If one fact can disprove a theory,
then the theory is wrong.
A brief history of the creation evolution debate.
Creation was deemed to be a scientific model until 1860 when Darwin's book The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races became popular. Up until that time since most scientists believed in God's existence and in creation so they used the logic of 'Since a reasonable God created the universe in a reasonable way, we should be able to use reason to find out about the universe'. Through this method almost every branch of modern science was started by people like Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, and Blaise Pascal (along with many others) that believed in creation. Science would not have developed in any other world view because if everything was the result of random chance then there would be no reason to believe that the way things are happening right now won't change tomorrow because just as random as a coin flips the laws of nature may change also. Since evolutionists throw out this basis and there is no longer a reasonable God behind the scenes can the universe make sense? We know how watches work because they were created by a reasonable creator that knows how all the pieces work and can reason how they will work together.
Evolution had originated long before Charles Darwin. Even in the days of Jesus there were those that were pantheist and believe nature and the universe is God and there were those that believed the earth is eternal and looked for a explanation to the universe through philosophy like the Greeks. Modern atheistic evolution had some of its roots because of people like Abraham Werner who was a German Mineralogist that lived from 1749-1817, he was a Deist because he believed in God but did not believe in miracles and he was the first to popularize that different layers of dirt were produced by millions of years. James Hutton was a Geologist and Agriculturalist that lived from 1726-1797 and he would watch his farm land erode and concluded that the land erodes into the oceans and the oceans then rise and form continents. He popularized the idea that the earth was a circular system and was no beginning. Georges Cuvier was a Comparative Anatomist and Paleontologist who believed in catastrophism which basically means that there were many world wide floods that created the layers and fossils. William Smith lived from 1769-1839 and was a Drainage Engineer and on the side a Surveyor and Geologist and he was the first to use fossils to date the rock layers. Charles Lyell lived from 1797-1875 and was a Lawyer and Geologist who made the greatest impact on Darwin by his book Principals of Geology. He started a world view called uniformitarianism that says there was no catastrophe and everything that happened in the past is the same as it happens today. Lyell took away the flood as a explanation of how fossils form and Darwin just took it to the next step and took away the need for God. Evolution tries to use a naturalistic explanation to the origin of the universe without appealing to the supernatural.
The scientific method is based on hard science and takes observable, empirical, measurable evidence and determines if it is a reasonable scientific theory and can become a scientific natural law. The scientific method can NOT prove a scientific fact it can only tell you if you have a reasonable theory. The hierarchy of how universally true something is can be broken down into the following.
The scientific method can be broken down in to the following steps.
- Scientific Fact
- Scientific Law
- Scientific Theory
- Scientific Model
We can now use these steps of the scientific method to see what they tell us about evolution.
- Proposal of a question or a problem
- A hypothesis or educated guess made - Model
- Scientific experimentation
- Theory formed - A hypothesis with a high degree of probability
- Scientific natural law (If the theory is shown to be valid on a universal scale)
2. Proposal of a question or a problem
How did we get here?
3. A hypothesis or educated guess made
We evolved from nothing, to dirt, to single cells, to multiple cells, to fish, to amphibians, to reptiles, to mammals, to humans.
4. Scientific experimentation
Oh, wait a minute. Thats right, evolution can not be observed, tested, or measured. So what does that do to those that want to teach that evolution is a fact? Remember that even if evolution could be observed, documented, and repeatable that would still not prove that evolution is a scientific fact because you can not use the scientific method to create a fact. Since evolution does not even pass the first step in the process it is still in the stage of a scientific model of how someone thinks it may have occurred. No one has ever done an experiment that made life come from non-life or a lower creature turn into a higher creature and without that empirical evidence evolution can not leave the hypothesis or model phase.
Oddly enough that also is the category that creation is in because without God himself coming down here again and siting in a lab changing water to wine over and over again it can not get past the experimentation phase (at least we have eye witness accounts documented in the worlds most historically reliable book that tell us it did happen in the past). Right now we do not need to prove the creation model true, we can simply prove the evolution model false. There are only two possibilities of how we got here, either we got here by supernatural intervention or we got here on our own, and if one of them can be proven absurd then the other has to be true. Someone that believes in atheistic evolution will never be able to disprove God or the creation because in order to disprove God you would need to be all knowing and omnipresent, in other words you have to have the attributes of God to disprove God. It would be as if you had an infinite amount of white ping pong balls and one red one. If you could never find the red one that does not disprove its existence; however, if someone found the red ball and showed it to you that would prove its existence.
The reason there is often so much confusion with calling evolution a theory or a model is because most people that talk about the subject (professors, researchers, television specials) have a background in science and not in philosophy. People that are well versed in philosophy tend to keep track of the actual titles of fact, law, theory, or model better because it is crucial to putting things in a reasonable order in your mind.
Lets review what we have discussed.
- Evolution is not a proven fact
- Evolution is not a scientific natural law
- Evolution is not even a scientific theory (So why is it called a theory in the science books?)
Just like a crime scene is not open to using the scientific method because the crime has already happened and it is in the past we have to leave the operation science field and enter the origin science field. Origin science is used when the events in question have already happened and are not occurring over again so no direct observation is possible. This is often considered a science of the past. Two methods can be used to logically decide what has happened in the past if the scientific method does not apply.
- Principal of uniformity or analogy (If something happens in the present and causes the same effect as seen in the past)
- Principal of causality (Everything that has a possibility of not happening must have had a cause to make it happen)
Principal of Uniformity
If you are a crime scene investigator and are called to a store where overnight somehow a window broke and the cash register disappeared would you say, "Last night I was reading a good book on philosophy and it described how things can happen without a cause so I don't think we need to look much further here because this was probably just a random phenomena and won't happen again". Of course you would not. Seeing the scene here may remind you of another broken window and missing cash register that you have seen or heard about that was the result of a burglar so you deduce that someone broke in and stole this one because you know things like this have happened in the past. The principal of uniformity states that because we can observe the effect that happens because of a cause in the present we can reasonably assume that those same causes happened in the past to observe the effects that we did not see happen (Make sense?... Too bad).
The Uniformitarian view claims that everything that is happening now is exactly the same as it happened in the past, slow, gradual changes. They see layers of dirt and small rivers flowing through large canyons and assume that it took many many years for those layers to form and just as many years for that river to erode it into a canyon. The Grand Canyon for example is just one way to show an error in their logic. They all seem to forget that since the river enters the canyon at 2800 ft above sea level and leaves at 2500 ft above sea level, yet the canyon is almost 1 mile deep in places. It should not be that difficult to realize that rivers only flow down hill. The river could not have carved that canyon. The Grand Canyon (along with many other canyons and the Bad Lands) are washed out spill ways left over from a major catastrophe.
Principal of Causality
Remember that a scientific law is the next most plausible thing since we can not prove a scientific fact so things like the Laws of Thermodynamics are much more based on science than any theory or model. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all the energy in the universe is changing to a less usable form. Since the amount of energy is decreasing that means that at some time in the past there was more usable energy. Where did this energy come from? It has been monitored for several years that the universe seems to all be expanding. If that is true that means it all used to be closer together. What caused everything to start moving away form each other? We use observation to show there must have been a beginning. Nothing causes nothing to exist by itself. Nothing always comes from nothing. Nothing can exist for an infinite amount of time because it violates the Law of Causality. Causality states that you can not have an infinite number of finite events occur because it will never reach infinity, the number will just get larger and larger.
Take add up a set of numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+7+.....) and a set of odd numbers (1+3+5+7+9+11+......), what set is larger? You may say that they are both the same size because they go on forever however they can not go on forever because they had a beginning and as long as there was a beginning it is not an infinite set. It is the same if you add today to yesterday to the day before and the day before on and on as back as far as you can go. You will never get to infinity, you will get to a thousand to a million to whatever number but never infinity. Every effect must have a cause and that means that each 'caused event' has a chance of not happening. (Does your head hurt yet?) The result of today means that the sun went down yesterday and the earth kept spinning. The result of a person lying on the ground with a knife sticking out of them means that they were stabbed. The result of a complex human with a sense of morality and justice and a genetic code more complex than all the computer programs ever written means.... well... we will get to that in a minute. The universe can not be eternal or self existing. There has to be something outside of the universe that caused its existence.
Origin of the Universe
The easiest way to shoot down the naturalistic evolution of the universe is to bring up the Second LAW of Thermodynamics. Note the emphasis on the word 'law' and that we learned earlier that a Natural Law is as close to a Scientific Fact that we can get so if a Model violates a Law then the model should be thrown out. Whatever brought the universe into existence is no longer in operation because no new energy is currently being created (First Law of Thermodynamics). The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in a closed system energy is changing into a form that is less usable than its original state (chemical energy to heat and light energy). That would mean if you went far back enough all the energy in the universe would have been in its highest, most usable state. This point would be the beginning of the universe.
If there is no God than the universe will have an end where all the energy will be in an unusable state. There are two models for the expansion of the universe, either it will expand until everything runs down, or it will expand and then contract and come together again. There are a few problems with the expanding then contracting system such as the universe is not dense enough to pull its self back together again, there is no known law of physics to cause such a pull to make them come back together, and it could not happen an infinite number of times because you can not have an infinite number of finite events. If the universe did expand and contract then you could view it like a bouncing ball where each time it bounces the ball only goes about half the distance until there is a time where it is no longer bouncing. Because of all this we have to view the universe as a closed system and therefore there has to be an end to the universe and that means there had to be a beginning.
When the big bang theory originated they originally guessed that the size of the mass that exploded was several light years in diameter. Now they are saying that the big bang originated from "A point of dimensionless space". What is a point of dimensionless space? They are very careful to not say that 'nothing' exploded and caused everything because they know that nothing can do nothing, and nothing can come from nothing. So how is this "point" in space contain all the energy in its most useful form? The universe will have a end and had to have a beginning so what was here before the big bang? Where did all the 92 naturally occurring elements come from since the big bang was only supposed to produce hydrogen? If there was a explosion and blew all the mass away it should be evenly distributed however it is not, there are large chunks of mass called galaxies and then gigantic voids. How did these gases decide to get together and form the stars since Boyle's Gas Law (Note: Another LAW) proves that gases can not come together and collapse to form a star?
How many stars do we see form every year? The Horse Head Nebula and Orion Nebula have often been called star nurseries because it is believed that the dust floating around in the nebula will collapse with some form of circumstellar disc and get pulled to the center to form a star. This process is supposed to take around 100,000 years to get the initial star formed and then over the next 10 million years to 25 million years the dust cloud either gets pulled in or dissipates and a normal star is what remains. So, back to the question of how many stars do we see form in a year, the answer would be zero. We have never seen a star form, we have seen spots getting brighter but we have never seen a star form.
It has been estimated that there are about 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Each of these galaxies have about 200 billion stars in them for a total of 20 sextillion stars in the universe. On an evolutionary time scale the universe is believed to be 20 billion years old. That would mean that 1 trillion stars would have to form every year, or 31,700 would have to form every second. Every day we can use telescopes to see more and more of the known universe and still see that there are more galaxies out there then ever seen before. How can we have not seen even one star form if there are supposed to be 31,700 forming every second?
- 100,000,000,000 galaxies (one hundred billion)
- 200,000,000,000 stars per galaxy (two hundred billion)
- 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars total (twenty sextillion)
- 20,000,000,000 year old universe (twenty billion)
- 31,700 stars formed every second (thirty one thousand seven hundred)
Origin of Life
There is only two ways that life can originate. There is spontaneous creation where there is an intelligent being involved or there is evolution where a slow and gradual process causes an inanimate object to come alive. The problem is evolution violates the Law of Biogenesis and Cell Theory. Laws and theories have much more scientific backing than a model so that should be enough to prove that evolution can not happen. If you can not create life you have no evolution. The Law of Biogenesis tells us that all life comes from life spontaneous generation does not happen. Natural laws by themselves can not create specified complexity. Natural laws can create things like a canyon but can not create the faces on Mt. Rushmore. The faces have a specified complexity and highly complex information. The DNA on a single celled animal contains enough information to fill one volume of an encyclopedia while the information in the RNA and the rest of the cell can fill an entire library of information and all that information has to be in the right order for the cell to function. Having them even get in the right order would be more difficult than even dumping out an entire box of crayons and had them line up in order by color. If you had a print shop and had all the necessary products to create a dictionary how many explosions would it require to print a dictionary? How long would it take if you watched the print shop with no people in it to create the dictionary by itself? It was Carl Sagan that said "A single message from outer space would prove there was intelligent life on other planets" but an entire library of information inside the most simple cell doesn't prove that intelligence put it there?
Origin of New and More Complex Life Forms
We find (to quote Ken Ham) billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth; however, everything we find is a fully formed animal or person. There are so many fossils found today that even given the billions of years there still would not have been enough time passed to create all the fossils that are found. If you look at the number of fossils formed today (It only takes 10-20 years to fossilize something) there is almost nothing formed. In order for a fossil to form it needs to be buried immediately otherwise it will rot or another animal will eat it. Why are there so many fossils if there was not a flood? We never find half winged birds or half fin fish or any intermediate fossils. What about the millions of years that birds were evolving that they had only a partial wing, would they be able to fly? Or what about the millions of years that fish were evolving their fins, would they be able to swim? When fish were turning into amphibians and their gills were transforming into lungs would they have to learn how to live without breathing for millions of years? It requires about 20 million volumes of an encyclopedia full of information to create the human brain. Natural laws can not explain how you can get 20,000,000 volumes of information from 1 library of information (1 simple cell to the brain).
Mutations are the process that evolution claims will take something from simple to complex. The problem with that is that mutations only scramble existing information. Mutations can not create new information. Single celled animals do not have the information to create teeth (It would not do them much good, would it). You can not go from simple to complex using natural law.
Time + Chance + Natural Laws ≠ Complex Information
Time + Chance + Natural Laws = Complex Information = Bad Science
Some may say we are all related because we all have the same type of skeletal structures such as how a man, dog, whale, and bird all have a radius and ulna in their arms and that proves we all came from a common ancestor. What they won't tell you is that those similar structures all come from different genes on the chromosomes. If everyone had a common ancestor that would mean the genes that make those bones would contain the same instructions in everyone but they do not. Wouldn't common structures that have similar purposes yet are completely unrelated prove a common designer? Lets say you see two paintings that are of the same thing and use the same colors but are only slightly different and they are hanging next to each other in the woods. Would you assume that one painting was there first and over time it produced a slightly different copy of its self? No, you would assume they had a common painter.
Creationists have never seen the invisible creator and evolutionists have never seen evolutionary changes occur in the past. The universe needs a cause as described before because nothing can create it self. Since the universe is nature and is constrained by the natural laws then the cause of of the universe has to be outside nature. Life does not come from non life and complex life forms can not come from simple life forms.
Law of Probability and Monkeys Typing
I took a class in college called Statistics and Probability and I would not say it was my strong point however I'm lucky there are other people out there that are very good at it. Basically the Law of Probability is a formula to determine the chance that something will happen given a set of variables. You have all probably heard it said that you could get monkeys to type an encyclopedia given enough monkeys and enough typewriters, so we are going to put that to the test. According to evolution life started out as non-life and through a slow process eventually became alive as a "simple cell". This sounded like a very reasonable theory back when microscopes could only see cells as small bags of liquid but now we know that there is no such thing as a "simple cell". Each cell is like a small city with a Cell Membrane like bridges holding multiple cells together and allowing certain chemicals to pass, a Cell Wall as a foundation to hold everything in place, Vacuoles as warehouses that hold water or chemicals vital to production, a Nucleus as a central hub of information, the Chloroplast for production of energy, the Endoplasmic Reticulum that are highways for the chemicals to transfer to other parts of the cell or other cells, Ribosome factories turning raw material amino acids into proteins, Golgi Apparatus refineries to take crude proteins and convert them into usable ones, and the Mitochondrion that are the power substations that take the food and turn it into usable energy. The simplest protein known today is made of about 2000 amino acids. The odds of forming a basic protein is 1 chance in 10139 (that is 10 followed by 139 zeros). The law of probability concludes that it is impossible for anything to occur if it has an chance in less than 1 in 1050 so right here this alone proves that evolution could not have happened. But lets say a 'natural' miracle happened and some how that protein beat the odds. The odds of forming even that most basic cell is 1 chance in 1040,000 (that is 10 followed by 40,000 zeros).
Now when people speak of such large numbers the brain just tries to stack them into scalable sizes so it is easier to understand so to show you how large of a number we are talking about imagine your body. Now imagine how many cells are in your body. Now thing of how many atoms are in each of your cells. To give you a hint there are trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions........... and trillions of atoms in each of your cells. Now with that in mind try to think of how big the entire universe is and everything in it. There are only 1080 atoms in the entire universe. Does that give you some idea of just how big 1040,000 actually is? So lets review,
Lets go back to the question of the monkeys typing, how long would it take for them just to type the title "Encyclopedia Britannica"? If we gave them a keyboard that had 48 keys on it the chance that they would get a "e" followed by a "n" is 1:48 x 1:48 = 1:2,304. To get a "c" next that would be 1:48 x 1:2,304 = 1:110,592. If they got one letter out of place that would mean they would have to start over. The odds of a monkey typing just the title "Encyclopedia Britannica" is 1 chance in 4.7x1038! That would be 1 monkey on every square foot of the earth stacked 77 miles high typing once a second for 20 billion years! Lets just say you don't want to start putting monkeys in front of computers to test this theory and just say that all this some how miraculously happened and the cell did get put together in the correct order. What would you have? One dead cell.
- A single protein - 1:10191
- A single cell - 1:1040,000
- Number of atoms in the entire universe - 1080
- Number of electrons that would fit in the universe - 10130
This all still has one problem if we are comparing monkeys typing to a cell occurring from nothing and that is that the keyboards already have a language and we already know how to read that language. What if on of those monkeys were typing and finally got the phrase "encyclopedia britannica" and handed it to someone that only speaks Chinese? It would be useless to them. A cell has massive amounts of DNA that it already knows how to read, decode, and re-encode. All the information in the world does no good if no one can understand it. Louis Pasteur used empirical science to form the law of Biogenesis that states "all life is from life". I think we can leave it here that it is absurd to conclude that life could occur on its own.
- Randomly type the phrase "encyclopedia britannica" with 48 key keyboard.
- 1:470,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (470 undecillion) chance.
- 630,000,000,000,000,000 seconds in 20 billion year old universe.
- 740,000,000,000,000,000,000 (740 quintillion) monkeys required at 1 keystroke per second for 20 billion years.
- Odds are that only ONE monkey will get it right.
- Surface are of earth 5,500,000,000,000,000 ft2.
- With one monkey per ft2 they would be stacked 135,000 monkeys high.
- If your monkeys are 3 ft tall while sitting you would have monkeys stacked 77 miles high!
One of the worlds largest super-computer right now (maybe even the largest) is not just one computer but a collection of computers of thousands of users processing data packets for a organization called SETI. They use radio telescopes and listen for information from outer space to look for a repeating or complex signal from broadcasts from another planet. What would happen if they finally got a packet that was a transmission of increasing numbers? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, ..... and so on. The next day the news papers would all read "INTELLIGENT LIFE FOUND ON ANOTHER PLANET". Why does the secular world see intelligence in the simple yet look at something as complex as a cell or DNA or your brain and see only random unorganized chaos that happened by chance?
Radiometric Dating Methods
We have seen multiple times that evolutionary dating methods are unreliable and inconsistent(See CSE Seminar 4 and Seminar 7 on the CSE Hovind page for more about this). From multiple experiments it has been proven that if the age of a fossil is known radiometric dating does not work; however, if the age of a fossil is not known radiometric dating (they assume) works. How come when someone takes a sample in of a known date and has it tested (without telling the testers the age is known) and it comes back with a incredibly far off date they write it off as a freak mistake, but they claim that when we do not know the dates it actually works. Radiometric dating methods are based on uniformitarianism. They assume (Note: assume = can not prove) there has been no catastrophes and that evolution is true. It is fairly simple math once you have done your measurements. If the formula is 1A+2B+3C=X and you can find out A and B and X is known then it is easy to find C. To use radiometric dating you have to assume X is a constant to determine C. Lets say there are two books sitting on a table in a room and they have the same amount of dust on them. We could do some empirical science and measure how long it takes dust to accumulate and how thick the dust is right now and calculate how long those books have been sitting there, right? Well... what if one book was sitting there for 2 years and 6 months ago someone came in and dusted it off and put another book right next to it? The dating method would give us the complete incorrect date. What about a candle burning in a room. You could measure how long it is now and at what rate it burns but you still don't know how long it was when it started or even if it was always burning at the same rate. It may have been tapered off at the top causing it to burn faster and since that is gone we would never know. The Uniformitarian view is that the radioactive background in the atmosphere that all plants are exposed to is constant because the earth is billions of years old. If the earth is not billions of years old the dating methods fall apart because the background radiation has not yet reached equilibrium.
2 Peter 3
 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
 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:
Everyone seems to be 'willingly ignorant of' the fact that there is signs everywhere of a world wide flood. Rock layers, fossils, large eroded land formations, giant oceans with enough water to cover the earth 8 miles deep are all the result of a flood. But, since a world wide flood would destroy any geologic column they just discard it because it does not agree with their model.
Not all dating methods give astronomical dates; however, evolutionists will only use the dating method that gives them the date they are looking for and that is usually the one with the oldest date even though we have seen it proven that rocks that are only hundreds of years old have given dates of millions of years old. Just the fact that they can date the fossils gives a problem to the uniformitarianism view because what happens when you leave a dead animal out in the wild for years? First the large animals eat the flesh and maggots clean off the bones then bacteria break down the bones and leave nothing to fossilized. The only reason we find billions of dead things buried in rock layers is because they had to be completely buried by mud in order to get preserved and fossilized. A world wide flood model can explain many things that the evolution model can not explain.
Mutations and Spontaneous Generation
Mutations are also a problem for evolutionists. If things are supposed to evolve then they need to start as simple and go to complex. Mutations are supposed to be the building blocks for evolution however mutations only work on biological properties that already exist, they can not create new properties to meet a want or need. A single celled animal does not have the information for teeth so there is no amount of mutations that can change a single celled creature into a human. Darwin thought that as science progressed we would find millions and millions of intermediate fossils to validate his theory. Even Darwin realized that if there were no fossils showing a slow gradual change his theory would breakdown. In order to show evolution to be plausible there would need to be millions of intermediate steps showing half wings and partially formed legs however we have never found anything that has not been anything less than completely functional. With the problem of no missing links some evolutionists turned to punctuated equilibrium. They say that since there are no missing links maybe it happened instantly and one day a bird hatched out of a reptile egg.
Creating life in a lab has been tried for many years and there are a few things we have learned. 1. No one has been able to create life, 2. No one will be able to make life, 3. Even if someone was able to make life that would just prove it takes intelligence to make life, 4. One cell is just one sentence of DNA compared to the entire library of information that each cell carries around with them, 5. When they do experiments they start with amino acids that they broke down from living material and try to make them grow back together again, that is cheating because all they are doing is coming up with what they started with. The Urey-Miller experiment proved that spontaneous generation was not possible and that is why it formed the scientific LAW of Biogenesis saying life only comes from life. There is no proof that a single celled animal could have changed into a multicellular animal. An infant in the womb already has all the genetic information needed to create a fully formed human when it only has the two combined cells, it does not evolve in the womb. The only way to make a working machine is if you already have the instructions or the training to make that machine, it will not happen on its own.
Many of the human fossils tagged as missing links have also been refuted such as Neanderthal man or Cro-Magnon man who turned out to be the same as modern man. Colorado man turned out to be a member of the horse family. Java man was probably just a gibbon-like ape or an actual member of the human family. Heidelberg man was only a lower jaw. Piltdown man was a forgery of a ape jaw with a human skull. Peking man was just a large monkey. Australopithecus was just a small ape. Nebraska man was created from just one tooth that turned out to be an extinct pig. Archaeopteryx had teeth and feathers but was fully developed, not a missing link. Have you ever noticed that the drawings of apes turning into men show them having hair and dark skin and then losing the hair and turning to a man with light skin. No fossil has ever been found with hair so why do the drawings show that? Science is not as objective as they make it out to be, there is more imagination that goes into the renderings of 'cave-men' than actual science. When they show these things in school does no one realize that they are teaching that if you have dark skin you have evolved less than those with light skin?
Population growth statistics show that since we have 6 billion people on the earth right now and it is agreed that at the time of Jesus there was about 1/2 billion people alive (remember Jesus was born in Bethlehem because of the census) that the population growth curve would reduce to almost nothing between 4000 - 5000 years ago. That is exactly the time frame of the biblical flood. If there were people on the earth for millions of years and have the same growth curve we have now there would be somewhere around a million people per square foot. I have heard that the world has a population crises right now and that there are too many people for the planet to hold. I don't know about you but I live in Wisconsin and if it is crowded where you are, then you need to move. Right now the entire population of the earth could live in 1/3 of the state of Texas. That would leave another 1/3 for business and the other 1/3 for recreation.
Fact: We exist
Experiment: First Law of Thermodynamics – Matter can not be created or destroyed
Conclusion: Cosmic Evolution hypothesis violates all experiments that confirm the First Law of Thermodynamics
Fact: We are alive
Experiment: Law of Biogenesis – Life arises only from existing life
Conclusion: Abiogenesis hypothesis violates all experiments that confirm the Law of Biogenesis
Fact: We are complicated
Experiment: Second Law of Thermodynamics – All things tend toward disorder
Conclusion: Biological Evolution hypothesis violates all experiments that confirm the Second Law of Thermodynamics
Creation does not violate any of the scientific laws. The natural laws are descriptive and not prescriptive. They describe what we see happening and what we observe on a universal scale, they do not prescribe what has to happen. God is not limited by his creation because he is outside of the creation. Evolution needs God because it can not happen on its own, but God does not need evolution to create the universe. Just as Galileo was stopped for teaching that the earth revolves around the sun creationists are being stopped for saying in the beginning there was a creator. It is unfortunate that many scientists will never give up in their belief in evolution because it means that there is a God, and if there is a God that means we are supposed to do what he wants us to. If you don't believe the things I have written here I guess there is not much I can do about it but don't say no one warned you. No one is an atheist forever, just until they die.
For additional refutation of evolution visit http://iooe.org.
Last Updated 10/23/2007