The general theory of evolution is based on several faulty assumptions.(Note: It is important to understand by this statement that we are notdisputing simple variations that some call "microevolution," whosemicro-changes are often observed but never lead to a fundamentally different
kind of plant or animal.) The following assumptions of evolutionary theory are easy to prove false:
1. *the universe is billions of years old,
2. *life spontaneously arose from nonliving minerals "a
primordial soup"
3. *mutations create or improve a species
If, in fact, it could be demonstrated that the universe is not billions of years old, all other arguments about evolution become meaningless and unnecessary.
In children's fairy tales, we are told: frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince.
In modern "science" textbooks we are told: frog + time = prince.
The same basic fairy tale (evolution) is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is time. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.
Time is the evolutionists' god. Time is able to accomplish anything the evolutionists can propose. Time can easily turn a frog into a prince. Time can create matter from nothing and life from matter. According to evolutionists, time can create order from chaos.
But let's remove time from the above equation. There would be the following three results:
A) Evolution becomes obviously impossible.
B) Evolutionists will scream like a baby whose pacifier has been
pulled out because they know that if time is removed, their religion (evolution is religion, not science) is silly
C) Creation becomes the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.
Let's imagine we are exploring an old gold mine, and we find a Casio Databank watch half buried in the mud on the floor of the mine. Suppose also that the correct time and date are displayed on the watch and it is still running smoothly. Then imagine that I tell you the watch has been there for over one thousand years. "That's impossible!" you say. "That watch could not have been there for a thousand years, and I can prove it!" "How can you prove I'm wrong?" I say. "Well, for one thing, this mine was just dug 150 years ago," you say. "Okay," I admit, "you're right about the thousand years being too much, but the watch has been here for 150 years at least!" "No!" you say. "Casio didn't make the Databank watch until twelve years ago." "All right," I say. "The watch was dropped here twelve years ago then." "Impossible!" you say. "The batteries only last five years on that watch, and it's still running. That proves it has been here less than five years."
While we still can't prove exactly when the watch was left there, you have logically limited the date to five years at the most. You have effectively proven that my initial statement about the watch being 1000 years old is wrong. The larger numbers prove nothing.. Even if I were to radiometric-date the mud or the plastic in the watch to try to prove that it is thousands of years old, my data would be meaningless. The same logic can
be applied to finding the age of the earth. If several factors limit the age of the earth to a few thousand years, the earth cannot be older than a few thousand years! Even if a few indicators seem to show a greater age for the earth, it takes only ONE fact to prove the earth is young.
Now on to evidence:
from Space--The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than "billions of years." The sun is losing both mass and diameter. Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive. 2) The 0.5 inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon has not been accumulating dust for billions of years. "Insufficient evidence to be positive" (almost all
estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of dust.) 3) Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years as is currently being taught in school textbooks. And on and on...
Earth: 1)The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than billions. 2) The volume of lava on earth divided by its rate of efflux gives a number of only a few million years, not billions. I believe that during the Flood, while "the fountains of the deep were broken up," most of the earth's lava was deposited rapidly.
4) Niagara Falls' erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don't forget Noah's Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.
Biology: 1) The current population of earth (6.5 billion people) could easily be generated from eight people (survivors of the Flood) in less than 4000 years 2) The genetic load in man is increasing. Geneticists have cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is certainly reasonable to believe that the human race was created perfect from the hand of the Creator but has been going downhill as a result of our disobedience to the laws established by the Creator
2006-12-08 01:40:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Michelle_My_Belle 4
·
0⤊
2⤋
To believe in creation is to totally distrust the science behind the concept of evolution. That means that you also don't believe that the earth revolves around the sun or that man has landed on the moon and sent craft to other planets or any of the millions of things that affect our lives directly every day that those same scientific methods have brought about.
God could have created us as mindless biological robots perfectly content to do nothing but worship Him. God didn't do that. He gave us a thinking brain and an insatiable curiosity about the marvelous universe that He placed us in.
I believe in creation AND evolution because God CREATED a universe that is constantly EVOLVING!
2006-12-08 01:24:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by lunatic 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe in Creation. I can present reasons why I believe just as the evolutionist can present reasons why he has faith in his religion.
I believe that both evolution and creation require faith and believers.
I believe in Creation because of the intelligent design everywhere apparent in the many things in our natural world and environment.
Design requires intelligence and intelligence has its source in a mind.
The formulation of a code requires planning and intelligence.
Planning and intelligence have their source in a mind.
It is dishonest, unreasonable and an intellectual insult to try and persuade other human beings that the morse code is the result of a chance mutational accident due to a big bang explosion of nothing caused by nothing millions of years ago.
It is exceedingly ridiculous to suggest that the DNA code originated in this way.
The basic mathematical equation of evolution is not true science.
Time + Chance = Complex Life Forms
Creation and evolution are not compatible beliefs because one acknowledges and continues to recognize the initiation and present involvement of the Creator toward a purpose.
Evolution suggests that mindless nothing started something and that's how we got everything. Some of the things that orginated from this mindless nothing are continuing to "evolve" and grow more complex.
You need great faith to believe this; especially snce you will never live long enough to see it.
Show N Tell
2006-12-08 01:18:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by ccttct l 4
·
0⤊
1⤋
Correction. I understand evolution. You can't "believe" in scientific fact, since belief implies the action of faith. If we had "faith" in scientific evidence, then it wouldn't be "science" and we wouldn't need "evidence." Belief is solely the parvenu of the religious mindset. So, the only question to ask is "do you believe in creation, despite the evidence for evolution?" That is the real way to frame such a question if you expect to receive logical arguments.
As for me, I don't believe in creationism because there is a mountain of scientific evidence which indicates that we have evolved through a process of natural selection. I need only walk about two blocks from my office to Waller Creek and begin collecting fossils from the limestone to start building a case for natural selection. The case for creationism, of course, is a bit trickier. I prefer the simple answer.
2006-12-08 01:08:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by texascrazyhorse 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI
That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”
Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html
Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this
What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/
Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related
Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw
Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8
Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/
More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660
2015-03-20 17:05:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by The Lightning Strikes 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution -- and like the above answers have said, scientists have provided far more evidence for this than is necessary.
Any religion that cannot come to terms with Evolution is in total delusion -- superstition of the very worst kind because it is so dangerous.
2006-12-08 01:08:50
·
answer #6
·
answered by Iain 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Evolution. Too much proof to provide in a Yahoo answer. Supported by 99% of all earth and life scientists by the last poll.
2006-12-08 01:07:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by Zen Pirate 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
I go beyond belief to observation of evolution and its manifestations. It takes a fair amount of training, but in theory anyone can compare gene sequences between species.
There is enough evidence open to anyone who wants to make a serious study:
* the diversity of life and its interactions
* the fossil record
* molecular evolution.
Popular literature explains many of the experiments and their results.
2006-12-08 05:45:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
i believe in both. i believe the bible has two different meanings literal and traditional/stories. the story of adam and eve, etc... is just that, a story. it's god putting an image into our mind so we can grasp the deep concept of creation. god created the things which became us. as for god existing. there's a lot of proof. i wish i could remember the scientists name who wrote out several proofs, but i can't so i'll just tell you one of his proofs. it's pretty simple.
1. everything is in motion (molecules, you know)
2. everything has a definite starting point (in order for something to happen, something else must be acted upon it)
3. the world has a definite starting point (obviously, since EVERYTHING else does)
4. so since the world has a definite starting point, some force had to have acted upon it....God
2006-12-08 01:13:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Evolution. i hit upon it complicated to beleive in conversing snakes and human beings strolling on water. Evolution has been shown by using technology, introduction became into made up like Santa and the easter bunny.
2016-10-17 23:40:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by lander 4
·
0⤊
0⤋