Is the Creation Story in Genesis a Myth?

Is creation as explained in Genesis just too hard to believe in modern times? Isn't it all a myth? Let's scientifically investigate the claims of both Genesis and the Theory of Evolution.  Let's do the math on how the diversity of life on earth could have come about since the earth began through the genetic lottery of evolution.   I do not see a lot of scientists lining up for grant money to fill in the gaps for the theory of Evolution.  It is just taken for granted that Evolution is above questioning.   It is pretty hard to research they whine. Right but we can still do the math.  Let's look at hummingbirds, sex and how long this universe has been around to see how believable Evolution really is.

 Paleontologists admit that the dirty little trade secret of their science is that the actual fossil record does not show upper phyla evolving from the lower phyla. All the phyla were present in the Cambrian period.  In actuality, the "tree" of evolution you have been seeing since junior high school has no proof of the lines between the nodes on the branches.  

 And while we are at it, why is it that schools absolutely refuse to  teach or even mention intelligent design despite the petitioning  of educated and respected scientists in 2005? 

Forget sports teams: how do you like them ichthyosaurs? See link below.

"The neck vertebrae were so tightly packed that "it couldn't move its neck, so it must have shot through the water like a dart", said  palaeontologist Ulrich Joger of the Braunschweig Natural History Museum.

"It's a spectacular find. It raises new questions about the [Jurassic] extinction theory," he said."

What about those fake embryo pictures? This may be the most egregious of distortions, since biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate embryos never look as similar as Haeckel drew them. Yes, these pictures really are a myth! See the 'Survival of the Fakest' article below.

The Unbelievable Pace of Evolution
   

 Let's say, for purposes of discussion, that we are going to create a computer simulation of evolution and outline the steps that had to happen during the last 13.73 billion years in order to explain life as having been derived solely from chance events and non-life.  Has there been enough time for all the species to have evolved?  I think not.  Your biology professor did not ever address how the first cell evolved.  It is taken for granted.  The working parts (organelles) and chemical reactions inside a cell are extremely complex.  They are not blobs.  How did chromosomes evolve? How did a mitochondria evolve? There are many levels of complexity which are not being addressed. An article on Early Evolution (and there were not a lot of them on the web), says "It was a billion years after life appeared before the cell."   This article is using a definition of life that has not been clarified.   Something has to be able to reproduce in order to be considered alive. So, what is this life they refer to before cells?  This article is skating on thin ice and at least they admit it.  Poof! We have bacteria they conclude.  They never convincingly connect the first organic compounds to the formation of a living cell. 

By the accepted definition of life, even viruses are not considered to be alive as viruses need cells in which to reproduce, so they could not be the life referred to by the Early Evolution article.  Could there have been viruses as we know them without cells first?

Articles by Jackie Mulrooney

 How many species are there now and how many have there been through out time?

"Though taxonomists have been cataloging plants and animals for more than 250 years, they still have no exact answer to the question, 'How many species are on Earth? ... “It’s a very simple question, but we have no simple answer,” Fisher said.  There are somewhere between 5 million and 100 million species on this planet.' (www.livescience.com).   

Are the missing links still missing?

 Yes, Dr. Leakey prior to his death indicated that his find, originally named Zinjanthropus in 1959, found in Olduvai, Tanzania was really that of an ape, Australopithecus.  His find was sensationalized by National Geographic which had paid for the expedition.  You have heard it said before, to find the truth, "follow the money honey." Another find by Johann C.  Fuhlrott called Neanderthal man, found in 1859 in Germany has been reclassified as  fully human, Homo sapiens. Java man found by Eugene Dubois in 1891 in Trinil, Java was later reclassified by him to be a large gibbon. Peking Man found in China in 1912 by David Bolack disappeared in 1941 when moved from Peking by a U. S. Marine detachment.   Nebraska Man  found in 1922 by Harold Cook in Western Nebraska consisted of only one  tooth.  In 1927 the tooth was reclassified as belonging to an extinct  pig, much to the embarrassment of many.  

Even worse, the Piltdown man  skull fragment and teeth found in 1912 by Charles Dawson in England  were examined carefully with fluoride tests in 1950 and found to be a  fraud stained with iron salts.  The bones are recent and not 500,000  years old.  All we can really conclude from the above evidence is that mankind selfishly and egotistically strives for fame. If evolution is true there should be hundreds of missing links.

Is Intelligent Design (ID) Real Science? 

What do you think?  ID sounds like better science than the list of embarrassing stuff I just listed above. As Dr William Dembski, a leading intelligent design researcher, has aptly stated:  “Intelligent Design is . . . a scientific investigation into how patterns exhibited  by finite arrangements of matter can signify intelligence.”

 Is the Cambrian Explosion in keeping with what we could expect out of a predictable evolutionary process?  Did too much happen too fast?   How did this all happen? The Cambrian explosion has not been explained from a statistical or a genetic standpoint.  How did so many creatures evolve in only 80 million years?

How long does it take to form two species from one?   

 What we all can agree on regardless of our diverse belief systems is that there is a fossil record.  What can we learn from the fossil record?  It is a puzzle that should not be solved by foregone conclusions of belief. Be it an unwavering belief in evolution or a unwavering belief in creation, we should look at the well reasoned, feasible science that is seen in the fossil record.   The fossil record does not show slow transition from simple to complex predicted by Darwin or by population genetics. It shows rapid progress across all phyla occurring quickly.  Purely out of defense, evolutionists have labeled this Punctuated Equilibrium. But mere labeling provides no real explanation of the mechanisms behind this rationale of speciation. Instead you'll find that if you look carefully, science gets "lost in the weeds" with terminology and basically stops there. It labels and goes no further to satisfy an inquiring mind.  

Let's ask a key question - "Was there enough time since the earth cooled down for all the existing and extinct species to have evolved based on population genetics, genetic drift, beneficial mutations or any other basis of change?"  If you do the math, there has not been enough time since the universe came into existence 13.7 billion years ago for all the species to have evolved and for two sexes to have evolved. 

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise". Wikipedia on Speciation 

How old is the universe? The website universetoday.com says that the universe is  "13.7 billion years old, with an uncertainty of only 1%".  How old is the earth? The earth is said to be about 4.5 - 4.6 billion years old. The oldest fossil is about 3.5 billion years old. 

Given that population geneticists say that beneficial heritable mutations (mutations which will be inherited) different enough to create a new species occur about once every million years, that gives us time for only 4,500 beneficial and heritable mutations since the earth began.  Whatever number you plug in for the speciation rate, is 3.5 billion years enough time?  DO THE MATH PEOPLE!  I think that this is not enough time for even one flying insect to have evolved, much less 10 million species evolving from nothing but molten rock!  Think - just how would a hummingbird evolve?  It is neither an insect or a bird. How did the engineering happen?  Did 5,000 generations of non-flying hummingbirds exist first?  If so how did they reach enough flowers to eat and keep up their metabolism if they could not fly?  The same argument could be used for butterflies.  How did they evolve a chrysalis?

Remember cells are very complex and have very complex biochemical reactions. In  order for evolution to be true, life had to have come from not just  lower forms of life, but from a universe without any genetic material and without any complex organic material.  In other words, a reasonable man would conclude that explosions, the big bang theory that is, are not too conducive for creating life.  Who lit the fuse on the big bang anyway?

Not only does evolution have no answers as to how the first cell evolved, it has absolutely no answers as to how sex evolved.  The theory of Evolution claims two different but continuously interdependent systems evolved without breaking the functionality.  In software systems at least, change breaks functionality.   Apparently Evolution is exempt from such basic laws of the universe. As a Computer Scientist who studies system design for a living - I cannot believe that sex evolved by chance or at all.   Evolution would be more credible if all reproduction was asexual.

Evolution conveniently frees us from obligations to God.

If we were not created, then we owe God nothing.  We can live any way our society  tolerates. If we were created, then we owe God our very existence and it  follows logically that we need to pay attention to what God says about  how we live our lives.  

God said that we were created male and female in Genesis 1:27.  The ramifications of this  statement are enormous for it greatly complicates the ontology of evolution.  One sex evolving is plausible.  Two sexes evolving  simultaneously is not plausible for reasons of simple generational interoperability.  

First let's look at what evolution claims about complexity: 

- That all the parts of a cell evolved including chromosomes, cell walls, cell membranes, DNA,  RNA, cell nuclei, and mitochondria.

- That the first cell evolved
 

- That once  the first cell evolved, multi-cell organisms evolved.

- That once the first multi cellular organisms evolved, all the rest of the 5 million to 100 million species evolved.

- That sex evolved out of  asexual beings.  This requires the evolution of two separate and  continuously compatible systems simultaneously evolving randomly but in  perfect synchronization as well. 

What is the problem here? 

What are the odds that a compatible sperm and egg evolved as mutations in the same generation?   This is known to be problematic.   The chances that two compatible sexes arose out of mutations at the same time and location in one generation is well, VERY hard to believe.  After all, if one sex evolved before another,  it could not have reproduced on its own. 

Studies show that sexual reproduction has advantages but a  study on the evolution of life  by the University of Oxford presupposes that sexual reproduction itself  could have arisen in the time which has passed since the universe began.  Common sense and simple math do not support this! The majority  of plants and animals reproduce sexually (Wikipedia, "The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction").   The above Wikipedia article on the evolution of sex conveniently avoids the whole core issue and offers no explanation of the origin of  two sexual systems.  As both a computer scientist and a biologist I will testify that interoperable systems do not happen quickly or  accidentally.