Other Blogs And Books

Here is a quick look at my other blogs before you start this one.

My main blog, where the most recent postings on all topics are to be found, is http://www.markmeeksideas.blogspot.com/

If you liked this blog on creation, you will also like my religion blog http://www.markmeekreligion.blogspot.com/

http://www.markmeekearth.blogspot.com/ is my geology and global natural history blog for topics other than glaciers. www.markmeekworld.blogspot.com is my natural history blog concerning glaciers.

http://www.markmeekniagara.blogspot.com/ is about new discoveries concerning natural history in the general area of Niagara Falls.

http://www.markmeeklife.blogspot.com/ is my observations concerning meteorology and biology.

http://www.markmeekphysics.blogspot.com/ is my blog about physics and astronomy.

http://www.markmeekcosmology.blogspot.com/ is my version of string theory that solves many unsolved mysteries about the underlying structure and beginning of the universe.

http://www.markmeekpatterns.blogspot.com/ details my work with the fundamental patterns and complexity that underlies everything in existence.

http://www.markmeekprogress.blogspot.com/ is my blog about progress in technology and ideas.

http://www.markmeekeconomics.blogspot.com/ is about economics, history and, other human issues.

http://www.mark-meek.blogspot.com/ is my autobiography

http://www.markmeektravel.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of North America. http://www.markmeekphotos.blogspot.com/ is my travel photos of Europe.

My books can be seen at http://www.bn.com/ http://www.amazon.com/ or, http://www.iuniverse.com/ just do an author search for "Mark Meek".

The Case For The Bible

The Bible has always claimed that the universe had a definite beginning while for centuries, astronomers believed that the universe had always existed. In recent decades, the Big Bang Theory has been accepted by virtually all astronomers. This theory only says what the Bible has said all along, that the universe had a definite beginning.

The creation story in the Book of Genesis was written down about 1500 BC. It names the order of God's creation: that the universe was created (the Big Bang), light appeared (as matter condensed into stars) the earth was made (as matter from an exploded star condensed into our solar system). Life began in the seas, plants were the first life, animals later appeared on land (after plants had generated enough oxygen) and that humans are the youngest form of life on earth. In recent decades, science has confirmed that this is the exact process that took place.

This is a fact that could not possibly have been known in 1500 BC without divine inspiration. God gave a vision of the creation to Moses (or whoever wrote the book). The only creation step that is out of place is the creation of heavenly bodies, which came after the creation of the earth in Genesis. This can be explained by the fact that the early earth was a very cloudy, due to heat, and dusty, due to seismic activity so that the celestial bodies did not become visible from earth until there was a clear sky. The author of Genesis wrote what he saw in the vision.

If there is no god and humans are merely the result of an evolutionary process, then why did we develop emotions? Human emotions are completely contradictory to supposed evolutionary logic. If you are merely a combination of atoms and any situation is merely a different arrangement of atoms, then why do you feel love or hate, happiness or sadness over different situations? A car is a fine example of mechanical principles, an aircraft is an excellent example of aerodynamic principles but a human being is an exceedingly poor example of supposed evolutionary principles.

Remember that the Theory of Evolution is not some noble principle, it is the brutal law of the jungle. The survival of the fittest is all that counts. If someone wishes to kill you for your posessions, he has done nothing wrong according to this bizarre theory. It would also mean that a human being is of no more absolute value than their weight in topsoil. Also, evolution is every bit as much a religion as Christianity is.

The Old Testament of the Bible foretold in great detail the birth, life and, death of Jesus hundreds of years before it happened. The prophecies were fulfilled exactly. We can be sure of this or Jesus would be a name we had never heard of today. How could the Bible acheive this if it was not the divine Word of God?

Before you even think of the Bible as some kind of a hoax, remember that even in biblical days, it was intensely hated for exposing sin just as it is today. The prophets were harshly critical of the proud Israelites. Yet, they cherished and preserved their writings above all else. Jesus was hated and feared by both the Jewish and Roman authorities and you can be sure that if there was a shred of real evidence to invalidate him and his claims that it would have surfaced.

What about the prophecies made by Jesus that have already come true? He foretold that the Jews would be forced from their homeland and their temple destroyed. This must have seemed as a ludicrous thought at the time until the Jews rebelled against Roman control in 70 AD and in vengeance, the Romans fulfilled Jesus' prophecy to the letter.

The Old Testament, particularly the Book of Jeremiah, foretold the destruction of wicked, idolatrous Babylon 150 years in advance. It is easy for modern skeptics to say that maybe the prophecies were written after the fact. But then why were the ancient Israelite so awed by such writings that they treated them as more valuable than gold?

The Bible is the most hated, as well as the most loved, book ever. But this is also an indication of it's truth. When we hate something, at least we are acknowledging it's reality. After all, it does not make sense to hate something that is not real. People hate the Bible not because it is not true but because they do not want it to be true.

There is absolutely no room in the Bible for any half measures. Either it is the divine Word of God or it is a book of lies. Either Jesus was the Son of God, as he claimed or else he was a liar or a flake.

Remember that when you die, everything that you have, everything that you are, will all mean absolutely nothing. All of your status, money, looks, etc. will amount to zero. God is not impressed with any of it. Only your salvation will count.

Life Could Not Exist Had Not God Created It

There is a vigorous debate going on concerning Evolution vs. Intelligent Design. In my opinion, there is no possible way that life could exist on earth had God not created it.

First of all, I see less conflict between the two ideas than some people do. Even if it could be conclusively shown that some forms of life evolved from others, that in no way proves that God did not start the entire process. God has all the time in eternity and just because he did not create life instantly does not mean that he did not create it at all. If you bake a cake, the process is not instantaneous, the baking cake goes through certain stages, but that does not prove that you did not bake the cake if you did not create it in an instant.

We could argue all day about what life forms evolved into what other life forms and come up with inconclusive results. To get to some proof of whether or not God created life, we must go back to the very beginnings of life. Anyone who wishes to demonstrate that God did not create life but that it "evolved" must show how life got started in the first place.

The greatest weakness of the Theory of Evolution is that it does not satisfactorally explain how life got started in the first place. We can talk endlessly about one species evolving into another through beneficial mutations but cannot explain how life arose from inanimate matter through natural processes. Evolution tries to explain the survival of the fittest but does not explain the arrival of the fittest.

Lets go back a few billion (thousand million) years to a barren earth with no life at all and nothing that comes from life. There is water and the atmosphere but no oil, limestone, coal or, humus in the soil. So now, if there is no God that created life, how then did life get started?

We tend to think of nature as life itself, meadows, trees and, grass. But the fact is that life is actually against the properties of inanimate, non-living nature. Life in any form requires extreme intricacy. The simplest biological cell is far, far more intricate than a watch or even the latest computer processor chip.

The difference between intricacy and complexity is size. The earth, with it's atmospheric, geological and, hydrological dynamics is complex. But the earth is 8,000 miles in diameter (13,000 km). The non-living forces of nature do not create the great intricacy that would be required for a biological cell to come into existence just by chance, plain and simple. The simplest biological cell that must have formed to get life started would have at the very least, five billion atoms and a very high degree of internal order of those atoms would be required.

A cell intricate enough to reproduce itself by mitosis (division) simply could not form by any natural forces unless it was created by God. If anyone should claim that our primal original cell could have got it's start by the molecular route, the building up of complex molecules until it got complex enough to get life started would run into insurmountable roadblocks.

First of all, complex molecules simply do not form independently of life. Rubber and petroleum molecules are complex but they are synthesized by living things and remember that we have gone back to the early planet earth before there was any life. Atoms that are now abundant in living things like carbon, hydrogen and, oxygen do not form very complex molecules without being synthesized by living things.

An atom of carbon might join four of hydrogen to form methane. Two hydrogens easily combine with an oxygen to form water. Or two oxygen atoms might link up with a carbon atom to form carbon dioxide. If there is a shortage of oxygen atoms, it might join with only one oxygen atom to form carbon monoxide. Carbon under pressure in the ground may join with other carbon atoms to form graphite.

That is about it. If you put all living things aside and look at the world around you, it will be obvious that the molecular route to life formation did not happen. By nature, the atoms that are found in life simply do not form complex structures necessary to approach the intricacy of a living cell by themselves. They form various simple molecules but do not, without synthesis by living things, form more complex structures.

All life as we know it is based on carbon because of it's ability to form very complex molecular structures. But even if a structure of carbon atoms like graphite forms, it is still a simple formula repeated over and over. The incredibly intricacy that would be required to get even the simplest biological cell started is simply not there.

If very complex carbon molecules could form without synthesis by living things, we would be finding globs of plastic around. Have you noticed that plastic does not occur in nature but must be man-made? That is because even though life as we know it is based on carbon, it simply does not naturally form complex molecules on it's own by the inanimate forces of nature.

Our original living cell did not form by complex molecular structures building up until it got complex enough to form life. Suppose that somehow very complex molecules did form by natural processes. Could a single biological cell have formed by random chance to get life started on earth? The answer is absolutely not.

If very complex carbon molecular structures formed by the forces of nature, it could not possibly form a living cell. Large and complex molecules in close proximity to each other will lock together to form interlocking structures. That is what plastics and rubbers are. We would not get life or a living cell, we would get something like nylon or polyethylene. And if these materials formed naturally, without living things, there would not be enough organic materially available for living things to exist.

The only way for single biological cells to reproduce is by mitosis, or division. The cell, when fully grown, splits itself in half to form a copy of itself. To do this, a cell must have a very high degree of instability. If the cell was formed by complex molecular structures, the structures would lock together like they do in plastics forming a very stable structure and mitosis would be impossible.

If a cell were anywhere near stable enough to hold together billions of atoms with a high degree of internal order so that the cell could live, it would be far too stable to reproduce by dividing itself in two. And there is simply no other way for a simple cell to reproduce. It is kind of like seeing a want ad looking for someone 19 years old or younger with 25 years of work experience. The pool of potential candidates would be zero. Anyone 19 or younger could not have 25 years of work experience and anyone with 25 years of work experience could not be 19 years old or younger.

So what we must have for a simple, single biological cell to form is at the very least five billion atoms of the right kind and with a very high degree of internal order ( carbon atoms must be in the right places, oxygens in the right places, etc.). All of these atoms must hold together very carefully so that the cell can live. Yet our primal cell must have a very high degree of instability if it is to divide itself in order to reproduce so there cannot be large molecular structures that lock together and create too much internal stability.

To sum it up, lots and lots of simple molecules would have to come together by random chance, be lined up just right by random chance, hold together but remain unstable enough to divide for reproduction.

Even if this could happen, we run into another roadblock called osmosis. We know that life began in water and it would be even more difficult for the formation of the first cell to happen on land than in water. If other atoms and molecules are dissolved in water, the water tends to pull them apart. If you put a spoonful of sugar or salt in a glass of water, it is not long before it dissolves and distributes itself roughly evenly throughout the glass of water. The same force tends to even out the salinity of the oceans. What this means to us is that the simple molecules that must make up our primal biological cell, even if they somehow came in close proximity to each other by random chance against trillions to one odds, would be pulled apart by osmosis long before they were able to form any kind of biological cell.

The only alternative to this to form of life is the complex molecule route. But this is impossible first of all because complex molecules like this simply do not form naturally, without being synthesized by living things. Secondly, even if they did, large molecular structures in close proximity would lock together and form plastics, not living things. Whichever route we try to take to the formation of our primal cell without God, we come to an impassible roadblock.

Even if we could somehow conceive of a functioning biological cell forming by random meetings of atoms, the struggle to explain how we could have come to exist without God would be just beginning.

First of all, why would a single cell gain any benefit from joining with other cells. Eventually, it may be advantageous to have such a division of labor but initially when a single cell went to being a double cell, it would certainly reduce the mobility of the pair while doubling the amount of food it would need to survive. If you were stranded on a desert island and trying to survive, would your chances of survival be increased if someone else were handcuffed to you?

Life almost certainly had to develop in the sea during it's fragile early days for protection from ultraviolet radiation. But how can anyone explain why living things moved from the sea to the land unless God wanted it to do so? A marine creature would not have the lungs, legs, senses or, bodily structure to move onto land. Some may say that the creatures developed these attributes gradually, but that would require millions of years. Why would a marine creature such as a fish attempt to move onto land and how would it move around enough to find food once it did?

The entire method of reproduction is completely different for land and sea creatures. Sea creatures tend to reproduce externally by laying eggs while land creatures usually reproduce internally. An adventurous sea creature who moved onto land and tried to reproduce by laying eggs on the dry land would get nowhere.

I maintain that the moving of life from sea to land, unless it had the backing of God, would be completely impractical and nonsensical from an evolutionary point of view. It would be somewhat like the astronauts going to the moon, getting out of their spacesuits and expecting to survive and reproduce so as to populate the moon with people.

Another thing that happened but made no evolutionary sense is warm-bloodedness. A warm blooded creature would require more food, a wider variety of food and, more vitamins than a cold-blooded creature. Thus, warm-bloodedness would decrease, rather than increase, the chances of survival of a species. I believe that warm-bloodedness made no evolutionary sense and happened because it was the will of God. Remember that the whole point in evolution is to survive long enough to reproduce.

Yet another question for evolutionists is how invertebrates (without a backbone) changed into vertebrates during the evolutionary process. What would cause creatures to develop a backbone when none had been there before? Could it have been because God was working gradually on the eventual design of higher-order living things? Why have human beings developed such large brains. I find that this runs against the supposed logic of the evolutionary process. Our brains are far, far larger than we need to survive and reproduce. Human brains require a large amount of energy that is then unavailable to the rest of the body. I say that it turned out this way because it is the way God wanted it.

What about our eyes? If we really stretch reality, we could say that other organs "evolved" over time. But we cannot say this about our eyes. The reason being is that the eye has to be there a hundred percent or else it is useless. Any gradual evolution of the eye is nonsensical. I read of a biologist claiming that eyes could have started by the random development of a patch of light-sensitive skin. But a patch of light-sensitive skin on the body would only reveal that a bright sun was shining and would be much more valuable as a source of energy via photosynthesis. The patch of light-sensitive skin as a conveyer of any useful information by visible light would be far, far away and if photosynthesis in animals did not become an established process, there would be no evolutionary logic in handing down the patch of light-sensitive skin to future generations.

I do not see the idea of evolution as denying the existence of God but we must face the fact that living things simply could not have arisen from inanimate matter by natural processes alone. Evolutionists seem to show one case of evolution as proof that life "evolved" and thus, there is no God. This is not the case at all. In one article, the writer demonstrated how imperfect the human design was as evidence that there was no God, as if God would surely made human beings perfect had he created them. I have never seen in the Bible anything about human beings having a physically perfect design.

Finally, life in any form is more than a collection of atoms and molecules, no matter how complex. Life requires a certain "spark" that cannot be explained by analyzing the inanimate forces of nature. Just having the required biological structure does not make something alive. If you dissected organs from dead animals and put these organs together would they suddenly come to life? Of course not. If this were so, people and animals would be dying and then suddenly coming back to life all the time. This "spark" can only be from God.

Plainly and simply, God created us. There is no other way to explain why we exist. The reason that the idea of evolution is so popular is that it makes no moral demands on anyone. If life just evolved and there is no God, then anyone can pretty much do whatever they want, since they would have no God to answer to.

Reverse Evolution

There are many reasons to believe that the theory of life on earth arising from inanimate matter and "evolving" into higher forms of life is in error. I believe that God must have created life on earth.

Another severe problem with the Theory of Evolution, as many accept it today, concerns the so-called higher forms of life, such as ourselves. The whole basis of the theory is that when a creature or organism of some type exists, just by random chance some will be born with characteristics that make them better suited to survival in their environment such as better eyesight, more intelligence, longer legs, etc. These fortunate few will thus be statistically more likely to survive to reproductive age and pass on their genes to the next generation.

This process continues over tens of thousands of generations until a new creature altogether has evolved that is much better suited to survival in the environment than the original creature, which may die off altogether. If this is the way life really has worked, then we should see evidence of it all around us. There is certainly examples of species undergoing adaptations to become more fit for a given environment. When the Industrial Revolution came along, species of white moths that lived in British cities developed darker wings over time to better blend in with the soot on buildings and thus hide from predatory birds.

But one of the many problems with this theory is that the higher forms of animal life that we have today are NOT better suited for survival as a species than the lower forms of life. This contradicts the idea that life evolves from lower forms to higher forms because the higher forms are better suited to survival and thus passing on their genes to the next generation. If this were not so, it would make no logical sense for higher forms to "evolve" from lower and indeed, would not be possible because those creatures with sets of genes containing "higher" characteristics would be less likely to pass on those genes than those with "lower" characteristics.

The higher forms of life that we have today such as lions, tigers, wolves and other predators high on the food chain are definitely not better suited to survival as a species than lower forms such as rats, grasshoppers and, ants. The magnificent higher creatures that we go to the zoo to see are in danger of extinction while the extinction of rats or ants is unimaginable. This contradicts evolution, under which theory higher forms of life should be more suited to survival as a species or they would not have undergone the change by natural selection into the higher species.

What we have done is to put our emotions into the development of evolutionary theory. Most people would rather live as a lion than as a rat so we consider the more regal and complex lion as the higher form of life. According to the tenets of the theory, this must mean that lions are, as a species, better suited for survival in their environments than are rats.

But the reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. Let us suppose that lions evolved from an earlier creature that was something like the lower rat. For this to take place, being born with some lion-like characteristics would have to make the creature statistically more likely to survive and pass on it's genes with these characteristics than those born with more rat-like characteristics, which would gradually get weeded out of the species' gene pool at the expense of the lion-like characteristics. This is what is known as natural selection.

The trouble with all of this is that nature prefers simplicity over complexity. This is why the body of a creature decays when it dies. Nature does not build complexity out of simplicity, rather it breaks down the complex into the simple. For the same reason, simpler forms of life are better suited to survival as a species because they need less for survival than complex "higher" forms of life. Dolphins, chimpanzees and, humans cannot possibly be considered as better suited for survival in the long run than ants simply because ants need so much less to survive.

It is not an "arms race" between species for survival. If we put a rabbit and a lion in a cage together, the lion will live and the rabbit will die. But that in no way means that lions are better suited for survival in the environment as a species, as opposed to as an individual, than rabbits.

Higher forms of life that supposedly "evolved" this way because it made them so much better suited for survival are actually at a great disadvantage because they are more complex, high-maintenence and, need so much more to ensure their survival. This is why the most majestic creatures on earth are in danger of extinction and humans are so intelligent that we can bring ourselves in danger of extinction with nuclear bombs and global warming.

The "higher" forms of life on earth are, in fact, far too few in number (except humans) and have to do far more work to feed themselves than the lower orders of life. Higher forms also tend to be dependent on bone for their structure, which is gradually running out over the long term. The forms of life which are fittest for survival on earth as a species are the lower forms that have vast numbers of offspring, can live anywhere, eat just about anything and, need little for survival.

Evolutionists sometimes point out that their theory of natural selection can be seen at work elsewhere, such as in business. Those industries making better products and selling them in the free market will prosper and expand while those making inferior products will go out of business and thus, the entire economy will continuously improve. That has some truth to it. But my concept of reverse evolution is also at work. Asian factory worker need much less to live on and are much more low-maintenence than North American and European factory workers. Therefore, in a free economy, factory jobs will migrate toward Asia. Soccer (football outside North America) is the world's sport primarily because it requires nothing more than a ball (or a bundle of rags) and a level playing area to play.

One concept that evolutionists tend to ignore is that of cataclysm. Life on earth does not move along smoothly in an unchanging environment forever. Cataclysms of various descriptions happen on a regular basis. There are ice ages, giant meteors and comets strike the earth, the continents split apart, there are changes in climate, human beings come along and take over the world.

When any such cataclysm happens, the more complex and high maintenence creatures in an environment are more likely to die off. A severe disruption of the environment will be much more likely to eliminate lions rather than rats or ants. This contradicts everything that evolution based on natural selection is supposed to be about. I believe that God must have created the living creatures that we have today, although it is certainly true that adaptation is at work as I described with the moths.

While it is easy to imagine the extinction of the higher forms of life on earth, including humans, ants have remained virtually unchanged in a hundred million years. Clearly, they must be doing something very correctly. Global warming or the radiation from nuclear would have very little effect on ants because of their simplicity. If the ozone layer was depleted and deadly ultraviolet radiation streamed down on earth from the sun, ants would not even notice. If there was a nuclear holocaust, the ant population would be back to it's former level in a few years.

If you ask why did God create such creatures, the predators high on the food chain could be here to keep a check on the numbers of lower creatures to prevent to many of the atoms composing flesh in the biosphere to be locked up in these creatures. Dinosaurs could have been created to remove bone material from circulation in the biosphere as I described in my posting "The Bone To Flesh Ratio". If dinosaurs had never existed, human beings might have taken their form with unlimited bone material and been fewer in number and fifty feet tall (about 15 m).

Reverse Evolution In Britain

The evolutionary idea of the development of life is that a species will evolve in the direction of being better suited to it's environment because random mutations will occur that will give a member of that species a better chance to survive long enough to pass along it's genes with the beneficial qualities such as better eyesight, faster speed or, more intelligence. Eventually, a new species will eventually emerge that is better suited for survival than the former species because those members with such advantages are more likely to survive long enough to pass along their genes.

The problem is that the more advanced and complex creatures, which should be the best suited for survival in the environment, are NOT better suited for survival. This throws off the primary basis of evolutionary theory.

Britain is the site of one of the favorite (favourite) examples of evolutionary progress. During the days of the Industrial Revolution, it was noticed that as stone buildings in cities became darker due to smoke from factories, white moths became darker in color (colour) over time to better hide from predatory birds. This change occurred because those moths that happened to be born with darker than usual wings were more likely to survive long enough to pass along their genes than those that were not. I consider the example of moths in the Industrial Revolution as an example of adaptation although it does not prove that life evolved without being created by God.

I also notice a prime example of reverse evolution taking place in Britain today. England used to be a hotbed of wolves. But as England's human population increased, wolves went extinct by the year 1500. They hung on in parts of Scotland until about 1750.

Today, Britain has other wildlife issues. About a century ago, gray squirrels from North America were imported to Britain and are now overrunning the countryside, forcing out the native red squirrels. Meanwhile, in London, there are the ever-present pigeons. Despite the ubiquitous signs "Please do not feed the pigeons, they are a health hazard and a nuisance", efforts to control the pigeon population have been just as difficult in London as has the effort to control the gray squirrel population in the countryside.

What about the contradiction that this poses for evolutionary theory? The whole basis of the theory is that species advance by becoming better suited for survival in the environment by random chance. Therefore, the more complex and highly evolved creatures must be better suited for survival or the theory makes no sense. If one species changes into another by random chance and survival, it cannot be that a more highly evolved creature is less suited to survival as a species than a simpler creature. It has to be the other way around if evolutionary theory is correct.

By any biological standard, wolves are a far more complex and advanced creature than are squirrels or pigeons. Indeed, creatures that are primarily prey must have evolved before those that are predators. This means that the food chain of prey and predator is a fairly good approximation of how highly evolved a creature is.

So, if the evolutionary basis of the advancement in species is improvement in suitability and ability to survive in the environment, more complex creatures must be better suited to survival than simpler creatures. So then why was a complex and supposedly highly evolved creature like a wolf unable to survive in England until the year 1500 while the country today is trying all kinds of tactics to control the population of much simpler creatures like squirrels and pigeons?

It should be the other way around if evolutionary theory is correct. Simpler creatures like pigeons and squirrels should have been unable to survive as England's human population increased while the country today should be overrun with wolves, which are more complex and therefore should be better suited to survive.

Evolutionary theory fails to take into account the cataclysms that occur regularly in nature. When this theory was developed in the mid-Nineteenth Century, not as much was known about natural history as we know today. Contrary to traditional evolutionary theory, there is such a thing as being too well-suited to the environment, rendering a species unable to survive when that environment is disrupted in some way.

Plainly and simply, creatures that eat plants are much less likely to be wiped out by cataclysm than the meat-eating predators that feed on them. Even though the predators must be more highly evolved, according to the theory, and should thus be better suited for survival. The best-suited for survival are simple creatures that can live anywhere, eat anything, reproduce quickly and, need little to survive. The creatures that evolutionary theory supposes are better suited for survival are in fact too complex and high-maintainence.

Plants, which are simpler than animals, are far better suited to survival as a species. Traditional evolutionary theory thus cannot be correct, even though the idea of adaptation as illustrated by the example of the moths does have a point. Rather, it makes much more sense to realize that God created the natural environment to function as a whole. He created the higher predators to ensure that the limited number of atoms on earth that are involved in the biosphere continue to circulate.

The Missing Evolutionary Advantage

There is one question about evolutionary theory that gets very little attention. If the whole purpose of living beings is to survive long enough to pass on their genes to future generations, and some creatures, by random chance, just happen to be born with desirable characteristics making this more likely, such as better eyesight or running speed, what about those favorable (favourable) characteristics which could have easily developed but didn't?

If living beings got the way they are today by the long, random process of gradual improvement from creatures less well-suited for survival, there is one very simple adaptation that could have and should have taken place. It would have given tremendous survival advantages to any being that must watch out for predators and natural enemies. If this simple adaptation had occurred, it would have given such an advantage to any being that was blessed with it that it would have drastically changed the balance of nature from what we see today.

According to all that evolution is supposed to be about, it should have been implemented into living things eons ago. Yet, there is not the slightest evidence that it ever was. This missing advantage that I am referring to is an additional eye in the back of the head.

For any creature of any description that must contend with predators or enemies, which is just about every being, having such an additional eye would immeasurably increase it's chances for survival and passing along it's genes to future generations that would also have the advantage. Predators would learn to seek out those unfortunate creatures born without this advanatge to prey on, decreasing their chances to survive and pass along their genes.

All higher creatures of any description today have two parallel eyes. The reason for having two eyes and for having them laterally parallel is obvious, two eyes in this arrangement provide better judgement of distance and motion than one eye alone would. This is supposedly why two lateral eyes became the norm by evolutionary progress. However, the presence of a third eye in the back of the head to warn of approaching danger would provide much more of an increase in the chances of survival to pass on the genes than the second eye would.

According to evolutionary theory, during the endless hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary experimentation to find the fittest for survival life forms, eyes developed and moved all over the bodies by random chance until the present arrangement of two laterally parallel eyes emerged as the best plan. Yet, it is clear that no possible development could offer such survival advantages as an eye in the back of the head. If evolutionary theory is true, we should see at least some creatures today with this great advantage, but we don't.

In the wild, few animals live out their natural life span. Most become lunch for something higher up on the food chain and most of these before they are old enough to pass along their genes. The deciding factor in any encounter between prey and predator is whether the prey becomes aware of the predator in time to escape with it's life. What happens depends on the length of time between when predator sees prey and when prey sees predator. No simple adaptation could possibly help the prey more than an eye in the back of it's head. Yet, we see no evidence of this whatsoever.

I have recently spent some time watching hawks. They slowly cruise around about twenty to thirty meters up without flapping their wings to draw less attention. Hawks seem to like hunting around mid-day so they can hide in the glare of the sun. They scan the ground below and wait for some unsuspecting creature to get a little careless.

How about cheetahs? After spotting some prey, they sneak up as close as possible to the prey. As soon as they see that the prey has noticed them, they put on a burst of speed and run the prey down.

If the prey sought by such predators had an eye in the back of their heads, the entire balance of nature would be dramatically shifted. This simple adaptation to existing body plans should have been universal by now. Not only has that not happened, but there is not the slightest evidence that such a tremendous advantage has ever been implemented, except in insects.

This tells me that, while adaptation over generations has certainly taken place, no "evolution" as is commonly believed, has taken place. This means that life must have been created by God. God created nature as it is today, with predator and prey, to keep a check on the numbers of the lower forms of life in order to keep too much biomass from being locked up in their bodies so that higher forms, such as humans, could not exist.

The Plant Side Of Evolution

Have you ever noticed that the Theory of Evolution, which many proponents believe explains the origin of life on earth, meaning that it was not created by God, tends to focus on the animal kingdom and often to ignore the plant kingdom?

THE DOMINANCE OF PLANTS

It seems to me that the basic form of life on earth are plants and that the entire animal domain, including humans, could be described as occupying a kind of parasitic role in that it depends on and lives off the plant kingdom. The truth is that humans, and all animals, need plants much more than they need us. Animals and insects serve plants by transporting their seeds, pollinating them and, aerating the soil and in return they feed us and generate oxygen for us.

Since the beginning of civilization, humans have purposely or inadvertantly spread plants by transporting their seeds to new locations and, in return, have used plants for food, clothing and, shelter. In most cases, it does not kill the plant when part of it is eaten by a human or animal but if we harm plants, it eventually ends up doing more harm to us. Biologically, the plant kingdom is certainly the most important on earth. it could exist without us but we could not exist without it.

THE ADVANTAGES OF PLANTS
.
If we were as efficient as plants, we would not need to work, move or, even to think. We could get all the energy and nutrients we need from simply lying in the sun and breathing. Suppose you visited a country where the people had no need to work or think because they had the sun running everything. Wouldn't you think that country was much more advanced and it's people more fortunate then yours? Well, that is how plants live.
.
Animals have a far greater struggle to survive than plants and have the disadvantage of requiring much more to live. Plants have found a niche where they have practically no danger of starvation, except for an occasional drought. They have no need to worry about shelter.
Plants have much more capacity to be wounded or injured and recuperate than animals.
.
Which do you suppose is in greater peril, an animal with a broken leg or a tree with a broken branch? If cut down, most plants will grow back as long as the roots are left intact. Suppose there was an animal that could be decapitated and a new body would grow back from it's head? If an animal eats another animal, that animal is gone forever. But in most cases, a plant eaten by an animal will grow back.
.

THE NATURE OF ANIMALS
.
Animals are a much more complex form of life than plants, but it is a redundant complexity. Plants are actually a much more efficient form of life. Animals, and humans, are grossly over-complex in order to get what they need to live. Plants are simply designed to let the necessities of life come to them. Plants have no brains, limbs or, senses because all of their requirements are delivered to them and there is no need for such things.
.
EVOLUTION
.
The truth that is brought to light by an unbiased examination of the plant and animal kingdoms is that the idea of all of this coming about by random evolutionary processes without the creation of God is impossible. While changes in species due to adaptation to the environment do happen, the entire development of life on earth as it is today could not possibly have occurred by evolutionary processes.
.
For life to have developed by godless evolution, the more complex forms of life would have to be significantly better suited to survival and reproduction, which is all that really counts in evolution, than simpler forms of life. Under the tenets of evolution, complex forms of life evolve over time from simpler forms because the higher forms, which happen to be born with advantages, such as better eyesight or intelligence, making them more likely to survive long enough to pass on their genes, making the advantageous trait a part of the genetic makeup.
.
This discussion of plants and animals here is a refutation of that idea. How could the more complex animals evolve from the simpler plants, which we know came first? Animals must spend their lives hunting for food, most require shelter and a significant injury almost always means death. It is known that few animals in the wild live out their natural life spans.
.
Plants, in stark contrast, have to do nothing to survive. They get all they need from the sun, the rain and, the carbon dioxide in the air. If damaged, they usually survive. Most plants can grow back if cut off to the roots. The vast majority of plants live out their natural life span. Which form of life is really better suited to the environment?
.
I have to wonder if humans are really capable of accurately evaluating the supposed development of life on earth. We are too much a part of the process ourselves. We naturally think of ourselves as at the top of the heap. We put our emotions into evolution. We think that being the smartest creatures makes us the beings best-suited to the environment, but it absolutely does not. All that evolution cares about is the ability to survive long enough to reproduce and pass along the genes. Whether any creatures know that 2+2=4 is completely irrelevant unless it furthers that end.
.
THE WHOLE PLANET
.
My position is that life on the planet was designed as a whole. This is in diametric contrast to evolution, in which no species has any concern for any other. All that counts is living long enough to reproduce and spread the genes.
.
The existence of animals actually makes no evolutionary sense at all. Plants live by a simple efficiency while animals are much more complex but still live a much more precarious existence than plants. The complex cannot evolve from the simple unless it makes them much more likely to survive and pass along their genes, which it certainly does not.
.
Rather, animals were created by God for a certain purpose. There is only a limited number of atoms on earth that can participate in the biosphere. I see life on earth as having been created to keep those bio atoms in circulation by means of the food chain involving plants and a wide variety of animals. Life is created so that too many bio atoms will not be locked up in one species, thus putting strict limits on life. That is not the way God wanted it.

Predators, Prey, Plants And, Evolution

According to evolutionary theory, plants were the first form of life that arose on earth. Moving cells than formed which lived on plants and later became animals. Different types of animals evolved from those which fed, not on plants, but on other animals and became the predators of today.

The trouble is that this scenario is full of gaping holes. To be predators such as lions, leopards, cheetahs, tigers, jaguars, wolves, sharks, eagles, hawks and, so on, requires these creatures to have far greater abilities than the plant-eaters that they feed on. Their prey includes deer, zebra, antelope, gazelles, rabbits, mice, etc.

If the predators are to catch the prey that they need to survive, they must have superior intelligence, eyesight and, hearing. They will require special teeth, claws and, digestive systems. Since virtually every meal means a chase and a battle, predators must be as tough as nails without being too big.

The question here is why did predators go through all of the evolutionary trouble to change from plant-eaters (herbivores) to meat-eaters (carnivores) if they are no more suited to survival in the environment? If predators depend on herbivores for food, then they can be no more likely to survive. If the prey disappears, then the predators will starve.

All the prey that I have described above have to due to survive is to walk around and eat the abundant plant life. The predators, in contrast, always have to hunt successfully. And if anything should decimate the ranks of the prey, then the predators are gone too.

The whole idea in evolutionary theory is to survive long enough to pass along the genes. Those creatures that happen to have advantages making them more likely to survive long enough to reproduce will be the ones that pass along their genes. In time, as the theory goes, new species emerge from old ones and are better suited to survival.

So why then, if the more complex and supposedly highly evolved predators cannot be considered as more likely to survive than the plant-eaters from which they supposedly evolved, do carnivorous predators exist at all? This cannot be considered as an evolutionary fluke because the carnivorous predator-herbivore prey relationship is very widespread and exits in ecosystems all across the world. According to evolution, for one species to evolve into another over time, the new species must have gained abilities making it more likely to survive and pass along it's genes.

Suppose there was a system of promotions throughout life. In life at the first level, you are told that you will really have to be vigilant and use your wits to get the food that you need to survive. You will have to chase and fight for your meals and will have no guarantee that you will get them. After a while, you are promoted to the second level of life. All of the struggling is left behind. You are given all that you require and only have to take it, while using reasonable caution for your safety. Finally you are promoted to the third, and highest, level of life. At this level, you do not even have to seek your basic needs. All you have to do is lie out in the sun and everything you could possibly need is brought to you.

These three levels of life getting progressively easier as we go upward is actually a model of life on earth. Except that it is just the opposite that evolutionary theory tells us it should be. In that theory, survival and existence should get more certain and secure as living things evolve. It does not make any evolutionary sense to change into a new species unless that species has more certainty of survival.

But in our tertiary model of life here, the lowest level represents the meat-eating predators who must continuously hunt for their next meal. The second level represents the herbivores, the plant-eating prey upon which the predators feed. The highest and most secure third level of life is actually the plants.

You see, reality is actually the reverse of evolution. Just because one form of life uses another for food does not mean it's survival is more certain and when the prey is gone, the predators will starve. There is one factor that could turn everything around and make the evolution from prey to predator make sense. However, that factor is missing. I am referring to omnivores, creatures that can digest both meat and vegetation. If predators evolved from plant-eating prey, the expansion of their dietary range to include meat as well as plants would increase their chances of surviving long enough to reproduce and the whole thing would make evolutionary sense.

Unfortunately for evolutionary theory, it doesn't. All of the predators that I named above all have one thing in common. They can digest only meat and cannot live on plants. For a species to be omnivorous like humans, to be able to live on both plants and meat, is a relatively simple biological development. One of the most logical ways to ensure that a species will have enough food is to widen it's dietary range, particularly including grass because of it's abundance.

So why, if predators evolved from plant-eaters, did they lose their ability to digest plants while going through all of the evolutionary trouble to gain the abilities they would need to successfully hunt plant-eaters and finally ending up no better off than the herbivores because they are dependent on them for survival?

Come on, this makes no sense whatsoever. A tiger is supposedly one of the most highly evolved of animals, evolving from earlier animals that ate plants. So why did the tiger give up the ability to digest plants so it can spend it's life trying to outwit animals that still eat plants just so it can survive. All the while, it is sorrounded by luxuriant plant growth that it's ancestors could digest but it is now unable to. We cannot say that it is because meat is far superior to a diet of plants because the largest animals on earth are herbivores. And since the flesh of herbivores are made of the atoms in plants, there are no atoms in meat that are not also in plants.

This plant-prey-predator design in the food chain throughout the world does not make sense from an evolutionary point of view but does serve the purpose of keeping the atoms involved in biology, particularly carbon, in circulation. There is a division of labor (labour) in the environment that shows it was planned as a whole and could not have just evolved. Herbivores keep the limited number of bioatoms on earth from becoming concentrated in a few fast-growing species of plants. Predators counterbalance this by acting to preserve plants by limiting the numbers of rapidly-producing herbivores. It all keeps the ecosystem in balance. If not for predators, the numbers of plant-eaters would multiply uncontrollably until they consumed all of the plants and then they would starve.

Suppose we have an island with three forms of life; grass, rabbits and, wolves. The rabbits eat the grass and the wolves eat the rabbits. The wolves cannot be considered as having a greater chance of survival than the rabbits, which is what counts in evolution, because if the rabbits disappear, the wolves will starve.

However, the wolves have a vital role to play in the ecosystem because if they were not there to limit the numbers of the rabbits, they would eat all of the grass and then starve. The wolves preserve the environment by keeping a limit on the number of rabbits but it is vital that the wolves not be able to digest grass themselves. This shows that while it makes not a bit of sense for wolves to evolve from rabbits, God created predators that can digest only flesh to preserve the environment. Many rabbits are killed by the wolves but not as many as would starve without the wolves.

What about wood? It contains a lot of energy, which is why it is burned for fuel. But if animals could eat wood, it would put nature out of business. Another element of God's design is that almost all herbivores only eat those portions of plants that will grow back and so will not kill the plant. It is only a few insects like termites and carpenter ants that can feed on wood.

But this leaves us with another problem. Large plants require strong stems to stand straight up and resist being eaten by herbivores but then what happens when the plant dies. Wood is slow to decay and this threatens in itself to horde bioatoms as dead woody underbrush piles up. If the dead wood is buried before it can decay, the bioatoms could be lost to the biosphere forever.

This is why God created lightning. Life as we know it is dependent on the periodic fires ignited by lightning because this is what burns off the dead underbrush that is slow to decay and returns the atoms to the biosphere. Moderate fires every few years have been a part of nature for millions of years. The reason that there are such devastating wildfires today is that we keep putting out every fire that comes along so that dead underbrush keeps piling up for decades. Bioatoms, such as carbon, escape as smoke and return to the biosphere and the atoms in the ash that remains is washed back into circulation by rain.

I simply do not see how a thinking person can believe that our ecosystem came about by random evolution instead of being created by God. I agree that species have the ability to become better suited to the environment over time, this is why Eskimos are short and stocky to conserve heat. But the idea that there is no God is ridiculous.

Animals And Evolution

Today, let's look at a major problem for those who claim that living things came about by a random evolutionary process instead of having been created by God. How about when two or more aspects of the body are co-dependent? I find that the idea of evolution handles this very poorly.

According to evolutionary theory, beneficial traits such as good eyesight continue from one generation to the next because the trait gives the creature an advantage over those without it, making it more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass along the trait to future generations by way of genetics. Thus beneficial traits accumulate over time, the species improves in it's fitness for survival in it's environment and may eventually become an entirely new species.

Animals, along with humans, possess consciousness. This is the ability to analyze information about the creature's sorroundings in order to make decisions. The purpose of consciousness is to deal with the outside and thus consciousness is of no use without senses such as sight, hearing and, feel to convey information about the sorroundings.

Likewise, senses would be of absolutely no use without a consciousness to process the information that they provide. Senses supposedly developed by random mutations that proved to be beneficial and so increased the creature's chances of surviving long enough to reproduce and pass along the beneficial mutation to future generations. But senses are useless without a consciousness to analyze their information and the consciousness would have to exist first, before the senses, in order for sight, hearing, feel, etc. to be beneficial.

The problem for evolution here is that the consciousness could not have developed before the senses by beneficial mutation because consciousness would be of no use without senses. This is a lot like the old question "Which came first, the chicken or the egg"? Senses offer no genetic advantage without a consciousness already in place to process the data that they supply and a consciousness could not develop due to evolutionary advantage without senses already in place sending information about the sorroundings for it to process.

There is a third factor in this evolutionary quandry, that of muscles and mobility. Even if a creature did have both senses and consciousness, neither would be of any survival advantage without muscles and mobility. This is the ability of the creature to move both itself and other things. For this to develop by way of evolution, it would be necessary to have the senses and consciousness already in place. Notice that plants have none of the three because none makes any sense without the other two.

So here is our conundrum. Senses in a creature would be of no survival advantage unless there was a consciousness already in place to process their information and thus could not develop because of beneficial mutation. Consciousness could not develop by beneficial mutation unless there were both senses and muscles already in place, without senses the consciousness would receive no information to process and without muscles and mobility, it would be unable to act upon any information from senses, thus making itself of no evolutionary advantage. Meanwhile, no muscle and mobility could develop by beneficial mutation unless there was consciousness and senses already in place.

So, how on earth can it be said that humans or animals came about through random beneficial mutations as described in evolutionary theory? It is true that species can adapt over time in certain ways to it's environment. But the idea that life came about without being created by God is ridiculous. Could it be that the real driving force behind belief in evolution is that people living sinful lives do not want to believe that there is a god that they will have to answer to?

The Gender Hypothesis

The common belief is that gender, the division of higher forms of life into male and female, came into being to facilitate reproduction. I have come to just the opposite conclusion, that life was created by God, rather than coming about by random evolution, and that gender was actually created to slow down reproduction to avoid catastrophic overpopulation.

Stop and think for a moment about the supposed evolutionary process that some believe to have created life on earth. What could possibly be the evolutionary benefit to having male and female to reproduce? Mitosis, the reproduction method in single cells by simple division into two cells, would be far more efficient. Even aside from mitosis, it would be far simpler to have all necessary reproductive equipment in each and every body without having to go through the much more complex arrangement that we have today.

The reason that I believe God created this more complex and thus slower and less efficient process is the simple fact that there is a limited number of atoms available on earth to constitute biomass. The simple goal of the supposed evolutionary process is just to reproduce as quickly as possible to facilitate the survival of the species. But this would almost certainly result in a few species that could reproduce rapidly taking over the available atoms for biomass.

But when this more complex, and thus slower, reproductive arrangement was brought into being, it limited the chances for gross overpopulation and so ensured that there would be enough bioatoms to go around. For the same reason, God created the higher predators to control the numbers of species lower on the food chain and keep the limited number of bioatoms in circulation in earth's biosphere.

This limiting of quick reproduction to prevent gross overpopulation and ensure that there is enough bioatoms available to maintain the environment as God wanted it is something that could not possibly come about by evolutionary process alone without the creation of God. The only thing that evolution "cares" about is quick reproduction to pass along the genes. Thus, the environment must have been created by God.

For life on earth as we know it to operate, it is necessary that the vast majority of biomass be in plants, rather than animals. If animals were able to reproduce several times faster than they do, it would upset this balance. Even many plants require pollinization to reproduce, which I believe serves to make it more complex, and thus slower.

Getting male and female together to bring about reproduction is a very inefficient process in comparison with other possible evolutionary alternatives, but that is the idea of it. Gender slows reproduction instead of enhancing it. This inefficiency is part of the plan to avoid gross overpopulation and conserve the supply of bioatoms.

Life could not possibly "evolve" to reproduce more slowly in order to conserve bioatoms. It makes no evolutionary sense to consider the big picture of the limited supply of suitable atoms. This can only be considered as proof that God created the earth and all the life on it and made the higher forms of life into male and female to slow reproduction.

If evolutionary theory revolves around the survival of the fittest and the passing along of genes by reproduction and the continuous improvement of the process by random chance then why do higher forms of life have roughly equal numbers of males and females? If the basic idea of this idea is to guarantee the survival of the species by passing along the genes, then our present system of equal numbers of males and females in the higher species makes not a bit of evolutionary sense. Males and females are far from equal in the reproductive game, the role of the female is far greater.

The rate of reproduction, which is the goal according to evolutionary theory, is limited by the gestation period. The process would be much more efficient if females outnumbered males by at least a dozen to one. If it is a simple matter of chromosomes whether a baby is male or female so that they turn out about equal in number, why did not natural selection make the process much more efficient so that females vastly outnumbered males? This would make far more evolutionary sense.

In contrast to evolutionary theory, the Bible states that it is to be one man with one woman. This means that the two must be approximately equal in number and this is the way it is even though it completely contradicts the tenets of evolutionary theory. Not only that, this also limits the possibility of destructive overpopulation because there is only a limited number of bioatoms in the environment. This is something that the evolutionary process would take no account of.

Fish And Evolution

I do not disagree with much of the idea that creatures that happen to be more suited to survival in their environment are more likely to survive to reproduce and so pass along their genes, causing the species to improve over time. The only real purpose in this evolutionary theory is to survive long enough to pass along the genes by being suited to the environment. One of the best ways for any species, whether predator or prey, is to develop camoflage in order to better hide in their sorroundings.

Creatures that dwell on land make extensive use of camoflage. Tigers and zebras have stripes to better hide in long grass, birds of prey can soar without flapping their wings to hide in the glare of the sun, the chameleon can actually change color (colour) to blend in with any sorroundings. The development of such camoflage fits perfectly with the idea of evolution because it increases the chances of survival.

But what about those species that do just the opposite and seem to advertise their presence to potential predators? Many small fish that inhabit shallow waters have those silvery scales that brilliantly reflect the sunlight. I find that this makes no evolutionary sense whatsoever. Why would a species evolve that seems to be trying to advertise it's presence to birds and other predators? This is not the case with only one species but with hundreds of species representing countless fish all over the world.

There can be no better camoflage than invisibility, whether for predator or prey. Living things in water, unlike those on land, have had the evolutionary opportunity to become invisible. Water absorbs light from the sun but it absorbs the longer wavelengths first and shorter wavelenghts last. This is why deep water appears blue and sometimes green, those colors (colours) with longer wavelengths are the ones that can pass through enough distance in water to be refracted back to the surface again.

Have you ever noticed that in photos taken underwater, you never see anything red below about 9 meters (30 feet) depth? This is because red light is so rapidly absorbed by the water. There is no red light below that depth. This means that if a fish were red and stayed below a sufficient depth, it would be essentially invisible.

According to evolutionary theory, the seas should be full of red fish rather than fish with brightly reflecting scales that seem to say to predators "Is it lunchtime yet? Here I am, catch me". Yet, I cannot think of even one fish species that is predominantly red.

Doesn't this seem to be a serious contradiction to what evolution is supposed to be all about? Attaining red colour (color) should be an evolutionarily simple matter for a species of fish. But suppose that God created the environment and all of the creatures in it. There would only be a certain fixed number of bioatoms on earth of which all living things would have to be composed. Predators would be necessary to ensure that enough of these bioatoms remained in circulation. If a form of life was too free of predators and was able to reproduce quickly, it could gain too much monopoly over the existing bioatoms and squeeze out the existence of other forms of life. God did not want this to happen and that is why the environment is as it is.

The Whale Hypothesis

In my school days, before I was what would be called a Christian, there was a car wash nearby in the shape of a whale. One day the thought crossed my mind that if all of this evolutionary theory is true, that life arose from inanimate matter without being created by God, then whales should be the smartest creatures on earth by far.

Intelligence requires a complex brain. There must be a model in the brain of everything that we think about or remember. This calls for extreme complexity. The larger a brain is, the more potential complexity there is since the brains of all creatures are made of roughly the same kinds of atoms. This must mean that the larger a creature is, the more intelligent it should be.

There is some truth to this, elephants and whales are among the most intelligent of beings. Whales communicate with each other over vast distances by means of sound. But this means that every elephant should be a super Einstein and every whale should have an intelligence as far above us as we are above mice. Whales should be able to outsmart the crews of whaling ships with the slightest effort.

Yet, this is not the case. Evolutionary theory cannot begin to explain why humans are so much smarter than whales and elephants. The world can only support a relatively few creatures like whales and elephants. If God is using life on earth as a test to show that his principles are the right way, it would require an intelligent creature but also one that could exist in large numbers.

Humans are such an intelligent creature and are small enough to exist on earth in large numbers. The fact that God created us to be intelligent and yet numerous enough to provide a diverse and thorough test of spiritual principles down through human history is the only way to explain why humans are so much smarter than whales and elephants. If life arose as evolutionists claim, then the creatures with the largest brains would have the greatest potential complexity in the brain and thus the most intelligence.

The Underwater Side Of Evolution

Here is a vivid example of how life on earth was created by a specific purpose by God and did not originate by random evolution. It is easy to see that there is a rough equivalence between life on land and life in the sea. Both contain abundant plant life. Dolphins could be considered as the "humans" of the sea. Sharks are congruent to the predatory cats on land. Whales are the elephants of the sea.

There is one great difference that I notice. There are no trees or the equivalent of trees under the water. I have given this quite a bit of thought.

Underwater should actually be better for trees than land because there would be no opposition from gravity. Think how much easier it would be for giant redwood trees without the battle against gravity. The sea is generally much better than the land for really large life forms because water provides buoyant support. For example, whales in the sea are many times larger than elephants on land.

It is true that some sunlight will be filtered out by the water. But I reason that sea trees could more than compensate for that by the fact that could grow much bigger with the same structural strength as on land. Also since water retains heat much longer than land, sea trees would not have as much need to lie dormant for the winter in temperate climates.

Light from the sun penetrates down to about 183 meters (600 feet) of water so the continental shelves of the world would provide plenty of room for sea trees. The colors (colours) of the rainbow actually drop out one by one as we go deeper. For example, there is no red below about 30 feet because the water absorbs it first. the reason water appears blue is that it is absorbed last and is thus the color likely to get refracted back to the surface. Trees could adapt to this in the sea.

As it turns out, trees have been vital to human beings on land ever since there have been human beings. Trees have provided human beings with necessities like fruit, building and tool-making materials and fuel for burning. It is extremely difficult to imagine the development of human civilization without trees.

In addition, trees are vital to the environment on land. They bind the topsoil and prevent it from washing away in storms. They, like all plants, generate oxygen to keep animals and humans alive. Trees absorb groundwater and transpire it back into the atmosphere to prevent too much fresh water from collecting underground. And, they provide a habitat for countless animal and bird species.

So why then is there no trees in the sea where it seems, by evolutionary logic, that they should thrive? My claim is that God created life on earth to function as a whole and trees are not needed in the sea as they are on land. Sea life does not have the fingers, hands and minds to be able to use lumber or to make tools from wood. God intended humans to live on land and build civilization and he created trees to make that possible and for the other reasons given above. If life on earth arose from random evolutionary processes and took hold where it could, than there should be trees underwater.

Underwater Plants

Let's look at underwater plants. It is beneficial for underwater plants to be a little bit lighter in weight than water. This means that the water will provide buoyant support to the plant, requiring less stem strength to enable the plant to reach up to the sunlight entering the water, since all plants depend on sunlight. The other main difference between aquatic and land plants is the lack of leaves on those underwater because light is scattered and diffuse underwater while it is very directional on land.

But if aquatic plants benefit from buoyant support if they are lighter than water, what happens when they die? If dead plants on the bottoms of ponds and lakes broke apart and floated to the surface as they decayed after death, it would block sunlight from reaching the plants that were still alive. Underwater plants are disadvantaged to begin with in obtaining sunlight in comparison with land plants, what would it be like for them if there was always a layer of dead plant matter floating on the surface blocking light. In addition, flotation of dead plant matter would seriously hinder the circulation of nutrients in the body of water. Since fish depend on underwater plants to survive, this would mean the end of all aquatic life.

Fortunately, this does not occur. Underwater plants are designed so that they do not float to the surface and block sunlight when they die. This cannot be explained by evolutionary theory because the only object for both plant and animal is to survive long enough to pass on it's genes. The many different species of plants underwater could not possibly "agree" to evolve in such a way as to avoid blocking each other's vital sunlight upon death. It can only be explained by the fact that God created life and nature and intended it to function as a whole.

The Barrier Hypothesis

Have you ever wondered why all living things have a "barrier" of some kind between themselves and the sorrounding environment, whether skin or cell walls? We live on materials from the environment and interact with it, but if we just arose from our environment, as atheists believe, then why does life always require such a barrier? Why do inanimate objects in the environment such as rocks, clouds, raindrops and, planets not have any such barrier?

I maintain that if life had somehow arose from the sorrounding environment, it would not logically develop a barrier between itself and the environment from which it arose. Why would the forces of nature, which operate by pure logic, develop something that cannot exist without a barrier between itself and the nature from which it came? Any living thing on earth would die without this barrier.

However, this life barrier concept fits perfectly with the idea of divine creation. Life exists within and on materials from the environment but could not have arisen from this environment alone. Your very skin tells you that God must have created life or else you should be able to live without it. If life did somehow arise from the environment, it would be utterly unlike it is now and would need no such barrier.

The Impulse Hypothesis

I find that the very structure of life says that God must have created us and we could not have arisen by supposed evolutionary processes. If this godless theory is true then the natural impulses that occur in human minds must be the result of millions of years of continuous improvement in the evolutionary development in making us more suitable to live in our environment. These natural impulses are like the "software" guiding our lives. This means that if the idea of godless evolution is correct, following our natural impulses should be the way for us to live the best possible lives.

However, something seems to be wrong. Human beings have always created laws to live by and the very purpose of these laws is to stop us from living by our natural impulses. We create laws to enable us to live better lives but the very purpose of such laws is to restrain our natural impulses which themselves should lead us to the best possible lives.

There are, of course, many people who obey what their natural impulses tell them to do. You can read all about them every day in the newspaper, particularly the police and court news. But yet if evolution is true then any kind of man-made law makes no sense, our natural impulses that should have spent millions of years in continuous improvement to make us better suited to the environment and the very purpose of such laws is to restrain and subvert such impulses.

One thing that people all across the world and down through history have agreed upon is that the way to live a good life is not to obey our natural impulses but to supress and overcome them. This makes it apparent that we are not the products of evolutionary development, in which case our impulses would guide us to the best possible life, but that life is a test, meaning that we are being watched, and must have been created by, God. No religion or human law has ever told people "Do whatever your natural impulses tell you to do and you will live a good life". Every time you see a traffic sign it tells you that God must have created us.

There are two basic types of life a person can live, a high life and a low life. If humans were the product of random evolutionary processes, following our natural impulses would be the way to live a high life, instead it is the way to live a low life. It is the supression of the impulses that the process of evolution supposedly developed in us that is the way to live a high life by just about any standards, whether religious or secular. If we were products of evolutionary development then just having everyone obey their natural impulses would lead to a paradise on earth.

Why is there such miscoordination between the natural impulses that occur to human beings and what we are? Have you ever stopped to think how illogical it is that we teach evolution in school and then punish people for obeying their natural impulses which were supposedly developed by such processes? The most vile criminals are only obeying the impulses which the evolutionary process supposedly gave them.

The only sensible explanation that I can think of is that life is a test to show that God's way is the right way and to see if each one of us will obey him instead of our natural impulses.

The Grass Hypothesis

Last weekend while visiting Toronto, I realized something. The basic reason for Toronto's existence is the fact that human beings are unable to digest grass. This goes for any other city as well. The underlying reason for all the buildings, roads, planes, lights, malls and, cars is that human beings have a digestive system that cannot digest grass like sheep or deer.

Let me explain. Grass is the ideal food simply because of it's abundance. Animals that eat grass are in little danger of starvation unless there is a severe and widespread drought or unless they are unable to migrate in winter. I am not referring to members of the grass family of plants like wheat or rice but to ordinary green grass.

Animals like sheep and deer have digestive systems that can process grass but humans do not. This opens questions about evolution. The evolutionary development ideas that claim humans arose from "natural selection" rather than being created by God run into a problem with this. It would have greatly improved the chances of humans for survival long enough to reproduce and pass on the genes if we were able to supplement our diets with ordinary grass.

This would be a simple evolutionary adaptation with enormous benefits. Remember that in evolutionary theory, creatures of a given species that happen to be better suited to the environment are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce and pass along their genes. Thus, the entire species will improve over time. Yet, it did not occur.

The reason for the beginnings of human civilization is to ensure a steady supply of food. When people discovered that they could remove seeds from food plants and put them in the ground so that they would grow, they began to settle down instead of wandering as nomads in search of food. If humans had been able to digest grass, food supply would not be a major issue. It would have been much easier to wander to a greener pasture than to settle down, plant seeds and, wait for the seeds to grow. Civilization would have been unnecessary and would never have gotten started.

It seems clear to me that God wanted human beings to develop civilization. Without it, it would have been nearly impossible to spread his word across the world. Without civilization, there would have been no writing for the Bible and no prophets. To accomplish this, God created humans with not only a high-capacity brain and opposable thumbs, but also with an inability to digest grass.

Digestion of grass would have been such a beneficial evolutionary development for humans that it must have been purposeful design that it did not occur. So many animals can feed on grass that the only sensible conclusion is that God designed us without this ability to be sure that civilization would develop.

The Congruence Hypothesis

I find that the very structure of reality strongly suggests that it was created by God. The basic message of God to mankind is the definition of what is good and what is evil. The moral landscape, revolving around God, consists of these two opposing conditions.

Now that we understand much more about the universe than the ancients, we can see that everything can be broken down to opposing conditions operating in tension or cooperation in the same way. The basis of space in the universe is the interaction of negative and positive electric charges.

On a higher level, the basis of matter is the opposition between matter and antimatter. At a still higher level of reality, life revolves around male and female. Just as with the good and evil that God defined, at every level of reality we can see that the fundamental basis is two opposing conditions. This congruence suggests that God created the universe and that each level of reality is but a variation of the original template.

God Must Have Created The Universe

Let's discuss the environment in which life exists, the world and the universe. I maintain that not only could life have not come into existence in the environment unless it had been created by God, the environment has so many factors that are so carefully balanced so as to enable life to exist that it could not possibly be an accident and God must have created it.

Heavier elements necessary for life, particularly carbon and oxygen, were not created in the beginning of the universe, but were cooked up later in stars by means of fusion. The tremendous heat and pressure in the centers of stars fused the nuclei of the light elements, such as helium, lithium and especially, hydrogen into heavier elements, without which life could not exist. Those stars then exploded and scattered the matter into space. When our solar system and earth formed, there was abundant heavy elements present from one or more exploded stars. If this process could not take place, we could not exist.

On the other hand, the fusion process is only about 10% efficient by weight. If it was much more efficient, there would be too much matter locked up in heavier elements and there would not be enough carbon and oxygen, which are relatively light elements. It is also fortunate that very heavy elements like uranium are unstable and thus break down by means of radioactivity into lighter elements. This also prevents too much matter from being locked up in heavy elements. This would make our existence very difficult.

The three most important elements to life are hydrogen, oxygen and, carbon. Hydrogen is the lightest element and is very plentiful. In the beginning of the universe, helium was the next lightest and next most plentiful element, comprising about 25% of the matter in the new universe. When lighter elements are fused together in stars, it is very fortunate that three helium atoms can fuse into a carbon atoms and four helium atoms can fuse into an oxygen atom. If this convenient relationship did not exist, carbon and oxygen would be rare and life as we know it, impossible.

Life is really based on carbon. There is two basic types of bond by which atoms form molecules, ionic and covalent. Ionic bonding is where an electron in one atom goes to another atom, giving one a negative and the other a positive charge and causing the two to bond. Carbon, however, is dependent on the more complex covalent bond, in which atoms share electrons. If covalent bonds could not exist between atoms, life could not exist.

As it is, there are single, double or, triple bonds possible with carbon. Each carbon atom can bond with up to four other atoms and it bonds easily with hydrogen, the most abundant atom in the universe. This means that carbon can form a vast array of organic molecules and our world full of life is possible. Without this, we could not exist.

However, it is essential to life on earth that the bodies of living things decay after death. If they did not, most of the available organic molecules would be locked up in dead bodies and life would virtually cease. On the other hand, it was also essential that limestone could form to lock up the dead bodies of early microscopic plants and prevent their decay or there would be too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere today and, since this is a greenhouse gas, the earth would be much too hot.

Compared with our green earth, space is an extremely hostile environment in which life is impossible. The giant planet Jupiter acts as a gravitational vacuum cleaner in space to absorb all kinds of meteors and comets that might otherwise strike the earth, with catastrophic results. The best-known example is when the comet Shoemaker-Levy struck it in 1994, creating a spectacular explosion visible across the solar system. What if that had struck the earth instead?

Also, few stars in the sky are actually single stars like our sun. Most are double or triple stars. If the sun orbitted such a star combination, there would be drastic increases and decreases in the temperature of the earth as well as absorption of solar radiation. The development of life would be far more difficult then it is now.

Water seems to be a miracle in itself and, of course, we could not exist without it. It's three states of matter conveniently exist within the relatively narrow temperature range necessary for life. We need liquid water but rain could not exist without water vapor. Also, the earth would be too warm without snow and ice, with an albedo higher than liquid water, to reflect solar energy back into space from the polar regions (although global warming is changing this).

The convenient relationship between temperature and gravity concerning water and water vapor works very well in making it possible for life to exist. What if water vapor was light enough to escape into space? What if there were neutrons in hydrogen atoms so that water was heavier? It would not evaporate so easily and we would have little rain. What if another atom of oxygen easily bonded to a water molecule so that there was two atoms of oxygen instead of one? We would have oceans of hydrogen peroxide instead of water and there would be little or no oxygen left in the air. Isn't it fortunate for us that hydrogen peroxide is less stable than water? Can this be merely a coincidence or did God plan it this way?

What about our atmosphere? 78% of the air near the earth's surface is nitrogen. Isn't it fortunate that nitrogen is not very soluble in water? If it was more water-soluble than oxygen, it would displace the oxygen that readily dissolves in water and life in water would be impossible because it is dependent on dissolved oxygen to breathe. Since water is where life began, we would not exist either. It is just as fortunate that nitrogen does not react with oxygen, at least at low temperatures. If it bonded with oxygen easier than hydrogen did, water would not even exist. In any case, we would not be able to breathe the oxygen in the air.

As it is today, there is little free hydrogen in earth's atmosphere. It is light and escapes into space. If it didn't, much of earth's atmosphere would consist of methane because four hydrogen atoms easily bond with one carbon atom. There would also be more water but less breathable oxygen because two hydrogens combine with an oxygen atom to form water.

The nitrogen in the atmosphere is actually very vital to us. It is usually inert but is fixed by lightning and by certain bacteria to form essential fertilizers. Also, nitrogen serves to slow down reactions involving oxygen in the atmosphere. What would a forest fire be like if there was an atmosphere of pure oxygen? Isn't it fortunate that clouds do not block infrared radiation from the sun? If they did, the earth would be too cold. If the earth happened to have a weaker magnetic field, the so-called Van Allen radiation belts around the earth would not offer as much protection from charged particles from the sun. If the air did not offer resistance to slow falling objects, raindrops would be almost like bullets hitting the ground, it would destroy any budding plants and life as we know it would have to be very different. Because of the way the earth spins, prevailing winds flow mostly in an east-west direction rather than north-south. If this were different, winds would be very destructive blasts of very hot or very cold air.

Have you ever considered how fortunate we are that air and water are transparent? If this were not so, earth could not absorb radiation from the sun and life certainly would not be possible. The tremendous heat capacity of water keeps most of the earth from getting too hot or too cold. If this were different, the earth would be a very hostile place. Even if dust did not exist in the air, there would be no bases for condensing droplets of water to form clouds to bring rain. What if the sediment that gradually collects on the bottom of a body of water was lighter than the water instead of heavier? It would collect on the surface and block sunlight as well as oxygen absorption into the water, life would be impossible.

Isn't it fortuntate that liquids are rare on earth in comparison with solids and gases. The only liquids on earth in significant quantities are water and oil. If this were not so, water would be too contaminated to be of any use to life. Water is the so-called universal solvent but we are very fortunate that evaporation and rainfall purifies the water or we would not be here.

The earth's surface consists of two basic levels, that of the land and that of the ocean floor. Were this otherwise, the earth would either be all water. Or, if the surface level varied by too much, water would be very concentrated with much less surface area to provide evaporation and absorb oxygen, leaving much more land area to share the much less rainfall. The air of the atmosphere would also pile up, leaving much of the world with not only too little rainfall for life but with too thin air.

I think it is safe to say that God created both life and the environment in which it exists.

The Existence Of Matter As We Know It

Have you ever stopped to think how precarious is the existence of matter as we know it? It is vital that matter be subject to gravity or our planet would not exist. But it is just as necessary that a part of matter be free of gravity.

The fact is that there is an equal but opposite charge on electrons and protons, but a proton is 1,836 times as massive as an electron. This means that the nuclei of atoms, consisting of protons and neutrons, are held by gravity but the other component of atoms, electrons, are essentially free of gravity. If electrons were subject to gravity, matter as we know it would be impossible.

The orbitals of the electrons around the nuclei would be distorted so that gravity would warp the shape of small, solid objects, making them behave more like liquids. There could really be no such thing as structural units in sizable objects if electrons were massive enough to be affected by gravity. The repulsive negative charges in electrons keep objects apart, even though the atom is mostly empty space. But atoms would "pancake" if the electrons were affected by gravity.

There could be no chemical reactions or processes as we know it if electrons were affected by gravity. This would be true even in liquids. There could be no electric flow, no ionic or covalent bonds and, the function of nerves in living things would be impossible. However, nuclear processes would not be affected.

It is only because protons and neutrons are quarks that we can have matter. Quarks in the nucleus not only make it possible for the nucleus to hold together, even though it is made of like-charged protons which usually repulse, it also provides the bulk to initiate the gravity that is vital for the universe we have.

If electrons were composed of quarks like protons or protons were point particles like electrons, matter as we know it would be utterly impossible. If not for quarks, if all matter was point particles like electrons, the matter in the universe would consist of nothing but mutually-annihilating particles and matter would eventually go out of existence.

Isn't it logical to believe that it was God that created the universe? Our existence is due to so many factors that if assumed to be the result of mere chance would be mathematically near to impossible. The existence of the matter that is necessary for our lives on earth is only one such factor.

Light From The Sun

The earth has often been described as having a "goldilocks" orbit around the sun. This means that our planet is at just the right distance from the sun to be at the right temperature and at the right conditions for life to thrive. People who believe in God use the multitude of factors that just happen to be where they need to be to demonstrate that all of this must have been set up by God.

I would like to add something else to this today. We may not stop to think that we would not have our planet with the right temperature for life as we know it at our distance from the sun if the sun did not happen to be a yellow-orange star, which are not that common, but that is very true.

Stars vary in color (colour) across the light spectrum from red to blue. The blue stars are the hottest, since blue light has a shorter wavelength and is thus higher in energy than red light. Some stars are white, which is actually all colours (colors) mixed together.

You might be wondering what difference this really makes to life on the earth. However, consider that about 72% of the earth is covered by water. Water has optical properties of it's own, it absorbs light according to it's wavelength from red first to blue last. This is why the oceans appear blue and water can sometimes appear green.

Much of the light that enters the water is eventually refracted back to the surface and away. Since red light is absorbed first, it does not last long enough in it's passage through the water to be refracted back out. A sunset can make the water appear red but that is only because the light is being reflected from the water's surface. The spacing of atoms in water molecules relative to the wavelengths of light is what causes it to absorb some colors (colours) more easily than others. It is blue that most easily passes through the water instead of being absorbed as heat.

Blue stars are hotter than red stars but water reverses this by absorbing the lower-energy red light first. If we have a temperature range on earth that is just right for life with a primarily yellow-orange star like the sun, suppose that instead the earth orbited around a blue star and that the earth received the same amount of energy from this star as it does from the sun. The earth would be much colder than it is now because the water would refract more light away instead of absorbing it.

Now what if the sun were a red star instead of primarily yellow-orange? If the earth received the same amount of energy, it would be considerably hotter than it is today because water readily absorbs red light and would thus gain more heat. The sun's yellow-orange light does provide a lot of heat to water and also contains a significant proportion of red light, but does not heat water as much as a primarily red star would.

The Silicon Hypothesis

Today, I would like to add yet another point concerning why God must exist. This point concerns how life could have arisen spontaneously from inanimate matter if there is, in fact, no God. As we know, the chemical structure of all living things is based on the element carbon. This is because carbon is a very versatile element in forming the complex and varied structures that are necessary for living things. Carbon is also abundant.

But carbon is not the only element that is able to form the complex chemical structures necessary for living things. Silicon is also abundant and can form very complex structures. Yet, the structure of all living things are based on carbon with none to be found based on silicon.

It is true that silicon cannot form as many different molecular structures as carbon does and it cannot be carried through the air like carbon can in the form of carbon dioxide. Even so if life arose spontaneously from inanimate matter by complex molecules forming by random chance, we can be certain that there would be at least some life forms to be found based on a silicon structure or possibly a combined silicon-carbon structure.

I consider the fact that in the galaxy of life forms that are found on earth, not a single one is based on or involves silicon to be proof that living things did not arise spontaneously as they must have if there was no God that created life. God created living things and chose carbon to form the basis of the chemical structure.