Joe Spears MS

Many people have become interested in genealogy and in tracing their roots. Have any of you ever wondered, "Just how far back can we trace our ancestors?" The answer may be, "Farther than you think!"

Also, many have wondered about the origins of nations, shrouded in the mists of antiquity and in mystery. Where did the Egyptians come from? The Mayas? It seems that many ancient civilizations sprang up, if not from nowhere, at least more rapidly than one would expect.

Is there any real evidence of Biblical events? For example, some might mention the Shroud of Turin and the evidence for it. But others would counter this by pointing to the carbon dating results, which were supposed to show that the Shroud was too young to have been the burial shroud of Christ. Nevertheless, there are those who question those dating results. One is Professor Garza-Valdes, who created a brand new science after the carbon dating of the Shroud. (It's called archaeomicrobiology.)

It is interesting to put together all the data. Isaiah 28 mentions learning, teaching, doctrine and knowledge. It mentions line on line, here a little and there a little, and precept on precept. This is how we come to truth in mathematics—in a proof of a theorem, we see line upon line and concept used to prove another concept. Math builds on itself.

It seems to me that the "controversy" over creation and evolution exists at several levels. There is one level at which claims and counter-claims are made—"The facts prove evolution. Millions of fossils can't be wrong" versus "Creation is true." There is another level at which the facts reside. And there is a third  "research" level, at which research can be conducted to try to determine the facts.

Some have decided to look at the evidence, rather than deal with the issue at the level of claims and counter-claims. In looking at the evidence, several people have been struck by the paucity—some would call it absolute lack—of evidence supporting evolution. Yet on the other hand, others have claimed that evolution is supported by much evidence.

You may have heard that dinosaurs evolved from birds. What evidence is there to support this?

According to http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/november/new1115d.htm a bird-like creature lived 75 million years before the dinosaurs.

Now, that makes it hard for dinosaurs to be the ancestors of birds; the descendants would have lived 75 million years before their ancestors.

Evolutionists have made much of fossils. They supposedly illustrate the progression of evolution. Yet, there are serious problems with this fossil record.

Dr. Duane Gish has written a book about these problems. One big problem is the missing transitional forms—the "missing links". Evolutionists have claimed that more primitive fossils are found in geologic layers lower than where more advanced life forms are found, and assuming the higher layers were laid down much later than the lower layers, the more primitive forms thus lived earlier, and the more advanced forms evolved from the more primitive.

  It was interesting to find, while perusing a book on evolution, the rather candid admission of an evolutionist that there is no documented evidence of even a single species which arose from another species! Here is the quote:

Have scientists discovered evidence that humans are descended from ape-like ancestors? Are there real "missing link" fossils to prove this? Well, one of the reasons the term "missing link" is what it is, and includes the word missing, is that the evidence has long been—missing. Some have argued that this or that fossil is the "missing link", so we will examine a few of them.

The bodies of living things are what evolution tries to explain. But what about behavior? Within the evolutionary model, the only possibility is that behavior results from the chemicals, cells, and components of the organism's body. And what about soul? Spirit? Mind? Likewise, these things are viewed in evolution, if they are dealt with at all and not simply ignored, as simply results of chemical or other natural processes in a body.

Do we have to ignore scientific evidence in order to accept creation? Some may have felt a conflict between accepting the truth, as discovered by science, and accepting truth, as declared in the Bible. Does accepting one require the rejection of the other?

In this article we look for answers to these questions. A major problem for some has been the feeling that science has proven the theory of evolution. The resulting question then seems to be, "Do we deny truth to accept our faith, or deny our faith to accept the truth (of evolution)?" Fortunately, as it turns out, we can maintain our faith in God without throwing our brains out the window.