Evolution: the idea that all life has come about through descent with modification from a single-celled common ancestor over billions of years. Creation: the idea that the world and everything in it was created by an intelligent designer in 6 days, not billions of years. These two ideas are the most-believed throughout the world. Though only one is being accepted right now. The theory of evolution. This theory is taught everywhere. Museums, schools, National Parks, even tv and movies. According to the mass media and a large group of studied experts, there are absolutely no problems with this theory, and that it is the only correct explanation for how life began. If you question their theory, then you are a misinformed, delusional religious fanatic and in violation of the Separation of Church and State. There are many problems with this theory, however. Hopefully this post will shed a little light on the subject. We will examine a few of the problems with the concept of evolution later in the post, but for right now what I'm going to do is try to fix some of the potential problems that evolutionists have raised against Creation.
The first potential "problem" is that evolutionists say that they can date rocks back to billions of years ago. How do they do this? Through a supposedly infallible process called carbon dating. The only problem with carbon dating is that the conductors make a ton of assumptions when they conduct it. When they first start the carbon dating, their assumptions effect the outcome. So, for example, if they believe the earth is 3 billion years old, they are going to get an estimate relative to that assumption. For example, there was a recent test conducted on rocks that had been formed during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. We know how old those rocks are, since that event was fairly recent (1980). The conductors were able to calculate them through carbon dating based on current assumptions to be over 100,000 years old. So carbon dating is not the most effective method of dating.
Another problem is the fact that helium has been found in rocks dated to be millions of years old. What does this mean? That they cannot possibly be that old. Helium is constantly leaking out of rocks. So, that means that the helium would have been gone within thousands of years of when it was formed. Billions of years=no helium.
A common problem often referred to by evolutionists is the Grand Canyon. Slow erosion must have taken millions and millions of years to erode all that rock. My answer is, not really. Again referring to the Mt. St. Helens eruption, canyons were formed hundreds of feet deep in days. Imagine, if a cataclysmic event (such as, say, a global flood like that described in the Bible) could have carved those canyons? If the eruption of Mt. St. Helens carved canyons only 40 times smaller than the Grand Canyon in days, think of what a major event like a global Flood could have done in a year!
The argument most would raise against this is that there is no evidence that such an event ever occurred. Actually, the evidence is everywhere. How else do you explain fish remains found atop mountains a mile above sea level? Or the excessive amounts of coal found all around the world caused by uprooted and waterlogged trees buried quickly by sediment? Or explain resulting stories from every culture in the world of a global flood (the epic of Gilgamesh, Chinese legends, even Native American stories)!
You might say, "Scientists have found all kinds of missing links between man and ape!" No, not really. Consider all the fraudulent ape-men that have arisen in the past. Nebraska man turned out to be a wild pig, Neanderthal Man was a rather large human. Now, it seems, we have Lucy. Now I'm not an expert on ape/human anatomy, but I do know that apes have a sloped face, no nose bones, and you can't see the orbits of their eyes from the side. Humans have a relatively flat-sloped face, have nose bones, and you can see the orbits of their eyes from the side. Look at this picture of Lucy and compare to a human skull and tell me if she's an ape or human.
The first potential "problem" is that evolutionists say that they can date rocks back to billions of years ago. How do they do this? Through a supposedly infallible process called carbon dating. The only problem with carbon dating is that the conductors make a ton of assumptions when they conduct it. When they first start the carbon dating, their assumptions effect the outcome. So, for example, if they believe the earth is 3 billion years old, they are going to get an estimate relative to that assumption. For example, there was a recent test conducted on rocks that had been formed during the Mt. St. Helens eruption. We know how old those rocks are, since that event was fairly recent (1980). The conductors were able to calculate them through carbon dating based on current assumptions to be over 100,000 years old. So carbon dating is not the most effective method of dating.
Another problem is the fact that helium has been found in rocks dated to be millions of years old. What does this mean? That they cannot possibly be that old. Helium is constantly leaking out of rocks. So, that means that the helium would have been gone within thousands of years of when it was formed. Billions of years=no helium.
A common problem often referred to by evolutionists is the Grand Canyon. Slow erosion must have taken millions and millions of years to erode all that rock. My answer is, not really. Again referring to the Mt. St. Helens eruption, canyons were formed hundreds of feet deep in days. Imagine, if a cataclysmic event (such as, say, a global flood like that described in the Bible) could have carved those canyons? If the eruption of Mt. St. Helens carved canyons only 40 times smaller than the Grand Canyon in days, think of what a major event like a global Flood could have done in a year!
The argument most would raise against this is that there is no evidence that such an event ever occurred. Actually, the evidence is everywhere. How else do you explain fish remains found atop mountains a mile above sea level? Or the excessive amounts of coal found all around the world caused by uprooted and waterlogged trees buried quickly by sediment? Or explain resulting stories from every culture in the world of a global flood (the epic of Gilgamesh, Chinese legends, even Native American stories)!
You might say, "Scientists have found all kinds of missing links between man and ape!" No, not really. Consider all the fraudulent ape-men that have arisen in the past. Nebraska man turned out to be a wild pig, Neanderthal Man was a rather large human. Now, it seems, we have Lucy. Now I'm not an expert on ape/human anatomy, but I do know that apes have a sloped face, no nose bones, and you can't see the orbits of their eyes from the side. Humans have a relatively flat-sloped face, have nose bones, and you can see the orbits of their eyes from the side. Look at this picture of Lucy and compare to a human skull and tell me if she's an ape or human.
To add further to the problems with Lucy, the knee joint that evolutionists used to prove Lucy walked upright was found 2 miles away and further down in the ground then the rest of the bones. Either Lucy was the first discovery of nitroglycerin or the whole thing is a hoax.Now that we have hopefully addressed some of the issues with Creation, let's move on to confront some unspoken issues with evolution.
The magnetic field surrounding earth is slowly decaying. This continuous decay would have made the earth unlivable only 1.5 million years ago! So the earth cannot have formed billions of years ago, because we're still alive today.
Comets.
Comets deteriorate every time they pass the sun. Which means that there would be no more comets today, because they would have all evaporated millions of years ago. Since there are still relatively large comets out there, evolutionists have to assume that comets form spontaneously. Spontaneous formation has never been observed, however. Neither, consequently, has star formation. Blue stars cannot last millions of years. Since there are still several known blue stars out there, and stars have never been observed forming, we can safely assume they have been there since the dawn of creation. That means the universe was not made millions of years ago. Hmm......
Another problem would be salt in the ocean. Every year, there is more salt going into the ocean than is going out. Which mean that if the earth is billions of years old, we would practically be able to walk across the Atlantic because it would be pure salt.
There is an inconsistency in the arms of spiral galaxies. If they are billions of years old, they should have no arms. The fact is, the arms spin slower than the core of the galaxy. Which would result that the arms would be twisted beyond recognition if the universe were as old as evolutionists state. Yet all the known spiral galaxies are still in spiral form.
The moon is slowly drifting away from Earth. Based on this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Not a problem if the earth is only about 6000 years old, because that would mean the moon has only moved about 800 feet. Most evolutionists profess the moon to be over 4 billion years old. However, just over a billion years ago, the moon would have had to be touching the earth!
You might ask why I am bringing up points on the age of the earth. Without age, evolution does not work. Evolution has to be a slow, progressive process involving millions of years. Thus, if there are no millions of years, evolution does not work.
Besides all this is the fact that you cannot have a partial organism. You cannot simply go from simple to complex, even with a supposed millions and billions of years. You can't have a fully functioning heart and no lungs. You can't have a fully functional brain without a heart. You have to start with a complete, fully functional human. Consider this analogy, a tornado sweeps through a city. The vortex travels through until it reaches the city dump. The vortex then hovers over the dump for months and months. Finally, the tornado dissipates, leaving behind a fully functional supercomputer (with it's own Facebook account). Would you believe this story? Absolutely not. However, you would be willing to believe that a random series of extremely fortunate events formed a living organism, which is more complex then even the most advanced supercomputer.
As Christians, we cannot edit the Bible to say that maybe God created the earth through evolution. The Bible says that God created the earth in six days-literal days. If He had created the earth over millions of years, death and sin would have existed in the world long before the Curse. No animal has been found who lived over a million years. This means they would have died even before Adam and Eve ate the Fruit. If we do not take the Bible for it's literal word, why should we believe it when it says Jesus came to earth and died for our sins? We should never try to fix scripture, despite the proclaimed "truths" of our culture! As for the argument of Religion vs. Science, the definition of religion is: Something someone follows devoutly, with faith. I think that believing that all life randomly generated from nothing with no intelligent movement or purpose requires just as much faith, if not more, then the converse. Just because we don't believe the theory of evolution doesn't mean we have to ignore science (which was hopefully demonstrated in this post).
If you want to learn more about the science of the Bible, you should visit some of these links from AnswersinGenesis.com.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/?utm_source=aighomepage&utm_medium=bigbanner&utm_content=Six_Evidences_of_a_Young_Earth&utm_campaign=MonthlyCampaign
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/humans-evolve-apelike-creatures
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
Coragon, signing off once again.
The magnetic field surrounding earth is slowly decaying. This continuous decay would have made the earth unlivable only 1.5 million years ago! So the earth cannot have formed billions of years ago, because we're still alive today.
Comets.
Comets deteriorate every time they pass the sun. Which means that there would be no more comets today, because they would have all evaporated millions of years ago. Since there are still relatively large comets out there, evolutionists have to assume that comets form spontaneously. Spontaneous formation has never been observed, however. Neither, consequently, has star formation. Blue stars cannot last millions of years. Since there are still several known blue stars out there, and stars have never been observed forming, we can safely assume they have been there since the dawn of creation. That means the universe was not made millions of years ago. Hmm......Another problem would be salt in the ocean. Every year, there is more salt going into the ocean than is going out. Which mean that if the earth is billions of years old, we would practically be able to walk across the Atlantic because it would be pure salt.
There is an inconsistency in the arms of spiral galaxies. If they are billions of years old, they should have no arms. The fact is, the arms spin slower than the core of the galaxy. Which would result that the arms would be twisted beyond recognition if the universe were as old as evolutionists state. Yet all the known spiral galaxies are still in spiral form.
The moon is slowly drifting away from Earth. Based on this effect, the moon would have been closer to the earth in the past. Not a problem if the earth is only about 6000 years old, because that would mean the moon has only moved about 800 feet. Most evolutionists profess the moon to be over 4 billion years old. However, just over a billion years ago, the moon would have had to be touching the earth!
You might ask why I am bringing up points on the age of the earth. Without age, evolution does not work. Evolution has to be a slow, progressive process involving millions of years. Thus, if there are no millions of years, evolution does not work.
Besides all this is the fact that you cannot have a partial organism. You cannot simply go from simple to complex, even with a supposed millions and billions of years. You can't have a fully functioning heart and no lungs. You can't have a fully functional brain without a heart. You have to start with a complete, fully functional human. Consider this analogy, a tornado sweeps through a city. The vortex travels through until it reaches the city dump. The vortex then hovers over the dump for months and months. Finally, the tornado dissipates, leaving behind a fully functional supercomputer (with it's own Facebook account). Would you believe this story? Absolutely not. However, you would be willing to believe that a random series of extremely fortunate events formed a living organism, which is more complex then even the most advanced supercomputer.
As Christians, we cannot edit the Bible to say that maybe God created the earth through evolution. The Bible says that God created the earth in six days-literal days. If He had created the earth over millions of years, death and sin would have existed in the world long before the Curse. No animal has been found who lived over a million years. This means they would have died even before Adam and Eve ate the Fruit. If we do not take the Bible for it's literal word, why should we believe it when it says Jesus came to earth and died for our sins? We should never try to fix scripture, despite the proclaimed "truths" of our culture! As for the argument of Religion vs. Science, the definition of religion is: Something someone follows devoutly, with faith. I think that believing that all life randomly generated from nothing with no intelligent movement or purpose requires just as much faith, if not more, then the converse. Just because we don't believe the theory of evolution doesn't mean we have to ignore science (which was hopefully demonstrated in this post).
If you want to learn more about the science of the Bible, you should visit some of these links from AnswersinGenesis.com.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/features/young-earth-evidence/?utm_source=aighomepage&utm_medium=bigbanner&utm_content=Six_Evidences_of_a_Young_Earth&utm_campaign=MonthlyCampaign
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/humans-evolve-apelike-creatures
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
Coragon, signing off once again.
Cory,
ReplyDeleteAwesome Post!!!!!!!!
You are absolutely right when you say we have to take ALL of the Bible literally!!!!
Keep contending for the faith(Jude 1:3-4)