----------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 1994 by Return to God.
----------------------------------------------------------------
COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION LIMITATIONS:
This data file is the sole property of Return to God. It may not be
altered or edited in any way. It maybe reproduced only in its entirety
for circulation as "freeware,"without charge. All reproductions of this
data file must contain the copyright notice (i.e., "Copyright 1994 by
Return to God"). This data file may not be used without the permission
of Return to God for resale or the enhancement of any other product
sold. This includes all of its content with the exception of a few brief
quotations not to exceed more than 500 words.
If you desire to reproduce less than 500 words of this data filefor
resale or the enhancement of any other product for resale, please give
the following source credit: Copyright 1994 by Return to God, P.O. Box
159, Carnation, WA 98014.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
For a booklet of this information, which includes illustrations that
cannot be presented here, send $2.00 plus postage (up to $6,
add $1; $6-$16 add $2) to Return to God, P.O. Box 159, Carnation, WA
98014-0159; email: glenna@halcyon.com.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"How Did Life Begin?" (an article from Return to God Magazine,
Volume 1 Number 1, page 4).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AUTHOR'S NOTE
Evolution vs. creationism is a point of controversy today, particularly
in terms of what schools should teach children. Some people advocate
evolution as a more scientific theory and argue that teaching
creationism violates the separation of church and state. Others feel
that creationism has as much or more supporting scientific evidence.
Even Christians are divided on the topic. Some believe that the process
of evolution was God's creation mechanism. They believe the six days of
creation described in Genesis are a poetic, not a scientifically
accurate description. Others take the Bible literally -- believing that
God created everything exactly as described in Genesis and that no
process of evolution occurred.
God and His creative powers are far beyond our capabilities to
comprehend. During this life we will never be able to fully comprehend
how His creation came into existence. However, we shouldn't blindly
accept theories without examining the evidence. God told us not to
believe everything, but to test the spirits (1 John 4:1). We should
always have reasons for what we believe.
When I began to research this article, I had the viewpoint of one who
was taught evolution theory in school but who also believed in God. I
felt that evolution was a scientific explanation for our being here and
could well have been the way that God chose to create. After reading
some good creation science books (see references), I was astounded. It
seems many of the points regarding evolution that I had come to believe
as facts were just theories -- they had little or no supporting
scientific evidence. The table below shows some of the problems with the
theory of evolution.
EVOLUTION THEORY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life came from non-living matter Never observed or duplicated in a
(spontaneous generation) laboratory
Random processes create life. The Creating a simple 100 component non-
existed for 30 billion years, living organism would take 3 billion
during which time all life billion billion billion billion
evolved by random processes billion billion years. The simplest
protein that can be termed "living"
has 400 components
Sexual reproduction came about by Two humans had to evolve at the same
evolution. time and place, having complementary
reproductive systems. If one system
wasn't complete or compativle, the
species would become extinct.
Species evolve from other species. There are no fossils of transitional
life forms. Organisms have never
been found to cross the boundaries
between species
Mutations are the primary way that Greater than 99% of mutations are
new genetic material is available defects. No mutant has been observed
for evolution. that has become a different species.
Properties of the earth and the relationship of living things to it are
a testament to a Designer. The atmosphere, the climate, the soil, water,
mineral deposits are all essential to life. The human body is also a
testament to a Designer. The more I study, the more difficult it is to
understand how one can ever believe all the intricacies of the body or
the universe were created by a random series of events.
Did God then use evolution as a creation mechanism? No one can know,
however three factors seem to suggest that this is not the case. First,
there is no physical evidence (e.g., fossil record) that life evolved;
second, the order of creation described in Genesis is opposite of the
order proposed by the theory of evolution and third, in Genesis 1:24,
God created animals "each according to its kind."
So why should all of this be troubling? After all, what really matters
is that we believe in God and have relationship with Him through Jesus.
It is troubling because many people who were taught the theory of
evolution as truth never study or question the accuracy of the theory
and come to believe in "natural processes" -- that God did not create
life. Indeed, some question whether there is a God at all. If natural
processes created everything, there is no need for God. Natural
processes become a substitute for God. A living, personal God becomes
just a religious concept for people who "need that sort of thing".
In reality, all scientific evidence points directly to a Designer (God)
as the Creator. Experience has shown that people close the door on this
issue, which has such eternal consequences, without thoroughly
researching available evidence. We should always keep an open mind and
continue to test all information that is presented to us.
I hope this information and its references provide useful information to
help others explore the issue of creation vs. evolution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Earth was born about 5 billion years ago... Scientists are not
certain of just how it happened, but they believe that life began about
2 billion years ago in the shallow waters of some unknown seacoast. A
group of atoms came together in a very certain way. They formed a new
type of molecule -- a giant molecule, much bigger than all the other
atom groups nearby. This large molecule could do something that no other
molecule could do. It was able to take simple atoms and smaller
molecules from the sea and make a new giant molecule just like itself."
--Benjamin Bova "The Giants Of The Animal World"
Is this really the way it happened? This evolutionist's view leaves many
questions unanswered. How did life emerge from non-living matter?
Exactly how was that first living molecule formed? How did that molecule
evolve to the complex life forms we have today?
CAN LIFE EMERGE FROM NON-LIVING MATTER?
---------------------------------------
No one has ever observed the creation of life from non-living matter, or
spontaneous generation. Even given ideal laboratory conditions,
scientists haven't been able to create life from non-living matter. Life
has been found only to come from life. This has been seen so
consistently that it's called the Law of Biogenesis.
Even if scientists could demonstrate spontaneous generation, it's
unlikely that life on earth began this way. Two basic components of
life, proteins and DNA, have characteristics that make their spontaneous
generation unlikely. Proteins couldn't have evolved if the early earth
had oxygen in its atmosphere, because the parts that make up proteins,
amino acids, can't join in the presence of oxygen. There had to be
oxygen in the atmosphere, however. Without oxygen, there could be no
ozone in the upper atmosphere and without the ozone layer, the sun's
ultraviolet radiation would quickly destroy life. How then, can
evolution explain both ozone and life?
Scientists have also found that the long chains of amino acids necessary
for life cannot be formed in water. This fact seriously impacts the
theory that life began in "the waters of some unknown seacoast."
The creation of DNA, the basic building block of life presents an
interesting evolutionary problem. DNA cells contain thousands of genes
that direct the functioning of living beings, including inherited
characteristics, growth, organ and system structure. The DNA for each
species is unique. Certain protein molecules or enzymes must be present
for DNA to replicate, however those enzymes can only be produced at the
direction of DNA -- the DNA itself has the blueprint for the specific
enzymes it needs to replicate. Each depends on the other and both must
be present for replication to take place. How evolution could explain
this has never been answered.
HOW WAS THE FIRST LIVING MOLECULE FORMED?
Evolutionists think that the early earth contained a primordial "soup",
consisting of all the components necessary for life. Through random
processes, the components combined in exactly the right way to form the
first living organism. Mathematical probabilities show that for all
practical purposes, it is impossible for complex living systems that
consist of many inter-relating parts to come about through random
processes. Let's look at the mathematical chances for life to come about
in this way.
PROBABILITIES SHOW RANDOM PROCESSES CANNOT CREATE LIFE
The most basic type of protein molecule that can be called "living" has
400 linked amino acids, each composed of 4-5 chemical elements. Each
chemical element consists of a unique combination of protons, electrons
and neutrons. To simplify our calculations, let's look at the
probability of chance formation of an even simpler system, one that
would contain only 100 elements.
We'll assume that all the necessary components were readily available in
the "soup" and that the components had to come together in the right
order to form a functioning system. Let's call our 100 element system
"Fred". All the elements that make up "Fred" would have to combine in
the correct order to get a functioning "Fred". It's likely that most of
the possible combinations of the components would have to be tried
before "Fred" was formed. The section below describes the procedure for
calculating probabilities. The probability of chance formation of "Fred"
would be 1 in 100 factorial (or 1 x 2 x 3 x 4...x 99 x 100) or 1 in
approximately 10158 (1 followed by 158 zeros). To get an idea of how
large this number is, there are only 1080 (1 followed by 80 zeros)
electrons in the universe.
CALCULATING PROBABILITIES
As an example, let's assume only two components are required to form a
living system, say X and Y. If they came together in the form XY, the
system would function. If they came together as YX, it would not work.
The probability of a functioning system randomly forming with these two
components would be 1 in 2.
For a system requiring three components to function: there are six
possible ways that three components could combine: XYZ, XZY, YXZ, YZX,
ZXY, ZYX. Only one of the six combinations would work. We can express
the probability or chance that the correct combination of three
components would occur as 1 in 6.
For larger numbers of components, it is easier to calculate the number
of possible combinations of the components by multiplying the numbers
from 1 to the number of components together. This is called the
factorial.
To find the number of possible combinations for our two component
system, we compute 2 factorial, or 1x2=2 possible combinations. For
three components, the calculation is 3 factorial or 1x2x3=6; for four
components: 4 factorial or 1x2x3x4=24.
The number of possible combinations gets very large very quickly as the
number of components increase. For example, the number of possible
combinations of ten elements is 10 factorial, or 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10 =
3,628,800. The probability of chance formation of a ten element system
is 1 in 3,628,800. For chance formation of an eleven element system, the
probability is 1 in 39,916,800.
INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR CREATION OF EVEN SIMPLEST ORGANISMS
Evolutionists claim that the evolutionary process occurred over billions
of years, so they feel there was plenty of time to make all the
necessary trial combinations and eventually get the correct ones. Let's
test this theory for "Fred".
Astronomers estimate the universe to be less than 30 billion years old,
which is 1018 seconds. Let's assume that it takes a billionth of a
second for components to combine to form a trial 100 component "Fred".
Let's also assume that the number of electrons in the universe, 1080, is
representative of the number of basic components available for trial
combinations of "Fred". This would allow 1078 trial combinations of 100
component "Fred" to occur at a time. With these assumptions, from the
origin of the universe until today, 10105 trial combinations could be
made (1018 x 109 x 1078). Unfortunately, to be sure to get a functioning
"Fred" we would need 10158 combinations. The chance of one of our 10105
combinations being the correct, functioning "Fred" is approximately one
chance in one hundred million billion billion billion billion billion (1
in 1053). It would take over three billion billion billion billion
billion billion billion years to try all the possible combinations to be
sure to create Fred. Written out, that's over 3, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,
000, 000, 000 years. There hasn't been nearly enough time to create even
simple "Fred" in the universe's supposed 30,000,000,000 years of
existence!
CHANCE OF CREATION OF COMPLEX LIFE FORMS BEYOND ASTRONOMICAL
The example, "Fred" is greatly simplified. In fact, "Fred" couldn't be
considered a living organism. Remember, the most basic type of protein
molecule that can be called "living" has 400 linked amino acids, each
composed of 4-5 chemical elements. To build this simplest life form
would require at least: 400 amino acids x 4 chemical elements for a
total of at least 1600 components. The combinations necessary to
randomly form this new 1600 component "Fred" are staggering: 1600
factorial (1 x 2 x 3...x 1599 x 1600).
The probability of chance formation of the DNA for a simple self-
replicating organism has been calculated at 1 in 10167,636 (a 1 followed
by 167,636 zeros). Imagine the probability of chance formation of the
brain (with 10,000,000,000 very complex, specifically designed and
interrelating cells)! The brain is only one of the many complex and
interrelating systems in the human body! How long would it take by
random processes to form a human?
RECENT DISCOVERIES SHOW LIFE EMERGED IN SHORTER TIME PERIOD
Recent discoveries show the earth's population changed from simple worm-
like organisms to diverse life forms, including all the major animal
groups, in a period of just zero to ten million years. This is
significantly less than the 30 billion years evolutionists previously
believed that the evolutionary process took -- or the over three billion
billion billion billion billion billion billion years required to create
our 100 component "Fred" by random processes.
All thirty of the complex animal phyla alive today and thirty phyla that
are now extinct appeared during the five to ten million year-long
period, called the Cambrian era. Because of dating uncertainties,
scientists cannot ascertain whether all the life forms appeared all at
once or gradually over the five to ten million year period. This new
information, discovered by a team of geologists from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Harvard University and Russian researchers from
the Geoscience Institute in Yakutsk, will certainly create problems in
justifying the evolution theory that random processes over long time
periods created life on earth.
WHAT ABOUT SEXUAL REPRODUCTION?
Assuming a human could somehow "evolve", how would it reproduce?
Reproduction in mammals requires a male and a female. Two humans had to
evolve at the same time and place, having complex and totally different,
but complementary reproductive systems -- male and female. The physical
components of both systems had to be compatible. If one of the systems
had a slight defect or wasn't complete, reproduction would be impossible
and the species would become extinct. The chemical and emotional systems
of the male and female also had to be compatible for reproduction to
take place. These same constraints apply to sexual reproduction in
plants, animals and other mammals. Sexual reproduction was essential for
life on planet earth. An incredible sequence of chance evolutionary
events must have occurred to account for it!
There simply hasn't been enough time for the "natural" random process of
evolution to create the living beings of this world. In terms of
mathematical probability, evolution isn't a rational explanation for the
existence of our world's complex living systems!
IS THE EARTH OLD ENOUGH?
------------------------
It is important to evolution theory that the earth be old enough to
provide adequate time for "natural random processes" to work. There are
more than 100 techniques for measuring the age of the earth. Only a few
methods date the earth as billions of years old. Most methods date the
earth as thousands to millions of years old. While there is no way we
can definitely tell how old the earth is, it is interesting to see the
disagreement between the various dating methods and to understand that
currently accepted dating methods are not as accurate as many would like
to believe.
SCIENTIFIC DATING METHODS NOT RELIABLE
The "old" (billions of years old) estimates of the earth's age are
obtained by radiometric systems that measure age by the rate of
disintegration of radioactive elements in the earth's rock layers.
Objects, such as bones, are dated by testing the volcanic rocks under
which they're buried. It's assumed that the volcanic eruptions that
buried the objects occurred after the objects were deposited, so finding
the age of the volcanic rock will give an approximate age of the object.
The most commonly used radiometric tests include Potassium Argon,
Uranium Lead and Carbon 14. Radiometric tests have been found to be
inaccurate in many instances. For example, some volcanic rocks from an
1801 eruption in Hawaii were tested by Potassium Argon and found to be
160 million to 3 billion years old! Potassium Argon tests have been
found to be inaccurate when heat was involved with the object being
tested. Therefore, heat from a volcanic eruption could greatly alter the
results of this test. How can scientists be confident about dating
volcanic rock with Potassium Argon? Yet many famous discoveries were
dated by using this test on volcanic rock. Potassium Argon was used to
date Skull 1470, said to be 2.8 million years old and "Lucy", dated at 3
million years.
LIVE MOLLUSKS 2300 YEARS OLD?
Live Mollusks dated at 2,300 years old, mortar from 800 year old English
castle dated at 7,370 years old and fresh seal skins dated at 1,300
years old -- these are some of the inaccuracies of Carbon 14 dating. For
accurate dating, Carbon 14 depends on a steady rate of radiation in the
atmosphere. This steady rate of radiation can be disturbed by volcanic
activity, industrial burning, solar flares, sunspots, cosmic radiation
or meteors falling to earth, thus making the dating method inaccurate.
Dating by Carbon 14 also doesn't support evolutionist's theories of the
chronological progression of life throughout history. With Carbon 14
dating, coal is 1,680 years old (evolutionists place it at 100,000,000
years old), natural gas is 34,000 years old (thought to be 50,000,000
years old) and the saber-toothed tiger is 28,000 years old (thought to
be 100,000 to 1,000,000 years old). To quote Curt Teichert of the
Geological Society of America, "No coherent picture of the history of
the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings".
THE EARTH COULD BE YOUNGER THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
Based on physical indications, the earth could be much younger than
evolutionists think. Measurable amounts of helium gas are continually
gathering in our outer atmosphere. The decay of the earth's uranium is
one of the sources of helium. This helium cannot escape into outer
space. If the earth was billions of years old, there would be as much as
a million times more helium than is there now. Given the amount of
helium in our outer atmosphere, the earth is estimated to be 10,000 to
15,000 years old.
TOPSOIL AND EROSION CONSISTENT WITH YOUNGER EARTH
The earth's topsoil has an average depth of seven or eight inches. Top
soil is produced at an estimated rate of six inches in 5,000 to 20,000
years. If the earth is billions of years old there should be a lot more
topsoil -- 300,000 inches or more! Because of erosion, the amount of
sediment in the ocean is gradually increasing. If the ocean had existed
for a billion years, there should be at least thirty times more sediment
in it than there is.
LIVING THINGS AND POPULATION SPEAK OF YOUNGER EARTH
The oldest living things on earth, the bristle cone pine trees in Nevada
and California, are 5,000 years old. California redwoods are 4,000 years
old. If trees can live that long, why couldn't they live several
thousands of years longer? Why are there no trees older than 5,000
years? If the population of the earth increased 1/2% per year for a
million years (2.5 children per family), the present population of the
earth would be 102100 (1 with 2,100 zeros after it). Earth's present
population could have developed in 4,000 years given the 1/2% per year
growth rate.
LIFE IMPOSSIBLE ON OLDER EARTH?
Every hour the sun shrinks about five feet or about 1/10 % per century.
At this rate, just 100,000 years ago it would have been double its
present size. Twenty million years ago it would have been touching the
earth. Assuming this rate of shrinkage, life on the earth would have
been impossible just one million years ago, due to heat and radiation
from a large sun.
Since it was first measured in 1835, the earth's magnetic field has been
steadily decaying. Based on this rate of decay, the magnetic field would
have been the same as that of a magnetic star 10,000 years ago. Life
would not have been possible in such an environment, thus life on earth
more than 10,000 years ago would not have been possible.
MOON'S PHYSICAL PROPERTIES INDICATE A YOUNGER EARTH
The moon and earth steadily gather cosmic dust. During Apollo missions,
NASA scientists expected to find a 54 foot layer of dust on the moon
because of its 4.5 to 5 billion year estimated age. They actually found
1/8 inch to 3 inches of dust, which would take less than 8,000 years to
accumulate. Scientists know that without the stabilizing influence of
the moon, the earth would wobble. This would create wild swings in
temperature, which would make life impossible. The moon is essential for
life on earth. The amount of dust on the moon, suggests that the moon
and consequently life on earth came into being 8,000 years ago or less.
The distance of the moon from earth is gradually increasing by two
inches a year. If this rate was constant, the moon and the earth would
have been touching two billion years ago. If the moon had started out a
reasonable distance from earth five billion years ago, it would now be
out of sight.
DO SPECIES EVOLVE FROM OTHER SPECIES?
-------------------------------------
If life was created by evolution, one would expect gradual transitions
among living things. The fossil record doesn't show gradual transitions.
Species appear completely developed, not partially developed. Organs
appear fully developed -- indeed, if they weren't the organism would
probably die. There are many single cell life forms, but no known forms
of animal life with 2, 3, 4 or even 20 cells. One would expect to find
many of these, as transitional life forms. Experts feel that the fossil
record is complete and has been thoroughly studied, yet there are
evolution gaps between:
- single celled life forms and invertebrates
- fish and amphibians
- amphibians and reptiles
- reptiles and birds
- primates and other mammals
- many plants
In evolution theory, mutation is the primary way that new genetic
material is thought to become available for evolution. However, more
than 99% of induced mutations are defects. No mutant has ever been
observed that crossed the line to another species.
Organisms have never been found to cross the boundaries between species.
This is because the size, number, and kind of chromosomes are different
for each species. If two species have the same number of chromosomes,
differences in size or shape prevent cross breeding. Abnormal crosses
have always resulted in sterility of the offspring -- such as the
breeding of a horse and donkey resulting in a sterile mule, or a lion
and tiger resulting in a sterile liger.
VARIATION WITHIN SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION
Variation within a species is common, as we see in the many breeds of
dogs, cats, cows, etc. A frequent example of "evolution" used in text
books is the variation of the peppered moth. Prior to the industrial
revolution in England, dark peppered moths were rare, the light colored
ones were common. During the industrial revolution, factory soot covered
tree trunks where moths landed. The light colored moths were now more
visible to predators, thus their population decreased greatly, while the
dark moths were now less visible to predators and multiplied. Textbooks
say the light colored moth evolved into the dark colored moth during
this time. Is this evolution? No new species resulted, just a variation
within the species because of natural selection, or survival of the
fittest.
EVOLUTION CAN'T EXPLAIN SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIPS
There are many instances where very different forms of life are
completely dependent upon each other. An example is the relationship of
the Pronuba moth and the yucca plant.
The Pronuba moth lives in a cocoon in the sand at the base of the yucca
plant. Pronuba moths hatch only on certain nights of the year, which are
also the only nights that yucca flowers bloom. When the Pronuba moth
hatches, it enters an open yucca flower and gathers pollen. It then
flies to a different yucca plant, backs into the flower and lays its
eggs with the yucca's seed cells. It pushes the pollen it had gathered
into a hole in the yucca flower's pistil, so the pollen will fertilize
the yucca's seed cells where the moth laid its eggs. The moth then dies.
As the moth's eggs incubate, the yucca seeds ripen. When the eggs hatch,
the moth larvae eat about one fifth of the yucca seeds. They then cut
through the seed pod and spin a thread that they slide down to the
desert floor. They burrow into the sand and spin a cocoon and the cycle
continues. There are several kinds of yucca plants, each pollinated by
its own kind of moth that is the right size to enter the particular
flower. The yucca plant and the Pronuba moth are dependent on each other
for reproduction, thus survival.
Other examples of symbiotic relationships between different life forms
include fig trees and the fig gall wasp, parasites and their hosts and
pollen-bearing plants and the honeybee. If one member of the symbiotic
team evolved first, it could not have survived. Since both symbiotic
members in each of these examples have survived, it is reasonable to
conclude that they must have come into existence at the same time.
Evolution has no explanation for symbiotic relationships.
EVOLUTIONISTS ADMIT PROBLEMS, STICK TO THEORY
---------------------------------------------
Some evolutionists have admitted that their theories have scientific
difficulties. Let's look at some of the thoughts of Charles Darwin who
popularized the Theory of Evolution with his 1859 book, The Origin of
Species. Darwin's greatest concern about his theory was that the
existing fossil record didn't support it. In his book, Darwin stated "As
by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do
we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the
earth? The number of extinct species must have been inconceivably
great!" He later stated "not one change of species into another is on
record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed". He
felt that future discoveries would substantiate his theory and stated
that "he who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record,
will rightly reject my whole theory". To date, the geological record has
not substantiated the Theory of Evolution.
DARWIN: EYE FORMED BY NATURAL SELECTION "ABSURD IN THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE
DEGREE"
Darwin also admitted drawbacks of the evolution theory in trying to
explain complex organs, such as the eye. "To suppose that the eye, with
all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different
distances, for admitting different amounts of light...could have been
formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the
highest possible degree...The belief that an organ as perfect as the eye
could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger
anyone."
Some evolutionists recognize the incredible scientific obstacles of
evolution theory (as Darwin states: "...absurd in the highest possible
degree..."), yet still choose to believe in evolution rather than in
creation. To quote George Wald, Nobel Prize winner in physiology and
medicine: "The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation;
the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of
supernatural creation. There is no third position... One has only to
contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous
generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are -- as a
result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."
COULD EVOLUTION HAVE BEEN GOD'S CREATION MECHANISM?
---------------------------------------------------
There are great difficulties in explaining evolution by natural
processes, but what about Divine intervention? Did God choose to create
by evolution? If He did, the way He used evolution is not consistent
with evolutionist's theories. The account in Genesis, while not intended
to be a scientific explanation, gives us more insight. In Genesis, God
never spoke of creating transitional life forms. He created animals
"each according to its kind". This is in agreement with our fossil
record and with what we know about genetics, but doesn't agree with
evolution theory. Genesis gives the order in which things were created.
As shown in the table, this order of creation strongly disagrees with
evolution theory.
CREATION ORDER EVOLUTION ORDER
Earth created before sun, stars Sun, stars existed before earth
(Gen. 1:1, 1:14)
Oceans created before land (Gen. 1:2) Land existed before water
Light created before land (Gen. 1:3, The sun was the earth's first
1:14) light
Plants were first created life (Gen. Marine organisms were first life
1:11-12)
Land plants created before sun (Gen. Sun existed before land plants
1:11-12,14-18)
Birds created before insects (Gen. Insects existed before birds
1:20,1:24)
Man created before woman (Gen. 1:26, Woman existed before man
2:15,2:22) (genetics)
Creation is completed (Gen. 2:2) Creation process continues
WE ARE HERE BY DESIGN, NOT COINCIDENCE
--------------------------------------
We have found no evidence to support the major ideas of evolution. There
is no evidence that life can emerge from non-living matter. The
mathematical odds of a human arising from random processes are beyond
astronomical. The fossil record doesn't support transitions between
species, nor has anyone ever observed such a transition. Evolution can't
account for symbiotic relationships between different organisms.
There are so many incredible "coincidences" in our world. The earth's
atmosphere has the right mixture of gases to support life. The sun is
the right distance away and the right size to keep our climate
comfortable. The tilt of the earth is right to give us moderate seasons.
The proximity of the moon stabilizes the earth without causing excessive
tides. There are many mineral deposits and natural resources to support
our life. Topsoil supports the growth of food. The list is endless.
These "coincidences" speak of a Designer.
The human body is a testament to a Designer. Our most sophisticated
computers are no match for the human brain. The kidneys contain
approximately 280 miles of tubes and filter 185 quarts of water a day
from the blood. The heart pumps 5,000 gallons of blood a day. It beats
approximately 100,800 times a day or 2,500,000,000 times in an average
life time. The human skeletal structure is light and flexible, yet can
withstand enormous stress. The eye has automatic aim, focus and aperture
adjustment. It provides us with color three dimensional images. It can
function in darkness to bright light and makes about 100,000 motions in
a day. All of these complex systems function together. Can evolution
really account for all of this? An honest assessment of available
information must conclude there is powerful evidence to support the
theory that the universe and all that is in it is a designed creation.
References and good books for further study include: "The Collapse of
Evolution" by Scott M. Huse, "Scientific Creationism" by Henry M.
Morris, "A Scientific Approach to Christianity" by Robert W. Faid,
"Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation" by Dennis R. Petersen and "In the
Beginning" by Walter T. Brown Jr.