| It's funny how some discussions polarize people, and | | | | for one missing link, but many thousands or millions of |
| none more so than the ongoing debate between | | | | missing links that connect each evolutionary stage of |
| Creationists and Evolutionists. These are two | | | | every species. There should be a continual chain that |
| opposing viewpoints and yet in some ways they are | | | | can be traced progressively from a single cell amoeba |
| similar. | | | | to all of the complex life forms today. |
| Creationists believe that the world as we know it | | | | But what does science say about this? If evolution |
| was created by God. That He made all things | | | | were scientific fact then it should be able to be |
| according to a definite plan and that everything we | | | | proved conclusively. And yet the archaeological |
| see in this world today exists only by God's word of | | | | record shows nothing. Not one single missing link has |
| power. The world as we know it is incredibly complex | | | | ever been found between any two species, and yet |
| and yet everything is interdependent. Despite the | | | | for life to exist, as we know it today, there should |
| complexity there is balance, order and purpose to | | | | be millions of links in the archaeological record. The |
| everything we see around us, which suggests careful | | | | world should be littered with so many links that it |
| planning, control and execution. | | | | would be impossible to argue, but there are none. |
| On the other side though we have the Evolutionists | | | | Furthermore, we know from DNA that the |
| who believe that life developed through random | | | | intermixing of species cannot occur. You cannot mix |
| chemical interactions. Life was sparked by an event | | | | the DNA of a horse and a man to create a centaur. |
| that brought together all the right components at the | | | | And when there are mutations in species many do |
| right time in the right place. Life commenced as single | | | | not have the ability to procreate but die off in their |
| cell amoeba, which adapted, changed and evolved | | | | own generation. |
| over many millennia into the multitude of living | | | | So if you can't prove evolution by science then it |
| organisms, creatures and plant life that exist today. | | | | does not exist, using the logic Evolutionists apply to |
| Thus Creationists believe that the universe as we | | | | God. Even Charles Darwin had the good sense to call |
| know it was part of a definite and well-formulated | | | | it a "Theory" of Evolution rather than a fact, and had |
| plan whereas Evolutionists believe this all came about | | | | he known about DNA he might not have postulated |
| by chance, and everything that has occurred since, | | | | his theory in the first place. And yet evolution is |
| including the big bang, was totally random. So let's | | | | taught today as if it were an undeniable and absolute |
| consider these two positions and see how they | | | | truth, without any substantiating science to back it |
| stack up. | | | | up. |
| The issue that Evolutionists have with creation is | | | | So let's look at science and see what it tells us. |
| about the inability of anyone to prove the existence | | | | Scientists have spent many centuries studying the |
| of God. Evolutionists believe in a scientific approach | | | | universe and the natural world to unravel its secrets. |
| and that unless something can be empirically | | | | In their studies of physics, biology, chemistry, |
| measured or perceived with the five senses, then it | | | | astronomy, mathematics and all other arms of the |
| does not exist. So because you cannot measure, | | | | sciences they find perfect order and balance. They |
| see, touch, smell, hear or taste God then he cannot | | | | do not find chance or randomness in the natural |
| exist and thus Creationism is likewise a fallacy. | | | | world but things that are so ordered and controlled |
| Now there are many things that you cannot perceive | | | | as to appear to be the work of a pure intelligence. |
| through the senses that we know exist, for example | | | | So if anything we see that science actually |
| thoughts, emotions or feelings. These things cannot | | | | strengthens the position of the Creationists who |
| be perceived by the senses or measured empirically, | | | | believe that God created the world according to a |
| but we know they exist for we can see the results | | | | divine plan. They believe he created every species of |
| of them in actions and behaviours. If we apply a | | | | plant and animal life according to its kind, which is |
| scientific approach to these things then we could | | | | being backed up by the scientific discoveries in DNA. |
| logically argue they do not exist and pooh-pooh | | | | And science has never been able to validate the |
| anyone who believed that they do. | | | | existence of any of the millions of necessary |
| But let's also apply the scientific approach to what | | | | crossover species in the archaeological record to |
| Evolutionists believe. Is their position credible from an | | | | validate evolution. |
| empirical standpoint? | | | | Furthermore, as shown above, we know that some |
| The essence of Evolution is that every form of life | | | | things exist even though we can't measure them |
| developed from a single cell amoeba which over | | | | empirically or perceive them with our senses, |
| countless generations developed into cats, dogs, fish, | | | | because we see the effects that they have through |
| lizards, insects, man and so on. The flaw in this has | | | | action or behaviour. Creationists see the world around |
| always been the inability to find the so-called "missing | | | | them as the actions and behaviours of God, providing |
| link." That is, the crossover species that saw apes | | | | proof of the fact that God exists because the entire |
| become men. | | | | universe is the work of his hands. |
| However the concept of the missing link goes well | | | | But Evolutionists have no scientific evidence to |
| beyond just the transformation of apes into men. For | | | | support their position, as there is no proof that |
| every species of animal, reptile, insect or fish there | | | | evolution occurred. There is no science to back it up |
| had to be a crossover species. Popular teaching of | | | | and so it must always be a "theory" which begs the |
| evolution theory says that at some point fish crawled | | | | question: why is it taught as fact? |
| from the sea and became amphibians, which then | | | | Which brings me back to the original point of this |
| became lizards, which then became small animals, | | | | discussion. It's funny how some discussions polarize |
| which then became larger quadrupeds, which then | | | | people and none more so than this debate, and yet |
| stood up to become two legged bipeds and | | | | in some ways there are such similarities. Creationists |
| eventually became man. Similar evolutionary chains | | | | rely on faith as their mainstay, to the chagrin and |
| must also exist for every other species on the planet | | | | occasionally the contempt of the Evolutionists, even |
| today. | | | | though the scientific record backs up much of what |
| For every species that exists there needs to be a | | | | Creationists believe. Evolutionists on the other hand |
| crossover species to get from one to the next. | | | | have nothing in the scientific record to back up the |
| There needs to be a link where there is half-fish and | | | | position that they cling to adamantly, which I guess |
| half-lizard, or half-cow and half-horse, half-dog and | | | | means they must accept it on the basis of...faith! |
| half-something else, and so on. We are not looking | | | | Hmm... |