I’ve watched numerous court scenes on television as the prosecutor presents his case against the accused and the defendant’s attorney defends her client with her presentation of the facts. When neither side has more than circumstantial evidence, it is hard to prove a case. The few leads they’ve received can sometimes present a compelling case for either side.
The evolutionist points to similar features of man and monkey as indications that they share a common ancestor. Six-day creationists see the same features as merely shared design traits. Both sides of the debate have no problem with the data. The actual data is neutral.
Fossils are physical records of the past. For the creationist who believes that God did not use macro evolution to create, the lack of transitions in the fossil record from one species into another tell a plain tale: God created each kind individually.
I dislike the many misleading claims that are still appearing in our textbooks as proofs for evolution. I saw the poster depicting man’s evolving ascent from a so-called common ancestor of the crouching apes. However, they are only an artist’s rendering of the ideal of evolution. Few of those skeletons are in any museum. All the rest of the creatures either have no physical basis, or are composed of a single bone or two. Based on current findings, I can hold up the same poster and declare that it depicts the ideal that God created these forms as independent groups that did not evolve into one another.
I saw the picture of the growth from birth to full maturity of human, bird, reptile, mammal, etc., all sharing a similar appearance in the womb. The idea is that all forms of life trace their evolutionary route during the stages of their birth. However, someone showed me the real appearance of the early births – which were unlike the drawings that portrayed evolution in an idealized light.
I saw the pictures of a white moth on a light tree and a dark moth on a dark tree, shot in London. London was getting dirty because of smog. Evolutionists hailed the appearance of the black moth as a sign of the white moth evolving into black to merge in with the darkened trees to escape the birds picking them off the bark. Then a scientist admitted to gluing a dead black moth to a black tree and shooting the picture. The fabricated shot was to show what it would be like if evolution were true.
I saw the picture of the geologic column showing the layers of the earth and their approximate ages. Did you know that the geologic column depicts an ideal of evolution that is not found anywhere on earth?
If the evidence for macro evolution is indisputable, why isn’t that evidence in the textbooks instead of the above fabricated foundations?