Q: What is wrong with Creationism and Darwinism?
A: The fact that they both exist as viable theories is problem enough. If either was incontrovertibly true and correct, in the way that Einsteinís theory of relativity is true and correct, there would be no possible alternative. Everyone would simply line up behind the correct one and that would be that.

Q: Surely itís not that simplistic, is it?
A: No, itís not. Creationists are able to blow gaping holes in Darwinism because of the Darwinistsí continued inability to reconcile microevolution and macroevolution. To Darwinists, macroevolution is necessary to account for the proliferation of all species, but microevolution is all they can actually account for. So to that extent the Creationists are right: macroevolution does not appear to exist as a viable function of nature. On the other hand, Darwinists can more or less flatten the Creationist timeline of everything in the universe being created whole and complete by a Supreme Being in six literal days 6,000 years ago, simply by pointing to the geological layering in the Grand Canyon, or by pointing out that the top of Mount Everest is comprised of marine limestone.

Q: What is the difference between microevolution and macroevolution?
A: When Charles Darwin went to the Galapagos Islands in the early 1800ís, he noticed that certain species of animals on various islands exhibited markedly different physical characteristics developed to more efficiently exploit their ecological niches. For example, finches had developed different beaks for eating seeds, insects, and fruits, while tortoise shells had developed large "notches" in front to accommodate the extended necks of those that had to feed on bushes that grew up off the ground. They remained entirely finches and entirely tortoises, but had become slightly modified versions of their parent species. Those modifications were at the micro, meaning "small," level.

Darwin understood that those distinct micro-level changes had occurred in only the few million years the Galapagos had been in existence. And because he also understood that complex life had been on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, he logically assumed that in such a vast expanse of time entire bodies could transform. Sea worms could turn into fish, fish could turn into amphibians, amphibians could turn into reptiles, reptiles could turn into birds and mammals, and mammals could turn into humans.

Changes of that magnitude are at the macro, meaning "large," level, and Darwinís mistake was assuming they were an inevitable consequence of changes at the micro level. He even suspected that he might be wrong, flatly stating that if transitional species could not be found, then his theory should be discarded. In 140 years of looking, Darwinists still have not produced a single undeniably transitional species, when simple logic dictates that somewhere within the millions of species alive today, at least a few should clearly be in the process of transition.

Q: What is "punctuated equilibrium"?
A: Darwinism is founded on the concept of macroevolution occurring gradually over long periods of time. However, undisputed examples of it do not exist in either the fossil record or in the world around us, even though it should be blatantly obvious at every level and in every era, especially after the five major extinction events that have dominated the timeline of complex life on Earth. However, after each such extinction, when 50% to 90% of all life forms are destroyed and the fossil record is essentially "wiped clean," there is a relatively brief period of stability (on the order of a few thousand years), followed by a rapid filling of the vacated ecological niches.

This is a flagrant contradiction of the concept of gradualism, so it has to be explained by Darwinists in "naturalistic" terms that do not admit the possibility of "outside intervention." That attempt is called punctuated equilibrium, which in essence states that the remaining 10% to 50% of life forms that survive extinction events somehow know that they have to do more than gradually evolve into the next step up their particular Darwinian "ladder": each one must rapidly speciate into hundreds and thousands of other life forms to fill the 50% to 90% of ecological niches emptied by the extinction events.

Q: What is the "missing link" between humans and their remote ancestors?
A: Anthropologists insist humans have evolved on Earth by means of Darwinian gradualism, starting at 4.0 million years ago with a group of upright-walking primates known as "Australopithecines," who evolved over the course of 2.0 million years into the early Homos (in scientific terms "Homo" means "man"). There are eight or ten or twelve groups of these so-called "prehuman" creatures, depending on which anthropologist you consult; but whether eight or twelve, they all lead inexorably to modern humans.

The only problem is that not a single human bone, or even a remotely human bone, is in the entire "prehuman" fossil record until the Cro-Magnons (essentially modern humans) appear quite suddenly at only 120,000 years ago. This simply flies in the face of Darwinian gradualism, and creates a need for what has come to be called "the missing link." The missing link is any bone dated prior to the Cro-Magnons which will in any way indicate that a transition is underway from the so-called "prehumans" to actual humans. This, too, has been sought by Darwinian anthropologists for 140 years, but it remains nowhere on their horizon.

Q: If humans did not produce the prehuman fossil record, where did it come from?
A: Throughout history there have been reports of large, upright-walking, hair-covered primates being encountered in or near the most heavily forested areas of Earth. Contrary to popular belief, these areas of dense forest and jungle comprise approximately 45% of the arable land on the planet. The other 55% is the prime ecological niches humans prefer: prairie, savanna, and lightly wooded forests. So with 45% of arable land at their disposal, the hair-covered bipedal primates have more than enough room to live and die while seldom if ever being disturbed by human trespassers.

Q: What are those hair-covered bipedal primates called?
A: Hominoids is the technical term, but they are popularly known in the west as "Bigfoot" or "Sasquatch," and "The Abominable Snowman" or "Yeti." There are also two other kinds which are dominant in other parts of the world but which people in the west know little about. Those two are "Almas," from the mountains of southern Russia (Pamirs and Caucasus), western China (Altai and Tien Shans) and other places around the globe; and "Agogwes," found in the jungles of South America, Central Africa, and Indonesia. Actually, all four kinds have dozens of different names because humans living near each place where they live call them by various regional epithets. But the names given above are most commonly used by hominoid researchers.

Q: Arenít Bigfoot and The Abominable Snowman some kind of tabloid joke?
A: Now they are, but when their tracks were first being taken seriously in the early 1950ís, they were studied in great detail by several highly qualified scientific researchers, Ivan Sanderson being the foremost among that group. Unfortunately for scientists, after a decade or so it became obvious that they could not easily explain what hominoids were or where they fit into the scheme of higher primate life on Earth. That being the case, they shunted discussion of them into the tabloids to spare themselves the continued embarrassment of having to confess their inability to explain the phenomenon.

Q: How do hominoids fit into the scheme of life on Earth?
A: They are the native, indigenous, bipedal primates of this planet, being quite similar to gorillas and chimpanzees except that they walk upright. More importantly, it is their bones that comprise the so-called "prehuman" fossil record discussed above. Humans encounter hominoids all over the world on a fairly regular basis, and each description of them, no matter where on Earth it occurs, matches other descriptions of them with astonishing consistency. Those descriptions are of creatures built exactly like the obviously non-human skeletons owned by the so-called "prehumans."

Q: If hominoids are the prehumans, where do actual humans fit into the scheme of life?
A: Humans are decidedly late-comers to the planet, with skeletons that first begin to appear in the fossil record (as Cro-Magnons) at only 120,000 years ago.

Q: Surely the human species is vastly older than 120,000 years?
A: Not according to our genes. In the late 1980ís geneticists proved our species is no older than 250,000 years, and no younger than 150,000 years. The common average given is 200,000 years. This, of course, is a great conundrum for Darwinists, whose dogma requires a much longer period to achieve any kind of significant physiological change, much less the complete overhaul humanity underwent.

Q: Does that mean humans have not had enough time to "evolve" in typical Darwinian fashion?
A: That is exactly what it means.