Jesus Raises Lazarus From the Dead38 Jesus, once more deeply moved, came to the tomb. It was a cave with a stone laid across the entrance. 39 “Take away the stone,” he said.
45 Therefore many of the Jews who had come to visit Mary, and had seen what Jesus did, believed in him. 46 But some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done. 47 Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin.
“What are we accomplishing?” they asked. “Here is this man performing many signs. 48 If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation.”
Funny how the Pharisees of days passed by and the Darwinists of today sound a bit the same. Darwinists fear creation science, not because it is untrue, but because IT IS TRUE and if the public comes to believe it, then Darwinists and their just-so stories and ridiculous assertions would be forced to admit that they were wrong and possibly lose their place in whatever their field of endeavor. Once you visualize Richard Dawkins as a Pharisee seeking to keep his fame and fortune and reputation it all becomes quite clear. Thus the delicious irony of the recent influx of Lazarus Taxa into the realm of public knowledge. Such revelations are the beginning of the end of Darwinism, along with the discovery of remains rather than fossils and then soon the public will realize all the fables about the fossil rock records pushed upon them by Darwinists were fables, not facts. This house of cards will fall from the overwhelming burden of evidence!
"Carl Werner claimed: "A scientist found a fossil sea urchin in Cretaceous rock that looks nearly identical to a modern Purple Heart sea urchin, but assigned it to a completely new genus (Holaster). If you saw that creature alive in the ocean you would recognize it as a Purple Heart sea urchin (genus Spatangus)."
You would, probably I would -- but you and I aren't experts in Echinoidea, the group to which sea-urchins belong. Actually, to my eye there are differences between the two pictured animals, the most obvious one being in the pattern of pores within the five 'arms' of the star shape. Echinoid classification makes a great deal of the size, shape, and placement of various openings and pores in the exoskeleton. If an echinoid expert looked at those and said 'they are different genera,' he'd have reasons to back up that classification."
The fundamental points of debate: Information
It's a shame that there are precious few hard facts when it comes to the origin of life. We have a rough idea when it began on Earth, and some interesting theories about where, but the how part has everybody stumped. Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organised themselves into the first living cell.2
Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America (which were part of the supercontinent Gondwana); North American opossums are recent immigrants to the continent. In contrast, metatherian fossils from the Late Cretaceous are exclusively from Eurasia and North America (which formed the supercontinent Laurasia). This geographical switch remains unexplained.5
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.7
I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? ... You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line — there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.8
However, the gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution. In the chapters on the fossil record in the Origin of Species Darwin showed that the record was useless for testing between evolution and special creation because it has great gaps in it. The same argument still applies. ... In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.9 [emphasis in the original]
Embryology and Morphology
Insect resistance to a pesticide was first reported in 1947 for the Housefly (Musca domestica) with respect to DDT. Since then resistance to one or more pesticides has been reported in at least 225 species of insects and other arthropods. The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds.17
Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used.18
But all these mutations reduce the information in the gene by making a protein less specific. They add no information and they add no new molecular capability. Indeed, all mutations studied destroy information. None of them can serve as an example of a mutation that can lead to the large changes of macroevolution. ... Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.
Darwinism and religion
In my opinion, using creation and evolution as topics for critical-thinking exercises in primary and secondary schools is virtually guaranteed to confuse students about evolution and may lead them to reject one of the major themes in science.19
References and notes
- Sloan, C.P., Feathers for T. Rex?, National Geographic 196(5):98–107, November 1999.
- Paul Davies (Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Macquarie Univ.), Born Lucky, New Scientist, Vol. 179(2403):32, 12 July 2003.
- Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, p. 107, CLV, Bielefeld, Germany, 1997.
- Edward Blyth, An attempt to classify the “varieties” of animals with observations on the marked seasonal and other changes which naturally take place in various British species and which do not constitute varieties, Magazine of Natural History, VIII:40–53, 1835. See also my book, The Great Turning Point (pp. 92–93 and 187–189) for the similar reasoning of two of the “scriptural geologists,” George Bugg (a pastor) and William Rhind (a scientist), writing just before and after Blyth in 1826 and 1838 respectively. Evolutionists are discovering this also. See Environment contributes to evolution, too, 29 Oct. 2004.
- Cifelli, R.L. and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science 302:1899–2, 2003.
- Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 206, 292 and 307, Penguin Books, London, 1982; reprint of 1859 edition.
- Stephen J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, 86(5):14, May 1977.
- Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89, Master Books, Santee, CA, 1988.
- Mark Ridley (zoologist, Oxford University), Who doubts evolution? New Scientist, 90:830–1, 25 June 1981.
- “In time and in its morphology, Pakicetus is perfectly intermediate, a missing link between earlier land mammals and later, full-fledged whales.” Phil Gingerich, The Whales of Tethys, Natural History, April 1994, p. 86.
- This was after Jonathan Sarfati’s analysis of Pakicetus in chapter 5 of the original 1999 Refuting Evolution. Later-discovered fossils confirmed Sarfati’s prediction that this was a strictly terrestrial creature (as per the updated version of chapter 5).
- P.D. Gingerich, N.A. Wells, D.E. Russell, and S.M.I. Shah, Science 220(4595):403–6, 22 April 1983; P.D. Gingerich, Journal of Geological Education. 31:140–144, 1983.
- J.G.M. Thewissen, E.M. Williams, L.J. Roe, and S.T. Hussain, Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls, Nature 413:277–281, 20 Sept. 2001. (see PDF file).
- Pakicetus … eight years on. Illustration: Carl Buell
- E.g., George B. Johnson and Peter H. Raven, Biology: Principles and Explorations, p. 257, Holt, Rinehard and Winston, 1998. This widely used high school text gives the student no hint in the discussion around this diagram that the pictures are fraudulent.
- Ernst Mayr (100-year old Harvard University biologist and leading evolutionist), What Evolution Is, pp. 27–30, Basic Books, New York, 2001. On page 28 Mayr uses Haeckel’s original drawings with no mention that they are fraudulent.
- Francisco J. Ayala, The Mechanisms of Evolution, Scientific American 239(3):65, Sept. 1978.
- Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990, A1.
- Cited in Larry Witham, Where Darwin Meets the Bible, p. 23, Oxford University Press, 2002.
How Pakicetus actually must have looked:
The scientists were first alerted to its existence from photographs taken on a commercial fishing boat in 2001. Dredging the ocean floor, they collected 21 rabbitfish at depths of 416–736 metres (1,364–2,414 ft).
This fish with a cartilage skeleton can grow up to about two metres (6½ ft) long, has large wing-like fins, and a whip-like tail. But what grabbed the media’s attention were comments by lead researcher Jules Soto linking the fish to the time of the dinosaurs.
“The species that we found has fossil records that are 150, 180 million years old,” he said. “That’s very rare. It’s like if we had an animal as old as the Tyrannosaurus rex still alive.”
The rabbitfish–T. rex connection
But herein lie a number of challenges to evolutionists. For example, why are “living fossils”6 like the coelacanth absent from the upper layers of the fossil record—(supposedly) representing millions of years? Also, the living and fossil forms are much the same—this latest rabbitfish species, according to Soto, is unchanged in 180 million years—why no evolution in all that (supposed) time?
The answer, and a much better explanation of the facts, is that the fossil “record” is not a record of millions of years of evolution and extinction. The oldest fossils likely date back only to the global Flood of Noah’s day, around 4,500 years ago.
So if those species haven’t become extinct in the meantime, they’re still reproducing “according to their kind” just as programmed during Creation Week around 6,000 years ago. Hence today’s rabbitfish, coelacanth and Wollemi pine are essentially the same as their fossil counterparts.
And while dinosaurs might well have gone the way of the dodo, it wasn’t millions of years ago—T. rex bones have been found to contain “soft cellular tissues” and red blood cell structures.7,8 So perhaps there might still be a living dinosaur? Well, if a modern-day sighting9 of a dinosaur-like creature is ever confirmed, it ought not be a surprise to Christians. Because from a biblical perspective, there’s really no difference between finding a live rabbitfish, coelacanth, Wollemi pine—or dinosaur.
References and notes
- Soto, J.M.R., and Vooren, C.M., Hydrolagus matallanasi sp. nov. (Holocephali, Chimaeridae) a new species of rabbitfish from southern Brazil, Zootaxa 687:1–10, 2004.
- Brazil becomes fresh haunt for ghost shark, Nature 429(6994):796, 2004.
- Scientists discover prehistoric ratfish, ABC News,
, 18 June 2004.
- Living fossil fish turns up again, Creation 21(2):8, 1999;
- Sensational Australian tree like finding a live dinosaur, Creation 17(2):13, 1995;
- Catchpoole, D., Living fossils enigma, Creation 22(2):56, 2000;
- Dino soft tissue find, Creation 27(4):7, 2005;
- Wieland, C., Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, 1997;
- See, e.g., Irwin, B., Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?
, 1 July 2008.