Creation verses Evolution
Back to Table of Contents Page
In this article we are not going to try to cover every detail and fact that is present in the on-going argument of creation vs. evolution! The "Theory" of evolution is just that, a "theory", it has never been, nor will it ever be....proven. Yet, our schools, colleges and universities are teaching this Satan-created lie as truth...as fact. Our children are being brought up to question the Biblical account of creation, even those children from Christian homes, and for the most part, we Christians have not done a whole lot to counteract this phenomenon.
We are going to basically examine some facts. Hundreds of books have been written detailing why evolution cannot be fact; many Bible scholars who are a lot smarter then myself have preached and taught over the years how evolution is a view held only by those who refuse to accept that we are part of a "creation", therefore, there had to be a "creator", and if that's the case, then we must answer to that "creator", and that's where the problem lies. Most believers in evolution simply do not WANT to believe in a Creator....in a "God" they must eventually, answer to.
So Be It! They will eventually learn the truth...unfortunately, for most, it will be AFTER their death, whilst standing in the presence of an awesome God, vainly hoping their name is written somewhere in "The Book".
Sir Isaac Newton and his "Infinite Earth" approach!
Scientists have, for hundreds of years, held the view that the universe was infinite, that it had no beginning and no end, that it was, and will be forever, eternal. That being the case, if it had no beginning, it therefore wasn't "created", therefore there was no "creator" involved.
But it has been discovered that the amount of energy in the universe is decreasing. Most scientists agree, that this being the case, eventually the universe will "run down", therefore, it cannot be eternal.
We have a basic "law" of physics, called the "3 laws of thermodynamics". The first law of thermodynamics states: It is fact that while matter can be converted into energy (I.E.: a lump of coal burning to give off heat and light): matter and energy cannot be "created" out of "nothingness". This "Law of Thermodynamics" is "considered the most powerful and most fundamental generalization about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make." So says Isaac Asimov. ("In the Game of Energy and Thermodynamics You Can't Even Break Even," from the journal of the Smithsonian Institute, June 1970, page 6).
The evolutionists would have us believe that what started out as a one-celled animal, eventually, over "billions and billions" of years, evolved (up-graded), into what we now have living on the planet. Unfortunately, this goes against the "Second Law of Thermodynamics", which simply states that "everything progresses from good to bad". Things get worse, not better. This is known as "Entropy". Things always go from bad to worse, not the other way around.
Now, some would argue that in the case of man, where 500 years ago, man's life span might have been only 40 years, and now it's 70 years or so, that we "evolved" into a longer-living animal. Horse-hockey! The fact of better medicines, more understanding of how the human body works, better living conditions, etc. etc., do not make a case for "anti-entropy". For proof of this, check out the life spans of Biblical characters BEFORE the flood. 700, 800, 0ver 900 years these people lived. As the "curse" became more wide-spread, life spans started getting shorter.
If you want more proof of this law, try cleaning out your garage next Saturday, and see how long it takes before you need to repeat that action.
It is obvious that these two laws argue for creation, and against evolution. So, there had to be a beginning. Therefore, there had to be a "beginner", some one, some power, that created all that we see.
Newton's Views Undone! Einstein sees the "Light"!
Around the first of this century, Newton's idea of an infinite and eternal universe was finally done away with. Einstein's discovery of the "general theory of relativity", seemed to prove that everything in the universe is "moving away from everything else". This suggests that someone or something must have started it moving in the first place. Einstein was an atheist, therefore he wasn't too happy with some of the conclusions that were staring him in the face...his own discoveries were proving to him that the universe had o have a beginning. It had to have been created, and if that's true, there also had to be a creator!
For years, there was no way to prove or disprove ole "Al's" theory of relativity. It was only a "concept" that was published in 1917 and no one knew how to test it.
In 1929, however, an Astronomer by the name of Edwin Hubble (yes! The same Hubble the telescope is named after....) proved Einstein's theory correct. The world's largest telescope had been developed in 1917, and now, 12 years later, it (the telescope) showed that all the other galaxies in the universe were moving away from us. From any position on the earth, the stars and galaxies were moving away. Expanding!
This brought about the "Big Bang" theory. By the laws of inertia, these galaxies HAD to have been set in motion by some external force, and since the galaxies were moving in a manner that was similar to that of a bomb explosion, it was theorized that the universe cam into being from the same such "explosion".
In a way, the idea of a "Big Bang" kind of makes sense. Observation has confirmed that every galaxy that is visible is moving away from every other galaxy. This being the case, there must have been a time when they were much closer together. The theory goes,that at one time, the universe was so compact that it took no space at all. While conceptually, this is impossible to comprehend, it is believed by many to be fact. The theory maintains that eventually, this "non-space" exploded, shooting the universe outward just as a bomb would do. The expansion that is witnessed today is a result of that explosion. The problem with this theory, is that it doesn't even attempt to explain where we, and the rest of the universe came from in the first place.
One of the problems with the "B-B" theory, is going back to that 2nd law of Thermodynamics that we just can't seem to get past. Destruction and chaos are the results of an explosion, not "order'. General Motors doesn't throw down a bunch of metal and plastic parts, light a stick of dynamite under them, explode them, and voila - a New Camaro. However, that's what the proponents of the Big Bang are wanting us to accept, that this world, and all that is on it, came essentially from an explosion.
In rebuttal to this problem, some scientists have maintained that the order in the universe which we observe stems from the law of gravity. It is suggested that the force of gravity binds and holds everything in the universe together. The worlds, stars. asteroids, etc, are all very delicately balanced. But the question that immediately arises is, where did this law of gravity, and the myriad other physical laws stem from? Are we expected to believe that the orderly laws came about just seconds after a chaotic explosion? Apparently so!
There is in orbit around the earth, (at least there was, this writer assumes it's still up there....), a very sophisticated satellite called COBE, "Cosmic Background Explorer". For a long time, scientist claimed that if the Big Bang Theory was correct, then "ripples", temperature variations in the background radiation of the universe would be present. In 1992, astrophysicists who had been researching discoveries of "COBE" confirmed that there were, indeed, these "ripples" present. Now, please understand, I have no idea just what this means, but apparently to those in the "know", (among creationists), it confirms the universe had a beginning. That is isn't infinite, everlasting. That it was "created" at some point in time, by some greater force than that which exists in the universe itself.
Stephen Hawking, a math professor at Cambridge, and one of the most knowledgeable men in the world said, "It is the discovery of the century, if not all time". Funny that it's taken almost six thousand years for science to "catch up" to God's Word..."In the beginning, God Created....."! How mankind refuses to accept that is astonishing. It takes a lot more "faith" to believe in evolution and the other "theories" than to just accept God's Word.
According to the "scientific" view, the "universe was created by an incredible series of the most unlikely events that can possibly be imagined." While there is no proof to support this view, it is held by most to keep from arriving at the most obvious conclusion, that there must have been a "creator". We know from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics that ANY system, if left on its own, will break down and decay, not build itself up into greater and more complex entities. Proof of this is all around us. The human body decays; plant life decays; steel and metals rust and corrode; milk sours; yet if the scientists are right, how did the universe manage to do just the opposite. No one has an answer to that one.
Billions and billions of Years!
The way around this problem with evolutionists is "time". Evolution can only "work" when we factor in billions of years of time. Evolutionist George Wald stated: "Time is in fact the hero of the (theory of evolution)...given so much time the 'impossible' becomes possible, the possible, probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs miracles." (From "The Origin of Life" by George Wald; Physics and Chemistry of Life, 1955, page 12).
But then there's that old 2nd law again, with time, EVERYTHING DEGRADES! It's not the other way around. Time is in fact, an enemy of evolution, not its friend.
The Age of the Universe
This, of course, brings us back to the age-old question: "How Old Is The Universe"? Is it "billions and billions" of years old, or just a few thousand years old as the Book of Genesis suggests? Can it be "both"? How do scientists really calculate the age of the universe? The earth?
To determine the age of the universe, two pieces of data are required: (1)-how far away are the galaxies, and (2) - how rapidly are they moving apart. Supposedly, the ration between these two figures will tell us how long the universe has been expanding. This "law" is known as the "Hubble Constant". However, can the true age of the universe be determined in this manner?
The March 6, 1995 issue of "Time" magazine states: "Since accurate distances can be measured only nearby, while useful galaxies are found only deep in space, astronomers do the best they can to 'bridge the gap'. They use the close galaxies to estimate distances to the far away ones. But the method is inexact, which is why they haven't been able to agree on what the age actually is".
for example, using data collected by the Hubble Space Telescope, a science team headed by Wendy Freedman at The Carnegie Observatories suggested that the universe was 8 to 12 billion years old.
However, data collected by the Ultraviolet Imaging Telescope, which was taken into orbit with the Endeavor Space shuttle, suggested the universe is 14 billion years old. Astronomer Edwin Hubble had calculated it to be 15 to 20 billions years old. Here we have a variance from 8 to 20 billion years.
Today, most scientist agree the closest estimate of the earth's age is around 4.6 billion years. Now, how in the world did they come up with that figure? A technique called "radioisotope dating" is used, which is based on precise measurements of the ratio of the various radioactive isotopes found in a rock. Not being a "rocket scientist" , I can't go into detail as to how this actually works, but suffice to say, it's not very accurate. More on that in a few minutes.
To determine the age of the earth, a rock, actually, a meteorite, was examined. Now a meteorite is of course, are actually pieces of another planet that some time in the distant past, has broken up. So we're looking a rock not from this planet. The scientist, of course, are assuming the these meteorites are the same age as the earth..So even if these rocks are 4.6 billions years old, does that prove the earth is the same age...after all, the rocks they tested aren't even from this planet.
A problem with this is that, meteorites are rocks that have fallen from the heavens to the earth. A rock usually burns up in the atmosphere, this is called a meteor. One that actually makes it to earth is a "meteorite". The strange thing is, we only find meteorites at the top levels of Earth's surface. If Earth's sediments have been deposited over billions of years, why don't we find meteorites throughout the various levels of sediment we find on the Earth's surface?
Another problem with radioisotope dating is that it has produced different results in repeated testing on the same sample that 's being tested. An example is the Allende meteorite. As a rule, when conflicting age estimates appear, it is determined that the sample has become contaminated some how, and the results are discarded. Paleontologists do their utmost to pre-screen samples for contamination, but by eliminating samples after this pre-screening, they are, in fact, admitting that it is possible for contamination to have occurred without it being visibly detected. So, how can we be assured that any results that are kept are accurate? More importantly, how do we know they were not kept simply because they agreed with that the paleontologist thought they should be?
Another example of these contradictions took place when tests were ran on rocks formed from the lava flow of the Hualalai Volcano in Hawaii which erupted between 1800 and 1801. A variety of radioisotope dating methods were used with eat test producing different ages for the same samples. These estimates ranged from 140 million to 2.96 billion years.
AT Salt Lake Crater on Oahu, the same results were noted. One test dated a rock at 400,000 years old, Other tests produced results ranging from 2.6 million to 3.3 billion years old. Radioisotope dating has been found to give ages which are not only incorrect, but which don't even agree with each other.
It seems also that water pressure makes a difference in the results of the testing. Samples from Mt. Kilauea lava flow were taken from a depth of 4,680 meters. This eruption occurred about 200 years ago. The results using radioisotope dating methods, dated the rock at 21 million years, plus or minus 8 million years. Samples taken form 3,420 meters dated it at 12 million years, + of - 2 million years. Those taken from a depth of 1,400 meters were dated at zero, and all of the samples were from the same lava flow.
A Young or Old Universe?
There are many compelling evidences of a "young earth". While not being dogmatic, they do lead one to examine the facts, and decide for himself. One way that theologians have tried to agree with science as to the age factor, was to come up with the "gap" theory. This view places a very large expanse of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The view that while "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", but verse two says the "earth was void and without form". Does this mean that God created the earth void and without form? If so, why would He so? and for how long a time did this remain before the actual six days of creation. Or as some have put it, "re-creation".
If God created the earth as as dwelling place, in other words NOT void and without form, why did the earth become "void and without form"? It has been suggested that some great cataclysmic catastrophe took place during this time, possibly the "war between Satan and his angels, and God and His angels". The fact is, we just don't know, and probably never will know until we're at home with the Lord. It seems to me that if God wanted us to know all the details, He would have told us. However, it is fun to speculate and try to figure out the mysteries of God.
The other view held by "young earthers" is that it all was created about 6,000 years ago, in Gen. 1:1; the earth, the heavens, the planets, galaxies, everything; no "gap" between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. The Void and without form was just a short period of time until God got around to "creating" it all in the first six days. Most believe these were actually 24-hour days, hence the term "the evening and the morning was the first day", or second day, or what ever.
As stated earlier, there is much evidence that this was the case. The dating of civilization being one of these evidences.
Observations of the population today and the population growth patterns suggest a young Earth. Population of the world today is about 6 billion. The rate of growth is about 2 percent. At this rate it would have taken about 1,100 years to reach the present population from the time of the flood, taking into account the fact that along the way, people were dying, so it would take a bit longer to reach the present population.
However, the evolutionists would have us believe that man has been around for about a million years. That would make the population 10 to the 8,600th power. (That's a 1 with 8,600 zeros after it - which of course, is ridiculous. In order for the population to be what it is today, a growth rate of only .0002% would be necessary. But even in recent years with all the wars, genocide, plagues and famines, plus an abortion rate of about 1,500 babies a year, the population growth still remains at about 2%. It hasn't changed very much at all. Even at .0002%, if people have been living and dying for the last one million years, where are the graves and bodies of these people? There is no evidence, remains, bones, etc. to prove that this huge number of people ever lived on this planet.
Not only are their no "bones", but there is also not a shred of evidence, I.E. tools, homes, weapons, artifacts etc. that indicates there was ever this huge a population.
Archaeological records show that man has been planting his own food for less tan 10,000 years. Does that mean that for 990,000 years, man didn't learn that the plants they were eating came from seeds planted in the ground? Doesn't this suggest that man has certainly NOT been around for more than a few thousand years?
Within our own galaxy, many stars burn at a much faster rate than our own sun.These are called "O" stars, and they use up their "fuel" hundreds of times faster than our own sun. This implies that these stars must be "young" (on an evolutionary scale), or they would have burned themselves out by now. If they were so huge as to support a faster rate of burn, we would see signs of this, I.E. high rotations speeds and huge magnetic fields. These signs don't exist.
The Earth's own magnetic field provides support for a young earth. This magnetic field forms a covering around the earth, protecting is form cosmic radiation that is constantly bombarding the Earth's surface. It has been discovered that the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing measurably over the past 150 years or so. Since 1829 it has been measured that the strength of the magnetic field has decreased about 7%. It's been calculated that the half-life of the magnetic field is about 1,400 years, which means it decays to one-half it's strength every 1,400 years. When it gets to weak, Earth will no longer be able to support life. If the Earth was as old as the evolutionists say, this magnetic field would be gone by now.
Looking backwards in time at this, according to the half-life calculation, the magnetic field was twice as strong 1,400 years ago as it is now. Going back in time 100,000 years, the field would have been so strong that life would not have been possible. Dr. Thomas Barnes, former Dean of the Institute for Creation Research and Graduate School state that "any time beyond 20,000 years ago life as we know it, would have been impossible on Earth".
The Incredible Shrinking Sun
It's been found that our sun is shrinking at a rate of about five feet per hour. Careful measurements have been made on the sun's diameter over the past 150 years by astronomers. Had the sun existed several million years ago, it would have been so much larger than it is today that its heat would have made life on Earth impossible. The evolutionist claim that life existed much as it does today one million years ago. A million years isn't all that long a time by evolutionary standards, which claim the process began hundreds of millions or billions of years ago.
It has also been discovered that the Earth is slowing down. This is due to the 'friction' of the tides and this has been observed since the 18th century. We know from physics that this means the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth. Even if the Moon started out orbiting near the Earth's surface, it would still be much further away from us if this process started 4.6 billion years ago.
Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all give off twice as much heat as our sun provides. Since it is not believed these planets create heat through nuclear fusion, radioactive decay, or gravitational contraction, the only over logical conclusion is they have not existed long enough to "cool off".
Studies show that close to Twenty-five billion tons of sediment are removed from dry land and deposited in the ocean every year, due to storms, winds, erosion, etc. AT that rate, in less than 20 million years, there would be no dry land remaining above sea level. If this process has been going on for "billions of years", then one can't help but wonder why we still have dry land to walk on. Not only this, but after millions of years, we would expect to find several miles of sediment on the ocean floor. Actually, only a few hundred feet of sediment is present, again suggesting a much younger world than the evolutionist would have us believe.
The Moon Walk
Based on the assumption that the universe was billions of years old, space experts feared the astronauts would sink into hundreds of feet of dust when they landed on the Moon. Obviously, this did not happen, and it was discovered only thin layer of dust was present on the Moon's surface, causing many to reconsider the age of the Moon.
Evidence of Design
The bottom line to all of this is the thousands of examples of "evidence of design". Some examples: For a planet to support life, some very delicate "balances" must be present. Any variation, even slight, would make it impossible for life to exist.
The rate of the Earth's rotation is right where it should be. If it should slow down 10%, then life could not exist. Plants would burn up during the day, and freeze at night. If it were to speed up slightly, winds would increase to levels that would make it impossible to live. Jupiter, for example, rotates on its axis once every 10 hours, and the winds on that planet are in excess of 1,000 Miles per hour.
Here's another example of very careful design, or one heck of an accident.
There is a moth called the Pronuba moth that lives in the dessert. It's existence is dependant upon a plant called the Yucca plant. The Yucca plant's existence is dependant on the Pronuba moth. Here's how it works: The Pronuba moths eggs hatch in the sand at the base of the plant. This only happens on certain nights of the year, when the flowers of the Yucca are in bloom. The moth takes pollen from one of the plant's flowers, then flies to a different Yucca plant to lay its eggs. When it arrives at the other plant, the moth pushes the pollen it has collected from the first plant into a flower on the second plant. That plant will then grow, fertilizing the moth eggs in the sand at it base. The moth's job is over...it dies that same night. When the moth's eggs hatch, the caterpillars will build cocoons at the base of the pant, and wait their turn to repeat this same cycle. What's more amazing, is that there are several varieties of Yucca plant, and each one is pollinated by its own species of moth. How could all these varieties of moth and plant have randomly come into existence, then randomly evolved in perfect coordination...just to give each other life?
Super Glue????
There is a powerful force in the universe, holding together all the atoms and making the various elements possible. If this "force" was 5% weaker, then the only element that would exist on Earth would be Hydrogen, and life would be impossible. If this force was just 5% stronger, everything would clump together into giant molecules, life would be impossible.
The Sun! The Moon! The Air we Breathe
The distance between Earth and the Sun is about 93 million miles. If this were to change by as little as 2%, either direction, Life on earth would be impossible. The Moon is right where it needs to be to stabilize the tilt of the Earth and to "cleanse" the seas through tides. If the Moon were too close, the tides would completely cover the continents twice a day.
The air contains about 21% oxygen If that ration were to rise slightly, the atmosphere would become flammable; if it were to fall slightly, we simply wouldn't be able to breathe, we would suffocate.
Life!
For the "bottom line" of evidence of design, the best evidence is our own bodies. The human body is made up of over one trillion cells, each one being made up of components that interact with each other in a precise and complex way. Protein molecules, for example, conduct all the necessary tasks to ensure the life of a cell. Proteins contain long chain-like molecules made up of amino acids. These proteins are made up of several thousand atoms which form "three-dimensional" infrastructures for different tasks. It is impossible to understand how the individual components "accidentally" (that's what "random" really means), evolved originally, and then somehow "got together" to form a living cell.
DNA and RNA
Just how do the individual molecules "know" what their specific is in life? There is an incredible variety of protein molecules, for example. What "magic" is involved to instruct these molecules? The "Magic" is found in other molecules, known as DNA and RNA. These molecules carry the "instructions" for creating life. DNA contains the actual "blueprint' for building life molecules; and RNA carries that data to other parts of the cell. One way to look at it is think of the DNA molecule as being a CD loaded with information, and the RNA is the CD player. Now, without the Player, (the RNA) the cells would have no way of understanding the information contained on the CD, the DNA...information that will tell the protein molecules to form or repair living cells. What's amazing however, is the instructions for building RNA are contained in the DNA. It would be the same as having a CD that contained instructions for building a CD player, but without a CD player, you can't hear those instructions. Again, without a Supreme Designer, how could these miracles happen....accidentally?
We'll end with the eyes!
Charles Darwin, the "father" of evolution, had to succumb to the miracle of creation when it came to the "eyes". When considering the design of the eye, Darwin noted, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. (Charles Darwin; "On The Origin of Species", second edition, 1860, Page 168).
There are over 10 million light sensitive cells packed tightly together in the retina of the human eye. These cells are much more complex than the most sophisticated computer. It is believed that the retina conducts close to 10 Billion calculations every second, and that's before the image even gets to the brain.
The following was written in the computer magazine "BYTE": To simulate 10 milliseconds of the complete processing of even a single nerve cell from the retina would require the solution of about 500 simultaneous non-linear differential equations one hundred times and would take at least several minutes of processing time on a Cray supercomputer. Keeping in mind that there are 10 million or more such cells interacting with each other in complex ways it would take a minimum of a hundred years of Cray time to simulate what takes place in the eye many times every second."
It is impossible to imagine such a design coming together randomly; accidentally; without design. As I stated earlier, it takes a whole lot more "faith" to believe in evolution than it does in creation. "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made even both of them". (Proverbs 20:12)
(Editor's note: this completes part one of "Creation Verses Evolution". More is on the way).
Most of the information in this article came from an excellent book by Peter and Paul Lalonde, "301 Startling Proofs & Prophecies". Prophecy Partners Inc., PO Box 665, Niagara Falls, Ontario, L2E6V5).