Creation VS Evolution

Posted on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 08:05 AM.

Recently, I've become very involved in the debate between creationism and evolution. I think it's important for Christians to know, scientifically and intellectually, why evolution is not possible. Telling an intellectual person that God exists, and He created the world because the Bible says so probably won't have an effect. You have to reach their intelligence, so that they can see the absurdity of their theory. Here are some very good points anyone should consider.
(I totally give credit to http://intelligentdesignversusevolution.com/ for a lot of this information, so don't say I'm plagairizing. I tried to put it in my own words, but theres are better. I give complete credit to that website.)

#1: Faith- It's Not Just Religious
The non-believer likes to say that faith is just for "religious people". However, this is incorrect. Everyone in the world uses faith every single day of their lives. When you eat your breakfast, don't you have faith that the person who made the cereal didn't contaminate it? When you get into a car, don't you have faith that the person driving will get you to your destination safely, or, if you drive, that the people on the road know how to drive and won't crash into you? Faith is not exclusive to Christians. To believe in the evolution or Big Bang theory, you have to have faith. In order to say that there is no God, you have faith that your assertion is correct.

#2: Atheists
I do not beleive in atheists. It is simply because atheists cannot exist. Pretending for a second that you are a professing atheist, here are some questions: Do you know how many grains of sand are on every beach in the world? Do you know how many hairs are on every human head? I think the answer is a solid no. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that you do not know everything, that there are things in the world that you do not know. to know 100 percent of everything, you would have to be familiar with every tree, every rock, every inner working of every individual on the planet, or anything that has ever been on the planet. You would know everyone's thoughts, and everyones feelings. Knowing 100 percent of everything is called omniscent.

Here's an illustration. Imagine that all the knowledge in the world is represented by a giant dry-erase board. Now place a black dot on that giant dry-erase board. That dot represents the knowledge of the world that we have. Thomas Edison said "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Let's say you have an amazing one percent knowledge of everything. Isn't it safe to say that in the 99 percent of the knowledge you don't know, that there is valuable, extensive evidence that God exists?

If I were to make an absolute statement such as, "There is no gold in China," what is needed for that statement to be proven true? I need absolute or total knowledge. I need to have information that there is no gold in any rock, in any river, in the ground, in any store, in any ring, or in any mouth (gold filling) in China. If there is one speck of gold in China, then my statement is false and I have no basis for it. I need absolute knowledge before I can make an absolute statement. Conversely, for me to say, "There is gold in China," I don't need to have all knowledge. I just need to have seen a speck of gold in the country, and the statement is then true. (intelligentdesignversusevolution.com)

To say that there is no God, is to make an absolute statement. You would have to know 100 percent of everything, as discussed before, to say this with any amount of accuracy or confidence. No one has all knowledge, therefore, no one can make this assertion.

If you insist upon disbelief in God, what you must say is, "Having the limited knowledge I have at present, I believe that there is no God." Owing to a lack of knowledge on your part, you don't know if God exists. So, in the strict sense of the word, you cannot be an atheist. The only true qualifier for the title is the One who has absolute knowledge, and why on earth would God want to deny His own existence?

The professing atheist is what is commonly known as an "agnostic"--one who claims he "doesn't know" if God exists. It is interesting to note that the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him.

#3- Scientific Facts in the Bible
Many say that the Bible has absolutely no scientific basis. Here is proof to refute that.
1)
THE BIBLE
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22)
SCIENCE NOW
The earth is a sphere
SCIENCE THEN
The earth was a flat disk

2)
THE BIBLE
Creation made of invisible elements (Hebrews 11:3)
SCIENCE NOW
Creation made of invisible elements (atoms)
SCIENCE THEN
Science was ignorant on the subject

3)
THE BIBLE
Free float of earth in space (Job 26:7)
SCIENCE NOW
Free float of earth in space
SCIENCE THEN
Earth sat on a large animal

4)
THE BIBLE
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11)
SCIENCE NOW
Blood is the source of life and health
SCIENCE NOW
Sick people must be bled

5)
THE BIBLE
Ocean contains springs (Job 38:16)
SCIENCE NOW
Ocean contains springs
SCIENCE THEN
Ocean fed only by rivers and rain

#4 Creation
Just as a building is absolute proof there was a builder (no building ever built itself), creation is absolute proof there is a Creator. The Bible says that God made all things then caused every animal to bring forth after its own kind (dogs don't have kittens, fish don't turn into birds, etc., no matter how long they are left).
(info from http://www.allaboutcreation.org/Creation-Evidence.htm)
a) Lack of Transitional Fossils: Charles Darwin wrote, "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (Origin of Species, 1859). Since Darwin put forth his theory, scientists have sought fossil evidence indicating past organic transitions. Nearly 150 years later, there has been no evidence of transition found thus far in the fossil record.
b) Lack of a Natural Mechanism: Charles Darwin, in his Origin of Species, proposed Natural Selection to be the mechanism by which an original simple-celled organism could have evolved gradually into all species observed today, both plant and animal. Darwin defines evolution as "descent with modification." However, Natural Selection is known to be a conservative process, not a means of developing complexity from simplicity. Later, with our increased understanding of genetics, it was thought perhaps Natural Selection in conjunction with genetic mutation allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. However, this is theoretical and controversial, since "beneficial" mutations have yet to be observed. In fact, scientists have only observed harmful, "downward" mutations thus far.
c) Time Constraints: Both Creationists and Evolutionists agree that if evolution is at all possible, there needs to be an excessive (if not infinite) amount of time. For much of the 20th century, it was thought evolutionists had all the time they needed. If the earth ever looked too young for certain evolutionary developments to have occurred, the age was pushed back in the textbooks. In 1905, the earth was declared to be two billion years old. By 1970, the earth was determined to be 3.5 billion years old, and by the 1990's, the earth had become 4.6 billion years old. However, Young Earth advocates have identified quite a few Young Earth chronometers in recent years. Currently, there are approximately five times more natural chronometers indicating a "Young Earth" than an "Old Earth." Each discovery is a separate "Limiting Factor" that places a constraint on the possible age of the earth. For example, moon drift, earth rotation speed, magnetic field decay, erosion rates, chemical influx into the oceans, ocean salinity, etc, all constrain the possible age of the earth. Each Limiting Factor is distinct. If one were successfully challenged, there is still the problem of all the rest. Furthermore, there are Limiting Factors constraining the possible age of the universe, such as spiral galaxies where they're maintaining their spiral shapes despite their centers spinning faster than their extremities.
d) Unacceptable Model of Origins: The Big Bang Theory is the accepted source of Origins among the majority of Evolutionists, and is taught in our public schools. However, the Big Bang does not explain many things, including the uneven distribution of matter that results in "voids" and "clumps," or the retrograde motion that must violate the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Furthermore, the Big Bang does not address the primary question at hand, "where did everything come from?" Did nothing explode? How did this explosion cause order, while every explosion observed in recorded history causes disorder and disarray?

1 comment on 'Creation VS Evolution'

You must be logged in to comment

« View JesusIsKing4Ever's blog