Evolution: Fact or fiction? If fact, surely you won’t mind if I call you a monkey. Or perhaps tell you about your baboon-like features. For after all, the yarntellers of the century say your predecessors were the beasts of the field. And isn’t that fable rather odd, considering those same beasts did not counterevolve into extinction? Those still living in the wild, and those confined to zoos, still resemble the beasts they have always been—no transition to a higher level occurring, and no transitional fossils have yet been discovered.
If man evolved from animals, he might possibly be a mutation of the pig. Well, why not? Many of us eat like a pig, others live like a pig, and still others are as sloppy as a pig! Shallow thinking? Yes, just as shallow as saying man evolved from the monkey.
Seriously, what goes here? What’s the big deal? Simply, atheists and humanists are incessantly striving to enforce a godless, destructive philosophy upon us—a view of man’s origin that has no foundation in truth, fact, or reality. Our children are forced to study this theory as though it were authentic. The opposite view or model, creation, is not allowed in our public schools and colleges, thereby effecting a closed system—very much like the heydays of atheistic communism. And there’s no difference in principle. One system promotes godless communism only; the other system promotes godless evolution only.
Give Us Equal Time
Years ago, evolution was taught as a
theory only. But not any more. So-called “evidence” is now presented to “prove” that man evolved from the ape and monkey families. The “evidence” is nothing more than suppositions, speculations, “might-have-beens,” conjectures, and hypothetical pronouncements. It should be noted that evolution science is just as
religious as creation science, inasmuch as the former is also based on faith! The evolutionist
believes man evolved from animals. The creationist
believes man was created by a Super Being.
Our children should be exposed to both sides of the issue. Only then will they be able to make an independent, intelligent decision. To expose them to only one side of the question is to deny them the freedom this great country was founded upon. The creation model can be presented without even referring to the Bible or alluding to sectarian religions. It is just as rational to assert that monkeys and apes evolved from humans as it is to claim that humans evolved from monkeys and apes. And there’s just as much “evidence.” Get the “monkeys” off our backs or give us equal time in classrooms to air our views.
Evolutionist: Prove Me Wrong
As noted above, I can made just as much of a case as the evolutionist that apes and monkeys evolved from us humans. I have just as much “evidence” to support my “fairy tale” as they have to support their “fairy tale.”
We both agree that apes and monkeys have some features that resemble ours. Therefore they evolved from us, not us from them. I challenge evolutionists to prove me wrong. For when they make their attempt, I will take the same arguments they employ to demonstrate that man evolved from the monkey family and demonstrate to them that apes and monkeys evolved from us humans. Anyone out there willing to tackle this task?
A Big Problem For Evolutionists
Here is a big, fat problem for evolutionists. If humans evolved from the beasts of the field, why is the process not as prevalent today as it was millions of years ago? Does the evolving of one species to another cease at a certain point? If yes,
why? There is zero evidence that man is still evolving from the ape family. Yet if this kind of evolution occurred, it would still be occurring today. But it isn’t. I challenge the evolutionist to present evidence that man is still evolving from the monkey family. For if he is unable to document evidence of this, how credible, then, is his assertion that man developed from the ape?
“Man’s Common Ancestry”
I often marvel why it is so inconceivable to evolutionists that a supernatural power just might have made both man and animal in their current states, as described in
Genesis 1:25-26. In this sense, we have a “common ancestry.” One evolutionist wrote that the Eohippus counterevolved into extinction when our modern horse arrived upon the scene. Other evolutionists are now claiming that the common bird evolved from the dinosaur, now extinct. The problem with this “logic” is if the Eohippus became extinct when the horse arrived, and the dinosaur ceased to exist when our modern bird appeared, why didn’t the ape become nonexistent when man arrived? Well,
why?
Both ape and human families continue to thrive in the same era. This “mystery” cannot be explained by the evolutionist, for if one goes when the other comes, why do both ape and man exist in the same age? Well, why?
Another matter evolutionists need to work out is how did the genes of brute animals evolve into human genes? For if the genes of brute animals evolved into what is now human genes, what prevented the genes of brute animals from counterevolving into extinction?
The Evolutionist Answers
“Natural selection or selective breeding,” the evolutionist says. However, be it understood that natural selection or selective breeding has
always produced its own kind. The selective breeding of cattle does not produce horses, and the selective breeding of wheat does not yield barley. We may surely harvest thoroughbred cattle and wheat by selective breeding, but rest assured that each living thing produces its own kind. As cats cannot evolve into dogs, regardless of time span, so apes cannot evolve into humans, regardless of time span.
The Monkey’s Disgrace
Three monkeys sat in a coconut tree,
Discussing things as they’re said to be.
Said one to the others, “Now listen, you two,
There’s a rumor around that can’t be true.
“That man descended from our noble race,
The very idea is a great disgrace.
“No monkey has ever deserted his wife,
Starved her babies and ruined her life.
“And you’ve never known a mother monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
“Or to pass from one to another,
Till they scarcely know who is their mother.
“And another thing you’ll never see,
A monk build a fence around a coconut tree,
“And let the coconuts go to waste,
Forbidding all other monks a taste.
“Why if I’d build a fence around this tree,
starvation would force you to steal from me.
“Here’s another thing a monkey won’t do,
Go out at night and get on a stew,
“Or use a gun or club or knife,
To take some other monkey’s life.
“Yes, man descended, the ornery cuss,
But, brother, he didn’t descend from us!”
[The late L. L. Miller]
“God made the wild animals according to their kinds...Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over all the creatures that move along the ground...’ And it was so” (Genesis 1).
“Specialized Hoofs” Of Mountain
Goats!
Coming Off The Wall
National Geographic is at it again, in their usual way, coming off the wall with answers that border insanity. But what’s new? Apparently, full-blown humanists and evolutionists now control this organization and its magazine. Quite often, on Saturday evenings, I watch National Geographic on a family channel. I enjoy the animal programs and the African scenery. But godless evolution permeates almost every program. It wasn’t that way 50 years ago.
This time it’s mountain goats. They’re claiming that the goats’ ancestors crossed the Bering land bridge from Asia at least 100,000 years ago, and that predators and competitors forced the newcomers to take to the heights for survival. Thick fur and specialized hoofs evolved as a result of the cold environment and rocky heights.
Proof offered? None. Evidence presented? Zero. Crossing over onto our continent on the Bering land bridge or some other land mass is reasonable, as animals have migrated to different parts of the world since the beginning of their existence—as humans have. But to claim they developed specialized hoofs and thick fur to accommodate cold weather and rocky heights is another matter. So listen up to my closing remarks.
Will My Offspring Grow Thick Fur?
If
National Geographic is correct in their conjectures, does this mean my offspring, somewhere down the road of life, will develop thick fur and specialized hoofs if they take to cold, rocky heights?
Well, will they? Since this humanist organization places man and animals on the same par, it is only logical to conclude that man, too, under the
same conditions, would develop the same physical characteristics as these mountain goats have developed.
Since the beginning of creation, segments of the human family have lived among rocks and boulders in high places. As an example, take the Tibetans. Nothing specialized has evolved with them—or is in the process of evolving. No thick fur covers their skin, and their feet are shaped exactly like ours. National Geographic merely speculates, and speculation is not evidence. Their rationale is hogwash of the purest kind. Or should we call it “goatwash”? In their case, we know who the “mountain goats” are. And that’s reality, “brother goats,” not evolution! Your consumption of goat meat has thickened your brains—not your fur.
One Thing More: Birds & Dinosaurs
Some time ago
National Geographic published a report that a fossil had been found, which establishes the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs. The report was based on false research. The truth has now surfaced.
The Associated Press reported recently:
“A fossil hailed as an important find for the theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs is really a composite of fossils from different creatures, a Chinese scientist says...National Geographic magazine plans to publish a note in the March issue saying that CT scans of the fossil appear to confirm Xu’s observations and had ‘revealed anomalies’ in the reconstruction, said National Geographic Society spokeswoman Barbara Moffet” (The Fresno Bee, January 22, 2000).
Well, need I say more about National Geographic’s credibility, as it relates to evolution? Our “brother goats” are off the rocks!
.gif)
.gif)
