Bats: The Fingerprints of Creation, continued


What I am suggesting here is the opposite of evolution: it is "devolution" following the biblical creation plan. That is, degeneration of the original creation to a greater simplicity. So, while evolution promulgates the development of a new species from another, different species, devolution proposes the degradation and development of a species within itself.


So at the end of the fifth day of creation week we have all of the creatures that fly. Bats, birds, insects and flying dinosaurs now fill the skies in all of their splendor and glory. Now was day five of creation week a twenty-four hour day as the Bible declares or was it a long geological period involving millions of years? I won't go into the argument over the Hebrew word "Yom" or the fact that the term "and evening and morning" follows each creation day. But later on we will see that the bats do confirm that the creation days were twenty-four hour periods. Next we will look into the fossil record of bats.


"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." 2 Peter 3:5,6


The oldest fossil of a bat, Icaronycteris, is said to be fifty million years old. Some might imagine a prehistoric bat to be a grotesque saber-toothed blood-sucking monster. But what we see in the fossil record is a bat fundamentally indistinguishable from today's bats. This bat had all the excellent features that we see today. Some evolutionist's marvel that in fifty million years bats have remained unchanged. Now if evolution occurs, or has occurred, then one would think that in such a long time span we would see some notable changes in the bats.


If evolution has occurred we would also expect to find an ancestral or transitional fossil form. However, in the fossil record we find no such transitional forms linking, for instance, a shrew to a bat. In fact we find nothing that resembles or comes close to an ancestor of a bat. In the fossil record there exist no transitional forms of any creatures. Thus the fossil record confirms what the Bible teaches. In the fossil record we find fully formed animals as described in the Genesis account of creation. "Then God saw everything that He had made and indeed it was very good." Genesis 1:31


According to the fossils the early bats had the same basic capabilities as bats today just as God had created them. Now the dating methods used to give a fossil bat fifty million years are based on assumptions. All dating methods are based on assumptions. The creationists' assumptions are based on the divinely inspired Word of God, which is inerrant. Is the Bible accurate and reliable? Was there really a worldwide flood responsible for laying down the sedimentary layers forming the fossils that we see today? Has science proven that the fossil record was formed over millions of years?


Click the image for a larger view

Click the image for a larger view

*Diagram C implies that there existed a common ancestor for both groups, the mega and microbats. Although this may be true, another possible alternative might be that a parent species representing each group was created on day five of creation week. Within the biblical model we can have one progenitor for megabats and another for the microbats or a progenitor for all bats.


Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Bibliography