Home Downloads Facts Links Miscellaneous Log    

Supporting Creation


If one fact can disprove a theory, than the theory is wrong.




Complexity of Life

If there is a watch, there is a watch maker. If there is a painting there is a painter. If there is a creation there must be a creator.

There are many examples out there where it is impossible for something to evolve by random chance. The human genome is the most complicated program ever written. Billions of sequences that have to be exactly in the correct order for us to live. It has taken years for scientists to even understand what sequence it is in yet they don't even know 100% what it all does.

Evolution wants to use slow long periods of time to to transform one kind into another. How than does the butterfly go through the pre programed stages of life from crawling insect to flying insect in a few days? Shouldn't this take millions of years? This type of transformation is impossible by blind chance especially because the caterpillar can not reproduce and the butterfly can. Did all the caterpillars die for millions of years before they evolved into butterfly's?.

How does a bird like a woodpecker have a tongue that goes out of his head backwards live in the intermediate stage of evolution? There are many different animals that defy the evolutionary process that it is impossible to explain their arrival without intelligent design.

Even Charles Darwin wrote about how it is unthinkable to believe that the human eye evolved by chance yet he then states it must have happened because its here. The eye contains 137 million optic nerves in 1 square inch that connect it to the brain so you can see in incredible detail. It has been estimated that the amount of data your eye takes in every second would take up 100 million megabytes of space on a computer.

It is statistically impossible for just one cell to appear by chance. Back in the mid 1800's they used to think smaller was simpler. They could look at a cell under a microscope and all they would see is a blob so it was easy to draw the conclusion that they could have happened by chance. A cell in your body is more complex than the city of New York and is the most efficient machine in the world.

Lets give the evolutionists a break and supply them with all the raw materials that they need to create life. Simply take a frog, put it in a blender, hit liquefy, and wait and see how long until all of its parts pull itself back together into a new creature. It won't happen! Even if someone put it back together in the right order there is still the problem of the whole 'breath of life' thing that no one understands.

Thermodynamics

Nothing gets better on its own. Some people say that because the earth is an open system and gets energy from the sun that means there is no problem with things becoming more usefull over time. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can not be over come by adding raw energy. The energy needs to be focused and processed in order for it to be useful. The sun's energy is destructive to everything except chlorophyll (C55H72MgN4O5). Everything that would have evolved without chlorophyll would have been dried up and cooked just like a lizard that takes too long to cross the road. Open systems do still have a tendency to disorder and even though there are mechanisms that can take the energy and use it, it is still at the expense of increased disorder elsewhere. Simply adding energy is useless unless there is a complex system filled with information on how to use that energy. If you take gas and pour it all over your car and light it on fire you are releasing an incredible amount of energy however it does not do much good because it is not being used in a useful way.

 Some people that believe evolution would like you to believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics proves that creation could not happen. The first law states that no new energy is being created or destroyed so the universe either has to be eternal or what ever act that brought the universe into existence is no longer in effect today. If we take a look at the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics we see that all energy is decreasing in usefulness and that means that after all the energy has been used up the universe is going to have an end nick named by the scientific community the "black death". If the universe has an end that means it also had to have a beginning (Also see the notes on the Refuting Evolution page about the impossibility of having a infinite number of finite events). We also know that because of the Principal of Causality (once again see the Refuting Evolution page) that every thing that has a possibility of not existing has to have had a cause, therefore what we call nature (the universe) has to have a cause that is outside of nature or supernatural (super=outside + nature = supernatural). Since nothing is nothing and nothing can cause nothing there had to be something that caused the universe. Once you combine the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics there has to be a beginning to the universe.

Living Fossils

300 Million Year Old Fish Found - does there seem like something wrong with that statement? This is an example of why evolution is not self correcting like science is. The Coelacanth is a lobed fin fish that was found off the coast of Madagascar and is exactly the same as the lobed fin fishes found in 325-410 million year old rock. This is still used as a index fossil for determining how old a rock layer is. How do you know that the rock is 300MY old or 10 years old if the Coelacanth is still alive today?

The Graptolite is also considered a good index fossil for 410 million year old rock however in 1995 Graptolites were found in the South Pacific still alive. They can be found in any rock layer not just 410 MY old rock.

Dinosaurs

When people think of dinosaurs the first thought is millions of years. The bible says that before the flood man was living 800-900 years old and they would get a lot bigger than we do today. Reptiles never stop growing their entire life and even today with shorter life spans the still can get 10ft long or larger. When they lived to be 900 years old they would have easily become the size of a dinosaur. There are still many reports from around the world that living dinosaurs have been reported today. Creatures like mokele-mbembes in the African Congo, Nessie in Loch Ness, Cornish Sea Serpent down in Southern England, Ogopogo in Southern British Columbia just to name a few are seen quite frequently. (Granted some of them are probably just to generate tourism but multiple people don't make up the same stories to get these legends started.)


Did dinosaurs turn into birds? Evolutionists have a huge problem trying to show the origins of different kinds of animals so they grasp at straws trying to believe somehow a reptile can change into a bird. Even if someone can make it sound like a good theory they still have to overcome the fact that dinosaurs and birds have completely different bone structure, respiratory systems, eye structures and hundreds of other differences. It would be like trying to change a car into a plane one piece at a time without loosing any functionality of either product in all the intermediate stages. A reptiles scales are composed of folds of skin, this is why snakes can shed their entire layer of skin. If you were to remove fresh scales and stretch them out they would be the same as one sheet of skin with many folds in it. A feather has a base similar to a follicle of hair. These follicle's are NOTHING like a scale and there is not even a good theory of how such a massive change could have happened.


How long does it take for bones to fossilize? You can read in many places that it takes thousands of years for bones to turn into stone however there are many examples of fossils that have formed within the past 50 years. Now, how long does it take for living tissue to rot away? 10 years? 50 years? 64 million years? There has been found non-fossilized dinosaur red blood cells found inside of the bones. shouldn't this have either rotted away or turned to a fossil by now?

 I don't think there is anyone out there that can totally comprehend the being of God (if we could understand God than he would not be a God worth worshiping) so because we are stuck in this universe and only observe the things happening just as our natural laws describe we seem to forget just what a natural law is. Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe what we see happening, they do not tell us (perscribe) what has to happen. Just because we can drop a mass in a vacuum and it accelerates at 9.81 meters per second per second does not mean that airplanes can not fly. An airplane supersedes the Law of Gravity it does not brake it. We can supersede the Second Law by adding energy just as we can supersede the Law of Gravity by adding thrust and lift. Just because we are unable to determine how to supersede the First Law does not mean that it is not possible, and even if it is not possible for us to do it that does not mean that God can not do it.

Last Updated 02-06-2007