Bones of Contention

Bones of Contention

When I was in elementary school, our weekly reader contained a story and picture of a new find proving evolution. It was called Zinjanthropus, found in Africa and supposedly a half ape, half man missing link. When I showed it to my parents, my grandmother responded, “I don’t believe it.” “But his picture is right here!” I defended. My mother told me to not argue with Grandma and that ended the discussion. Much later, I agreed with Grandma. In fact, so have many evolutionists, for the picture was drawn from a few bones that are so much like those of a modern ape, that many reluctantly agree they probably were.
Since then several other bone “proofs” have found the same fate. The most famous was Piltdown man, found by Charles Dawson in Piltdown, England in 1912. “The remains seemed to combine a skull capable of housing a large brain with a jaw structure that was judged to be fairly primitive.” For the next 40 years, Pildown man was a star witness that man evolved from primates and probably hundreds of doctoral theses and scientific papers were written about it. Finally, in 1953 it was presented as a deliberate hoax! “. . . extensive scientific tests established that the Piltdown skulls were of Medieval origin and were perhaps 620 years old, the jawbone, itself perhaps 500 years old, probably came from an Orangutan, and the canine tooth was a genuine, chimpanzee, fossil dating from the Pleistocene Age. Evidence of deliberate staining with an iron solution to give an appearance of age to the bones was also detected.” (http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/archaeology/piltdown_man.html) Who exactly was responsible for this hoax may never be known for sure. But many evolutionary trees still claim him as an ancestor. They don’t give up easily, do they!
In 1922 a tooth was found in Nebraska that was reconstructed into a full race of people called appropriately Nebraska man! Later the tooth was found to be that of an extinct pig, but still later, they found one alive! Now do a Google image search and find out what imagination said he looked like!
Several years ago I visited the Museum of Natural History in Chicago where was displayed a family of Neanderthals, hunched over, hairy, protruding jaw, exactly what you would suspect an evolutionary ancestor to look like. The first Neanderthal bones were found in 1856 and dated at 30 to 70 thousand years old. Later it was shown that the hunched appearance was because he had arthritis or rickets caused by deficiencies in their diet. He was just like a modern man with a deformity. In 1998 Orthodontist Jack Cuozzo published a book entitled, Buried Alive. He took full facial radiographic pictures of the Neanderthal skulls. “His startling discovery was that in every picture and model we have the lower jaws had been dislocated and thrust forward as much as an inch to give the erroneous impression that Neanderthals had a lower face that stuck out like a monkey’s lower jaw.” (The Evolution of a Creationist, p. 215)
Why would intelligent scientists promote hoaxes, frauds, and artists’ imaginations as scientific proof? Is it safe to say they have an agenda to prove, whether by fair means or foul? It is even safer to say man was made in the beginning in the image of God, as you and I are, with the ability to know his Creator and thus a responsibility to seek Him.

The Kidneys

Were it not for the two filters located in our backs just above our waist, we would not live very long. Each reddish-brown kidney contains a million nephrons, with 30 miles of filters. Every thirty minutes or so while we are active, all our blood goes through one or the other of these masterpieces, meaning that our 7 to 8 liters of blood go through them about 20-25 times a day! That’s 45 gallons of blood a day!
Each of these 5 ounce organs is about the size of your fist (4 inches long, 2 ½ inches wide, and 1 ½ inches thick). Each is attached to a major artery and vein of the body. Blood flows into the top of the nephron and 95-99% of the fluids flow out the bottom to return to the body. The waste materials are squeezed through the ureter to the bladder to be stored until they are eliminated. Chemical signals from the pituitary gland determine how much of certain substances the kidney should remove. Both nicotine and caffeine produce too much of this hormone and the kidneys slow down. Alcohol slows the pituitary and increases the work of the kidneys. Water is reabsorbed into the blood by osmosis.
As the body functions, waste products are produced. For example, creatinine is produced when muscles contract. Salt and other chemicals must also be kept in balance in the blood stream. We need salt to maintain the fluid in our blood cells and to transmit information in our nerves and muscles, but too much salt can be harmful. Hormones must also be filtered out after they do their job and excess chemicals such as sugars must be removed. Water level must also be kept in balance. Though 95% of urine is water, the other 5% contains these poisons that, if allowed to build up in our systems, would be fatal.
We are able to live with only one kidney and, in fact, some live with partial functioning of one kidney. But if the kidneys fail entirely, that person has only days to live without dialysis, that is, artificial blood filtration.
How all this works is too complicated for an article this size. Guyton’s Medical Physiology textbook contains 70 pages on body fluids and the work of the kidneys and bladder. The chemistry involved is staggering. The most complex blood filters designed by engineers cannot begin to duplicate the work of the kidney. It would be folly to try to explain the work of a dialysis machine as the result of a series of amazing accidents. No, intelligent engineers have worked years to develop machines that can somewhat duplicate the work of the kidney. Why is it so difficult then to admit the kidney is designed by someone superior to these engineers?
A further thought- if man and animal evolved, it is obvious that the kidney would be required in the beginning, else the life form would die of toxemia within days. This is yet another example of the absurdity of trying to explain complex interdependent required systems of the body as the result of random changes over long periods of time.

The “Star Witness” of the Creation Debate

Recently a man was put to death in Texas for murder. The star witness was a ten-year-old boy who was stabbed but managed to escape, call for help, and identify the assailant. As a reliable eye witness, his evidence was irrefutable.
The entire creation-evolution debate is speculation for not one scientist was present to observe it. Since creating life from non-living substances has proven to be impossible, we retreat to making predictions based on observable evidence. However, one person was present at the beginning of life and, since his witness is impeccable, we are wise and just to turn to him as our star witness. He is God. God not only witnessed the beginning of the world as we know it, but He claims to be the one who made it. (Genesis 1:1; Ex. 20:11; John 1:3; Heb. 1:2; 11:3) Since God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18), and since He stated in clear, simple language how He created everything, is it not reasonable to simply accept what He said as true?
Of course, this argument is based on the authority of Scripture. Is the Bible uniquely the infallible Word of God as it claims to be? (2 Tim. 3:16) The Bible is historically accurate.
One fourth of the Bible was written as prophecy and most of these predictions are now history. It has been 100% accurate, so accurate that liberals have tried to post-date such books as Daniel, claiming they couldn’t know the future so precisely. In the late 1800’s, Sir William Ramsay set out to expose the inaccuracy of Luke’s historical account in Acts. He found that every reference that could be verified was found to be totally accurate! Robert Dick Wilson was one of the most brilliant language and Bible scholars of all times. He spent 45 years of his life studying history and archeology related to the Old Testament and concluded that nothing in archeology has ever contradicted the Bible!
The Bible is scientifically accurate. Prothrombin, made from vitamin K, is vital for human blood clotting. Newborn boys start to make prothrombin on day five and reach a lifetime maximum on day eight, the very day when God commanded circumcision to be performed. (Lev. 12:3) The Bible describes the water cycle in precision (Ecc. 1:7), yet it has only been understood by modern scientists since the end of the 16th century. Matthew Maury developed the science of oceanography when he began looking for “the paths of the seas” (ocean currents) based on Psalm 8:8.
The Bible is the only effective book in managing a society. George Washington himself said, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” When it was removed from the public schools in early 1960’s, divorce rate immediately skyrocketed, as did drug use, violent crime, unwed pregnancies, premarital sex, and suicide. The only thing that fell was scores on standardized tests, 18 years in a row.
Yes, the Bible is a trustworthy book. Since it is accurate in these areas, we can be confident it is also accurate when it says we are sinners under the condemnation and wrath of God. (Rom. 3:23; 8:1; John 3:36) The Bible states that Jesus Christ is God’s Son who lived a perfect life and then died as a substitutionary sacrifice for our sins. (2 Cor. 5:21; 1 Peter 3:18) Now all who turn to Him as their only hope of salvation will receive, as a free gift, eternal life. (Eph. 2:8-9) “He who has the Son has life.” (John 3:36)
I have written 100 articles presenting evidence for a Creator. In the Lord’s strength, I hope to write another 100. Surely every week I learn of five times more examples than I can use. Yet I doubt many of these articles convinced a skeptic of creation. To those who have eyes to see, it is obvious. To those who don’t want to see, no amount of evidence will convince them. They will remain “willingly ignorant” (2 Peter 3:5) and therefore “without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20) This is what God has said. And He is trustworthy about this as well.

The Bottom Line in Debate of Design (3)

A just courtroom is a place where the evidence is presented, weighed, and an unbiased verdict is determined. In some cases, just one piece of evidence is given that solves the case. For example, a video is found, taken of the crime by the suspect. This determines the case. Nothing else is needed; he is guilty.
In the courtroom of nature, the evidence for evolution and creation is presented in articles like these. No other options are possible in explaining how the world and life began. In the last two articles we looked at 9 evidences, each of which must be answered or evolution must be thrown out as impossible. Here are four more, taken from work by Bruce Malone and presented in the book, A Closer Look at the Evidence by Richard and Tina Kleiss (for April 5th).
10) The problem of order. Though the world and life are incredibly complex, they are at the same time very orderly. For example, the earth could not be closer to, or further from the moon and sun without major negative ramifications. Order is so obvious that evolutions must keep reminding each other that it is only apparent, not real.
11) The problem of light. Life could not exist without light and energy and yet we still don’t really know what they are. We can calculate laws dealing with light and energy (like the first law of thermodynamics) and we have been able to convert matter into (atomic) energy but it still holds many mysteries. How could this enigmatic substance (or wave, or both) have evolved? The electromagnetic spectrum is divided by wavelengths so that most wavelengths cannot be seen by people, yet some of the unseen wavelengths can be seen by animals (flies, honeybees) and others are necessary to plants and heat.
12) The problem of life. Even if man can combine the right chemicals to make a protein, or enough proteins to make a cell, the cell still lacks that quality called life. As John Whitcomb stated, cut a living frog into 29 pieces, then quickly sow them back together in precisely the right place, and what do you have? A dead frog! No one can add the quality of life to it. We can only give the semblance of life through artificial means. Life only comes from life. The theory of spontaneous generation was reputed long ago. Yet evolution demands it is true, at least in the past.
13) The problem of conscious thought. Man alone has the capacity to philosophize, to even comprehend the existence of a higher being. Animals do not pray. Only people ask questions dealing with origin or destiny. How could conscience and consciousness have evolved?
Next time we will deal with the highest and best evidence for creation.