Q: What is wrong with Creationism and
A: The fact that they both exist as viable
theories is problem enough. If either was incontrovertibly true
and correct, in the way that Einsteinís theory of
relativity is true and correct, there would be no possible
alternative. Everyone would simply line up behind the correct
one and that would be that.
Q: Surely itís not that simplistic, is it?
A: No, itís not. Creationists are able to
blow gaping holes in Darwinism because of the
Darwinistsí continued inability to reconcile microevolution and
macroevolution. To Darwinists, macroevolution is necessary to
account for the proliferation of all species, but microevolution
is all they can actually account for. So to that extent the
Creationists are right: macroevolution does not
appear to exist as a viable function of nature. On the other
hand, Darwinists can more or less flatten the Creationist
timeline of everything in the universe being created whole and
complete by a Supreme Being in six literal days
6,000 years ago, simply by pointing to the geological layering
in the Grand Canyon, or by pointing out that the top of Mount
Everest is comprised of marine limestone.
Q: What is the difference between microevolution and
A: When Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos
Islands in the early 1800ís, he noticed that certain species of
animals on various islands exhibited markedly different physical
characteristics developed to more efficiently exploit their
ecological niches. For example, finches had developed different
beaks for eating seeds, insects, and fruits, while tortoise
shells had developed large "notches" in front to accommodate the
extended necks of those that had to feed on bushes that grew up
off the ground. They remained entirely finches and entirely
tortoises, but had become slightly modified versions of their
parent species. Those modifications were at the micro, meaning
Darwin understood that those distinct micro-level changes
had occurred in only the few million years the Galapagos had
been in existence. And because he also understood that complex
life had been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, he
logically assumed that in such a vast expanse of time entire
bodies could transform. Sea worms could turn into fish, fish
could turn into amphibians, amphibians could turn into reptiles,
reptiles could turn into birds and mammals, and mammals could
turn into humans.
Changes of that magnitude are at the macro, meaning "large,"
level, and Darwinís mistake was assuming they were an
inevitable consequence of changes at the micro level. He even
suspected that he might be wrong, flatly stating that if
transitional species could not be found, then his theory should
be discarded. In 140 years of looking, Darwinists still have
not produced a single undeniably transitional species, when
simple logic dictates that somewhere within the millions of
species alive today, at least a few should clearly be in the
process of transition.
Q: What is "punctuated equilibrium"?
A: Darwinism is founded on the concept of macroevolution
occurring gradually over long periods of time. However,
undisputed examples of it do not exist in either the fossil
record or in the world around us, even though it should be
blatantly obvious at every level and in every era, especially
after the five major extinction events that have dominated the
timeline of complex life on Earth. However, after each such
extinction, when 50% to 90% of all life forms are destroyed and
the fossil record is essentially "wiped clean," there is a
relatively brief period of stability (on the order of a few
thousand years), followed by a rapid filling of the vacated
This is a flagrant contradiction of the concept of gradualism,
so it has to be explained by Darwinists in "naturalistic" terms
that do not admit the possibility of "outside intervention."
That attempt is called punctuated equilibrium, which in essence
states that the remaining 10% to 50% of life forms that survive
extinction events somehow know that they have to do more than
gradually evolve into the next step up their particular
Darwinian "ladder": each one must rapidly speciate into hundreds
and thousands of other life forms to fill the 50% to 90% of
ecological niches emptied by the extinction events.
Q: What is the "missing link" between
humans and their remote ancestors?
A: Anthropologists insist humans have evolved on Earth by
means of Darwinian gradualism, starting at 4.0
million years ago with a group of upright-walking primates known
as "Australopithecines," who evolved over the course of
2.0 million years into the early Homos (in
scientific terms "Homo" means "man"). There are eight or ten or
twelve groups of these so-called "prehuman"
creatures, depending on which anthropologist you consult; but
whether eight or twelve, they all lead inexorably to modern
The only problem is that not a single human bone, or even a
remotely human bone, is in the entire "prehuman"
fossil record until the Cro-Magnons (essentially
modern humans) appear quite suddenly at only 120,000
years ago. This simply flies in the face of Darwinian
gradualism, and creates a need for what has come to be called "the
missing link." The missing link is any bone dated prior
to the Cro-Magnons which will in any way indicate that a
transition is underway from the so-called "prehumans"
to actual humans. This, too, has been sought by Darwinian
anthropologists for 140 years, but it remains nowhere on their
Q: If humans did not produce the prehuman
fossil record, where did it come from?
A: Throughout history there have been reports of large,
upright-walking, hair-covered primates being encountered in or
near the most heavily forested areas of Earth. Contrary to
popular belief, these areas of dense forest and jungle comprise
approximately 45% of the arable land on the planet. The other
55% is the prime ecological niches humans prefer: prairie,
savanna, and lightly wooded forests. So with 45% of arable land
at their disposal, the hair-covered bipedal primates have more
than enough room to live and die while seldom if ever being
disturbed by human trespassers.
Q: What are those hair-covered bipedal primates called?
A: Hominoids is the technical term, but
they are popularly known in the west as "Bigfoot"
or "Sasquatch," and "The Abominable Snowman"
or "Yeti." There are also two other kinds which
are dominant in other parts of the world but which people in the
west know little about. Those two are "Almas,"
from the mountains of southern Russia (Pamirs
and Caucasus), western China (Altai
and Tien Shans) and other places around the globe; and "Agogwes,"
found in the jungles of South America,
Central Africa, and Indonesia. Actually,
all four kinds have dozens of different names because humans
living near each place where they live call them by various
regional epithets. But the names given above are most commonly
used by hominoid researchers.
Q: Arenít Bigfoot and The Abominable Snowman
some kind of tabloid joke?
A: Now they are, but when their tracks were first being
taken seriously in the early 1950ís, they were studied in great
detail by several highly qualified scientific researchers,
Ivan Sanderson being the foremost among that group.
Unfortunately for scientists, after a decade or so it became
obvious that they could not easily explain what hominoids were
or where they fit into the scheme of higher primate life on
Earth. That being the case, they shunted discussion of them into
the tabloids to spare themselves the continued embarrassment of
having to confess their inability to explain the phenomenon.
Q: How do hominoids fit into the scheme of
life on Earth?
A: They are the native, indigenous, bipedal primates of
this planet, being quite similar to gorillas and chimpanzees
except that they walk upright. More importantly, it is their
bones that comprise the so-called "prehuman"
fossil record discussed above. Humans encounter hominoids all
over the world on a fairly regular basis, and each description
of them, no matter where on Earth it occurs, matches other
descriptions of them with astonishing consistency. Those
descriptions are of creatures built exactly like the obviously
non-human skeletons owned by the so-called "prehumans."
Q: If hominoids are the prehumans,
where do actual humans fit into the scheme of life?
A: Humans are decidedly late-comers to the planet,
with skeletons that first begin to appear in the fossil record
(as Cro-Magnons) at only 120,000 years ago.
Q: Surely the human species is vastly older than 120,000
A: Not according to our genes. In the late 1980ís
geneticists proved our species is no older than 250,000
years, and no younger than 150,000 years. The common
average given is 200,000 years. This, of course, is a great
conundrum for Darwinists, whose dogma requires a much
longer period to achieve any kind of significant physiological
change, much less the complete overhaul humanity underwent.
Q: Does that mean humans have not had enough time to "evolve"
in typical Darwinian fashion?
A: That is exactly what it means.