Did the sea-squirt "become" a fish?

Since the fossil record shows the abrupt appearance of all major kinds, the evolutionists must use their imagination to come up with a viable ancestor for every kind of created animal (plus humankind). In their diligent search for a fish ancestor, they discovered the "tadpole" stage of the sea squirt. This little creature has a bit of cartilage in its tail. In their thinking, since cartilage is also an ingredient found in boney material, they postulate that the vertebrate backbone (plus the rest of the fish) evolved from the tadpole stage of the sea squirt! This is amazing to me! What kind of irrational and unscientific thinking leads to such a conclusion as this? They have attempted to change the truth of God into a lie, and to change the meaning of science (the search for truth) to the search for a naturalistic answer for observed phenomena. I'm sure that in the near future, the word "observed" will be removed, since no person has ever actually observed the magical transformation of one species into another. What "forces of evolution" in their watery invironment could cause these changes? In my thinking (and I believe it to be scientifically sound), water has always been water, and the little sea squirt surely seems happy to spend its life on the ocean floor or glued to a pier somewhere. So changes in the environment (water) could not be the cause of mutations, and (later) selection to turn the sea squirt into a fish. These pet mechanisms of the evolutionists (mutations and selection) never produce a new animal, since mutations cause a loss or duplication of a genetic instruction, and natural selection simply tends to maintain the best quality of a group or class of already created animals. Variation within kinds but not variation to a new kind is accepted by all creationists. This inherant stability is sometimes called stasis. Stasis is the stability of kind evidenced by living groups, and the fossil record. All aquatic animals live in the same environment and all are well designed for this type of existence. There is no reason for the so-called "pressures of evolution" to change one animal into another. And why would it not be happening today? They are in the same environment as in the past. One item of special interest: there are 100 million years (using their flawed timeframe) of evidence missing for this magical transformation. We should be inundated with millions of intermediate stages, not only alive today, but in the fossil record. Now, in all fairness to the evolutionist, there is somewhat of a relationship between the seasquirt and a fish. For instance water flows through one opening and out some other opening on both of these creatures. So, just as the blinking yellow caution light and the blinking yellow light of the lightning bug show a distinct relationship, you can easily see how over milliions of years, mutations and natural selection produced a lightning bug from a caution light! The only criteria you need to "see" this transformation (and the transformation of the sea squirt into a fish)is that you live in the evolutionary land of makebelieve, and are somewhat gullible. We need to bring back the real definition of science, and open our minds to the truth of what we see, no matter where it may take us. Harry Moore

Letter to Time Magazine

I was standing in line at my bank a few weeks ago, and noticed a magazine (TIME) with the bold letters EVOLUTION WARS on the cover. Of course, that got my attention, so I picked it up and browsed through it. One of the bank employees said I could take it with me to finish reading, so I did

Some of the statements of the “anti-Creationists” are not scientific. For instance, in the “FACE-OFF” dealing with the eye, on page thirty. They really uncovered the “mainstay” of the theory in the paragraph “Who Needs a Designer?” That mainstay of course, is imagination. The whole theory is backed by a very heavy dose of it. To say a mutation might have produced a patch of light-sensitive cells allowing a “primitive creature” to “see” (or tell light from dark) is also unscientific. For instance, was the patch on the “head” of this creature, or on an evolving arm, or leg, or even on the bottom side? Did this patch become electrically charged because of the light? If so, where would the charge go? Eyes by themselves don’t see. Our eyes are designed to send (at about 200 miles per hour) precise electrical signals from the retina to a particular part of our brain, which must interpret the signals and make us able to “see” our surroundings. It does so in milliseconds, and in three dimensional color! Then, that picture is transferred to another part of the brain, so that another picture can immediately be interpreted to replace that one. And, what about the other eye? They must realize that more than one is needed. They have to imagine how another eye designed exactly like that one can come about by millions of tiny useless steps, starting with light-sensitive skin. Then, they have the problem of over a million creatures with one eye that exactly matches the design of their other eye. Plus the fact that every creature’s brain, optic nerves, skull openings, muscle control, and so on, have to match those eyes.

Of course, all these mutations and selections would produce animals with an “eye” in the wrong place. Also, of course, while other “lucky mutations” are occurring, the fossils of this type creature (one-eyed, one armed, one legged, one winged, etc., all in the wrong location and orientation on the creature) would outnumber the real fossils by millions to one! Where are these creatures in the fossil record? They simply are not there. Think about that. If evolution were true, the fossil record would actually be reversed! You would be lucky to find a complete and whole creature anywhere, but would find millions of mutated mistakes on the way to becoming a viable creature.

Fossil evidence doesn’t show that any of these “accidents of nature” ever existed. It’s amazing that the “biologists” actually admitted that there is “no fossil evidence” of the interim steps. Unlike the implications from the paragraph, many highly credentialed biologists and scientists do believe in a Creator (the Creation Science Society).

Even a perfect eye, with all perfectly designed parts; the precisely attached muscles to move it; the retinal cells that change light to electricity; the lens that is perfectly “hung” in front at a very precise orientation and distance from the retina; the fluid inside that must be clear; the tears to give nourishment where blood must not flow (over the cornea); an eyelid that automatically closes and opens to clean it, and provide nutrients; and many other necessary “ingredients” is still completely useless! Like I said earlier, eyes don’t see. So what is to “select” until the organ is complete, and the optic nerves are there and connected properly from the retina to the part of the brain designed to interpret and actually make a “picture” from the signals and “erase” that picture immediately to start over again? All the correct parts are needed from the “getgo” (like in an act of Creation). Along with sight, you have the other four senses (smell, touch, hearing, and taste) to combine to enable the brain to decide what the body should do in reaction to its surroundings.

To simplify what I mean, look at it this way: The eye (complete with muscles for movement) is the “functional” unit, while the optic nerves are the “connecting or supporting” units, and the brain is the “controlling” unit. Additionally, you must have separate muscle control for concise, synchronized, identical movement (and precise alignment) of the two eyeballs. Remove any of these items and it doesn’t work. Likewise, you can see the hand as a functional unit, with the arm and shoulder as the supporting units, and the brain as the controlling unit. Some call this the “Whole Package Phenomenon”, or “Irreducible Complexity”. I call it the “rule of three” (functional unit, supporting unit, and controlling unit). It’s real, and it’s real science.

I would like to mention a few things that cannot evolve. If it is true that any of the following items can’t possibly wait for evolution to produce them over time, then the theory is false.

I’ll start with the tongue. A dog (or any other animal that laps up water) must be able to control its tongue to get a drink. Otherwise, it would not survive. This is a very complex process of muscle control and ability. Not much time to “wait for evolution” to allow it to drink. We must be able to push food between the upper and lower set of teeth to be chewed. We must be able to produce saliva, and “chew”. Then, we must be able to move the chewed food to the back of the tongue where the swallow response (which can’t evolve) allows it to go down. None of these processes of muscle control and nerves that control them could “wait” to evolve. And as you know, that’s only the very beginning of many precisely controlled processes needed for digestion. You can gain an appreciation for the tongue by being aware of all it does the next time you eat or speak. Try repeating this sentence without moving your tongue. See what I mean?

The sensation of hunger cannot evolve over time. If you were not hungry, you would not eat. You would die. If the sensation of thirst had to wait to evolve, you would die waiting for it.

The autonomic system of the body cannot evolve. Take breathing, for instance. If you had to think about it, and intentionally breathe in and out, (and as a “basic creature”, you somehow had the ability to control your diaphragm) what would happen when you forgot, or went to sleep?

Instinct (nest building, care of offspring, proper use of body parts) is necessary and hard wired into the proper brain of the proper creature to allow for survival, from the very beginning. That can’t wait for lucky mutations to “happen”. Did the right instinct just happen in the right body with over a million creatures?

Bone joints have to match their “partner”. The hinge joint (one of the five types in the human body) must fit perfectly on both sides, or the pain would be unbearable. Location, orientation, material, proper cushioning, and lubrication must be just right. This joint is found in the elbows, knees, fingers, toes and jaw. There are over two hundred bones in the human body, all aligned and fitting to make the body viable. I can’t personally even imagine how the first bone joint came into being without an intelligent Creator. Yet, there are twenty-eight bones in each of our hands; two hundred and six in our skeleton. Think about that.

Teeth can’t evolve, and the top row must “match” the bottom. An alligators jaw is a good example. The upper and lower teeth are a perfect compliment of each other. And that massive skull and huge jaw didn’t just happen over time, with many trials and errors.

Your skin fits “you” perfectly. The skin covers your hands better than a glove. One side must be loose, especially at the joints, to allow movement in a certain direction. The other side isn’t loose, and is very tough for doing chores. Skin covers your whole body; has to have “holes” in proper places, and protects you from the “outside world”. It must be able to grow with the body it covers. A creature with a partially covered body would not survive. If your skin didn’t grow with your body, you would not survive.

Animals with legs must have the proper legs for the particular body to which they are attached. Animals with huge bodies must have strong legs located at the four corners of the main mass, and pointing down, with proper orientation so the four don’t run in separate directions! Two legged animals (like birds) must have legs located precisely to properly balance the body while walking, and wings (on the ones designed to fly) of a precise size, material, orientation, and location to allow for balanced flight.

Letter to The Christian Index

This is a letter I wrote to a Georgia Baptist publication. It was published in the next edition.

In secular schools, our children are inundated in every subject with a worldview against a creator God. For instance, my oldest granddaughter has a reading book that covers factual writings, fiction, and fantasy.
The example given for fantasy is the story about a young cave-dwelling family, whose child found a dinosaur egg. The egg hatched and the dinosaur became their pet. However, at the end of the story, the statement was made that it would not be possible for any man to have ever had a dinosaur for a pet.
They suggested that research should be done into why that is the case. They were implying that no humans were around when dinosaurs “ruled the earth.”
I took my family out to Glen Rose, Texas, where we actually examined human footprints in a limestone layer in the Paluxy River. What made these prints unique was the fact that in a limestone layer nearby and above these prints was the footprint of a three-toed dinosaur.
Evolutionists claim that the human prints were not human at all, or were carvings. However, forensics experts agreed that these were footprints from a human being. Also, you can’t carve out “up-push.” Up-push is the way that a small amount of mud is squeezed out around a footprint, which causes a raised area at those places. Additionally, a carving can’t create compression marks in the limestone. God gave man dominion over all the creatures, and that included dinosaurs (Genesis 1:26).
If we really “got here” through a slow process over millions of years, why can’t we find evidence in the fossil record for that? If evolution were true, the fossil record would be totally reversed from what we see. There would be only “in-between” animals.
There is no indisputable creature in the fossil record that is shown to be an in-between. That includes the “apes to humans” philosophy. Those creatures were either apes, or humans; not a mixture. And a “common ancestor” for them will never be found.
Many evolutionary scientists actually agree that there are no in-between creatures in the fossil record. Their answer for that problem is called Punctuated Equilibrium, which suggests that one kind of animal had a totally different kind for a baby. However, the genetic code in the parents’ DNA would have to mutate in such a way as to include the building of new working organs that had never existed before, and create working connections inside the body of the creature (for control and function of the new parts).
Mutations cause a decrease of information or (as shown in fruit fly experiments) simply repeat an instruction. Mutations are defective copies of intelligent DNA information. There is not one instance where mutations can be shown to bring about new useful genetic information in a creature. Evolution depends on a non-existent process.
As Christians who believe the Bible from beginning to end, we must educate ourselves to not just defend our position, but to be absolutely sure our children (and grandchildren) have a working knowledge of the truth of creation. Only by knowing the real thing can they detect the counterfeit.

Giant Mouse With Human Feet!

Here is a cartoon that I drew to illustrate the creature that must have made human footprints in limestone near dinosaur prints. I drew it for those who don't believe people were around during the so called "time of dinosaurs."