell is perhaps the most obscure point in the whole study of the evolution of organisms.31

Evolutionist followers of Oparin tried to carry out experiments to solve this problem. The best known experiment was carried out by the American chemist Stanley Miller in 1953. Combining the gases he alleged to have existed in the primordial Earth's atmosphere in an experiment set-up, and adding energy to the mixture, Miller synthesized several organic molecules (amino acids) present in the structure of proteins.

Barely a few years had passed before it was revealed that this experiment, which was then presented as an important step in the name of evolution, was invalid, for the atmosphere used in the experiment was very different from the real Earth conditions.32

After a long silence, Miller confessed that the atmosphere medium he used was unrealistic.33

All the evolutionists' efforts throughout the twentieth century to explain the origin of life ended in failure. The geochemist Jeffrey Bada, from the San Diego Scripps Institute accepts this fact in an article published in Earth magazine in 1998:

Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?34

One of the evolutionists' gravest deceptions is the way they imagine that life could have emerged spontaneously on what they refer to as the primitive earth, represented in the picture above. They tried to prove these claims with such studies as the Miller experiment. Yet they again suffered defeat in the face of the scientific facts; The results obtained in the 1970s proved that the atmosphere on what they describe as the primitive earth was totally unsuited to life.



All information about living beings is stored in the DNA molecule. This incredibly efficient information storage method alone is a clear evidence that life did not come into being by chance, but has been purposely designed, or, better to say, marvellously created.



(THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF LIFE)



The primary reason why the theory of evolution ended up in such a great impasse regarding the origin of life is that even those living organisms deemed to be the simplest have incredibly complex structures. The cell of a living thing is more complex than all of our man-made technological products. Today, even in the most developed laboratories of the world, a living cell cannot be produced by bringing organic chemicals together.

The conditions required for the formation of a cell are too great in quantity to be explained away by coincidences. The probability of proteins, the building blocks of a cell, being synthesized coincidentally, is 1 in 10950 for an average protein made up of 500 amino acids. In mathematics, a probability smaller than 1 over 1050 is considered to be impossible in practical terms.

The DNA molecule, which is located in the nucleus of a cell and which stores genetic information, is an incredible databank. If the information coded in DNA were written down, it would make a giant library consisting of an estimated 900 volumes of encyclopedias consisting of 500 pages each.

A very interesting dilemma emerges at this point: DNA can replicate itself only with the help of some specialized proteins (enzymes). However, the synthesis of these enzymes can be realized only by the information coded in DNA. As they both depend on each other, they have to exist at the same time for replication. This brings the scenario that life originated by itself to a deadlock. Prof. Leslie Orgel, an evolutionist of repute from the University of San Diego, California, confesses this fact in the September 1994 issue of the Scientific American magazine:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.35

No doubt, if it is impossible for life to have originated from natural causes, then it has to be accepted that life was "created" in a supernatural way. This fact explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, whose main purpose is to deny creation.





(IMAGINARY MECHANISMS OF EVOLUTION)



The second important point that negates Darwin's theory is that both concepts put forward by the theory as "evolutionary mechanisms" were understood to have, in reality, no evolutionary power.

Darwin based his evolution allegation entirely on the mechanism of "natural selection." The importance he placed on this mechanism was evident in the name of his book: The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection…

Natural selection holds that those living things that are stronger and more suited to the natural conditions of their habitats will survive in the struggle for life. For example, in a deer herd under the threat of attack by wild animals, those that can run faster will survive. Therefore, the deer herd will be comprised of faster and stronger individuals. However, unquestionably, this mechanism will not cause deer to evolve and transform themselves into another living species, for instance, horses.

Therefore, the mechanism of natural selection has no evolutionary power. Darwin was also aware of this fact and had to state this in his book The Origin of Species:

Natural selection can do nothing until favourable individual differences or variations occur.36





(Lamarck's Impact)



So, how could these "favorable variations" occur? Darwin tried to answer this question from the standpoint of the primitive understanding of science at that time. According to the French biologist Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), who lived before Darwin, living creatures passed on the traits they acquired during their lifetime to the next generation. He asserted that these traits, which accumulated from one generation to another, caused new species to be formed. For instance, he claimed that giraffes evolved from antelopes; as they struggled to eat the leaves of high trees, their necks were extended from generation to generation.





(The French biologist Lamarck)



Lamarck thought that organisms could pass on to their offspring traits acquired during their lifetimes. As an example to this line of reasoning, he suggested that the long neck of the giraffe evolved when a short-necked ancestor took to browsing on the leaves of trees instead of grass. With the discovery of the laws of genetics, it was seen that acquired traits could not actually be inherited at all. As a result, Lamarckism had been invalidated by science by the beginning of the twentieth century.



Darwin also gave similar examples. In his book The Origin of Species, for instance, he said that some bears going into water to find food transformed themselves into whales over time.37

However, the laws of inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel (1822-84) and verified by the science of genetics, which flourished in the twentieth century, utterly demolished the legend that acquired traits were passed on to subsequent generations. Thus, natural selection fell out of favor as an evolutionary mechanism.



The direct effect of random mutations is harmful. Above is a mutated calf which was born with two heads.





(NEO-DARWINISM AND MUTATIONS)



In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930's. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural mutation.

Today, the model that stands for evolution in the world is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living beings formed as a result of a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations," that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.38

Not surprisingly, no mutation example, which is useful, that is, which is observed to develop the genetic code, has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It was understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism," is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism." Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself," as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since no evolutionary mechanism exists, no such any imaginary process called "evolution" could have taken place.





(THE FOSSIL RECORD: NO SIGN OF INTERMEDIATE FORMS)



The clearest evidence that the scenario suggested by the theory of evolution did not take place is the fossil record.

According to this theory, every living species has sprung from a predecessor. A previously existing species turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. In other words, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

Had this been the case, numerous intermediary species should have existed and lived within this long transformation period.

For instance, some half-fish/half-reptiles should have lived in the past which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile-birds, which acquired some bird traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already had. Since these would be in a transitional phase, they should be disabled, defective, crippled living beings. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

If such animals ever really existed, there should be millions and even billions of them in number and variety. More importantly, the remains of these strange creatures should be present in the fossil record. In The Origin of Species, Darwin explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed.... Consequently, evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.39



The larger picture belongs to a 100-million-year-old Nautilus fossil. On the left is a Nautilus living in our day. When we compare the fossil with today's Nautilus (on the right is the cross section of the creature's shell), we see that they both have the same identical characteristics.





(Darwin's Hopes Shattered)



However, although evolutionists have been making strenuous efforts to find fossils since the middle of the nineteenth century all over the world, no transitional forms have yet been uncovered. All of the fossils, contrary to the evolutionists' expectations, show that life appeared on Earth all of a sudden and fully-formed.

One famous British paleontologist, Derek V. Ager, admits this fact, even though he is an evolutionist:

The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.40

This means that in the fossil record, all living species suddenly emerge as fully formed, without any intermediate forms in between. This is just the opposite of Darwin's assumptions. Also, this is very strong evidence that all living things are created. The only explanation of a living species emerging suddenly and complete in every detail without any evolutionary ancestor is that it was created. This fact is admitted also by the widely known evolutionist biologist Douglas Futuyma:

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.41

Fossils show that living beings emerged fully developed and in a perfect state on the earth. That means that "the origin of species," contrary to Darwin's supposition, is not evolution, but creation.





(THE TALE OF HUMAN EVOLUTION)



The subject most often brought up by advocates of the theory of evolution is the subject of the origin of man. The Darwinist claim holds that modern man evolved from ape-like creatures. During this alleged evolutionary process, which is supposed to have started 4-5 million years ago, some "transitional forms" between modern man and his ancestors are supposed to have existed. According to this completely imaginary scenario, four basic "categories" are listed:





1. Australopithecus

2. Homo habilis

3. Homo erectus

4. Homo sapiens

Evolutionists call man's so-called first ape-like ancestors Australopithecus, which means "South African ape." These living beings are actually nothing but an old ape species that has become extinct. Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world famous anatomists from England and the USA, namely, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, shows that these apes belonged to an ordinary ape species that became extinct and bore no resemblance to humans.42

Evolutionists classify the next stage of human evolution as "homo," that is "man." According to their claim, the living beings in the Homo series are more developed than Australopithecus. Evolutionists devise a fanciful evolution scheme by arranging different fossils of these creatures in a particular order. This scheme is imaginary because it has never been proved that there is an evolutionary relation between these different classes. Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century's most important evolutionists, contends in his book One Long Argument that "particularly historical [puzzles] such as the origin of life or of Homo sapiens, are extremely difficult and may even resist a final, satisfying explanation."43

By outlining the link chain as Australopithecus > Homo habilis > Homo erectus > Homo sapiens, evolutionists imply that each of these species is one another's ancestor. However, recent findings of paleoanthropologists have revealed that Australopithecus, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus lived at different parts of the world at the same time.44

Moreover, a certain segment of humans classified as Homo erectus have lived up until very modern times. Homo sapiens neandarthalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens (modern man) co-existed in the same region.45

This situation apparently indicates the invalidity of the claim that they are ancestors of one another. A paleontologist from Harvard University, Stephen Jay Gould, explains this deadlock of the theory of evolution, although he is an evolutionist himself:

What has become of our ladder if there are three coexisting lineages of hominids (A. africanus, the robust australopithecines, and H. habilis), none clearly derived from another? Moreover, none of the three display any evolutionary trends during their tenure on earth.46

Put briefly, the scenario of human evolution, which is "upheld" with the help of various drawings of some "half ape, half human" creatures appearing in the media and course books, that is, frankly, by means of propaganda, is nothing but a tale with no scientific foundation.

Lord Solly Zuckerman, one of the most famous and respected scientists in the U.K., who carried out research on this subject for years and studied Australopithecus fossils for 15 years, finally concluded, despite being an evolutionist himself, that there is, in fact, no such family tree branching out from ape-like creatures to man.

Zuckerman also made an interesting "spectrum of science" ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"—that is, depending on concrete data—fields of science are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are "extra-sensory perception"—concepts such as telepathy and sixth sense—and finally "human evolution." Zuckerman explains his reasoning:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful [evolutionist] anything is possible – and where the ardent believer [in evolution] is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.47

The tale of human evolution boils down to nothing but the prejudiced interpretations of some fossils unearthed by certain people, who blindly adhere to their theory.



Imaginary representations of 'primitive' human beings are frequently employed in stories carried by pro-evolution newspapers and magazines. The only source for these stories, based on these imaginary representations, are the imaginations of their authors. Yet evolution has suffered such a defeat in the face of the scientific facts that fewer reports concerning evolution now appear in scientific magazines.





(TECHNOLOGY IN THE EYE AND THE EAR)



Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye and the ear.

Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of how we see. Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the eye's retina. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain, the "center of vision." These electric signals are perceived in this center as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.

The brain is insulated from light. That means that its inside is completely dark, and that no light reaches the place where it is located. Thus, the "center of vision" is never touched by light and may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness.

The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the twentieth century has not been able to attain it. For instance, look at the book you are reading, your hands with which you are holding it, and then lift your head and look around you. Have you ever seen such a sharp and distinct image as this one at any other place? Even the most developed television screen produced by the greatest television producer in the world cannot provide such a sharp image for you. This is a three-dimensional, colored, and extremely sharp image. For more than 100 years, thousands of engineers have been trying to achieve this sharpness. Factories, huge premises were established, much research has been done, plans and designs have been made for this purpose. Again, look at a TV screen and the book you hold in your hands. You will see that there is a big difference in sharpness and distinction. Moreover, the TV screen shows you a two-dimensional image, whereas with your eyes, you watch a three-dimensional perspective with depth.

For many years, tens of thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV and achieve the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system, but it is not possible to watch it without putting on special 3-D glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three-dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.

Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all of its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot?

Compared to cameras and sound recording machines, the eye and ear are much more complex, much more successful and possess far superior designs to these products of high technology.

If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. The same situation applies to the ear. The outer ear picks up the available sounds by the auricle and directs them to the middle ear, the middle ear transmits the sound vibrations by intensifying them, and the inner ear sends these vibrations to the brain by translating them into electric signals. Just as with the eye, the act of hearing finalizes in the center of hearing in the brain.

The situation in the eye is also true for the ear. That is, the brain is insulated from sound just as it is from light. It does not let any sound in. Therefore, no matter how noisy is the outside, the inside of the brain is completely silent. Nevertheless, the sharpest sounds are perceived in the brain. In your completely silent brain, you listen to symphonies, and hear all of the noises in a crowded place. However, were the sound level in your brain was measured by a precise device at that moment, complete silence would be found to be prevailing there.

As is the case with imagery, decades of effort have been spent in trying to generate and reproduce sound that is faithful to the original. The results of these efforts are sound recorders, high-fidelity systems, and systems for sensing sound. Despite all of this technology and the thousands of engineers and experts who have been working on this endeavor, no sound has yet been obtained that has the same sharpness and clarity as the sound perceived by the ear. Think of the highest-quality hi-fi systems produced by the largest company in the music industry. Even in these devices, when sound is recorded some of it is lost; or when you turn on a hi-fi you always hear a hissing sound before the music starts. However, the sounds that are the products of the human body's technology are extremely sharp and clear. A human ear never perceives a sound accompanied by a hissing sound or with atmospherics as does a hi-fi; rather, it perceives sound exactly as it is, sharp and clear. This is the way it has been since the creation of man.

So far, no man-made visual or recording apparatus has been as sensitive and successful in perceiving sensory data as are the eye and the ear. However, as far as seeing and hearing are concerned, a far greater truth lies beyond all this.





(To Whom Does the Consciousness That Sees and Hears within the Brain Belong?)



Who watches an alluring world in the brain, listens to symphonies and the twittering of birds, and smells the rose?

The stimulations coming from a person's eyes, ears, and nose travel to the brain as electro-chemical nerve impulses. In biology, physiology, and biochemistry books, you can find many details about how this image forms in the brain. However, you will never come across the most important fact: Who perceives these electro-chemical nerve impulses as images, sounds, odors, and sensory events in the brain? There is a consciousness in the brain that perceives all this without feeling any need for an eye, an ear, and a nose. To whom does this consciousness belong? Of course it does not belong to the nerves, the fat layer, and neurons comprising the brain. This is why Darwinist-materialists, who believe that everything is comprised of matter, cannot answer these questions.

For this consciousness is the spirit created by God, which needs neither the eye to watch the images nor the ear to hear the sounds. Furthermore, it does not need the brain to think.

Everyone who reads this explicit and scientific fact should ponder on Almighty God, and fear and seek refuge in Him, for He squeezes the entire universe in a pitch-dark place of a few cubic centimeters in a three-dimensional, colored, shadowy, and luminous form.



Motion

Tought

Touch

Talking

Vision

Tasting

Hearing

Smelling

We live our entire life within our brain. The people that we see, the flowers we smell, the music we listen to, the fruits we taste, the wetness we feel on our hand… All of these form in our brains. In reality, neither colors, nor sounds, nor images exist in our brain. The only things that exist in the brain are electric signals. This means that we live in a world formed by the electric signals in our brain. This is not an opinion or a hypothesis, but the scientific explanation of how we perceive the world.





(A Materialist Faith)



The information we have presented so far shows us that the theory of evolution is a incompatible with scientific findings. The theory's claim regarding the origin of life is inconsistent with science, the evolutionary mechanisms it proposes have no evolutionary power, and fossils demonstrate that the required intermediate forms have never existed. So, it certainly follows that the theory of evolution should be pushed aside as an unscientific idea. This is how many ideas, such as the Earth-centered universe model, have been taken out of the agenda of science throughout history.

However, the theory of evolution is kept on the agenda of science. Some people even try to represent criticisms directed against it as an "attack on science." Why?

The reason is that this theory is an indispensable dogmatic belief for some circles. These circles are blindly devoted to materialist philosophy and adopt Darwinism because it is the only materialist explanation that can be put forward to explain the workings of nature.

Interestingly enough, they also confess this fact from time to time. A well-known geneticist and an outspoken evolutionist, Richard C. Lewontin from Harvard University, confesses that he is "first and foremost a materialist and then a scientist":

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, so we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.48

These are explicit statements that Darwinism is a dogma kept alive just for the sake of adherence to materialism. This dogma maintains that there is no being save matter. Therefore, it argues that inanimate, unconscious matter created life. It insists that millions of different living species (e.g., birds, fish, giraffes, tigers, insects, trees, flowers, whales, and human beings) originated as a result of the interactions between matter such as pouring rain, lightning flashes, and so on, out of inanimate matter. This is a precept contrary both to reason and science. Yet Darwinists continue to defend it just so as "not to allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Anyone who does not look at the origin of living beings with a materialist prejudice will see this evident truth: All living beings are works of a Creator, Who is All-Powerful, All-Wise, and All-Knowing. This Creator is God, Who created the whole universe from non-existence, designed it in the most perfect form, and fashioned all living beings.







They said:"Glory be to You!

We have no knowledge except what You have taught us.

You are the All-Knowing, the All-Wise."

(Surat al-Baqarah: 32)



Reference:

http://harunyahya.net/popup/Download.php?WorkNumber=462&Format=pdf



http://harunyahya.com



Other Islamic references:

http://www.islam-guide.com/islam-guide.pdf

http://www.muslimconverts.com



I want to show you real video about THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE. (The link below)

http://harunyahya.com/m_video_creation_universe.php

Related site: http://www.creationofuniverse.com/
Hyzakyt
2006-06-25 06:11:56 UTC
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO THE DINOSAURS?

Ken Ham

Dinosaurs are used more than almost anything else to indoctrinate children and adults in the idea of millions of years of Earth history. However, the Bible gives us a framework for explaining dinosaurs in terms of thousands of years of history, and solving the mystery of when they lived and what happened to them. Some key texts are Genesis 1:24–25 and Job 40:15–24.



Are Dinosaurs a Mystery?

Many think that the existence of dinosaurs and their demise is shrouded in such mystery that we may never know the truth about where they came from, when they lived, and what happened to them. However, dinosaurs are only a mystery if you accept the evolutionary story of their history.



According to evolutionists: Dinosaurs first evolved around 235 million years ago1—long before man evolved. No human being ever lived with dinosaurs. Their history is recorded in the fossil layers on the Earth, which were deposited over millions of years. They were so successful as a group of animals that they eventually ‘ruled’ the Earth. However, around 65 million years ago something happened to change all of this—the dinosaurs disappeared. Most evolutionists believe some sort of cataclysmic event—such as an asteroid impact—killed them. But, many evolutionists claim that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, and thus they are not extinct, but are flying around us today!



There is no mystery surrounding dinosaurs if you accept the Bible’s totally different account of dinosaur history.



According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago. God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day Six of the Creation Week (Gen. 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day Six—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time. Dinosaurs could not have died out before people appeared, because dinosaurs had not previously existed, and death, bloodshed, disease and suffering are a result of Adam’s sin (Rom. 5:12, 14, 1 Cor. 15:21–22). Representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals, including the dinosaur kinds, went on board Noah’s Ark. All those left outside the Ark died in the cataclysmic circumstances of the Flood—many of their remains became fossils. After the Flood (around 4,500 years ago), the remnant of the land animals, including dinosaurs, came off the Ark and lived in the present world, along with people. Because of sin, the judgments of the Curse and the Flood have greatly changed the Earth. Post-Flood climatic change, lack of food, disease, and man’s activities caused many types of animals to become extinct. The dinosaurs, like many other creatures, died out. Why the big mystery about dinosaurs?



Why Such Different Views?

How can there be such totally different explanations for dinosaurs? Whether one is an evolutionist, or accepts the Bible’s account of history, the evidence for dinosaurs is the same. All scientists have the same facts—they have the same world, the same fossils, the same living creatures, the same universe. If the ‘facts’ are the same, then how can the explanations be so different? The reason is that scientists have only the present—dinosaur fossils exist only in the present—but scientists are trying to connect the fossils in the present to the past. They ask, ‘What happened in history to bring dinosaurs into existence, wipe them out, and leave many of them fossilized?’

The science that addresses such issues is known as historical or origins science, and it differs from the operational science that gives us inexpensive food, space exploration, electricity, and the like. Origins science deals with the past, which is not accessible to direct experimentation, whereas operations science deals with how the world works in the here and now, which of course is open to repeatable experiments. Because of difficulties in reconstructing the past, those who study fossils (paleontologists) have diverse views of dinosaurs. As has been said: ‘Paleontology [the study of fossils] is much like politics: passions run high, and it’s easy to draw very different conclusions from the same set of facts.’ A paleontologist who believes the record in the Bible, which claims to be the Word of God, will come to different conclusions from an atheist who rejects the Bible. Willful denial of God’s Word (2 Pet. 3:3–7) lies at the root of many disputes over ‘historical science.’ Many people think the Bible is just a book about religion or salvation. It is much more than this. The Bible is the History Book of the Universe and tells us the future destiny of the universe as well. It gives us an account of when time began; the events of history such as the entrance of sin and death into the world; the time when the whole surface of the globe was destroyed by water; the giving of different languages at the Tower of Babel; the account of the Son of God coming as man; His death and Resurrection; and the new heaven and Earth to come. Ultimately there are only two ways of thinking: starting with the revelation from God (the Bible) as foundational to all thinking (biology, history, geology, etc.), resulting in a Christian world view; or starting with man’s beliefs (for example, the evolutionary story) as foundational to all thinking, resulting in a secular worldview. Most Christians have been indoctrinated through the media and education system to think in a secular way. They tend to take secular thinking to the Bible, instead of using the Bible to build their thinking (Rom. 12:1–2, Eph. 4:20–24).

The Bible says: ‘The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge’ (Prov. 1:7) and ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom’ (Prov. 9:10). If one begins with an evolutionary view of history (for which there were no witnesses or written record), then this way of thinking will be used to explain the evidence that exists in the present—thus, the evolutionary explanation for dinosaurs above.

But if one begins with the Biblical view of history from the written record of an eyewitness (God) to all events of history, then a totally different way of thinking, based on this, will be used to explain the same evidence. Thus the Biblical explanation as given above.



Dinosaur History

Fossil bones of what we now call dinosaurs are found around the world. Many of these finds consist of just fragments of bones, but some nearly complete skeletons have been found. Scientists have been able to describe many different types of dinosaurs, based on distinctive characteristics such as the structure of the skull, limbs, etc. However, there appears to be variation in the definition of just what makes an animal a dinosaur.



Where Did Dinosaurs Come From?

The Bible tells us that God created different kinds of land animals on Day Six of Creation Week (Gen. 1:24–25). Because dinosaurs were land animals, this must have included the dinosaur kinds.10

Evolutionists claim that dinosaurs evolved from some reptile that had originally evolved from amphibians. But they cannot point to any clear transitional (in-between) forms to substantiate their argument. Dinosaur family trees in evolutionary books show many distinct types of dinosaurs, but only hypothetical lines join them up to some common ancestor. The lines are dotted because there is no fossil evidence. Evolutionists simply cannot prove their belief in a non-dinosaur ancestor for dinosaurs.



What Did Dinosaurs Look Like?

Scientists generally do not dig up a dinosaur with all its flesh intact. Even if they found all the bones, they still would have less than 40 percent of the animal to work out what it originally looked like. The bones do not tell the color of the animal, for example, although some fossils of skin impressions have been found, indicating the skin texture. As there is some diversity of color among reptiles living today, dinosaurs may have varied greatly in color, skin texture, and so on. When reconstructing dinosaurs from bony remains, scientists make all kinds of guesses, and often disagree. For example, debate has raged about whether dinosaurs were warm- or cold-blooded. It is even difficult to tell whether a dinosaur is male or female from its bones. There is much speculation about such things. Sometimes scientists make mistakes in their re-constructions that need correction when more bones are found. For instance, the famous Brontosaurus is not in newer dinosaur dictionaries. The original ‘discoverer’ put the wrong head on a skeleton of a dinosaur that had already been named Apatosaurus.



Who Discovered Dinosaurs?

Secular books would tell you that the first discovery of what later were called dinosaurs was in 1677 when Dr Robert Plot found bones so big they were thought to belong to a giant elephant or a giant human.



Brontosaurus was a mistake.



In 1822, Mary Anne Mantell went for a walk along a country road in Sussex, England. According to tradition, she found a stone that glittered in the sunlight, and showed it to her fossil-collecting husband. Dr Mantell, a physician, noticed that the stone contained a tooth similar to, but much larger than, that of modern reptiles. He concluded that it belonged to some extinct giant plant-eating reptile with teeth like an iguana. In 1825 he named the owner of the tooth Iguanodon (iguana tooth). It was Dr Mantell who began to popularize the ‘age of reptiles.’

From a Biblical perspective, however, the above discoveries were actually the time when dinosaurs were re-discovered! Adam discovered dinosaurs first when he first observed them.



When Did They Live?

Evolutionists claim dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. But it is important to realize that when they dig up a dinosaur bone it does not have a label attached showing its date! Evolutionists obtain their dates by indirect dating methods that other scientists question, and there is much evidence against the millions of years.

Does God tell us when He made Tyrannosaurus rex? Many would say no. But the Bible states that God made all things in six normal days. He made the land animals, including dinosaurs, on Day Six (Gen. 1:24–25), so they date from around 6,000 years ago—the approximate date of creation obtained by adding up the years in the Bible. So, if T. rex was a land animal, and God made all the land animals on Day Six, then God made T. rex on Day Six!

Furthermore, from the Bible we see that there was no death, blood shed, disease, or suffering before sin. If one takes Genesis to Revelation consistently, interpreting Scripture with Scripture, then death and bloodshed of man and animals came into the world only after Adam sinned. The first death of an animal occurred when God shed an animal’s blood in the Garden and clothed Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21). This was also a picture of the atonement—foreshadowing Christ’s blood that was to be shed for us. Thus, there could not have been bones of dead animals before sin—this would under mine the Gospel.

This means that the dinosaurs must have died after sin entered the world, not before, so dinosaur bones could not be millions of years old, because Adam lived only thousands of years ago.



Does the Bible Mention Dinosaurs?

If people saw dinosaurs, you would think that ancient historical writings, such as the Bible, should mention them. The King James Version was first translated in 1611. Some people think that because the word ‘dinosaur’ is not found in this, or other translations, the Bible does not mention dinosaurs.

It was not until 1841, however, that the word ‘dinosaur’ was invented. Sir Richard Owen, a famous British anatomist and first superintendent of the British Museum (and a staunch anti-Darwinist), on viewing the bones of Iguanodon and Megalosaurus, realized these represented a unique group of reptiles that had not yet been classified. He coined the term ‘dinosaur’ from Greek words meaning ‘terrible lizard.’

Thus, one would not expect to find the word ‘dinosaur’ in the King James Bible—the word did not exist when the translation was done.

Is there another word for ‘dinosaur’? There are dragon legends from around the world. Many ‘dragon’ descriptions fit the characteristics of specific dinosaurs. Could these actually be accounts of encounters with what we now call dinosaurs?

The Hebrew word commonly translated ‘dragon’ in the KJV (Hebrew: tan, tannin, tannim, tan noth) appears in the Old Testament some 30 times. There are passages in the Bible about ‘dragons’ that lived on the land: ‘he [Nebuchadnezzar] has swallowed me like a dragon’ (Jer. 51:34), ‘the dragons of the wilderness’ (Mal. 1:3). Many Biblical creationists believe that in many contexts these could refer to what we now call dinosaurs. Indeed, Strong’s Concordance lists ‘dinosaur’ as one of the meanings of tannin/m.

In Genesis 1:21, the Bible says: ‘And God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind.’ The Hebrew word here for ‘sea monsters’ (‘whales’ in KJV) is the word translated elsewhere as ‘dragon’ (Hebrew: tannin). So, in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible, God may be describing the great sea dragons (sea-dwelling dinosaur-type animals) He created.

There are other Bible passages about dragons that lived in the sea: ‘the dragons in the waters’ (Psalm 74:13), ‘and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea’ (Isa. 27:1). Though the word ‘dinosaur’ strictly refers to animals that lived on the land, the sea reptiles and flying reptiles are often grouped with the dinosaurs. The sea-dragons could have included dinosaur-type animals such as the Mosasaurus.

Job 41 describes a great animal that lived in the sea, Leviathan, that even breathed fire. This ‘dragon’ may have been something like the mighty 55-foot (17 m) long Kronosaurus,22 or the 82-foot (25 m) long Liopleurodon.

There is also mention of a flying serpent in the Bible: the ‘fiery flying serpent’ (Isa. 30:6). This could be a reference to one of the pterodactyls, which are popularly thought of as flying dinosaurs, such as the Pteranodon, Rhamphorhynchus or Ornithocheirus.23

Not long after the Flood, God was showing a man called Job how great He was as Creator, by reminding Job of the largest land animal He had made:

‘Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the muscles of his belly.

He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are knit together. His bones are like tubes of bronze; his limbs are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God: his maker brings near his sword’ (Job 40:15–19).

The phrase ‘chief of the ways of God’ suggests this was the largest land animal God had made. So what kind of animal was ‘behemoth’? Bible translators, not being sure what this beast was, often transliterated the Hebrew, and thus the word behemoth (e.g. KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV). However, in many Bible commentaries and Bible footnotes, ‘behemoth’ is said to be ‘possibly the hippopotamus or elephant.’ Some Bible versions actually translate ‘behemoth’ this way. Besides the fact that the elephant and hippo were not the largest land animals God made (some of the dinosaurs far eclipsed these), this description does not make sense, since the tail of behemoth is compared to the large cedar tree (verse 17). Now an elephant’s tiny tail (or a hippo’s tail that looks like a flap of skin!) is quite unlike a cedar tree! Clearly the elephant and the hippo could not possibly be ‘behemoth.’ No living creature comes close to this description. However, behemoth is very like Brachiosaurus, one of the large dinosaurs.



Are There Other Ancient Records of Dinosaurs?

In the film The Great Dinosaur Mystery, a number of dragon accounts are presented:

• A Sumerian story dating back to 2,000 BC or more tells of a hero named Gilgamesh, who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy.

• When Alexander the Great (c. 330 BC) and his soldiers marched into India, they found that the Indians worshipped huge hissing reptiles that they kept in caves.

• China is renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons are prominent on Chinese pottery, embroidery, and carvings.

• England has its story of St George, who slew a dragon that lived in a cave.

• There is the story of a 10th-century Irishman who wrote of his encounter with what appears to have been a Stegosaurus.

• In the 1500s, a European scientific book, Historia Anim alium, listed several animals that we would call dinosaurs, as still alive.

A well-known naturalist of the time, Ulysses Aldrovandus, recorded an encounter between a peasant named Baptista and a dragon whose description fits that of the small dinosaur Tanystropheus. The encounter was on May 13, 1572, near Bologna in Italy, and the peasant killed the dragon.

Petroglyphs (drawings carved on rock) of dinosaur-like creatures have also been found.

In summary, people down through the ages have been very familiar with dragons. The descriptions of these animals fit with what we know about dinosaurs. The Bible mentions such creatures, even ones that lived in the sea and flew in the air. There is a tremendous amount of other historical evidence that such creatures have lived beside people.



What Do the Bones Say?

There is also physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from the University of Montana found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated. Also, there should not be ‘fresh’ bone if it were really millions of years old. A report by these scientists stated the following:

‘A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope … the lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center … . Red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn’t possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year-old tyrannosaur … . The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990 … . When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized … . So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood com pounds left in its tissues.”’

Unfossilized duck-billed dinosaur bones have been found on the North Slope in Alaska. Also, creation scientists collected such (unfossilized) frozen dinosaur bones in Alaska. Evolutionists would not say that these bones had stayed frozen for the many millions of years since these dinosaurs supposedly died out (according to evolutionary theory). Yet the bones could not have survived for the millions of years unmineralized. This is a puzzle to those who believe in an ‘age of dinosaurs’ millions of years ago, but not to someone who builds his thinking on the Bible.



What Did Dinosaurs Eat and How Did They Behave?



Movies like Jurassic Park and The Lost World portray most dinosaurs as aggressive meat eaters. But the mere presence of sharp teeth does not tell you how an animal behaved, or necessarily what food it ate—only what kind of teeth it had (for ripping food, etc.) However, by studying fossil dinosaur dung (coprolite), scientists have been able to determine the diet of some dinosaurs.

Originally, before sin, all animals, including the dinosaurs, were vegetarian. Genesis 1:30 states: ‘And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the earth, which has life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so.’

This means that even T. rex, before sin entered the world, ate only plants. Some people object to this by pointing to the big teeth that a large T. rex had, insisting they must have been used for attacking animals. However, just because an animal has big, sharp teeth does not mean it eats meat. It just means it has big sharp teeth!

Many animals today have sharp teeth but are basically vegetarian. The giant panda has sharp teeth like a meat eater, but it eats bamboo. Perhaps the panda’s teeth were beautifully designed to eat bamboo. To ‘explain’ why a giant panda has teeth like many meat eaters today, yet it eats bamboo, evolutionists have to say that the giant panda evolved as a meat eater, and then switched to bamboo.

Different species of bats variously eat fruit, nectar, insects, small animals, and blood, but their teeth do not clearly indicate what they eat. Bears have teeth similar to those of a big cat (e.g. a lion), but some bears are vegetarian, and many, if not most, are mainly vegetarian.

Before sin, God described the world as ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31). Some cannot accept this concept of perfect harmony, because of the food chain that they observe in today’s world. However, one cannot look at the sin-cursed world, and the resultant death and struggle, and use this to reject the Genesis account of history. Every thing has changed because of sin. That’s why Paul describes the present creation as ‘groaning’ (Rom. 8:22). One must look at the world through Bible ‘eyes’ to understand it.

Some argue that people or animals would have been hurt even in an ‘ideal’ world. They contend that even before sin, Adam, or an animal, could have stood on small creatures, or scratched himself on a branch. Now these sorts of situations are true of today’s fallen world—the present world is not perfect; it is suffering from the effects of the Curse (Rom. 8:22). One cannot look at the Bible through the world’s ‘eyes’ and insist that the world before sin was just like the world we see today. We do not know what a perfect world, continually restored and totally upheld by God’s power (Col. 1:17, Heb. 1:3), would have been like—we have never experienced perfection (only Adam and Eve did before sin).

We do get little glimpses from Scripture, however; in Deuteronomy 8:4, 29:5 and Nehemiah 9:21, we are told that when the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years, their clothes and shoes did not wear out, nor did their feet swell. When God upholds things perfectly, wearing out or being hurt in any way is not even an option.

Think of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 3:26–27)—they came out of the fire without even the smell of smoke on them. Again, when the Lord upholds perfectly, being hurt is not possible. In a perfect world, before sin and the curse, God would have upheld everything, but in this cursed world things run down. Many commentators believe the description in Isaiah 11:6-9 of the wolf and lamb, and lion that eats straw like an ox, is a picture of the new Earth in the future restoration (Acts 3:21), when there will be no more curse or death (Rev. 21:1, 22:3). The animals described are living peacefully as vegetarians (this is also the description of the animal world before sin—Gen. 1:30). Today’s world has been changed dramatically because of sin and the Curse. The present food chain and animal behavior (which also changed after the flood—Gen. 9:2–3) cannot be used as a basis for interpreting the Bible—the Bible explains why the world is the way it is!

In the beginning, God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the animals: ‘And God blessed them, and God said to them, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Gen. 1:28). Looking at today’s world we are reminded of Hebrews 2:8: ‘You have put all things in subjection under his feet. For in order that he put all things under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we do not see all things put under him.’ Man’s relationship with all things changed because of sin—they are not ‘under him’ as they were originally.

Most people, including most Christians, tend to observe the world as it is today, with all its death and suffering, and then take that observation to the Bible and interpret it in that light. But we are sinful, fallible human beings, observing a sin-cursed world (Rom. 8:22) and thus we need to start with divine revelation, the Bible, to begin to under stand.

So how did fangs and claws come about? Dr Henry Morris states:

‘Whether such structures as fangs and claws were part of their original equipment, or were recessive features which only became dominant due to selection processes later, or were mutational features following the Curse, or exactly what, must await further research.’

After sin entered the world, everything changed. Maybe some animals started eating each other at this stage. By the time of Noah, God described what had happened this way: ‘And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth’ (Gen. 6:12).

Also, after the Flood, God changed the behavior of animals. We read ‘And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon all that moves on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea.

Into your hand they are delivered’ (Gen. 9:2). Thus, man would find it much more difficult to carry out the dominion mandate given in Genesis 1:28.



Why Do We Find Dinosaur Fossils?

Fossil formation requires a sudden burial. When an animal dies, it usually gets eaten or decays until there is nothing left. To form a fossil, unique conditions are required to preserve the animal and replace it with minerals, etc.

Evolutionists once claimed that the fossil record was formed slowly as animals died and were gradually covered by sediment. But they have acknowledged more recently that the fossil record must involve catastrophic processes. To form the billions of fossils worldwide, in layers sometimes kilometers thick, the organisms, by and large, must have been buried quickly. Many evolutionists now say the fossil record formed quickly, in spurts interspersed by millions of years!

According to the Bible, as time went on, the Earth be came full of wickedness, so God determined He would send a global Flood ‘to des troy all flesh, in which is the breath of life, from under the heavens’ (Gen. 6:17).

God commanded Noah to build a very large boat into which he would take his family and representatives of every kind of land-dwelling, air-breathing animal (that God himself would choose and send to Noah—Gen. 6:20). This must have included two of each kind of dinosaur.



How Did Dinosaurs Fit on the Ark?

Many people think of dinosaurs as large creatures that would never have fit into the Ark. But the average size of a dinosaur (based on the skeletons found over the Earth) is about the size of a sheep. Indeed, many dinosaurs were relatively small. For instance, Struthiomimus was the size of an ostrich, and Compsognathus was no bigger than a rooster. Mussaurus (‘mouse reptile’) was not much bigger than a mouse. Only a few dinosaurs grew to extremely large sizes (e.g. Brachiosaurus, Apatosaurus), but even they were not as large as the largest animal in the world today, the blue whale. (Reptiles have the potential to grow as long as they live. Thus, the large dinosaurs were probably very old ones.) Dinosaurs laid eggs, and the biggest fossil dinosaur egg found is about the size of a football. Even the largest dinosaurs were very small when first hatched. Remember that the animals that came off the boat were to re-populate the Earth. Thus, it would have been almost essential to choose young adults, which would soon be in the prime of their reproductive life, to go on the Ark. So it is realistic to assume that God would have sent young adults to the Ark, not fully grown creatures.

Some might argue that the 600 or more named species of dinosaurs could not have fit on the Ark. But Genesis 6:20 states that representative kinds of land animals boarded the Ark. The question then is, what is a ‘kind’ (Hebrew: min)? Biblical creationists have pointed out that there can be many ‘species’ descended from a ‘kind.’ For example, there are many types of cats in the world, but all cat ‘species’ probably came from only a few ‘kinds’ of cats originally. The cat varieties today have developed by natural and artificial selection acting on the original variation in the information (genes) of the original cats. This has produced different combinations and subsets of information, and thus different types of cats.

Mutations (errors in copying of the genes during reproduction) can also contribute to the variation, but the changes caused by mutations are ‘downhill,’ causing loss of the original information. Even ‘speciation’ could occur through these processes. This speciation is not ‘evolution,’ since it is based on the created information already present, and is thus a limited ‘downhill’ process, not involving an upward increase in complexity. Thus, only a few feline pairs would have been needed on Noah’s Ark.

Dinosaur names have tended to proliferate, with new names being given to just a few pieces of bone, or a skeleton that looks similar to one that is a different size, or in a different country. There were probably fewer than 50 distinct groups or kinds of dinosaurs that had to be on the Ark.

Also, it must be remembered that Noah’s Ark was extremely large and quite capable of carrying the number of animals needed, including dinosaurs.

The land animals (including dinosaurs) that were not on the Ark drowned. Many were preserved in the layers formed by the Flood—thus the millions of fossils. Presumably, many of the dinosaur fossils were buried at this time, around 4,500 years ago. Also, after the Flood, there would have been considerable catastrophism, including such events as the Ice Age, resulting in some post-Flood formation of fossils also.

The contorted shapes of these animals preserved in the rocks, the massive numbers of them in fossil graveyards, their wide distribution, and some whole skeletons, all provide convincing evidence that they were buried rapidly, testifying to massive flooding.



Why Don’t We See Dinosaurs Today?

At the end of the Flood, Noah, his family and the animals came out of the Ark (Gen. 8:15–17). The dinosaurs thus began a new life in a new world. Along with the other animals, the dinosaurs came out to breed and re-populate the Earth. They would have left the landing place of the ark and spread over the Earth’s surface. The descendants of these dinosaurs gave rise to the dragon legends. But the world they came out to re-populate differed from the one they knew before Noah’s Flood. The Flood had devastated it. It was now a much more difficult world in which to survive. After the flood God told Noah that from then on the animals would fear him, and man could eat their flesh (Gen. 9:1–7).

Even for man, the world had become a harsher place. To survive, the once easily obtained plant nutrition would now have to be supplemented by animal sources.

Both animals and man would find their ability to survive tested to the utmost. We can see from the fossil record, from the written history of man, and from experience over recent centuries, that many forms of life on this planet have not survived that test.

We need to remember that many plants and air-breathing, land-dwelling animals have become extinct since the Flood—either due to man’s action or competition with other species, or because of the harsher post-Flood environment. Many groups are still becoming extinct. Dinosaurs seem to be numbered among the extinct groups.

Why then are people so intrigued about dinosaurs, and have little interest in the extinction of the fern Cladophebius, for example? It’s the dinosaurs’ appeal as monsters that excites and fascinates people. Evolutionists have capitalized on this fascination, and the world is awash with evolutionary propaganda centered on dinosaurs.

This has resulted in the thinking of even Christians being permeated by evolutionary philosophy. As a result, they tend to single out the dinosaurs as something mysterious.

If you were to ask at the zoo why they have endangered species programs, you would probably get an answer something like this: ‘We’ve lost lots of animals from this Earth. Animals are becoming extinct all the time. Look at all the animals that have gone forever. We need to act to save the animals.’ If you then asked, ‘Why are animals becoming extinct?’ you might get an answer like this: ‘It’s obvious! People killing them; lack of food; man destroying the environment; diseases; genetic problems; catastrophes like floods—there are lots of reasons.’ If you then asked, ‘Well, what happened to the dinosaurs?’ the answer would probably be, ‘We don’t know! Scientists have suggested dozens of possible reasons, but it’s a mystery.’

Maybe one of the reasons dinosaurs are extinct is that we did not start our endangered species programs early enough! The factors that cause extinction today, which came about because of man’s sin—the Curse, the aftermath of the Flood (a judgment), etc.—are the same factors that caused the dinosaurs to become extinct.



Are Dinosaurs Really Extinct?

One cannot prove an organism is extinct without having knowledge of every part of the Earth’s surface simultaneously.

Experts have been embarrassed when, after having declared animals extinct, they were discovered alive and well. For example, explorers recently found elephants in Nepal that have many features of mammoths.

Scientists in Australia found some living trees that they thought had become extinct with the dinosaurs. One scientist said, ‘… it was like finding a “live dinosaur.” ’ When scientists find animals or plants they thought were extinct long ago, they call them ‘living fossils.’ There are hundreds of ‘living fossils,’ a big embarrassment for those who believe in millions of years of Earth history.

Explorers and natives in Africa have reported sighting dinosaur-like creatures, even recently. These have usually been confined to out-of-the-way places such as lakes deep in the Congo jungles. Descriptions certainly fit those of dinosaurs.

Cave paintings by native Americans seem to depict a dinosaur—scientists accept the mammoth drawings in the cave, so why not the dinosaur drawings? Evolutionary indoctrination that man did not live at the same time as dinosaurs stops most scientists from even considering that the drawings are of dinosaurs. It certainly would be no embarrassment to a creationist if some one discovered a dinosaur living in a jungle. However, this should embarrass evolutionists.

And no, we could not clone a dinosaur, as in the movie Jurassic Park, even if we had dinosaur DNA. We would also need a living female dinosaur. Scientists have found that to clone an animal they need an egg of a living female, as there is ‘machinery’ in the cytoplasm of the egg that is necessary for the new creature to develop.



Birdosaurs?

Many evolutionists do not really think dinosaurs are extinct anyway! In 1997, at the entrance to the bird exhibit at the zoo in Cincinnati, Ohio, we read the following on a sign:

‘Dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago—or did they? No, birds are essentially modern short-tailed feathered dinosaurs.’

In the mid-1960s, Dr John Ostrom from Yale University began to popularize the idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. However, not all evolutionists agree with this. ‘It’s just a fantasy of theirs,’ says Alan Feduccia, an ornithologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a leading critic of the dino-to-bird theory. ‘They so much want to see living dinosaurs that now they think they can study them vicariously at the backyard bird feeder.’

There have been many attempts to indoctrinate the public to believe that modern birds are really dinosaurs. Time magazine on April 26, 1993, had a front page cover of a ‘birdosaur,’ now called Mononykus, with feathers (a supposed transitional form between dinosaurs and birds) based on a fossil find that had no feathers. In the same month, Science News had an article suggesting this animal was a digging creature more like a mole.

In 1996 newspapers reported a find in China of a reptile fossil that supposedly had feathers. Some of the media reports claimed that, if it were confirmed, it would be ‘irrefutable evidence that today’s birds evolved from dinosaurs.’ One scientist stated, ‘You can’t come to any conclusion other than that they’re feathers.’ However, in 1997 the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia sent four leading scientists to investigate this find. They concluded they were not feathers. The media report stated, concerning one of the scientists, ‘He said he saw “hair-like” structures—not hairs—that could have supported a frill, or crest, like those on iguanas.’ No sooner had this report appeared, than another media report claimed that 20 fragments of bones of a reptile found in South America showed dinosaurs were related to birds!

Birds are warm-blooded and reptiles are cold-blooded, but evolutionists who believe dinosaurs evolved into birds would like to see dinosaurs as warm-blooded to support their theory. But Dr Larry Martin, of the University of Kansas opposes this idea:

‘Recent research has shown the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones was “characteristic of cold-blooded animals,” Martin said.

“So we’re back to cold-blooded dinosaurs.” ’

Sadly, the secular media have become so blatant in their anti-Christian stand and pro-evolutionary propaganda, that they are bold enough to make such ridiculous statements as, ‘Parrots and humming birds are also dinosaurs.’ Several new reports have fueled the bird/dinosaur debate among evolutionists. One concerns research on the embryonic origins of the fingers of birds and dinosaurs, showing that birds could not have evolved from dinosaurs! A study of the so-called feathered dinosaur from China revealed that the dinosaur had a distinctively reptilian lung and diaphragm, which is distinctly different from the avian lung. Another report said that the frayed edges that some thought to be ‘feathers’ on the Chinese fossil are similar to the collagen fibers found immediately beneath the skin of sea snakes.

There is no credible evidence that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs and birds have always been birds!

What if a ‘dinosaur’ fossil was found with feathers on it? Would that prove that birds evolved from dinosaurs? No—a duck has a duck bill and webbed feet, as does a platypus, but no one believes that this proves that platypuses evolved from ducks. Reptilian scales on the way to becoming feathers, that is, transitional, would be impressive evidence for the belief that reptiles (or dinosaurs) evolved into birds, but not fully formed feathers. A dinosaur-like fossil with feathers would just be another curious mosaic, like the platypus, and part of the pattern of similarities placed in creatures to show the hand of the one true Creator God who made everything.



Why Does It Matter?

Although dinosaurs are fascinating, some readers may say, ‘Why are dinosaurs such a big deal? Surely there are many more important issues to deal with in today’s world such as: abortion, family breakdown, racism, promiscuity, dishonesty, homo sexual behavior, euthanasia, suicide, lawlessness, pornography, and so on. In fact, we should be telling people about the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not worrying about side issues like dinosaurs!’

Actually the evolutionist teachings on dinosaurs that pervade society do have a great bearing on why many will not listen to the Gospel, and thus why the social problems mentioned above abound today.



The Implications

If we accept the evolutionists’ teachings on dinosaurs, then we must accept that the Bible’s account of history is false. If the Bible is wrong in this area, then it is not the Word of God and we can ignore everything else it says that we find inconvenient.

If everything made itself through natural processes—without God—then God does not own us and has no right to tell us how to live. In fact, God does not really exist in this way of thinking, so there is no absolute basis for morality. Without God, anything goes—concepts of right and wrong are just a matter of opinion. And without a basis for morality, there is no such thing as sin. And no sin means that there is no judgment to fear from God and there is no need for the Savior, Jesus Christ.



Millions of Years and the Gospel

The teaching that dinosaurs lived and died millions of years before man directly attacks the foundations of the Gospel in another way. The fossil record, of which dinosaurs form a part, documents death, disease, suffering, cruelty, and brutality. It is a very ugly record. Allowing for the millions of years for the fossil layers means accepting death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering before Adam’s sin.

But the Bible makes it clear that death, bloodshed, disease, and suffering are a consequence of sin. God warned Adam in Genesis 2:17 that if he ate of the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil,’ he would ‘surely die.’ The Hebrew translated ‘you shall surely die’ actually means ‘dying, you will die.’ In other words, immediate, spiritual death would be followed by a process of physical decay, ending eventually in bodily death.

After Adam disobeyed God, the Lord clothed Adam and Eve with ‘coats of skins’ (Gen. 3:21). To do this He must have killed and shed the blood of at least one animal. The reason for this can be summed up by Hebrews 9:22:

‘And by the law almost all things are cleansed with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission.’

God required the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sins. What happened in the Garden of Eden was a picture of what was to come in Jesus Christ, who shed His blood on the Cross as ‘the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world’ (John 1:29).

Now, if the shedding of blood occurred before sin, as would have happened if the Garden were sitting on a fossil record of dead things millions of years old, then the foundation of the atonement would be destroyed.

This ‘big picture’ also fits with Romans 8, which says that the whole creation ‘groans’ because of the effects of the Fall of Adam—it was not ‘groaning’ with death and suffering before Adam sinned. Jesus Christ suffered physical death and shed His blood because death was the penalty for sin. Paul discusses this in detail in Romans 5 and 1 Corinthians 15. Revelation chapters 21 and 22 make it clear that there will be a ‘new heaven and a new Earth’ one day where there will be ‘no more death’ and ‘no more curse’—just as it was before sin changed everything. Obviously, if there are going to be animals in the new Earth, they will not die, or eat each other or the redeemed people! Thus, the teaching of millions of years of death, disease, and suffering before Adam sinned is a direct attack on the foundation of the message of the Cross.



Conclusion

If we accept God’s Word, beginning with Genesis as being true and authoritative, then we can explain dinosaurs and make sense of the evidence we observe in the world around us. In doing this, we are helping people see that Genesis is absolutely trustworthy and logically defensible, and is what it claims to be—the true account of the history of the universe and mankind.

And what one believes concerning the book of Genesis will ultimately determine what one believes about the rest of the Bible. This in turn will affect how a person views himself or herself, and fellow human beings, and what life is all about, including their need for salvation.









10 dangers of theistic evolution

by Werner Gitt



The atheistic formula for evolution is:



Evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods.



In the theistic evolutionary view, God is added:



Theistic evolution = matter + evolutionary factors (chance and necessity + mutation + selection + isolation + death) + very long time periods + God.



In this system God is not the omnipotent Lord of all things, whose Word has to be taken seriously by all men, but He is integrated into the evolutionary philosophy. This leads to 10 dangers for Christians.1



Danger no. 1: Misrepresentation of the Nature of God

The Bible reveals God to us as our Father in Heaven, who is absolutely perfect (Matthew 5:48), holy (Isaiah 6:3), and omnipotent (Jeremiah 32:17). The Apostle John tells us that ‘God is love’, ‘light’, and ‘life’ (1 John 4:16; 1:5; 1:1-2). When this God creates something, His work is described as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and ‘perfect’ (Deuteronomy 32:4).



Theistic evolution gives a false representation of the nature of God because death and ghastliness are ascribed to the Creator as principles of creation. (Progressive creationism, likewise, allows for millions of years of death and horror before sin.)



Danger no. 2: God becomes a God of the Gaps

The Bible states that God is the Prime Cause of all things. ‘But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him’ (1 Corinthians 8:6).



However, in theistic evolution the only workspace allotted to God is that part of nature which evolution cannot ‘explain’ with the means presently at its disposal. In this way He is reduced to being a ‘god of the gaps’ for those phenomena about which there are doubts. This leads to the view that ‘God is therefore not absolute, but He Himself has evolved—He is evolution’.2



Danger no. 3: Denial of Central Biblical Teachings

The entire Bible bears witness that we are dealing with a source of truth authored by God (2 Timothy 3:16), with the Old Testament as the indispensable ‘ramp’ leading to the New Testament, like an access road leads to a motor freeway (John 5:39). The biblical creation account should not be regarded as a myth, a parable, or an allegory, but as a historical report, because:



Biological, astronomical and anthropological facts are given in didactic [teaching] form.

In the Ten Commandments God bases the six working days and one day of rest on the same time-span as that described in the creation account (Exodus 20:8-11).

In the New Testament Jesus referred to facts of the creation (e.g. Matthew 19:4-5).

Nowhere in the Bible are there any indications that the creation account should be understood in any other way than as a factual report.

The doctrine of theistic evolution undermines this basic way of reading the Bible, as vouched for by Jesus, the prophets and the Apostles. Events reported in the Bible are reduced to mythical imagery, and an understanding of the message of the Bible as being true in word and meaning is lost.



Danger no. 4: Loss of the Way for Finding God

The Bible describes man as being completely ensnared by sin after Adam’s fall (Romans 7:18-19). Only those persons who realize that they are sinful and lost will seek the Saviour who ‘came to save that which was lost’ (Luke 19:10).



However, evolution knows no sin in the biblical sense of missing one’s purpose (in relation to God). Sin is made meaningless, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Holy Spirit does—He declares sin to be sinful. If sin is seen as a harmless evolutionary factor, then one has lost the key for finding God, which is not resolved by adding ‘God’ to the evolutionary scenario.



Danger no. 5: The Doctrine of God’s Incarnation is Undermined

The incarnation of God through His Son Jesus Christ is one of the basic teachings of the Bible. The Bible states that ‘The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us’ (John 1:14), ‘Christ Jesus … was made in the likeness of men (Philippians 2:5-7).



Danger no. 6: The Biblical Basis of Jesus’ Work of Redemption Is Mythologized

The Bible teaches that the first man’s fall into sin was a real event and that this was the direct cause of sin in the world. ‘Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned’ (Romans 5:12).



Theistic evolution does not acknowledge Adam as the first man, nor that he was created directly from ‘the dust of the ground’ by God (Genesis 2:17). Most theistic evolutionists regard the creation account as being merely a mythical tale, albeit with some spiritual significance. However, the sinner Adam and the Saviour Jesus are linked together in the Bible—Romans 5:16-18. Thus any theological view which mythologizes Adam undermines the biblical basis of Jesus’ work of redemption.



Danger no. 7: Loss of Biblical Chronology

The Bible provides us with a time-scale for history and this underlies a proper understanding of the Bible. This time-scale includes:



The time-scale cannot be extended indefinitely into the past, nor into the future. There is a well-defined beginning in Genesis 1:1, as well as a moment when physical time will end (Matthew 24:14).

The total duration of creation was six days (Exodus 20:11).

The age of the universe may be estimated in terms of the genealogies recorded in the Bible (but note that it cannot be calculated exactly). It is of the order of several thousand years, not billions.

Galatians 4:4 points out the most outstanding event in the world’s history: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son.’ This happened nearly 2,000 years ago.

The return of Christ in power and glory is the greatest expected future event.

Supporters of theistic evolution (and progressive creation) disregard the biblically given measures of time in favour of evolutionist time-scales involving billions of years both past and future (for which there are no convincing physical grounds). This can lead to two errors:



Not all statements of the Bible are to be taken seriously.

Vigilance concerning the second coming of Jesus may be lost.

Danger no. 8: Loss of Creation Concepts

Certain essential creation concepts are taught in the Bible. These include:



God created matter without using any available material.

God created the earth first, and on the fourth day He added the moon, the solar system, our local galaxy, and all other star systems. This sequence conflicts with all ideas of ‘cosmic evolution’, such as the ‘big bang’ cosmology.

Theistic evolution ignores all such biblical creation principles and replaces them with evolutionary notions, thereby contradicting and opposing God’s omnipotent acts of creation.



Danger no. 9: Misrepresentation of Reality

The Bible carries the seal of truth, and all its pronouncements are authoritative—whether they deal with questions of faith and salvation, daily living, or matters of scientific importance.



Evolutionists brush all this aside, e.g. Richard Dawkins says, ‘Nearly all peoples have developed their own creation myth, and the Genesis story is just the one that happened to have been adopted by one particular tribe of Middle Eastern herders. It has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants’.4



If evolution is false, then numerous sciences have embraced false testimony. Whenever these sciences conform to evolutionary views, they misrepresent reality. How much more then a theology which departs from what the Bible says and embraces evolution!



Danger no. 10: Missing the Purpose

In no other historical book do we find so many and such valuable statements of purpose for man, as in the Bible. For example:



Man is God’s purpose in creation (Genesis 1:27-28).

Man is the purpose of God’s plan of redemption (Isaiah 53:5).

Man is the purpose of the mission of God’s Son (1 John 4:9).

We are the purpose of God’s inheritance (Titus 3:7).

Heaven is our destination (1 Peter 1:4).

However, the very thought of purposefulness is anathema to evolutionists. ‘Evolutionary adaptations never follow a purposeful program, they thus cannot be regarded as teleonomical.’5 Thus a belief system such as theistic evolution that marries purposefulness with non-purposefulness is a contradiction in terms.



Conclusion

The doctrines of creation and evolution are so strongly divergent that reconciliation is totally impossible. Theistic evolutionists attempt to integrate the two doctrines, however such syncretism reduces the message of the Bible to insignificance. The conclusion is inevitable: There is no support for theistic evolution in the Bible.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...