Make your own free website on Tripod.com

Creation vs. Evolution

Summaries of Creation and Evolution

Rocks, Fossils, and Dating

Does Absolute Truth Exist?

 The Fossil Record

 

They are not actual remains of a living creature, only a rock-like mineral replica.

They do not form constantly and steadily over time (look around you).  See any

friends, relatives, pets, animals or living creatures of any kind undergoing fossilization?

Most creatures die and their remains dissolve or are scattered by the elements or

scavengers.  Fossilization is a very rare event which happens suddenly and requires

special conditions:  a living creature or plant dies suddenly, and before it can rot away or

it’s remains are scattered it is quickly buried in sediment (dissolved minerals) beneath

moving water (such as can happen during a flood or mudslide); under pressure this

sediment hardens into a case around it (sedimentary rock); as the remains dissolve and

decay away they leave behind a hollow mold; this fills up with the dissolved minerals

left behind by water seeping through the sedimentary rock layer, producing a fossil.

All over the earth, but only in sedimentary rock layers---not in the layers with volcanic

origins (where the heat would have incinerated any plant or animal remains).

Not accurately at all.  Because of how fossils are formed, there is an overwhelming

prevalence of fossils of creatures found in or near water.  95% of all fossils are marine invertebrates---esp. shellfish.  Of the remaining 5%, 95% are algae and plant fossils.  Of the remaining .25%,  95% are other invertebrates and insects.  Only the remaining .0125% or about one in 8000 fossils are vertebrates---and most of these are fish

Of the few land vertebrates that are found, 95% consist of less than one bone (for example parts of less than 1500 dinosaur skeletons have ever been found).  Land vertebrates, and especially mammals, tend to bloat when dead and float; they then tend to dismember and disintegrate fairly easily or are scavenged in a water environment---and as such they have a very low fossilization potential (not many are found).  Of all living things, humans are among the least in number (most other creatures far outnumber us).  And because humans are intelligent enough to use boats or float on wreckage and also will bloat when the die in water, they have an extremely low fossilization potential. If 350 million people died in the flood of Noah’s day (a generous estimate) and every single one was preserved as a fossil and distributed evenly throughout the world’s sedimentary layers, the chance of exposure, discovery, recognition and reporting of even one human fossil would be remote.  Very few humans fossils have ever been found.

They are almost never directly dated because they are not organic (so C-14 can’t be used) and they are never found in rock of volcanic origin (so radioisotope methods cannot be used).  Instead, fossils, which are found only in sedimentary rock layers are almost always dated by using an evolutionary Geologic Chart.  You look at the type of fossil you have found (and any other nearby fossils), and the chart will confidently tell you what evolutionary “layer” you must have found it in---and, therefore, what the fossil’s “age” must be based on the chart’s evolutionary assumptions.  This method is severely biased and uses circular reasoning (the fossils date the layers and the layers date them).

Everyone agrees that layers of sedimentary rock can be found in many places around the world.  What is not agreed on is how rapidly they were laid down or how old they are.

Originally proposed in early 1800’s (before any modern “dating” methods existed) and

only slightly modified since, the Geologic chart assumes “gradualism”---that sedimentary layers are very slowly and continually being laid down, and each layer represent millions of years in time.  Beginning at the deepest layers, the chart confidently depicts evolution occurring from simple invertebrates to complex invertebrates to vertebrates to reptiles and birds to mammals and, finally, man.  It describes about 12 general layers with other sub-layers added later.  No where on earth do such layers appear with the kinds of fossils present as presented in the chart.  And it doesn’t matter how deep or shallow a place in the ground you might find a fossil---you will confidently be told that it came from the layer the chart places it in and it will be assigned that age.  The most “reliable” fossils are called “index” fossils, and are considered extremely reliable indicators of age.  Finding something in the same layer as the bony fossil fish Coelecanth (an index fossil) used to be considered positive proof that the thing was over 65 million years old.  Until live ones began being caught in 1938.

When fossils that are supposed to be from different chart layers are found close together it is called a “mistake”.  Explanations must always favor the evolutionary assumptions. 

 

         Creation vs. Evolution

 

 

 

HOW DID EVERYTHING GET HERE? 

The earth we live on, the life it teems with, the universe around us---how did everything get here?

This is something every thinking person contemplates at some time or another.  We see all around us incredible complexity, organization, and diversity.  Someone, something, or some process brought it

all about. The two most prevalent schools of thought center around two very different views:

 

                                 Creation (there was a powerful and intelligent designer)

                                                                          OR

                                        Evolution (everything arose by chance over time)

 

The answer you embrace will significantly affect your moral outlook (1 Cor. 15:32; Rom. 13:14). 

 

ORIGIN “SCIENCE”

True science involves the study of physically observable and measurable phenomenon in the present (such as chemistry, physics, astronomy, and biology). Claims can be tested and either verified or proven false. Such studies provide useful information about the world around us (Prov. 25:2). But it is important to realize that origin science is not true science (it is a philosophical worldview of the past).  Because our origins are in the past and are no longer directly observable, scientific research is very limited in what it can “prove”---many assumptions have to be made and then deductive reasoning applied (both influenced by researchers’ preconceived notions and biases).  If the assumptions are wrong, then the conclusions will also be wrong (often wildly so).

                                                                        EXAMPLES

 

Lacking an eyewitness or firsthand account, it is impossible for anyone to scientifically prove how everything began (whether they believe in creation, evolution, or anything else).  This doesn’t, however, stop some scientists from talking and acting like they have “proven” the things they want you to believe.

 

THE EVIDENCE

Research efforts generally focus on the geologic record (studying the various rock layers), the fossil record, DNA studies, and various “dating” techniques (such as carbon-14 and other radioisotopes).

The evidence is the same for everyone.  But, depending on their biases and assumptions, scientists can (and do) interpret that evidence in ways that yield very different conclusions. 

 

 

 SUMMARIES AND PREDICTIONS OF CREATION & EVOLUTION

 

CREATION  (Ps. 19:1-4; Job 12:7-10; Rom. 1:20; Ps. 14:1; Mark 10:6; Luke 17:26-27; Heb. 11:3)

The Bible says the created things we see speak for themselves, making it obvious           there is a Creator of great power and intelligence.  The evidence is so obvious that scripture says only a “fool” would say “there is no God.”   Such people aren’t condemned for being unintelligent (they may be very intelligent)

---scripture says God condemns them for “suppressing the truth” (choosing to deny the obvious).

The specific details of creation and the worldwide flood which followed are found in Genesis, and this same Genesis account was taught as actual literal truth by Moses and the OT prophets, Paul & the NT apostles, and, most importantly, by Jesus himself (and not as symbolism or some sort of spiritual “story”).

The predictions of the Creation Model are:       

 

EVOLUTION  (Rom. 1:18-23; Ps. 14:1: 53:1; Matt. 22:29; Mark 12:24; Acts 17:24-31)

When Darwin originally proposed evolution, he envisioned a “simple” or “primitive” single-celled organism arising out of the chance collision and interaction of molecules.  Since the advent of the electron microscope we have found that even the “simplest” living cells are astoundingly complex (exponentially more sophisticated in design and function than anything of human construction).  George Wald, Nobel laureate of Harvard, tried to explain (rationalize) it like this: “Time is the hero of the plot.... Given so much time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible             becomes probable, and the probable becomes virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.”   However, it’s much easier to fool biologists with statements like this than mathematicians (who understand statistics and probability).  Some things will never happen by chance, no matter how much time is available (examples).  Darwin envisioned that the way simple organisms would evolve into more sophisticated and complex organisms was gradually through millions of “beneficial mutations”.  But mutations are rare, usually harmful, and never produce new useful information (they can only damage or destroy already existing information).  Darwin anticipated finding many transitional forms of the successive, slight modifications of evolving creatures in the fossil record (and stated that if they were not found, his theory would be proved false).  

 

The predictions of the Evolution Model are:

 

THE “NEW” EVOLUTION

As it becomes increasingly apparent that there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, scientists opposed to the idea of creation are scrambling for a new evolutionary explanation.  The “new” version of evolution is called “sudden origins” or “punctuated equilibrium”.   It (conveniently) states that there are no transitional forms because the (never observed) beneficial mutations which produce new information don’t happen gradually over many generations---instead massive, dramatic mutations occur suddenly and members of the species who don’t get these essential mutations simply die out.  This “completely new species just suddenly appear” explanation hopes to get evolutionists off the hook (to produce transitional forms).  It also concedes (unintentionally) that the fossil record shows what the Creation Model predicts.

 

HOW EVOLUTION SURVIVES

Creation is a much better model to explain the evidence than evolution.  So how does evolution survive (and even thrive) as a theory---being taught in schools and written and spoken about as if it is a fact?

                                                       By suppression of competition.   

Scientists who begin to question or point out the problems with evolution (or evidence favoring creation) are quickly “put out of the synagogue”---they are shunned by colleagues, refused research grant money, no longer promoted (or fired) from teaching positions, unable to get published in major (liberal) scientific journals, receive no major (liberal) media coverage, etc.  Those professors or teachers or students who seek to even begin to have open and honest discussions about the possibility of intelligent design are vigorously censored (or even threatened with firing or legal action) as being “religious” and “unscientific” ---even “illegal” or “unconstitutional” (claiming a “violation of the separation of church and state”).

How “scientific” is it not to consider ALL the possible options?  This is politics, not science.  Lacking hard evidence and irrefutable facts, evolutionists substitute colorful artistic renderings of their ideas.

If you absolutely refuse to consider the possibility of an intelligent designer and yet must somehow explain how everything got here, evolution is the best explanation (story) available at the moment.

 

Fossils, Rocks & Dating

 

 

What IS a fossil?

A fossil is generally not the actual remains of a living creature, but a rock-like mineral replica. However, actual bones and even tissues of dinosaurs and other creatures are sometimes found.

 

How are fossils formed?

Fossils are not forming constantly and steadily over time (look around you).  See any friends, relatives, pets, animals or living creatures of any kind undergoing fossilization?  When most creatures die, their remains simply dissolve or are scattered by the elements or scavengers.  Fossilization is a very rare event, which happens suddenly and generally requires special conditions.  First, a living creature or plant dies suddenly, and before it can rot away or its remains are scattered, it is quickly buried in sediment (dissolved minerals) beneath moving water (such as occurs during a flood or mudslide).  Over time pressure causes this sediment to harden into rock.  Next, as the remains dissolve and decay away they leave behind a hollow mold, which fills up with dissolved minerals left behind by water seeping through the porous sedimentary rock--- producing a fossil. 

 

How accurately do fossils reflect the variety of plants and animals living during a given time?

Not accurately at all.  Because of how fossils are formed, there is an overwhelming prevalence of fossils of creatures found in or near water.  Only about 1 in 8000 fossils is a vertebrate and most of these are fish.  Land vertebrates, especially mammals, tend to bloat and float and have a very low fossilization potential.  Of the few land animals that are found, 95% consist of less than one bone.

Parts of only about 1500 dinosaurs have ever been found.  Humans are among the least in number of living things (most other creatures far outnumber us).  Very few human fossils have ever been found.

 

How are fossils usually dated?

Not the way you probably think.  Fossils can’t usually be directly dated---Carbon-14 dating techniques can only be used on actual remains.  So is the sedimentary rock surrounding the fossil dated?  No---radioisotope dating methods can only be used on rocks of volcanic origin (which almost never contain any fossils).  So how ARE fossils dated?  They are dated by using an evolutionary Geologic Chart.  You look at the type of fossil you have found (and any other nearby fossils), and the chart will confidently tell you what evolutionary “layer” you must have found it in---and, therefore, what the fossil’s “age” must be based on the chart’s evolutionary assumptions.  This method is severely biased and uses circular reasoning (the fossils date the layers and the layers date the fossils). 

 

The Geologic Chart

Everyone agrees that layers of sedimentary rock can be found in many places around the world.  What is not agreed on is how rapidly they were laid down or how old they are.  The Geologic Chart was originally designed in the early 1800’s (before any modern “dating” methods existed) and has been only slightly modified since.  The Geologic Chart assumes “gradualism”---that sedimentary rock layers are very slowly and continually being laid down, and each layer represents millions of years in time.  Beginning at the deepest layers (Precambrian), the chart confidently depicts evolution occurring from simple invertebrates to complex invertebrates to reptiles and birds and mammals, and finally, man. 

No where on earth do such layers appear all together with the kinds of fossils presented in the chart---it merely reflects evolutionary speculation.   No matter how deep or near the surface a fossil is found, it will be assigned the “layer” and date that fits the chart. The most “reliable” fossils are called “index” fossils, and are considered extremely dependable indicators of age.  For instance, finding something in the same layer as the index fossil Coelecanth (a bony fish), used to be considered positive proof that a fossil was over 65 million years old (because none are ever found in “younger” layers).  That is until live ones started being caught by fisherman in 1938.  Does the absence of this easily fossilized bony fish in the Geologic Record mean it didn’t exist during all that time?  What about the absence of far more difficult to fossilize (and less numerous) humans?  Evolutionists are quick to blame their inability to find transitional forms on the fossil record’s incompleteness, but will not admit that what is found in the geologic record can better be explained by a year long global flood.  This would produce billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth---even on mountaintops---which is what we find.  We would expect fossils of land animals (especially birds, mammals and humans) to be rarer and in higher layers and more incomplete (as they float and would tend to be buried later than fish and marine invertebrates).   

 

GEOLOGIC AND FOSSIL PROBLEMS FOR EVOLUTIONISTS

Geologists now almost universally admit that layers are not “constantly” slowly forming.  The many layers of sedimentary rock we see required moving water to carry the sediment (floods or mudslides).

Many layers can be seen that are continuous for hundreds and even thousands of miles.  These were not produced by small local events.  Now many geologists are proposing that the layers were deposited quickly, but that millions of years passed between the layers.  But there are no signs of erosion between the layers (animal tracks, wave ripples, even raindrop indentations are often found on layer surfaces). And multiple layers are often severely bent without cracking or showing stress marks---evidence that they were still soft when deformed.  When fossils which are supposed to be from different chart layers are found close together it is called a “mistake.”  Sometimes fossils will even cross two or more layers (such as polystrate trees)---each of which is supposed to be “millions” of years old.  No matter what the finding or how contrary the evidence, explanations must always favor evolutionary assumptions.

The eruption of Mount St. Helens showed that layers of rock can form rapidly (a small grand canyon formed in just weeks).  Other examples of rapid fossilization, rock and stalactite formation abound.

Ancient ages and millions of years are not needed to explain the geology we see on earth.

 

WHAT ABOUT “DATING”?

Since scientists cannot directly observe the past, many efforts have been made to use presently observable processes and extrapolate backwards to get a “date”.  This requires making assumptions that things have always happened in just the same way and at just the same rates as we observe them now.  There is no allowance for even the possibility of something like a global flood (since we don’t observe any today) or a supernatural event (such as the instant creation of something from nothing).

Even so, more than 90% of these methods yield maximum ages which are much lower than the billions of years evolutionists propose and many credible ones support a young earth (examples).  Predictably, because ancient dates are so important to evolutionists, measuring radioisotope decay in rocks is one of their favorite methods (it usually yields big numbers).  They rarely use carbon-14 because it only dates samples reliably to about 3700 years and should be totally undetectable in samples over 100,000 years old.  Surprisingly (to evolutionary scientists) carbon-14 is found in virtually every sample tested---even in dinosaur bones and mined diamonds!  Like any dates which disagree with evolutionary assumptions these are always discarded as “contaminated” or somehow rationalized away as unreliable. Volcanic rocks (which contain no fossils) are the only types which can be tested.  It is assumed that the starting and ending amounts of radioisotopes are known and accurate and that the rate of decay we observe today never changes (due to heat, pressure, temperature, magnetic field changes, differing atmospheric conditions, etc.).  However, there are serious problems with these assumptions (such as the retention of helium in “billions” of years old rock).  Whether using traditional or isochron methods (supposedly the most accurate and error free), when different “accurate methods” are used on the same sample they often produce wildly differing results.  The most desirable dates (based on evolutionary expectations) are accepted and the discarded.  When rocks of known age (historically verifiable) are tested the ages are incorrect.  But when rocks of unknown ages are tested we are supposed to believe they are correct.

                            

      (Some references:  2 Pet. 3:3-6; Rom. 1:18-22; Ps. 14:1; Gen. 6:7, 11, 13, 19-20; Luke 17:26)

 

 

    Does Absolute Truth Exist?

 

 

 

What is TRUTH?  Is there really such a thing?  Are there some things that are absolutely true (or false) for everyone always?  Or are there only various opinions (personal viewpoints)?

 

                                    Welcome to the debate on absolute truth vs. relativism. 

 

Although discussions sometimes include such bizarre matters as whether or not the universe and you

and I really even exist (or if we just think they do) usually the issues being debated involve matters of morality.  Questioning the existence of absolute truth is not a new phenomenon (John 18:33-38a).

 

 

SUMMARY OF THE DIFFERING VIEWPOINTS:

 

 

 

WHAT’S AT STAKE  (a lot!)

If there is absolute truth… if there is a higher power (a God) who has the authority to set the spiritual rules and moral standards for everyone… and if this Authority will someday judge us (we’re accountable to Him)… and there will be real and serious consequences for violating His rules and standards (or rewards for honoring them)… shouldn’t we change our behavior to comply?!?    

 

But what if I don’t want to change my behavior?  What if I want to make my own rules and I don’t want someone else to be in charge of me (John 3:19)?   I still want to feel “good” about myself and not have a guilty conscience.  Even though, deep inside, I know there really is a God, I might find it convenient to suppress this truth or deny it or intellectually rationalize it away (Rom. 1:18-22).  If confronted about my actions, I would express anger and “outrage” against those who claim certain truths apply to everyone (even me!).  Since the best defense is a strong offense, I would respond by viciously attacking, mocking, and strongly condemning them with labels such as “narrow-minded,” “hateful,” “intolerant,” “bigoted,” etc. ---you get the idea (Matt. 5:11).  Embracing relativism lets me live as I please and make my own rules (as long as I don’t “hurt” anyone).  To those who suggest otherwise, I can say:

                                                “How dare you impose your standards on me!”

 

ANALYSIS and PROBLEMS

Although the statements made by those who support relativism may sound very intellectual and tolerant (even kind, sensitive and understanding) they don’t logically stand up under scrutiny. 

 

     Example:  “All spiritual beliefs are equally valid.”

 

This certainly sounds very sensitive & polite---but upon reflection it is obviously a false statement. 

Consider the after-death beliefs of:  Baptists/Catholics/Muslims/Hindus/Atheists/Agnostics ---all true?!?

Does anyone really believe that when Baptists die they go to heaven, Catholics go to purgatory, Muslims go to paradise, Hindus are reincarnated and atheists just stay dead (and what about uncertain agnostics)?

Do our beliefs shape reality?  Of course not.  Whatever happens, the same process will apply to everyone

Everyone could be wrong---but everyone can’t be right (in fact, at most, only one view can be right). 

 

      The only way all spiritual beliefs can be equally valid is if they are all equally nonsense!     

                                                                                                                                     

That’s the reason the liberal anti-Christian media is so quick to trot out this statement whenever possible.

They tend to embrace atheism or a meaningless sort of “spirituality” where you make up the rules in a way that will make you feel good about yourself (for example: “I believe in a God who loves and accepts everyone just like they are and who has plenty of room in heaven for everybody…”).  They are committed to moral relativism and reject any ultimate authority (especially the God of the Bible and His standards).  One example of how the media pushes moral relativism is the way it constantly writes on the subject of “tolerance”---the definition of which they have revised to mean the acceptance and accommodation of almost all spiritual beliefs (except Christianity) and all viewpoints on morality (except those of the Bible).  They hate the idea of absolute truth with its implications of clear moral standards, accountability, and future judgment.  “All roads lead to God” is the liberal motto promoting the view that it really doesn’t matter what you believe---contrary to Jesus’ claim that He is the ONLY way to God (John 14:6).

 

When people realize that only one (at most) spiritual belief can actually be true… and they realize what’s at stake (eternal consequences)… and then consider the options (what the various different religions and atheists claim to believe)… and openly and honestly examine the evidence (the incredible order, diversity and sophistication of  the creation around us, combined with the unique and perfectly fulfilled prophecies, countless miracles, inspired teachings and historically and scientifically accurate accounts recorded in God’s Word) … they  should be convicted of the truth and their need to place their faith in Jesus Christ.

(Luke 11:9-10; John 6:45; 12:32; 16:8-11; Acts 17:24-31; Rom. 10:17).  Still, many will not respond.

The problem isn’t hard evidence---it’s hard hearts.  (John 3:19; 14:11; Matt. 7:13-14; Luke 16:19-31).

 

A LESSON FROM MONOPOLY

Most of us have played the game of Monopoly (made by Parker Brothers). 

 

                                      The Creator gets to make the rules for His creation!  

                                            (Heb. 4:13; Acts 4:12; Js 2:12; Rev. 20:11-15)

 

If there IS one God who made everyone and everything, He DOES have the authority to determine what is right and wrong for everyone.  Whether we choose to acknowledge Him or not, we are still subject to His authority and judgment.  Right and wrong isn’t negotiable---it’s not a matter of democracy, popularity or personal opinion.  When God’s Word is absolutely clear and plainly teaches something is true or false, right or wrong, we can be certain of it and must accept it as absolute truth (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:20-21; Ps. 119:105; Matt. 5:18; 24:35).  Because God’s Word is the only source of absolute truth we have (the “rules”), we should study and know it well!  (Heb. 4:12; 2 Tim. 2:15; Ps. 119:105)