How to read an evolutionary family tree

Charts and diagrams can be wonderful aids giving clarity and visual reinforcement to a point or lesson one is trying to make. However, these explanatory tools also can be confusing and in some cases misleading, when the illustrations and their implications are not fully explained. Such in the case with charts that supposedly show the evolutionary relationship of creatures. A typical illustration will try to convince you of how certain group of creatures has evolved from a common ancestor in the past. However, these charts almost always use dotted lines when the supposed evolutionary path is unknown. In these instances, you should simply ignore the dotted lines. By doing so, you will be left with a diagram showing that the different types of species depicted have remained the same throughout history. Without the dotted lines, these charts simply show the diversity within a kind, revealing that today's creatures haven't changed from so-called "ancient" ancestors. The dotted lines reinforce the fact that there is no evidence to prove the existence of a common ancestor. Go to a library or go on-line for a book and check all the evolutionary trees you can find. You'll find this a revealing and worthwhile exercise.

http://creation.com/is-the-evolutionary-tree-changing-into-a-creationist-orchard

Why are the countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Question #9 for Evolutionist

Darwin noted the problem and is still remains. The evolutionary family trees in text books are based on imagination, not based on fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologists and atheist, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossils record persists as the trade secret of paleontology." Other evolutionists will admit to the same problem.

   creation.com/pattquote

The honor of life

The apostle shows to the Hebrews the typical reference of their ceremonies to Christ. The tabernacle was a movable temple, shadowing forth the unsettled state of the church upon earth, and the human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. The typical meaning of these things has been shown in former remarks, and the ordinances and articles of the Mosaic covenant point out Christ as our Light, and as the Bread of life to our souls; and remind us of his Divine Person, his holy priesthood, perfect righteousness, and all-prevailing intercession. Thus was the Lord Jesus Christ, all and in all, from the beginning. And as interpreted by the gospel, these things are a glorious representation of the wisdom of God, and confirm faith in Him who was prefigured by them.

Hebrews 9:1-5

Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. ² A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. ³ Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, ⁴ which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. ⁵ Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqiy9JRx-5w 

The principle of non-contradiction

Being cannot be non-being, for they are direct opposites. And opposites cannot be the same. For the one who affirms that "opposites can both be true" does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb9CYYdxBQQ

The stopper of science

Evolutionists often claim that the acceptance of creation is a "science stopper" and that the actions of God cut off the possibility for studying scientific concepts. This idea, however, is false. A belief in special creation only removes the option of continuous evolution, not the study of the many other relationships among living things. The study of cichlid fish by Doctor John showed the amazing variety of characteristic within the cichlid species, including coloration and ability to survive in saltwater. What was also apparent was that the cichlid were a distinct kind of fish that showed no evolutionary relationships in the breeding experiments. The fossil record supports the notion of fixed kinds of fish, with very few supposed transitional forms between kinds of fish. Creationists are mot bound to any classification system that rises above the level of kind. Part of the classification schemes may be correct as they appear today, but more research needs to be done to classify the relationships.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGHOkeEaAWA&spfreload=5