Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

"Because the lion and bear are classified as carnivores you saw a similarity. Because owls are not classified as a carnivore, you saw a difference."

This is a subtle distinction you may have missed. I did not say that they were carnivores. I said they were members of the group Carnivora. This is a grouping of placental mammals that includes such things as cats, wolves, foxes, civets, coyotes, jackels, seals, sea lions and other such animals. They are grouped based on physical and genetic similarities and there are fossil transitions known between many of them. But not all are meat eaters. The panda is a prominent herbivore in the group.

But that they group physically, that they group genetically and that there are fossils showing transitions within the group are all observations not assumptions.

"You see what you want to see and ignore anything that disagrees with your belief. "

I have yet to see anything that seriously challenges my opinions. The challeneges raised generally strengthen my opinion once they are investigated.

And there are better sources of information than what you are finding. For instance, if you are interested in horses, here is a much better writeup by our own Helen.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/horsevolution.htm

Would you like me to critique it?

For genetic evidence, here is a long one that will interest you.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i3/pseudogenes_genomes.asp

Unfortunately, here is where someone quoted from it trying to refute me.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000093

And here is where I take the quoted part, look up AIG's references, and show that they are claiming that the references say something different than what they actually say. Some might call it dishonest.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/19/7.html#000095

 

"Here are some more interesting articles about the Cambrian Explosion which gives evolution a tremendous problem.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/20questions02.html

Even prominent evolutionists admit this, but I am sure you will rationalize it away."

For sport, I'll take a looksie.

"Outside these two alternatives, there is no third claim or hypothesis today regarding how life emerged. According to the rules of logic, if one answer to a question with two alternative possible answers is proved to be false, then the other must be true."

According to the rules of logic, he is starting off by committing the fallacy of the false dilemma. Just because no one has proposed a third or fourth or fifth way does not mean that they are not there. It is a logical fallacy to assert that you prove one by disproving the other. The burden of proof is to show that your position is correct.

"The fossil record provides the answer to the evolutionist Futuyma. The science of fossils (paleontology) shows that all living groups emerged on Earth at different times, all at once, and perfectly formed.

All the discoveries from excavations and studies over the last hundred years or so show that, contrary to evolutionists' expectations, living things came into existence suddenly, in perfect and flawless form, in other words that they were "created." Bacteria, protozoa, worms, molluscs, and other invertebrate sea creatures, arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all appeared suddenly, with complex organs and systems. There are no fossils that show any so-called "transition" between them. "

Completely false. Let's just go with one of those transitions. A new one for our discussion. Fish to amphibians.

Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Densignathus, Elginerpeton, Elpistostege, Hynerpeton, Jakubsonia, Livoniana, Metaxygnathus, Obruchevichthys, Panderichthys, Sinostega and Tulerpeton are just a few of the known transitionals from this period.

Here are pictures of the first two for you. The parts in red are what were actually found.

http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/images/O-Acanthostega.gif
http://www.devoniantimes.org/Order/images/O-ichthyostega.gif

MAny of the fossils in this transition show a clear progression and a mixture of fish and amphibian traits. The list also focuses on the period of transition from water to land and ignores the earlier and later changes that complete the picture.

"When we examine this figure, the miracle of the Cambrian Explosion is obvious. There is only one phylum before the Cambrian Age (the Cnidaria, which include jellyfish and corals). In the Cambrian Age, however, 13 completely different phyla suddenly emerged."

And this is the crux of the whole YE argument about the Cabrian explosion. I could go into the earlier fauna that we are finding or into the change from all soft bodies to hard parts that occured at this time which increased the likelyhood of fossilization, but I do not need to.

Please go read this.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000969.html
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/down_with_phyla.html

I'll give you the Cliff notes version.

We divide organisms into phyla based on some very fundemental differences that are seen in each phyla. But at this time in evolution, those differences are minimal. For example, it discusses how two phyla are separated by the side of the body that the mouth is on. Today, these phyla have diverged. But at the time of the Cambrian, the phyla were almost identical except for this distinction on where the mouth is. They even give examples of animals where the mouth has migrated to a different location to show that it is a very simple to overcome difference.

The large number of new phyla is because this is where these fundemental splits happened. The individual organisms had not yet diverged to the extent which we see today. The explosion in the number of phyla has more to do with our method of classification than with a bunch of radically different body plans suddenly appearing.

 

UTEOTW

One thing that strikes me is that you seem to almost always equate similarity to relation.

I have asked this before.

How many animals have 4 legs?

How many animals have tails?

How many animals have claws?

You could go on and on.

How many have eyes, teeth, ears, nose, fur.......

When God created life he used forms that work. Four legs is probably better than three. Putting eyes on the front of a head is best for seeing in the direction an animal moves the majority of the time.

But you see these common similarities as evidence that animals evolved from a common ancestor.

A sloth has huge claws. Does that mean it is evolved from the same ancestor as a lion?

Many prominent evolutionists have admitted that the fossil record does not show the transitions.
Animals appear suddenly in completed forms.

You have attempted to explain the lack of transitions with this theory that evolution operates slowly for many hundreds of millions of years and then suddenly accelerates to incredible speed to transform many animals into completely new forms in a very short period of time.

And not one shred of evidence for this. Man, talk about self deception.

But, you alone seem to have found these transitions. Why don't you go forward with your evidence. Perhaps you can show all us creationists wrong. Or even better, perhaps you can convince the many evolutionists that admit transitional forms cannot be found.

You say the Bible is reliable. But you never reference a single verse. Genesis 1 is all about how life came to be. Surely you could show how these verses show evolution.

But you just go on and on with the evolutionist hobblety-gob.

Poll after poll has shown that the majority of people do not believe in evolution. You will probably just say that most are ignorant. I say it proves that evolutionists have not presented convincing evidence.

Providing long lists of animals that no one has a clue what they are and using fancy jargon is not convincing.

Showing an ankle bone in a camel and whale to be similar does not convince people that these two came from a common ancestor.

The whale is the very first animal that God describes in the Bible in the creation account. It was created the day before all land creatures. Therefore it could not have evolved from a land creature.

I believe that God saw this false theory that would deceive the world. And so he made sure in his word to prove it wrong right in the very first book and chapter of the Bible.

 

Actually, this is one of the things that made me think that evolution is likely true. The reason terapods have four legs is because they descend from an animal with four legs. Embryonic development is controlled by the homeobox genes (although some were later found to control other functions). In vertebrates, some of these genes are found in a cluster called the "HOX box." These control development along the body axis and the growth of limbs. The reason terapods have four legs is because mutation in the HOX box typically has such negative effects on embryonic development that it results in spontaneous abortion.

Because of their importance, homeobox genes tend to be fairly well-conserved. The vertebrate homeobox genes can be traced back to nonvertebrate chordate homeobox genes by conserved sequences. I don't suppose you could tell me why God would make nonvertebrate chordate homeobox genes similar to vertebrate homeobox genes when they have very few structural similarities? What's the point? The only result is to "mislead" people to think that they are evolutionarily related.

Unfortunately only the abstracts of these will be available, but they're informative.

A paper. Another paper.

 

Petrel

Thank you for your honesty. At least you have confirmed what I said. Your theory is based on similarities perceived as showing relation.

Let's get away from animals and look at function.
Let's look at man-made objects. How many have four legs? Tables have four legs, chairs have four legs, even automobiles have four wheels and tires.

Do you not see that the use of four legs is because it provides a stable platform?

So, when God created many animals with four legs it is because they provide a stable platform and good means of locomotion.

But some animals have more legs. Insects have six, spiders have eight. Some have hundreds and some have none. It is according to the function required.

Man has two legs. How can we be related to animals that have four or more? Because evolution teaches that all animals in the end evolved from a single ancestor.

But you must not ignore the differences solely to observe the similarities. Yes, a whale and camel have similar ankle bones. So what? Look at the many major differences. Whales breathe through a blowhole on the top of their head. Camels do not. A whale cannot live out of water. Camels can live in the driest deserts. Whales have fins for swimming, camels have long legs with large feet for walking in sand.

So the whale is designed for function in the seas, and a camel for the dry desert. These are major differences. You can't hardly get more opposite than the ocean and desert.

But I know, they have one ankle bone that is shaped about the same.

And Petrel, you have been honest to say that you don't take Genesis 1 as literal. Well, wouldn't that make God misleading? I mean, it says clearly and plainly that God created all things in just six days. I sure don't see how you can get evolution out of this account whatsoever. And the order completely contradicts evolutionary theory.

What do you take the creation account in Genesis 1 to be?

 

One more thing. I do not believe genetics proves anything. Genetics is a fairly new science and not well understood. Genes that are thought to be useless may very well have great value that is not yet understood.

When I was a boy it was taught the appendix and tonsils were useless organs. In fact, they were called "vestigial" and used by many evolutionists as proof of evolution. But over the years it has been discovered that these organs serve very important functions. The appendix fights infection, especially when people are exposed to certain types of radiation. It also contains lymphoid tissue which produces white blood cells to fight disease.

So, to say that certain genes are useless may be premature. It may very well be discovered that these genes serve an important function in the future.

 

Arguments well put, JWI, especially the following:

 

"One more thing. I do not believe genetics proves anything. Genetics is a fairly new science and not well understood. Genes that are thought to be useless may very well have great value that is not yet understood."

It is not a matter of whether the genes are useless or useful.

How about an example. In DNA, there are four "letters" that make up the code. A codon is a combination of three consecutive "letters." A codon primarily codes for one of 20 amino acids but it can also code for other things such as a marker for the end of a gene.

Now, as it turns out, changes to the third position of each codon will often code for the exact same amino acid. So, take a gene that is found in multiple species that forms the exact same protein. There will still be these silent changes that have accumulated in that third position. The pattern of these silent mutations can be compared to the pattern in other species to build trees of how they are related.

It is one tool among many. The thing is, the different tools, approaching the problem from different perspectives and assumptions, continually give the same results.

"When I was a boy it was taught the appendix and tonsils were useless organs. In fact, they were called "vestigial" and used by many evolutionists as proof of evolution."

Vestigal does not mean useless. It means that they no longer serve their original purpose. The three small ears in your ear could be called vestigal because they no longer serve their original purpose (they were the jaw bones of our reptile ancestors) but no one would call them useless.

But you do have some useless vestiges. Do you knw anyone who can wiggle their ears? That is a vestige from when our ancestors had ears more like, say, a dog and moving the ears could improve hearing.

Do you ever get goosebumps? In other animals, there are tiny muscles that pull on each hair follicle that make it stand on end. This is useful in frightening times for making the animal appear larger. When cold, it thickens the caot trapping more air and providing more warmth. Now you may have the same density of hair follicles as other apes, but the hair itself is much thinner. Yet you still have the vestigal response of goosebumps and the tiny muscles to make it all work.

 

Which is more reliable science or the Bible?

The Bible ... Science has failed ... the Bible has not.

 

On the other hand, theology has failed, but nature has not.

 

"One thing that strikes me is that you seem to almost always equate similarity to relation. "

That's the danger of trying to do this one internet post at a time. To adequately explain a complex topic like biology, you really need books. Many, many books. I can try and give a flavor of things, but I really cannot give you a full sense of the breadth and depth of evolution.

Now, about your specific statement. It is not just similarity. It is in the very details of the similarity.

Let's stick with four legged animals. It is a fact that I would say that all tetrapods (birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles) all share a common ancestor. And a big piece of evidence are those four legs.

Not it is not simply that there are four legs. It is that whether you are talking about a person or a bird or even those lobe-finned fish that developed legs in shallow waters before they adapted to come out onto land, they all have the same structure.

Shoulder girdle / pelvis, humorour / femur, ulna / tibia, radius / fibia, carpals, metacarpals.

Look at the fins of a whale, they have the same bones.

Look at the legs of a cat, they have same bones.

Look at the transitional fossils to tartrapods, they have the same bones.

When some animals need only one leg in the lower leg, they don't grow just a single bone, they fuse the tibia and fibia.

Horses don't have a truly unique bone structure, they just extended that middle toe quite a bit and shruck the others.

None of the four legged animals have a unique leg design optimized for their way of life. It is always of the same format, just made to different proportions.

"Putting eyes on the front of a head is best for seeing in the direction an animal moves the majority of the time."

Except for a fish like the flounder where the eyes work best on the same side.

But do their eyes form on that one side? No. They form on opposite sides like all other fish and then migrate over. Why wouldn't a unique, intelligently designed flounder just make eyes on one side of the head?

"Many prominent evolutionists have admitted that the fossil record does not show the transitions."

Which ones? I dismantled your Gould quote.

"You have attempted to explain the lack of transitions with this theory that evolution operates slowly for many hundreds of millions of years and then suddenly accelerates to incredible speed to transform many animals into completely new forms in a very short period of time."

If this is what you have understood then I have done a terrible job of explaining it. For your impression is not how things are.

"But, you alone seem to have found these transitions. Why don't you go forward with your evidence."

The transitions are widely accepted.

"Poll after poll has shown that the majority of people do not believe in evolution. You will probably just say that most are ignorant. I say it proves that evolutionists have not presented convincing evidence."

Polls mean nothing.

And I will say that most people are ignorant on the matter. But you must remember that "ignorant" means uninformed, not stupid. Most people do not have enough information to make a choice on how valid a theory it is. Polls also show that the more an individual knows about evolution, the more likely they are to accept it.

"Providing long lists of animals that no one has a clue what they are and using fancy jargon is not convincing."

If you do not have a clue what they are then how can you consider yourself well informed enough to judge the validity of the theory.

And the "fancy jargon" is the terms through which the discussion takes place. If you do not even understand the terms then you do not know enough about the subject to decide if it is valid or not.

I am not trying to be insulting or condescending. That is just the way it is.

"Showing an ankle bone in a camel and whale to be similar does not convince people that these two came from a common ancestor. "

Not by itself. (Actually that's not true. I think the fossil evidence with the whales is more than enough without anything else.) But you also have all of the other. The genetics. The atavisms. The vestiges. The ontogeny.

 

El_Guero sez:

Paul of Eugene sez:

Theology is not the bible; science is not nature.

Man = science and theology
God = Bible and nature

Are you agreeing with El_Guero that the "man" part of each of these quotes has failed, but the "God" part has not?

If so, I totally agree with you!

 

UTEOTW

Here is a very interesting site (to me) which perfectly describes evolutionists, their false, psuedo-science and circular reasoning.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number6/number6.htm

The 6th paragraph down in particular reminded me of all your posts.

"evolutionists...are masters at the art of equivocation"

How very true.

The problem is, you are convinced by your own false logic and circular reasoning.

There are several statements on this site (and I can find you many others) by leading evolutionists admitting that there is no real evidence for transitional forms. Those who claim otherwise are not being completely honest.

 

"The 6th paragraph down in particular reminded me of all your posts.

"evolutionists...are masters at the art of equivocation"

How very true. "

This is a serious charge. Please tell me where I have equivocated anything. I have presented that facts and the logic as best as I, an unprofessional, can do. I do not think that I have "use[d] [uncertain] language especially with intent to deceive." (Merriam-Webster) Please tell me where I have been deceptive or tried to mislead you. I most certainly have not. I have tried to deal very honesty with you.

And you turn around and call me a liar essentially.

Not the first time. In fact, you can look through the posters on this very page and see one who has recently called me a liar without cause and has steadfastly refused to support his untrue assertion or recant. Yet he has the hypocrisy to have complained on another thread last night that he gets called a liar.

Slander seems to be a common method of the practiced YEer to use. Sometimes the nebies se it so much that they just fall right in line. It would be nice if they had an argument instead every once in a while.

"Here is a very interesting site (to me) which perfectly describes evolutionists, their false, psuedo-science and circular reasoning.

http://www.thedarwinpapers.com/oldsite/number6/number6.htm
...
There are several statements on this site (and I can find you many others) by leading evolutionists admitting that there is no real evidence for transitional forms. Those who claim otherwise are not being completely honest."

Another website. Joy.

A few pages ago you suggested that you can at least see where I am coming from even if you still deny the evidence.

Here's another one. I used to be YE. It was running across the misrepresentations used to prop up YE that directly lead to me chaning my mind.

You gave me quotes. When I put them in their original context, they were shown to have a diffeent meaning. You source misled you on the quotes.

You gave a link to a page on horses. When examined, the author had simply lied about the evidence in multiple places.

You gave a link to a page on genetics. The author had badly misrepresented the implications of the study he was using as his reference.

This pattern goes over and over. Here is another. What do you think we will find?

Quoting from the article you posted from here on unless otherwise noted.

"We have seen earlier that natural selection does not increase the gene pool, but diminishes it, thus working against Darwin’s theory, for we would go from a greater number of species to a lesser number, in other words, extinction, which is the opposite of the origin of species."

False.

If you take a look at the actual process, you see that generally evolution is a branching process. One species splits into two, each of which are free to continue evolving. Sometimes one will continue changing while one remains relatively stable. Sometimes one or more will go extinct. Sometimes the branching continues into more and more species.

There is also a hint at the old information argument. Since it is just a hint, I will merely leave you with links ti two threads where I show increasing "information."

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html

"Another amazing argument used by evolutionists, based mind you on the absolute lack of any kind of fossil evidence of evolution for proof of the evolutionary theory, would be Steven Jay Gould’s astounding concept of “punctuated equilibrium.” It is the theory that a bird can hatch from a lizard's egg, like Cinderella's mice turning into coachmen, and has also been called the "hopeful monster" theory by evolutionists."

This is so false as to be nothing more than a deliberate and conscious lie.

Gould's theory has nothing more to do with hopeful monsters than I am the man in the moon.

Gould says that a lot of change happens in geologically short periods of time (read tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years) and is therefore unlikely to leave a detailed set of fossils. It is just too rare a process.

But it is not based on a lack of evidence as suggested. You can look around the modern world to see the kind of rapid change that is possible. Substantial change has been observed in periods of just a few years. There are many examples of modern speciation after a population is isolated. You can look at what happens in remote areas when new species invades. Go study about how many different roles the honeycreepers of Hawaii have diversified into. Look up the changes in the Canadian goose, now called the Nene, since a few arrived in Hawaii.

And you have to remember what is being claimed. It is not that there are no transitions. It is that the details are not generally found. For instance, we may not have evry intermediate of a lizard turning into a slightly different lizard. But we also have plenty of fossils to document the changes that led to birds.

And sometimes the fossil record does record the very details. I know of several, but I'll only bore you with two. The horse series is so detailed that in places it is difficult to draw the line of where one genus ends and another begins. Some parts of the human tree also have the same difficulty. There are places in the human lineage where we can see changes taking place and are forced to choose between lumping them into the same species or coming up with new names for each find in some cases.

Let's remind you again what Gould had to say.

Do you see the danger here?

Do you see what a problem it becomes to reach an unsaved person who is now led to believe that it is necessary for a Christian to lie in order to support his faith? This outrageous conduct has a terrible and negative effect.

Sorry I don't have all day to go line by line, but having read the rest of the article, it is more of the same. Misrepresentation all the way to the bottom.

And I never found those quotes in there that you promised. Almost all the problematic quotes were from YEers. About the only hostile quotes were from Ted Holden and many of those were so fragmentary as to make it impossible to know what was being discussed. The ones that were slightly clear seemed to be a discussion about PE and not a condemnation of evolution.

I did find a lot of handwaving and red herrings. But I guess that is the best that can be done when you have no evidence.

 

Bill

I am referencing a very specific incident on another thread on a different section of the board. There is no mistaking the intention.

As far as the rest goes, I am very sympathetic to your position. I admire those who are content to accept things with faith as they are written even if I disagree with them. I once even felt the same. I no longer do but I can appreciate the feelings and why you and others feel the way you do. I am in general loath to abandon the plain readin of Scripture but my opinion is that this is one case where it is justified. I also realize that there is great disagreemnt on that opinion and that, at least in this circle, I am in the minority.

 

UTEOTW

Yes, I agree with Plain Old Bill. I apologize if it came across like I was calling you a liar. I believe you to be a very intelligent and highly sincere person who truly believes in evolution.

But I do believe you have been misled. And your arguments reflect the arguments of your teachers.

It is obvious that you have a high respect for education. So do I. I truly wish I had gone further in school (one year of college). However, we must be on guard against intellectual snobbery. Many who are educated feel that those who are less educated cannot reason well. This is not always the case. Many cannot afford a higher education but have a great mind. And going to college does not guarantee that a person reasons well.

You say most of these arguments of mine come from YEs. So what? Isn't the truth what matters? Even you can surely see how a literal translation of Genesis 1 points to a six day creation. I have asked you numerous times to show how these or any verses in the Bible can point or indicate evolution. But, you have side-stepped this every time and then posted some long evolutionist doctrine that sounds just like it came out of a college textbook.

Your posts do fit the description I referred to. But you are just saying what you were taught.

This same problem can happen when you witness to someone who has been raised into a religion that trusts in works and not Christ for salvation. I try to consider where a person developed their belief system. Most formed their beliefs early from the persons they most loved and trusted in the world, their parents. And their parents were not intentionally lying or trying to lead them astray. No, just the opposite. Their parents truly loved them and taught them what they sincerely believed. But according to God's word, it is false.

And this is tough on people. You are shaking up their whole world. In effect, you are calling the persons most dear and trusted to them a liar. That is not the intention. The intention is to lead them to Christ. So, you have to be very careful and patient with folks like this.

And many trust in higher education, just as they trust their parents. But it is true that those at the top in higher education tend to be atheists. This is a GENERAL statement. I am not saying this about all. Many polls have shown that the majority of college professors do not believe in the Bible. Most (in general) believe life developed through evolution without assistance from a higher power.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

This is not some right-wing religious paranoia, but the truth.

Respect your teachers. But when their teaching does not line up with God's word, then beware.

UTEOTW, this theory of puctuated equalibrium is not only ridiculous, it is downright comical. To teach that evolution moves slowly for tens or even hundreds of millions of years, and suddenly for no known reason, to speed up astronomically, transforming almost ALL life forms into another type of life form altogether is just plain dumb. To argue that a lack of transitional forms proves evolution is absurd. You are way too intelligent to fall for that.

Plus, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this whatsoever. Study and see.

This last article and other posts of mine I have shown quotes from famous and prominent evolutionists admitting that there is no REAL transitional record. Just because a YE has brought this information to your attention does not change the cold, hard truth.

 

UTEOTW

Yes, I agree with Plain Old Bill. I apologize if it came across like I was calling you a liar. I believe you to be a very intelligent and highly sincere person who truly believes in evolution.

But I do believe you have been misled. And your arguments reflect the arguments of your teachers.

It is obvious that you have a high respect for education. So do I. I truly wish I had gone further in school (one year of college). However, we must be on guard against intellectual snobbery. Many who are educated feel that those who are less educated cannot reason well. This is not always the case. Many cannot afford a higher education but have a great mind. And going to college does not guarantee that a person reasons well.

You say most of these arguments of mine come from YEs. So what? Isn't the truth what matters? Even you can surely see how a literal translation of Genesis 1 points to a six day creation. I have asked you numerous times to show how these or any verses in the Bible can point or indicate evolution. But, you have side-stepped this every time and then posted some long evolutionist doctrine that sounds just like it came out of a college textbook.

Your posts do fit the description I referred to. But you are just saying what you were taught.

This same problem can happen when you witness to someone who has been raised into a religion that trusts in works and not Christ for salvation. I try to consider where a person developed their belief system. Most formed their beliefs early from the persons they most loved and trusted in the world, their parents. And their parents were not intentionally lying or trying to lead them astray. No, just the opposite. Their parents truly loved them and taught them what they sincerely believed. But according to God's word, it is false.

And this is tough on people. You are shaking up their whole world. In effect, you are calling the persons most dear and trusted to them a liar. That is not the intention. The intention is to lead them to Christ. So, you have to be very careful and patient with folks like this.

And many trust in higher education, just as they trust their parents. But it is true that those at the top in higher education tend to be atheists. This is a GENERAL statement. I am not saying this about all. Many polls have shown that the majority of college professors do not believe in the Bible. Most (in general) believe life developed through evolution without assistance from a higher power.

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].

This is not some right-wing religious paranoia, but the truth.

Respect your teachers. But when their teaching does not line up with God's word, then beware.

UTEOTW, this theory of puctuated equalibrium is not only ridiculous, it is downright comical. To teach that evolution moves slowly for tens or even hundreds of millions of years, and suddenly for no known reason, to speed up astronomically, transforming almost ALL life forms into another type of life form altogether is just plain dumb. To argue that a lack of transitional forms proves evolution is absurd. You are way too intelligent to fall for that.

Plus, there is absolutely no scientific evidence for this whatsoever. Study and see.

This last article and other posts of mine I have shown quotes from famous and prominent evolutionists admitting that there is no REAL transitional record. Just because a YE has brought this information to your attention does not change the cold, hard truth.