- Politics and Social Issues»
- Science in Society
Creationism vs Evolution with Scientific Facts
Definition of Creation and Evolution
Evolution, they teach it at public schools, magazines and scientific literature talk about millions and billions of years. Yet, there are questions. Questions like "how can an explosion create something", or "does this disprove the existence of a God." Most people do know what evolution is, Webster's Encyclopedia states:
"Evolution is the continuous genetic adaptation of organisms or species to the environment by the integrating agencies of selection, hybridization, inbreeding, and mutation." ("Evolution" Webster''s Encyclopedic)
Many people don't know what creationism is because the majority of the scientific field would much rather accept the theory of evolution. Consequently, the school, media, books, magazines and almost every other place you look there is support for evolution and almost none for creationism. Webster's Encyclopedia's definition of creationism is as follows:
"the doctrine of matter and all thing were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed." (Creationism, Webster's Ecyclopedic)
Darwin thought he had found evidence of evolution when he went on his worldwide voyage on a ship called the H.M.S. Beagle. Being a naturalist, Darwin cataloged the animals he saw, and noticed that fossils and living animals have striking similarities. Darwin also collected 31 finches of fourteen different species off three of the island of Galapagos.
When he returned to England, a man named John Gould had a look at them and noticed that the birds that lived in areas that had nut had large beaks for which to crush the nuts and the birds that lived in areas with insects had small beaks. These findings led Darwin to conclude that a process known as natural selection formed the finches' bills.
There are many misleading circumstances such as these that lead scientists to form false theories. Although evolution is largely favored within scientific realm, more and more evidence is being uncovered that validates the biblical account of creationism and disproves evolution. Before we get started studying this evidence, let's take a more in-depth look at the theory of evolution.
The most common secular theory is that the stars, planets, and moons were created by what is known as the big bang theory. It has been theorize that the universal expansion caused clouds of matter to be created. These clouds of matter were than contracted and started rotating. When the matter became squeezed hard enough, nuclear reactions occur forming the stars. A couple of these stars formed right in thee midst of some material. These bits of material then coalesced to form planets. By observation of the speed in which galaxies move outward and how far apart they are, scientists believe that they can come up with an accurate idea of what the age of the universe is.
After this has happened, the process of abiogenesis comes into play. Abiogenesis is the process in which nonliving products become alive. During a time span of "10 billion years", atoms randomly collide to form simple, living organisms. This is the beginning of the theory of evolution.
These simple, living organisms than evolved into organism that are more complex. Because the complex organisms are more fit for survival than their simpler descendants, these organisms cancel their descendants out. This process is what scientists refer to as natural selection. Basically it is the survival of the fittest. The organisms and animals that are fit enough to survive get their traits passed on while those who are weak die out.
Scientists claim they found the most direct evidence of evolution through the preserved remain of animals called fossils. Few animals become fossilized because they first have to be buried in sediment, the the hard tisssues from the carcass mineralize, and lastly, the sediment around the remains hardens to form a rock.
The fossils found are sorted from oldest to youngest. Scientists first dated the fossils by dating the rocks around the carcass. Nowadays, scientists believe they can date the fossils more accurately by measuring the degree of decay of the isotopes of the rocks. When the fossils are sorted, they supposedly show evolutionary change.
Evolution derived from many different branches, including paleontology, geology, biology, and phylogeny. Paleontologists examine fossils, create family trees, estimates the time frame of fossild, and speculates evolutionary paths. A person who studies geology studies rocks. Biology is the study of plants and animals. A phylogenist studies the evolutionary development of living things.
The theory of evolution sounds true, yet, even Charles Darwin admitted that the theory is shaky. He put it this way,
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
Many people believe it has come to this point. A slight modification of a vital organ would prove a fatality. By common sense, people should know that an organ would not function properly with the rest of thee system of it would be slightly modified. Therefore, according to natural selection, the system with the slightly modified organ would die out and the original would still survive.
The Mousetrap Analogy
A good example of this idea is the mousetrap analogy. A mousetrap's function is to kill a mouse. The trap has four basic parts: wooden platform, metal hammer, spring, and metal bar for holding the hammer. The question is, how can it be slightly modified to make it more suitable for is purpose? Maybe by removing a part or making one part larger or smaller? The answer is, it is impossible because it is irreducibly complex! Regardless whar modification is made, it is ruined or handicapped. Consider this sequence, "skateboard, toy, wagon, bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, airplane, jetplane, space shuttle." (Behe, "The Concept") It is easy to see the relation between one vehicle to the next, but the sequence only has conceptual connection, not physical. For example, a bike cannot be made into a motorcycle with only bike parts, and certainly not into a space shuttle. So for a mutation, a change in DNA, to occur, a nucleotide would have to be either switched, added, subtracted, and it is impossible to tell whether many small mutations could cause numerous anatomical changes to occur.
A mousetrap could perhaps be modified two ways that wouldn't ruin its function, changing the color and size. This would be called microevolution. Microevolution occurs when the species' looks change,, through tiny changes, but it wouldn't change its appearance. An organism could change itas color or size, but not change from from a frog to say... a lizard.
It is ironic that scientists could date rocks before radiometric dating was invented, but it's more ironic the way they dated the rocks. First of all, they will propose a date to a fossil according to the phylogenetic tree. After this, they find a layer of earth with the same fossil as the one just assigned the date to and say that this layer is that old. Then they publish the "evidence" saying that they knew the age of the fossil by dating the earth surrounding it.
When radiometric dating was invented, they said that they now have a much better way to date fossils. Again they were wrong. Different methods of radiometric dating produce different results of an object. There was one such occasion where scientist tested different parts of a rock and they came out with three different dates! (1.87 million years, 25 million years, and 500 million years) Also notable, is the fact that the people who dated the rocks asked for the proposed age before that actual dating took place. Therefore, scientist can actually control the date of a fossil using different dating techniques.
Flaws of the Theory of Evolution
So many books support evolution that it is a wonder that the theory has so many flaws, yet, they are all derived from previous books. Usually, they consist of an artist imagination of million year plants and animals and a couple of drawings showing the proposed ages and names of earth's layers. The books really don't have any questionable evidence because all the books contain the same writing, only in a different way. This is commonly called a circle of information.
Some scientist have sorted groups of animals into something called the phylogenetic tree. There is a notable flaw in the tree there are gaps in them. These gaps are missing links where a species' branch was supposed to change into another species.
There is a sudden explosion of complicated life between the Precambrian and Cambrian period. This explosion cannot be explained by evolution and microevolution. The theory is much to slow working to be the answer. Increasing the number of complex organism should have taken much longer then the geologic layers show.
In the Pliocene layer, where 7-12 million year old remain of Ramapithecus skeletons were supposed to be, there instead was found a modern human. This shocking finding puts down evolution and dating techniques even further. Scientists attempt to cover this up by saying it's only a burial.
Doesn't the Fossils Prove Evolution?
Perhaps the most down-putting fossils found are those that span millions of years of geologic layers. Many trees have been found still standing upright buried. When Mt. St. Helens erupted, many of the surrounding trees were buried in the same fashion. The concept that geologic layers are representations of long period is immensely discredited by these fossils and by the eruption of St. Helens.
If an animal dies in the field right now, it wouldn't just sit there until it would be buried under sediment, it would either be eaten up, blown away, or blown away, or decay first. This is all just logical thinking, it would not take a mad scientist to figure something like this out. Sometimes, fossils are found in large groups. The large group of fossils are commonly called graveyard. Again, use of logic thinking would show that it isn't very apt that animals would die in a heap and then just remain there until it would become fossilized.
Some fossils from millions of years back haven't changed their shape up to now. Evolutionists have come up with the concept of stabilizing selection for the explanation. They state that natural selection suppressed innovations by negating all the changes, sometimes for millions of years. This is the exact opposite of natural selection.
Creationism with Scientific Facts
There are many scientific facts supporting creationism. While these facts do not scientifically prove creationism, they do carry some weight when deciding whether or not the biblical account of creation is a scientifically valid theory. Before we continue to the facts supporting creationism, let's delve in a little deeper into what I consider creationism.
Creationists usually believe that the world and all living things were created in six 24-hour days. While there has been some argument about whether or not creation took 6 day or 6 thousand years because of 2 peter 3:8 (one day is with the Lord as a thousand years), please assume in this article that I am talking about six literal days.
Creationists also believe in a worldwide flood. The water is believed to have come from underground springs and an atmospheric water canopy. The water canopy, which would be much denser than the clouds nowadays, would have created a superior climate. The Bible talks about the opening of "the windows of heaven" (NKJV), which can be explained by the theory of the water canopy. It would also be the explanation as to why wooly mammoths have been found buried with food still in their mouths.
Creationists also explain the earth's layers with the flood. The Mt. St. Helens eruption, which as stated previously produced fossils of upright trees, also produced thousands of geologic layers in a matter of days. The fossils found within the layers would be expected if there would be a worldwide flood. The dead animals would float at first but given enough time, would sink and become fossilized. The process of fossilization would be much easier underwater than dry ground.
The sudden explosion between the Precambrian and Cambrian period can also be explained by creationists. These animals were created by God, and then when the flood came, they were cooked alive by the underwater springs.
As stated above, fossils would be fossilized much easier in a worldwide flood than on dry ground. The reason is because when animals would sink, the sediment would quickly cover the animal because of the water currents.
Almost all the animals in the world would have been killed; the only exception would be the animals in the ark. Consequently, there would be heaps of animals on the floor. Great groups of fossils would have been created. Big fossil graveyards would have been created. The same fossil graveyards that evolution has failed to explain.
Does the Bible Mention Dinosaurs?
Many people think that the bible doesn't talk about dinosaurs. They use this as an excuse for not believing in creation. The fact is, there are 3 animals in the bible that are unfamiliar to us. These animals are the tanniyn, behemoth and the leviathan. The bible gives a very detailed description of the behemoth and the leviathan.
Here's the description of the behemoth:
- He eateth grass as an ox (KJV, Job 40:15)
- He moveth his tail like a cedar (KJV, Job 40:17)
- His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron (KJV, Job 40:18)
It is obvious that it is a large land animal if the bible compares his tail with a cedar and his bones with brass and iron. What is this animal? Earlier, it was hypothesized that it could be an elephant or a hippotamus, but both of these animals don't have big tails, at least not as big as a cedar. The description fits a dinosaur like the brachiosaurus better.
The leviathan's description is even more interesting. It first asks "Canst thou draw out leviathan with a hook?" (KJV, Job 41:1) With this question, it is safe to conclude that it is a water animal. The bible further describes Leviathan as the following:
- His teeth are terrible round about (KJV, Job 41:14)
- His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal (KJV, Job 41:15)
- Out of his nostrils go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out (KJV, Job 41:19)
- In his neck remaineth strength (KJV, Job 41:22)
- The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: He esteemeth iron as straw and brass as rotten wood (KJV, Job 41:26-27)
Again, leviathan has been hypothesized to be modern animals, such as an alligator or a crocodile. The description of the Bible by far doesn't fit any of these animals. They don't have scale, nor do they breathe fire. Also, they aren't tough enough that they can stand a sword struck at them. Therefore, it would probably be a fire breathing dinosaur. At first, it may sound far-fetched, but Clarifying Christianity says:
"Many fossil dinosaur skulls contain unexplained, empty passages. Scientists have not been able to guess the reason for these unexplained passages. Would it make sense that some dinosaurs used those passages as "gas tanks" for the combustible mixture used to "breathe fire?" We believe it does."
The bombardier beetle also throws out fire, not out of its mouth, but out of its behind! As funny as it may seem, it does give a good point. If a beetle can do it, so could a ferocious animal who can withstand a sword.
There is a lot of scientific evidence pointing towards creation and away from evolution. Therefore, people shouldn't just think that evolutionists got everything figured out, because they don't. In fact, as you've just seen, they are very far from figuring everything out. So it always good to investigate what is believed by a person. Just because something is believed by the majority of the world doesn't mean it's true!