I ran into one of my high school biology teachers. He's one of the coolest guys I ever knew. Biology is a class I received an "F" in, a distinction solely mine among the four siblings in our family. After receiving my degrading grade, it was this man who personally worked with me to help me push my next quarter's grade up to a B+. He's retired now, but still a very active individual who looks younger than his years. I was always curious about his thoughts on Evolution, but I've never really approached him on the subject, as I've felt it would probably be unproductive. He's attends church, but he is very rigidly fixed in his views.

There were plenty of Evolution references in my high school biology textbooks. I'm sure Evolution is given much more prominence in textbooks today than it was 30 years ago. I wonder if they still include the illustrations showing that vertebrates are no different in their embryonic appearance in the early stages of formation. The fact is, embryos do not look the same in their early stages.

Back in the 1800s, a German biologist named Ernest Haeckel made some fraudulent drawings to show that he had solved the mystery of the way life begins. He used those drawings to prove his point. It was way back in 1874 that a professor named William His exposed Ernest Haeckel as a complete fraud. The same kinds of drawings that Mr. Haeckel made are still in high school and college textbooks, and being used as evidence to prove evolution. The logic fails me.

The two-fisted way in which Evolutionists cling to their "proofs" even when they've been shown to be mistaken notions or outright frauds is at best a type of stupidity and at worst, a willful ignorance of the truth. I've heard them defend their proofs and in the same conversation turn around and admit that they aren't proofs at all. That has been the problem with Evolutionary thinking from its beginnings. Believers have been willing to leapfrog on faith, from one theory to another.

You hear modern Evolution scientists say that there was "nothing," and that "something" came out of that. For all of their knowledge, they are still making leaps of faith. There's nothing wrong with faith, except when it's based on bad knowledge. You see, Evolutionists believe that there was nothing, no time, no space, no energy and most importantly, no "matter." That is the material point, (pun intended,) because it is somewhere in this absolute nothingness that cosmologists will say that there was a quantum fluctuation that set everything off-------eureka!---existence begins. Not only has it begun, but this leap of faith has accounted for countless galaxies---out of "nothing." But nothing means no geometric "dust," no quantum vacuum, no time in which events can be contained, and certainly no physical laws, right? There can' be physical laws that apply to "nothing" or otherwise, there would be "something."

The fossil record provides no evidence for Evolution either. There isn't a single transitional bit of evidence in it, and the number of fossils is enormous. Animals and plants appear in the fossil record rather abruptly, and are fully functional. For years people touted the fossils of extinct species like the saber-toothed tiger to show proof for Evolution. Folks, it was just a kind of cat that died out. It happens. Of the surface of our planet that has been well explored, there aren't even three "geologic periods" that appear in a consecutive order to make them line up with Evolutionary theory, yet they still say, "The Big Bang came first, then the planets formed, then we got the primordial ooze, out of which proteins appeared and then so on and so on until we evolved over billions of years. None of this fits with what we see before us.

Like I said, I have no problem with faith, but I do have a problem with ignoring what we see before us and passing the ignorance off as truth. There is a simple reason Evolutionists want to believe there was "nothing" before there was something, and that's because "nothing" can allow them to leave God unrecognized as the Creator. It's okay for them to reject what I believe, but just examine the Bible closely, and compare it to what you see around you. Don't just call Christians kooks.

It was okay for me too, to examine what Evolutionists believe and reject that too. I don't think they're kooks for it, I just think they have been deceived, either by the outdated phony, debunked science that they have been fed over time, or simply by their own wants and desires to reject God.