Creation or Evolution?

This is the most important question we have to answer. Each is so different from the other that they are mutually exclusive; our presence is the result of either one or the other, it cannot be by a combination of both.

The answer that we determine is the correct one has profound implications as it forms the foundation of our thinking. Everything we do, and every thought we have is based on this foundation.It defines who or what we are, and helps us determine our purpose on Earth.

We have been led to understand that no one can get a definite answer to this question, that it is all speculation; that both could equally be possible. That is a lie, and we have been fed this lie because it serves the purpose of some very disturbed people. It serves to keep us confused. It allows us to engage in things we would never do if we knew for sure what the truth really was. It makes it easier for us to be degraded and for us to degrade ourselves.

Let us determine the truth once and for all.

We begin with Charles Darwin. He was a scientist, and scientists study things and make educated guesses in order to further our understanding of the world and life on it. These guesses are made all the time, and most are proven wrong and others are partially true but help us eventually arrive at the complete truth.

We used to think the world was flat. This was a theory, proven wrong with the acquisition of new knowledge, so to with the theory that the Sun rotated around Earth. Scientists theorized that scurvy was due to a virus, and pellagra too. Both of these were found to be due to vitamin deficiencies. Scientists make these guesses  when the truth escapes us. Madame Curie helped us understand radiation through scientific experimentation. Louis Pasteur helped introduce the process of pasteurization.

Charles Darwin was trying to understand why the offspring resembles the parent. In his work, “On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, the First Edition of which was published on 24 November 1859, he theorized that all physical characteristics were passed on to the offspring. We know from consequent proven independent scientific study that this is not correct.

He went on to suggest that if this was the case, any physical change acquired by an individual would similarly be passed on to its offspring. He suggested that pressure from the environment may promote certain changes, such as shortage of food will cause an animal to constantly stretch its neck to reach leaves higher up the trees. In time the neck would become a fraction of a millimeter longer. This will be passed on to the offspring, and with the passage of time we will have a giraffe when once there was a buck. We now know that this too is not correct. Physical changes are not inherited, just as an amputee will not give birth to a baby with a missing limb, and no matter how much a buck changes, it will walwys be a buck and nothing else.

Darwin also suggested that certain individuals within a species would survive while others would not because they were better suited to their environment. A white bear would escape predators in the polar region better than a brown or black bear, hence explaining why polar bears would be white, for instance. He called this natural selection. We know that none of this is correct. Each type of bear is genetically distinct.

When Darwin made his suggestions, chromosomes were yet to be discovered and no one knew how traits were inherited. With their discovery in 1882 by Walther Flemming, we learned the truth about how cells divided and how traits were inherited. Darwin (and hence his theories) were proven wrong.

Despite this, we still find evolution being presented as a fact. We need to ponder why this is the case when the opposite is proven by scientific fact.

Be that the case, there is a lot more we must consider to seal the case against evolution.

Let us assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that evolution is the process that resulted in the creation of everything; planets, stars, and all life form. There was no creator. There is no intelligent design.

By some chance process matter coalesced and formed planets and stars. Protein bubbled in a watery broth and from within this, over time, many living cells “evolved”. Through a process of natural selection and genetic changes (mutations) new creatures were formed leading eventually to life as we know it today. We know that mutations must have occurred because our characteristics are coded within chromosomes, a fact we must incorporate in our theory.

We shall take a closer look at mutations shortly.

First and foremost, our entire evolution from a single cell to a complex multi-cellular organism occurs in a world that has to be constantly changing. There is no creator. There is nothing to keep thinks “stable and constant”. The process of evolution is dependent upon constant change in order for new life to evolve. There can be no state of existence that is stable and complete. Stability is the opposite of change, the opposite of evolution. If a unicellular organism stopped changing and remained in a stable state, no higher life form could arise.

If our environment and our development was the process of constant change, what would our world look like?

Nothing would be constant because this negates evolution. Gravity would fluctuate. The frequency of waves in the environment would change constantly so that there would be no possibility of a stable persistent form of visible light.

The absence of gravity that was stable and unchanging would make it impossible for planets to acquire a stable orbit around suns. No galaxy could form. Planets and stars will be hurling haphazardly through space.

The absence of a stable light source would make it impossible for any eye to evolve, or any “seeing-device” for that matter.

It would be impossible for identifiable species to form. Each organism would be undergoing repeated change and the structure of living organisms would be such that change would be facilitated since it is only through change that higher forms could arise. We would find billions of different creatures each in a different stage of change. Our fossil heritage would be one of a cluster of different creatures, none that could be lumped together as distinct species. As mentioned before, any possibility of a stable state being reached would end the evolutionary process.

Genetic changes would require mutations, but there is nothing to guide how or when mutations take place. We know it is a totally random and unpredictable event.

Let us compare that scenario to what we know exists to day and see whether there is any similarity to what we have just described.

Each individual belongs to genetically distinct species, even if the different between species is only a few chromosomes or genes.

From the beginning of recorded history (including fossil specimens) these species have remained distinct, such as with sea creatures (jelly fish) and creatures such as cockroaches.

Our bodies do not tolerate change and a multitude of checks and balances are in place to eliminate the possibility of change arising. Survival of the fittest is about escaping change and remaining true to ones heritage. Change results in forms we identify as deformed. They die in utero or soon after birth. Most are incapable of reproducing. The stable world in which we live does not tolerate change and has built in safety features to prevent changes from taking place.

The male produces billions of sperm for each egg produced by the female to ensure that only the best and strongest will fertilize the egg. Those that have been changed tend to be so outnumbered by those that have not changed that the process is highly geared towards ensuring an absence of change, that a healthy unchanged sperm would fertilize the egg.

The appearance of our world and its stable nature, such as light being constant, and gravity having a specific value mitigates against a world that depends upon change for its existence. Our world reflects stability and an in built intolerance to change.

Our world is showing us that it is not and cannot be the product of evolution.

The arrival of man on earth after the demise of the dinosaur is so sudden, and with no preceding intermediate creatures to suggest an evolutionary process. If evolution was in process, fossil evidence would abound with strange creatures in the process of forming humans. Even Darwin admitted that the absence of fossil evidence was against his theory.

What about the suggestion that the changes that occurred were the result of genetic mutations.

Mutations are almost always destructive. They result in cancers and other defects. Mutations must affect multiple areas of the body simultaneously to be beneficial. If a mutation were to result in the formation of an hormone, we would require simultaneous changes in various parts of the body, resulting in the formation of the gland, the hormone, the hormoe receptor at various sites in the body, new releaser hormones and their feedback control mechanisms. To have multiple mutations happening at the same time so that all of these could occur is in all probability impossible.

For mutations to result in complex higher forms, such multiple mutations should be happening commonly and with great regularity. The evidence we have before us proves that this is not the case.

Everything, from scientific evidence to observation of our world with the untrained eye is against evolution and in support of a process of deliberate design and creation.

We need to ponder this deeply. We were created; we did not evolve. This is a fact. What are the consequences of this to us and to our process of thinking? How does this fact influence who we are, and our understanding of why we are here?

Our discussion will continue.

Bye for now.