Chicken or Egg?

According to evolution, man was not created directly by God but evolved from animals. Evolutionists say that at some point in history, certain animals began accidentally changing in ways that eventually produced a man. The idea of evolution has many weaknesses. It cannot explain the beginning of the world; it gives a false impression of man.

Man differs from animals in possessing language and thought. Anyone who believes that man evolved from animals must explain how language and reason began…logic has set traps in a series of “chicken and eggs – which came first?” problems.

Human thought requires language. Much of our thinking is in words. When we think, we sort of listen to ourselves talk inside our heads. Language, on the other hand, requires thought. Unless there is thought behind the sounds called language or speech, what comes out is mere gibberish. Which came first, language or thought?

Without language and men talking to one another, there would be no truly human society. Instead of society, there would be merely a herd or swarm. But language means communication and therefore assumes men living together in society. Which came first, society or language?

Genesis, of course, does not have these problems of logic. It presents man as the direct creation of God and from the very first having language, thought, and society. The evolutionists’ only escape from logic is to downplay man’s special characteristics. He underrates man’s speech and reason.

To an evolutionist, man is nothing more than a computer made of flesh and bones. The result of humanism is putting man in place of or above God…The Bible’s account of the beginning elevates God. It also elevates man, but not at God’s expense. Humanism, whether in the guise of evolution or of some other view, tries to build man up by playing down or ignoring God. It rebels against God but utterly destroys man by making him no different from an animal or a machine.

Adapted from Jerry Combee, History of the World in Christian Perspective


What Dr. Adrian Rogers Said…

“There are things you will never understand apart from faith. Faith is the dynamic of spiritual wisdom. In the Bible, God is not explained. God is not argued. God is simply presented. And that is how He must be accepted – simply by faith: ‘…for he that comes to God must believe that He is…'(Hebrews 11:6)

“The skeptic will challenge you to prove there is a God. Don’t ever try to do that. The finite cannot prove the infinite. Just say, “Well, I can’t do it.’ And as he smirks smugly, you can say, ‘Now prove there is no God.’ Of course, he can’t do it. The skeptic accepts by faith there is no God. All people are believers. There are those who believe in God and those who believe there is no God, but all are believers.

“Science is the study of phenomena now existing. Back in the oldest book of the Bible, God asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding'(Job 38:4). No scientists were there. There’s no way they can explain it. How do we understand it? By faith. Some say, ‘Well, that takes a lot of belief.’ Really? Seems a lot more belief is required to assert that nothing times nobody equals everything. That’s what they choose to believe. No wonder the Bible says, ‘The fool has said in his heart, There is no God…'(Psalm 53:1). God is the supreme fact, and the man who denies the supreme fact is the supreme fool.

“Remember, faith is not contrary to reason; it’s simply beyond reason. To go into the laboratory to try to prove God would be like tearing apart a piano to try to find a tune. It’s impossible…just as it is impossible to have spiritual wisdom without faith.”

Evolution is matter of faith, not science!

Note: The evolution I am talking about is macroevolution.

Evolution is now considered an accepted form of science and is taught in every non-Christian school. This is a great moral issue in society, along with abortion; euthanasia, homosexuality etc… It was made-up to take the place of common sense science because of pride. Like the tower of Babel, man wants to take God out of the picture, deny that he ever existed, even when evidence demands that there had to be a mind behind all creation. However, evolution should never be counted as science.

Let us first look at the scientific method, before we talk before about evolution. The scientific method’s definition, according to Wikipedia, states that, “scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been REPEATEDLY CONFIRMED through OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT.”¹ Wikipedia also states under “Essential Criteria”, that, A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term “theory” is hardly applicable.” ¹ It is so obvious that evolution runs on imprecision when science runs on precision.

Furthermore, Stephen Jay Gould, a respected paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, had this to say: “Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact.”² He then goes on to say this, “Moreover, “fact” does not mean “absolute certainty…The second and third arguments for evolution—the case for major changes—do not involve direct observation of evolution in action. They rest upon inference, but are no less secure for that reason…We must infer them from results that still surround us: living and fossil organisms for evolution, documents and artifacts for human history, strata and topography for geology.”² which means that evolution is not something that we know happened with “absolute certainty.” We will talk later about the “…living and fossil organisms for evolution…”² that evolutionists say support their view. Therefore, evolution cannot be counted as a theory or science; there was no observation or experimentation.

Another interesting thing that evolutionists may use at creationists is Karl Popper’s philosophy of falsifiability. The definition is this: “Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statementhypothesis, or theory  ³: and “…a theory should be considered scientific if, and only if, it is falsifiable.”4 But, wouldn’t that mean that Newton’s law of motion and the theory of universal gravitation (I use the word ‘theory’ in the scientific way) would not be science since it can’t be proven false? What a tizzy our world would be in.

Then, what about the evolutionists who like to credit their so-called ‘theory’, with fossils, especially about transitional fossils? Let us use the famous “Lucy.” It is the most complete set of skeleton found for this certain type of supposedly link between ape and monkey. How did they know what kind of creature it was by just a few fragments of bones?

To find this out, I had the opportunity to e-mail John “Jack” R. Horner, one of the best-known paleontologists in America, asking two questions. The following is our conversation:

Me: I was wondering. How do paleontologists know what kind of creature you just have dug up only a few fragments of bones, and not the full skeleton?

Jack: We can’t always identify a creature with tiny fragments, but we do sometimes just because many skeletal bones look different from one animal to another, and we compare what we find with other animal skeletons found in similar age rock.  For example if I found a few small bones of an animal from a particular rock formation here in Montana, I would compare them to other bones from the same area that I have in our collection.  But, many times we don’t find enough to identify, and sometimes the creature is a new species so we don’t have anything to compare it with.

Me: Okay…so, if you are lucky, you can find a complete set of skeletons in the same rock age and compare fragments with that full set?

Jack: Yes, although we seldom find complete sets.

In the case of “Lucy”, which is the most complete set of skeleton found consisting of only forty-seven bones, there was no complete set of skeleton found; therefore, there was nothing to compare those few fragments with. No one can then say that it was a half-ape and half-human. It was either fully an ape, or fully human.

Alas, we reach the Big Bang Theory, the core of evolution, as it explains the beginnings of evolution, if it were a theory, why are the results not reproducible? This is the crux of this evolution religion. With no prove that this “bang” happened, the rest of the evidence that macro-evolution happened can be thrown out the window. Because, the foundation of this religion never happened, macro-evolution never happened.

Why has there never been another record of something exploding and creating another earth in the process? Because it never happened! Let’s say, the evolutionists say that this big bang happened in another galaxy, but, we can’t see it. Doesn’t that take faith to believe that it happened too?

The evolutionists like to make fun at creationist, because we believe that God was always there and that He created the earth out of ex niliho. But, don’t the evolutionists need as much faith as we do to believe that the world came about by chance? Evolution is just another religion where God is taken out of the picture because of man’s pride. The Bible says of these unbelieving scientists in Romans 1:25, “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Creation shows that even the smallest cell is a complex being, needing an omnipotent Creator. Clearly stated in the Bible, God was the One who created our world. But, man’s pride created evolution to take God out of the picture. Evolution is not science. It is another religion.