As I write these posts, I am currently reading a book called “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest” by Frank Turek and Norman Geisler. So far, I am very intrigued. The authors don’t have to do much to convince me, but if you are still on the fence and wanting to read more than my simple posts, I would highly recommend this book.
Personally, I truly believe that though I am basing all my claims on faith for both parties, it’s a lot shorter leap to believe in a Creator than in evolution. But again, I am a biased writer. Though I would like to give you other resources like the “I Don’t Have Enough Faith” book, I would still strongly urge you to pick up a Bible and read it. I will touch on this more later, but if you are really looking for answers and honestly seeking wisdom, I promise the Bible will not disappoint. There are too many people who started out as non-believers out to prove the Bible wrong who eventually stopped their efforts because the Bible changed them – the Bible is THAT powerful of a book. Again, don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself. (I would suggest the Gospel of John…read a chapter a day…only 21 days and see what you think!)
Okay, back to this entry. In entry 10, I’m going to touch on the evolutionary tree and the so called “missing links.” For many years, evolutionists claimed that if they found enough fossils, they would be able to support their theory. They believed that “transitional” creatures would be found throughout the fossil record. However, we have discovered a vast amount of fossils and so far, that hasn’t been the case.
Now, evolutionists say that if a complete record of history of biological evolution could be observed then it would support their theory. Many have tried to make a record through the classification of the fossil record, but so far that hasn’t worked either. And here’s why….when making an “evolutionary family tree” there are too many ways in which the “branches” could be formed. Since there is no real proof, all the family classifications are assumptions and every scientist has a different opinion on that matter.
If you don’t know what I’m talking about, take a look at the diagram below….
This is an example of an evolutionary family tree. You have probably seen others similar to this. The point of this tree and many others is to show the path of evolution, for instance, how did a frog become a frog? Well, according to this tree, it was formed from some sort of fish. One day it just grew some legs and then hopped out of the water. But again, here are the problems with the “line-ups”
- PROBLEM #1: There are many ways to group organisms
- PROBLEM #2: There are just as many evolutionary family trees as there are scientists because ultimately it is all opinion-based.
Now, let’s take a step back….
In the realm of science, we do have a classification system. You were likely forced to memorize kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species in 8th grade science. If not, lucky you. This is an organization system that helps scientists classify all the living things in the world. We have plant kingdoms and animal kingdoms and that all makes sense. The more we know about that that organism the more specifically we can classify it all the way down to the genus and species. Here’s an example of the classification system below:
We use classification systems everywhere we go. This is how we are able to maneuver within our world efficiently. You’re not going to go to the auto parts store looking for a hairbrush, right?
But, when we are trying to weave classification systems in with possible family relationships, then it becomes a problem!
Think about the organization of Walmart. You have different departments within the store, then different isles, then different shelves. For the most part, you know if you want to buy a gallon of milk you go to the dairy section and then to the refrigerated door that has the milk and bam, you’ve got your milk.
But have you ever wanted something and looked in the area of Walmart you THOUGHT would have it only to find that some Walmart-yay-who put it in another area?
I mean, who is that guy? And, more importantly WHAT was he thinking putting it THERE?!
Let me give you an example. A few months ago, I wanted to make a recipe that called for Craisins – you know, the dried cranberries? At first, I thought, no problem, there’s a dried fruit area in the produce section, I bet that’s where they will be. Nope. They had dried bananas, pineapple, peaches, you name it, but no Craisins. So then, I thought, okay, maybe this is a good lunch-snack like raisins, I will go to the isle with packaged fruit. So, off I went. I found the raisins and the little plastic fruit cups, but no Craisins. At this point, I was a little irritated but still composed. My next thought was baked goods…hadn’t I had a muffin once that had these dried cranberries in them? Let’s try that isle. Nope. No Craisins there either. Seriously, who knew buying this simple little item would require Dick Tracy skills? Because I was losing patience, I found a little Walmart gal and asked her. You know where she took me? To the pickle and olive isle where at the end they had the more big bulk items like large jars of mayo or ketchup. Now who in their right mind would put Craisins there? Someone must have been high on corn syrup to make that classification decision!
Now, where was I? Oh yes, problems with evolutionary trees and why no one can agree….
This is the problem with the evolutionary trees. To some degree, they may seem highly organized and easy to follow, until you get to that one particular organism that could be considered “related” in multiple ways. Now what do you do? You can’t prove a family line or a relationship. You can’t prove a transition because there’s no fossil record to show it. It may have characteristics that are shared by multiple organisms so now what? When all else fails, stick the sucker in the big-bulk isle, I guess….
Obviously, I’m still not over this grocery-store-travesty….ahem…
Now what about those missing links?
Well, before we get there, let’s take a look at a real family tree. For our purposes, I’m using a family tree from the Bible. We are going to start with David and then see how two of his sons had many generations that eventually led down to Jesus. For this family tree, David is the common ancestor.All the other people named here can all trace their origins back to David.
EVOLUTIONARY FAMILY TREE
Now let’s go back to that evolutionary family tree we looked at earlier. Notice at the base here, there is just a dot. This dot represents a common ancestor, but in the beginning, because we don’t really know where we came from, it is just a dot.
Every time there is a “tree branch” or a dot, this is where some common ancestor should go, but no one knows what that common ancestor is. To date, there is no evidence to support the existence of most of the common ancestors that fill these trees. Many times, these common ancestors are called “missing links” because they ARE in fact missing! I have seen multiple evolutionary family trees over the years and though they may have some similar characteristics they are all different because everyone has a different way they think the animals evolved. Artists can draw common ancestors, but that doesn’t make them real and some of the trees I have seen seem about as reasonable as my Craisins did in the bulk isle by the pickles.
We have covered what we don’t know, so what can we conclude?
Well, during Darwin’s time, scientists were just beginning to study the fossil record. They truly believed that evolution was being “recorded in stone” and they just had to discover the fossils to prove it. Today, scientists have seen the fossil record does NOT support their theory. In fact, there are three BIG problems the fossil record poses for evolution…they are:
1) Nowhere on earth is there a complete and uninterrupted series of fossil layers
2) Missing links and/or common ancestors are not represented by fossils
3) Much evidence supports the idea of fossils being laid down over a short period of time showing that animals lived during the same time (Not like evolutionists would like you to believe with their Triassic, Jurassic, Cretacious, and Mesozoic Periods).
So, a HUGE question for evolutionists is “How did it all start?” Here again, I submit that any understanding of the origin of life, must involve FAITH. The question is not whether scientists exercise faith – it is WHERE they put their faith. An evolutionary scientist is committed to the view that everything that exists is explained by natural processes and he puts his FAITH in that. A Christian believes in God’s Word and puts his FAITH in a God who created the world.
Neither of us have empirical facts. All we have is FAITH.
Where are you putting yours?
Comments