Primary source references As a preface to this document, I want to point out that it is a shame that we have to continue to refute the same arguments that evolutionists keep bringing up over and over again in their attempts to argue against the fact of creation, which fact has been well established since the day the earth was created ex nihilo several thousand years ago.
Nevertheless, the neo-Darwinian dogma of the spontaneous auto-organization of random chemicals into complex biopolymers, by chance forming complex self-replicating automatic machines that then evolve into more and more complex self-replicating automatic machines through genetic transcriptional errors and the injection of random noise, filtered into highly coded information and structures by predators, the climate, and other mindless agents working together to produce an ecosystem capable of sustaining and improving all these countless life forms for billions of years has managed to permeate, over the last years, the thinking in major scientific circles, the media, and secular education, even penetrating some professing Christian institutions.
It is also a shame that the masses have bought all this based on some circular reasoning about fossils, where fossils tend to be found buried, similarities between various life forms, the presence of certain decay products in rocks, and other inherently speculative arguments about the past, based on phenomena that exist in the present. If I hope to accomplish anything, it will be to simply encourage critical thinking. One must get past the arguments ad populum that its popularity counts for somethingad hominem that if you attack the person making the argument, this counts for somethingand especially ad baculum that there are people who have the clout to decree it as trueto ask the key questions and challenge the unsubstantiated assumptions and thinking of those who would hold to the evolution position.
Today there are an increasing number of anti-creationist authors who are producing books and periodicals that make this relatively brief presentation insufficient to deal with all the points in dispute. Those defending creation today who don't have the time to devote their life's study to gaining expertise in all fields of inquiry must principally be prepared to think critically, logically, and challenge unsubstantiated assumptions made by these people.
They must also keep a level head in the face of some vicious attacks and diatribes that will be directed against them, as is advised in the scriptures 1 Peter 3: By way of definitions, I want to point out that when I speak of "evolution," I am referring to the popular contemporary use of the word, which in a nutshell is the belief that all life forms are related by ancestry, and that the first life form occurred spontaneously, all due to completely natural processes. When I speak of "creation," I am referring to the inherently obvious fact that the origin of all life forms can be attributed to a creator who purposefully created them with planning and intent, and the documented fact that this occurred over the course of a week's time several thousand years ago.
This document is not a scientific thesis, but an apologetic intended to be submitted and defended by me in an interactive, online electronic forum. I claim no copyright on this document, and grant its use to the public domain. I have not written it with a view towards receiving any sort of financial or other personal gain, and I request that others utilizing this document do likewise.
Those copying and disseminating this document shall assume full responsibility for defending it. I do not agree to defend this document in any forum that I did not submit it, due to the practical limitations of my own time.
The original source of this document is located at http: I should point out that I do not consider myself an authority on the leading edge of modern creationism, although it may seem so to the uninitiated. Those wishing to be on the forefront of knowledge must look beyond this paper. I am not a scientist, but an engineer by education and profession.
Even so, it is my conviction that no substantial scientific training or experience is required to confront evolutionism and defend recent creation. I wish to thank my critics, especially those anti-creationists whom I have encountered along the way, for helping to expose deficiencies in my presentation, which has contributed greatly to the continuing refinement of this document.
I also wish to thank those who have encouraged me by telling me that this presentation has made a difference. As design demonstrates the existence and capability of a designer, the inherent design in life, the earth and the universe implies the existence and capability of its Designer.
The best source of information regarding a design can be had by inquiring of the designer. A designer provides better and more authoritative information about his design than the design does about itself. In the case of life on earth, the Designer has unmistakenly identified Himself and revealed specific information about some of the circumstances surrounding creation.
A defense of Creation Chance does not cause anything.
In fact, within the laws of probabilities and statistics we should not expect order and selection to be the result of "random" processes.
Order and selection are the result of directed, non-random causes. The laws of biochemistry, probability and statistics, and basic information theory are against it.
It has never been demonstrated in the laboratory. Effects caused by random genetic mutations that is, those that are phenotypically expressed are almost always bad. Once in a while they produce some interesting benign abnormalities. But no one has ever shown them to be beneficial, so as to result in complex and sophisticated designs.
Random genetic mutations The "survival of the fittest" clause is a tautology and success does not imply complexity. Natural selection shouldn't be expected to result in functionally different or more complex designs. Putting natural selection together with random genetic mutations doesn't help matters. Natural Selection Genetics disproves evolution. Animals vary based on coded genetic information that is already there. This is the principle of micro-evolution, which has been verified by the scientific method.
Genetics and Micro-evolution Similarity does not imply ancestry. The animals don't have ancestral dates attached to them. Evolutionary taxonomy is an effort based purely upon speculation and prior acceptance of the evolution model. Any discussion of "transitional forms" is based purely upon speculation and conjecture, and is therefore moot and useless. Transitional forms The fossil record of life forms does not support evolution.
The animals now fossilized were as complex back then as they are today. They seem to have appeared abruptly. The fossil record is consistent with creation according to separate kinds. The fossil record of life forms The fossils themselves don't have dates attached to them. Furthermore, the process of fossilization should not be expected to occur gradually, but better fits within the model of a geological catastrophe.
Fossilization Burial order does not imply ancestry. The various stratified layers of rock do not have dates attached to them. The ordering of fossils within them are best modeled as a consequence of a geological catastrophe.
The ordering is also too inconsistent to fit within the evolutionary model. Stratified layers of rock containing fossils There is no basis for assuming uniform geological processes and ruling out catastrophic events.
There is no basis for even assuming the uniform and consistent application of natural law throughout all time. Uniformitarianism is an ideology without a foundation.
Catastrophism Current methods for dating rocks and organic material using radioisotopes involve many assumptions about initial conditions and the environment that are not known. The dating results are inconsistent. Objects known to be young have been dated using these methods with erroneous results. These dating methods therefore cannot be considered reliable.
And even if they were reliable, age does not in principle imply ancestry. Radioisotope dating methods Many dating methods exist which would similarly suggest that the earth is thousands, not billions, of years old.
While these methods also have their own set of unverifiable assumptions, they invalidate, or falsify, the few dating methods that would seem to suggest an old age for the earth.
Dating methods that suggest a young earth There is no substantial evidence for the existence of ape-men, or any hypothetical sub-human ancestor of man. As far as we know, there is, and has always been a single species that was totally human since the beginning. There also exist and have existed various species of apes, some extinct, and some still living. Perhaps there might also have existed some degenerate or diseased descendants of modern man.
The "Ape-men" Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena and is not sufficient to evaluate the issue of either creation or evolution. Nevertheless, the fact of creation is obvious. In conclusion, it may be stated that the overwhelming evidence points to creation and rules out evolution. Science Faith is "confident belief, trust," "being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
It is better to place our faith in the Creator, rather than the creation. Faith Rebuttals are provided to common objections to the design argument and chance argument. Extra-terrestrial intelligence A resource list of books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, magazines, and research organizations is provided for further reference. Resource list A list of primary source documents cited by the secondary sources is given for footnoted points in essays Primary source references 2. A defense of Creation In the computer industry, we know that any computer system functions according to a design and contains highly coded information.
Because of the complexity of this design and the highly coded information, we attribute the origin of design in such a machine to an intelligent designer and coder. In fact, the more sophisticated the machine, the more planning and forethought we attribute to its development and the more intelligence and ability we attribute to the designer.
Computers themselves can assist as tools in the process of designing other computers, but ultimately the origin of the design can be attributed to careful planning and intent apart from the machine and tools themselves or any process of nature. No one would suppose that something as complex and sophisticated as a computer happened together by chance or by natural processes. This idea would be considered an absurd proposition. So it is with life forms on earth.
Life on earth is far more complex than computer equipment. In fact, the collective know-how of the greatest minds in all of human history have failed to produce a machine of the sophistication and success of even the simplest replicating life forms.
The inherent design in the life forms on earth and the coded information contained therein must be attributed to a designer of vastly superior intelligence and ability than man. It is set forth here as something obvious that design proves a designer and coded information proves a coder. We simply conclude from consistent life-experiences that when we stumble across something that has design, this demonstrates the existence of a designer, and likewise that coded information demonstrates the existence of a coder.
From consistent experience we also know that a creator is not the creation, but that a creator exists outside his creation. The evidence in the world around us, by itself, is reason for us to deduce the existence of a Creator, who exists outside of his creation.
If I want to find out how a particular piece of computer equipment was designed, I can go about it in a couple of different ways. One thing I can do is examine the piece of equipment, taking it apart, measuring it, etc. The other thing I can do is go find the designer and either talk to him or consult the blueprints and other documentation associated with the device. Of the two methods, the source of the most authoritative information is to consult the designer and his documentation.
Written testimony from the Creator includes things like the following paraphrased: There is no other god besides me. There was no one else with me when I did it. Now, anyone can claim to be the creator, and anyone can fabricate information as if it was from the creator. One of the important things we must look for is evidence that a piece of spoken or written testimony really did come from the creator.
As Creator, God has validated his testimony by causing things to happen in his creation which are specifically intended for us to take note of his existence and his specific revelation to us. We call these phenomena "miraculous" because they are supernatural phenomena.
Examples of God's supernatural intervention are such as: Multiple witnesses have seen these things happen and heard the Creator speak and have written them down as reliable testimony which we can now refer back to. Such events are not considered natural phenomena, and so by definition fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Keep in mind that in accumulating information, we rely largely on indirect information about what people have observed. Even a scientist does this, and an evolutionist does too.
An evolutionist cites most of his information from written or spoken testimony by people who have observed things, and a minority of information from personal experience.
Just like a creationist. An adequate defense of the authenticity and reliability of the ancient historical records that make up what we now call the bible is beyond the scope of this document, so will have to be assumed as a premise. Although the bible is not required to defend the fact of creation and the existence of the Creator, it is required to defend the historical time frame and circumstances in which creation happened and the identity and personality of the Creator.
We conclude that life on earth came about by a special creative act of God. A whole set of life forms, including man, was created at once. This happened on the order of several thousand years ago, and the process took less than a week. We don't fully understand all the "hows" and the "whys" in every detail, but we pursue further knowledge given those details that we are sure of, accepting the authority of what the Creator has to say over the more limited information we obtain by examining His creation.
The Creator is more knowledgeable, and none of us was there to observe life come about on earth. Hopefully this not only provides a defense for "creation," but also explains why "creationists" are always appealing to the Creator God and testimony that comes from Him the Bible.
Because if you really want to know about how something was designed, it's best to first consult the person who designed it. But this is only an observation, not the cause for it to come up heads or tails.
Say I flip a coin and it comes up heads. What was the cause for it to come up heads? We understand the laws of motion, statics and dynamics, friction, etc. If we could analyze each aspect of the position of the coin in time and space, and take into account all the forces that act upon the coin, we would conclude that the coin is doing just what it is supposed to do under the circumstances.
In fact, if I could set up all the same conditions and flip the coin again in exactly the same way, it would by necessity come up heads each time. It would take a miracle for it not to. The fact of the matter is that I am too clumsy and lack the skill and ability to cause a coin that I flip into the air to come down in any particular way.
So we conclude that there isn't enough intelligence and skill behind my coin flips and consequently we expect a random distribution of results. We conclude that it is my lack of skill and ability that will result in disorder and chaos. Probabilities and statistics are mathematical observations of things. For things that seem to occur in a random way, we attempt to predict an outcome using a mathematical model. If the results don't fit the model, then we must conclude that either we have done our math wrong or the thing just isn't behaving in a random way.
In the case of a sequence of coin flips, you expect chaos and disorder in the long-term, producing a random sequence of heads and tails. Suppose I announce that I am going to repeatedly flip a coin and hope to come up with a sequence of all heads. So I proceed to flip the coin, and it comes up heads.
You say "Hmmm, OK. You say "Wait a minute, what's going on here? You say "Stop, this isn't fair. You're doing something to make that coin come up heads each time. I say, "Look, millions of people have flipped coins throughout history.
This was bound to happen sooner or later. You say, "Come on, what are you doing?
Australian women Australian Girls Australian Ladies
I'm just flipping this coin and it keeps coming up heads by chance. You say, "You're a liar. What do you take me for, some sort of fool?
Why did the observer in the above example not wait that long? Because after 10 tries he concluded that he could call the coin-thrower a liar based on the non-random results. Statistically, he would have only 1 chance in a thousand of being wrong! Given the immensely lower probability of things happening in the evolutionary scheme of things, one should conclude to be consistent that evolution didn't happen. That person would have a 1 in In any case, this person is not to be taken for some sort of fool.
A person defending evolution often excludes an intelligent creator as an explanation for the cause of things happening, and in the void substitutes "chance. First of all, what the evolutionist's "chance" creates figuratively speakingthe evolutionist's "chance" ought to destroy, in the long run. Chance is equated with randomness, and randomness is equated with disorder and chaos. Life on earth is an example of incredible order and complexity.
What, then, was the cause for this order and complexity? The classic evolutionary concept of spontaneous biogenesis involves living matter coming about from non-living material by chance. For example, let us suppose that in a hypothetical primordial atmosphere, ammonia, water, methane and energy can combine to form amino acids. However, to proceed beyond this point to living proteins by chance would involve a major miracle of such great proportion that one would think it easier to just accept the obvious that it didn't happen "by chance".
Amino acids are molecules that have a three-dimensional geometry. Any particular molecule can exist in either of two mirror-image structures that we call left-handed and right-handed in layman's terms. Living matter consists only of left-handed amino acids. Right-handed amino acids are not useful to living organisms, and are in fact often lethal.
The random formation of amino acids produces an equal proportion of left-handed and right-handed molecules. This has been confirmed by laboratory experiment and is essentially what Miller produced in his famous test-tube experiment putting methane, ammonia, and water together and zapping them with electrical discharges.
Life as we know it cannot consist of a mixture of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. So it would take an enormous sequence of coin-flips in which the coin came up heads each time to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Yet there is more. Proteins consist of amino acids linked together with only peptide bonds.
Amino acids can also combine with non-peptide bonds just as easily. So, it would take another enormous sequence of coin flips to come up with a protein that could constitute living matter. Any particular protein contains amino acids that are linked together in a particular sequence geometrically. At a minimum, that sequence must be correct for any given protein at all the active sites which comprise about half of the amino acids in the protein.
Proteins contain anywhere from 50 to as many as amino acids, depending on the particular protein. There are about 20 common amino acids that comprise the basic building blocks of life.
Any particular protein must have all the correct left-handed amino acids joined with only peptide bonds with the correct amino acids at all the active sites. Let us consider the sequence of chemical reactions necessary for us or rather, "nobody" to produce one particular protein contained in living matter: One amino acid can combine with another amino acid in a condensation reaction to produce a peptide two amino acids linked with a peptide bond and water.
One peptide can combine with another peptide in a condensation reaction to produce a polypeptide and water. And so goes the sequence of chemical reactions that supposedly can produce one protein essential to living organisms that can reproduce. Let's stop again, and consider what has happened thus far. Each condensation reaction described above is reversible.
That is, it can occur in either the forward or the reverse direction. That means that "randomness" would be consistent with things breaking down as they are being put together.
But to top it off, the popular scenario involves things happening in a primordial sea, implying an excess of water. Since a condensation reaction produces water, and there is already excess water in the presence of the chemical reaction, there is much more opportunity for any complex molecule to break down into the more simple ones.
Thus, a polypeptide should combine with excess water to produce monopeptides, and a monopeptide should combine with excess water to produce amino acids. The initial reagents of the supposed equations that are given as a pathway to life are favored, in the presence of excess water. Amino acids can react and form bonds with other chemical compounds, and not just other amino acids.
Assuming that there is more in our "primordial sea" than just amino acids and water, we will encounter scenarios where these other reactions will take place instead of the ones we want to produce a protein. An oxygen-rich atmosphere, such as we have today, is one example of what would ruin the chemical reactions proposed for the origin of life. It is for this reason that we have the Oparin Hypothesis, which states that the atmosphere must have originally been reducing, rather than oxidizing, containing very little free oxygen and an abundance of hydrogen and gases like methane and ammonia.
Circular reasoning is employed to defend the Oparin Hypothesis. The above only considers the formation of a single protein, not to mention that there are many different kinds of proteins necessary to form the simplest single-cell organisms. And we haven't even begun to address the formation of the various nucleic acids and other chemical constituents of life, which must be simultaneously present by "chance".
Finally, all these must occur in in a specific arrangement to form a complex structure that would make for a reproducing organism by "chance". Consider that this is moot, since the same amount of information must be coded into the nucleic acid to synthesize a protein as is represented by design and structure of the protein itself. This makes such scenarios to be at least as unlikely.
The spontaneous organization of nucleic acids into DNA or RNA suffers in concept from the same problems that the spontaneous organization of amino acids suffers from. All nucleic acids must be right-handed, form particular bonds, in a particular arrangement, in chemical reactions that proceed in a particular direction and aren't spoiled by other chemical reactions.
Some evolutionists are proposing that life originated not in a primordial sea but on some clay template. Again, this is moot, since the clay template must by necessity be as complex as what is formed on the template. Furthermore, the evolution of informational "defects" in the crystalline structures of clays has never been observed or demonstrated in theory.
Shifting the medium for evolution from biological molecules to polyaluminum silicates solves nothing.
The classic examples given for the formation of some of the basic building blocks of life by chance therefore lacks substance on a theoretical basis both according to the principles of chemistry, the principles of probability and statistics, and the principles of basic information theory. Without proper theoretical or experimental basis, a scientific hypothesis cannot be supported.
The formation of living matter from non-living matter by chance remains within the realm of speculation without foundation. Random genetic mutations Most of us understand that the information that represents the data and instructions for a computer program has a particular code, designed specifically by the software engineer. What would we expect to happen if, once the program was loaded and running, we zapped the binary image from which it was executing with a random change of some data bit?
In most cases, the program would probably crash or seriously fail to accomplish anything useful. In some cases, the program might continue on oblivious to the change. In a very few cases, the program might exhibit some interesting aberrant behavior. But in no cases would we expect to get a more complex program or a program of a totally different kind.
Mingle2 Free Online Dating Site · Personals · Dating App for Singles
So it is with random genetic mutations. Life forms are more complex than any computer program that we have ever designed. Random genetic mutations are bad. When they have an observable effect i. Sometimes, interesting aberrations are the result. But never has anyone demonstrated that a mutation has benefitted an organism in such as way as to create an innovative function or a more complex or different kind of life form. Things that are caused by processes that we observe to be "random" we associate with increasing disorder, not more complex design.
Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key factor by which simple life forms evolve into more complex ones. Regarding random genetic mutations being a plausible factor for evolution to occur, we may conclude the following: In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities and statistics. Randomness is associated with disorder, and disorder is not associated with selection. In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has demonstrated that random genetic mutations have created innovative functionality.
They have never been observed to create more complex or functionally different kinds of life forms. When considering the idea of "beneficial mutations," keep in mind that mere reproductive success in the presence of a particular environment is not sufficient to account for innovative functionality and increased complexity.
One can imagine a scenario where a runaway computer program, as a consequence of its malfunction, begins to consume system resources beyond what it was designed to, even getting in the way of the proper execution of other programs that are also running under the same operating system. That program may have been more than successful in its own right, but it experienced a deterioration of function that was not advantageous in the grand scheme of things. Cancer within living organisms is a good example of this in biological systems.
Sickle-cell anemia is an example of a mutation which gives one a reproductive advantage over normal people in scenarios where malaria is rampant, because people with sickle-cell anemia aren't as susceptible to malaria.
Online Dating, Singles, Love RSVP Australia's most trusted dating site
But sickle-cell anemia itself is a lethal disease and represents a deterioration of function when compared with a normal person who has no disease. If malaria became so rampant in the world that only people with sickle-cell anemia survived, then the final population would be worse off functionally than the non-mutant population that lived before the plague hit.
This is not "evolution.
In the long run, living things should be expected to deteriorate as a whole, implying the reverse of evolution. If anything, the complex should evolve into the simple. Natural Selection The concept of natural selection involves a tautology and is not a cause that would be expected to result in different or more complex designs.
A tautology is a statement that includes all possibilities and is therefore useless. A tautology cannot be used in defense of a position since it is a restatement of the obvious and contributes no useful information. Here is the "survival of the fittest" tautology: Why, the fittest do, of course! And what do the fittest do? Why, they survive, of course! And who are the survivors? And what do they do? Every instance of an animal living or dying can be explained by the "survival of the fittest" clause, regardless of whether evolution or creation actually took place.
Consider how natural selection applies even in the computer industry, where we know the origin of things. The good computers sell and people buy the good computers. The lousy computers don't sell, and people don't buy the lousy computers. The proliferation of the best computers and the extinction of the worst is observed. And lo and behold, the computers have actually gotten better and more sophisticated. But this is not an explanation for the origin of the the computers and their inherent functionality, but only their survival in the marketplace.
In each case, every aspect of the sophistication and complexity of a computer can be attributed to intelligent design by actual designers. The neo-darwinian evolutionist should be challenged to explain by what process of nature the innovative functionality of life forms originates. Predators eating prey is not a vehicle for the origin of any innovative functionality, but only its possible destruction if one trait should be driven to extinction. And random genetic mutations should be expected to corrupt the existing coded genetic information.
Furthermore, the animals, their predators, cosmic radiation, harmful chemicals, and genetic transcriptional errors have not been shown to be working in some sort of grand coalition with each other towards a common engineering effort. This last point is worth repeating, for evolutionists tend to provide an evasive justification based upon random genetic mutations and natural selection. When it is pointed out that random genetic mutations are but meaningless noise, the evolutionist counters that natural selection filters it into something useful.
When it is pointed out that natural selection doesn't provide any new genetic codes, the evolutionist counters that new information arrives through genetic mutations. But genetic errors, cosmic radiation, and other natural environmental influences are random, and predators are self-serving, merely purposing to kill and eat those less fit to survive, leaving alone those who are more fit to survive.
And the mere fact that these survivors are successful in the fight for survival doesn't compel them to be endowed with new functions and codes that weren't there before.
In fact, we should expect just the opposite in the presence of cosmic noise. Success does not imply complexity. Evolutionists should be challenged to explain why higher life forms, such as humans, are compelled to exist just because certain lower life forms, such as bacteria, are successful in the fight for survival. We should instead expect variations in animals that are limited to already-existing genetic information.
In the long run, the opposite of evolution should be expected to occur as the total pool of highly coded genetic information is gradually corrupted. Complete extinction of all life forms is the ultimate end, as the pool of genetic information finally deteriorates into random data that is no longer useful to fulfill any purpose whatsoever. Genetics and Micro-evolution Genetics disproves evolution. Given that neither random genetic mutations, nor natural selection, nor both put together can be considered a vehicle for one kind of animal to change into a functionally different or more complex kind of animal, then variations in interbreeding animals must be restricted to what is already in the gene pool.
One classic example given for evolution is the peppered moth. The light moths blended in well with the mottled gray lichen on the trees. With the industrial age, pollution killed the lichen on the trees, making them dark. Birds selected the light moths for their meal and overlooked the dark moths. What did the peppered moth evolve into? Each species of animals has a gene pool. A gene pool is simply all the different genes that all the members of a species collectively has.
Already- existing genetic information allows for variations to occur among members of that species as individuals within that species interbreed. In the case of the peppered moth, the genetic information already existed in the gene pool, and one genetic trait became more common in the population as a result of the changing environment and the fact that birds use their eyes to spot their food.
Variations such as this demonstrate the concept of what is often referred to as "micro-evolution. Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in theory according to the rules of genetics and in practice by observation. It is important not to quickly jump to the conclusion that any particular beneficial trait was due to a mutation. Already-existing genetic information can find latent expression in the presence of new environments.
Also, there are genes that can turn on and off upon being subjected to a particular environment. Evolutionists cite all sorts of alleged examples of beneficial mutations. The burden of proof is on them, however, to show that a particular beneficial trait was a mutation to begin with.
It should also be noted that sometimes animals within one species form distinct groups which no longer interbreed. Since the word "species," by definition, is a group of animals which interbreed, you might say that new "species" of animals have been formed. Does this demonstrate evolution? No it does not. In fact, this also works to disprove evolution.
Evolution requires that the gene pool be expanded to allow for more variations to occur. Instead, what has happened here is that the gene pool for each of the splinter groups has gotten smaller. Each new group has a smaller set of genetic traits in its collective pool of genes, and so will now exhibit less variation over future generations.
Since less variation means less of an ability for the new species to collectively adapt to its environment, then we should expect a greater likelihood of extinction not evolution to occur if this process of speciation is taken to its limit. The important thing to remember in all of this is that the genetic information was already there from the beginning. And further advances in selective breeding and genetic engineering will only further disprove evolution by demonstrating that such selective changes in life forms requires planning and intent.
Similarity does not imply ancestry. Taxonomy involves classifying animals according to their physical or genetic characteristics.
There are countless species, and among them there are many similarities, physically and genetically. One who is an evolutionist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be common ancestries between various kinds of animals. One who is a creationist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that there must be a common designer and design principles for all the various kinds of animals.
In both cases, the conclusion is based on prior acceptance of either the principle of evolution or creation. Correlation does not imply a cause-effect relationship. If two life forms "A" and "B" are similar, this does not imply that "B" evolved from "A," any more than it implies that "A" evolved from "B.
And it would be circular reasoning to argue that the charts support evolution. The important point to keep in mind is that all the animals exist in the present. Fossils also exist in the present. We weren't there to observe either evolution or creation happen. Background[ edit ] For some years, there had been an intense rivalry between Australia and South Africa in One-Day Internationals, dating from the semi-final of the Cricket World Cupwhere South Africa could only tie against Australia in a match they needed to win to progress to the final.
Some followers of cricket considered that to be the greatest game of all time. They also lost the three Test series 2—0. It was also of constant irritation to the South Africans that the Australians were referring to them as "chokers". This match was the final match of a five-match series in South Africa. South Africa won the first two matches comfortably, but Australia fought back to win the next two, making this the deciding match.
Australia had to play the series without their best one-day bowler, Glenn McGrathwhose wife was suffering from cancer. The South African team also missed their best one-day bowler, Shaun Pollockin the final match due to a back strain.
The match[ edit ] Australian captain Ricky Ponting chose to bat after winning the toss. Adam Gilchrist and Simon Katich got the side off to a good start, both scoring fifties.
A difficult catch by Andrew Hall diving to his left removed Gilchrist in the 16th over while the partnership was on Ponting then scored his fastest century with off 73 balls, and went on to his highest score at the Wanderers ground with from balls, including 9 sixes and 13 fours.
Ponting and Katich put on runs for the second wicket, before Katich was caught at third man by Roger Telemachus off Makhaya Ntini.
Michael Hussey was promoted up the order and made Ponting was dismissed after his drive shot was caught by Boeta Dippenaar in the 47th over. By the end of the innings, South Africa were under pressure with Telemachus beginning the 48th over with four consecutive no-balls.
Australia made 53 runs off its last three overs;  Andrew Symonds and Brett Lee helping the side past the world record with 27 and 9 runs respectively and Australia became the first side to ever score runs in a One Day International. News sites reported how Australia had just smashed the world record.