“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)
“… sex is a highly complicated and wasteful process in which half of highly successful genetic material is thrown away … By evolutionary theory we should have been asexual.” — Graham Bell, professor of biology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (McGill News, Volume 69, Number 4, Winter 1989/90, pp. 12-13)
It doesn’t take a scientist of the likes of Graham Bell (quoted above) to figure out that, according to evolutionary theory, we should all be asexual. For the whole thing about human beings — or any beings, for that matter — needing each other in order to reproduce themselves is a completely foreign concept to the theory of evolution. Think about it. Men and women independently “evolve” to the point where, together, they are able to reproduce — and then become dependent upon one another for their very survival! It is completely “contra-evolution” — this whole thing about needing one another in order to reproduce! It is contra “survival of the fittest”. Thus, professor Bell’s quote above is no surprise at all. Yet despite this contradiction which professor Bell openly admits, he still insists that there must be “some explanation” to prove that men and women did, in fact, evolve.
Ouch! I feel sorry for professor Bell. He is missing the obvious. Instead of actually admitting that the theory of evolution is false based on what he knows, in fact, to be true (that we should all be asexual based on evolution), he agreed to be Master of Biology student Mark Chandler’s thesis supervisor as Chandler went down to such far away places as Cuzco Amazonico, Peru, in an attempt to demonstrate that some “clue” to this “mystery” can be found by “studying the chromosomal activity of male frogs during meiosis in relation to the number of parasites they carry” (p. 12). Some people will go to great lengths to try and disprove the obvious!
According to the theory of evolution, everything is slowly “evolving” towards greater and greater perfection. “Oh, you can’t see it perhaps in a few years, or even in a hundred years,” they will say. “The changes take place over millions of years.” Everything is always getting “better,” and “improved”, they say. That is the theory of evolution. It is just a matter of time. “A million years ago we came this far, but now, we have come so much farther.” Thus it was that I was recently “humored”, you might say, concerning this whole subject, when I went to visit the local “Museum of Nature” in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, in which I found, once again, a quote which completely contradicts itself if evolutionary theory were true, entitled, “Cast of a modern Coelacanth”, subtitled, “Presumed Extinct Until 1938”.
“The coelacanth [very large fish — perhaps 5 feet long] was thought to have become extinct during the Cretaceous [period of about 145 million years ago]. It is well known from the fossil record of 75 to 380 million years ago. Then, in December 1938, a living one was caught off the coast of South Africa, and more have been found in deep water off the Comoro Islands near Madagascar. The coelacanth is a “living fossil” almost identical to fossils that are millions of years old.”
“Almost identical”, you say? You mean it hasn’t changed significantly in 75 to 380 million years? But I thought evolutionary theory said that this thing was supposed to change … I mean, get out of the water, and start dancing around, or perhaps flying!
What’s the matter? Is 75 to 380 million years not long enough for this to occur?
“But … but …” they might say. “Well find an answer to it … it’s certain! Science can prove anything! Yes, we’ll find the answer! Just give us … some time!”
Yes, time. Time. Time. Is not 75 to 380 million years “long enough” time to have given you?
“Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.” (Revelation 4:11)