Debates discussion
Science and Nature
>
Creation or evolution? Or something else?
date
newest »
newest »
I’ll make an actual argument in a minute when I have time but y’all haven’t been to science since 4th grade cause at least here we learn about evolution in like 4th grade so.
It’s not that we haven’t learned science, it’s just that we’ve learned it through our respective worldview lens—just as you have learned it through the worldview lens of your school or family.
But evolution was never part of your curriculum? Even with animals?
but there is abundant fossil evidence to indicate that we were preceded for millions of years by other hominins, such as Ardipithecus,https://www.britannica.com/science/hu...
They have fossil evidence that they can and have tested to see how old it is. Before us there were neanderthals that evolved from something else and so on.
Of course I learned about evolution, but I don’t believe in it, as I learned about science through my worldview.
But that’s just the point of the debate, isn’t it? Science is science, but our understanding of it can change dramatically or be totally reversed over time. For example, the “science” of phrenology was lauded as truth for years until scientists declared it bunk. Science is constantly changing and shifting as we learn new things about the world, so what is taught as “fact” now may be laughable to humans 100 years in the future. Additionally, there is substantial evidence that evolution is not the way humanity or animals came to be what we are now. Not only from a Christian standpoint, but also through many other pieces of evidence that contradict evolution and that have been collected by non-religious scientists.
What evidence is there that god put us here?
Short answer: I do believe in science that has been proven and tested, but evolution has been neither proven, observed, or replicated. Evolution is not necessarily science, and that’s the point of this debate.
Unfortunately, I’m in the middle of school rn and bc I want to answer your question as best I can, I can’t respond atm because I don’t have time to fully think/type out a lengthy argument. Ill try my best to reply as soon as I can :)
Mod
Lol I will also make an actual argument when I'm not trying to simultaneously do math homework, keep my dog sane, and pack for the drive back to my state XD
Mod
OH, this looks interesting!!! I have to drive across three states today... but I'll try to watch it tomorrow.
Because of fossils, and other scientific evidence, i'm siding with abby on this one. There is PROOF of evolution. I reccomend checking out this site :)
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
Mod
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence"
I'll check that one out too!!! We're leaving in like *checks watch* idk 20 minutes and I am AGAIN distracted by GR... This is fineeee...
Abby wrote: "I’ll make an actual argument in a minute when I have time but y’all haven’t been to science since 4th grade cause at least here we learn about evolution in like 4th grade so."So, since we haven't been to science since 4th grade and haven't learnt about evolution, it isn't fair for you to come and say that you'll make an argument for its proof. You should make us understand what it is in your understanding first.
message 18:
by
Elizabeth L. (See Profile), (Elizabeth L. Other Acc) Assistant Mod ~ Music & Polls
(new)
Mod
Yeah, I agree that micro-evolution through genetic adaptation is a thing, but not macro-evolution which is the belief that we came from apes and one species can turn into another drastically different one.
What proof is there that we were put here by a god or something else.
Alright. So I finally have some time to answer your question! Gimme a while to type tho 😂
Abby wrote: "What proof is there that we were put here by a god or something else."So what's your take on the origin of life?
Abby wrote: "What proof is there that we were put here by a god or something else."What's your response to these? If have time you can watch them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYHhW...
And @Abby how would you explain 'life' itself?
Anika (I slay my enemies with very shiny swords) wrote: "Alright. So I finally have some time to answer your question! Gimme a while to type tho 😂"
lol!
lol!
I have school right now but when I get home I will watch the videos.
Abby wrote: "What proof is there that we were put here by a god or something else."
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and religion cannot coexist. On the other hand, many who believe in God say that you should "just have faith" and not try to examine the evidence. What does the Bible say?
Contrary to common assumptions, the Bible does not advocate "blind faith." The God of the Bible challenges human beings to test and prove what is true and real. He tells us to: "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Or, as the King James Version puts it: "Prove all things…" (v. 21, KJV).
Can you prove that God exists? What evidence do you have for your belief? Those who believe in God have many different—often contradictory—ideas about God's nature. What does the Bible reveal about the true nature of God? Here is what God Himself says, in the first person: "'To whom then will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal?' says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things, Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might and the strength of His power; not one is missing" (Isaiah 40:25–26).
The Bible reveals a God who provides evidence of His existence, as we will see in this article by examining seven proofs of God's existence. If you find this brief overview helpful, please write for your free copy of our booklet The Real God: Proofs and Promises, which covers these seven proofs in more detail.
Proof 1: Creation Demands a Creator. The Hubble telescope continues to reveal previously unknown galaxies. Our awesome universe simply astounds us. Under the night sky, King David of ancient Israel asked God: "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?"(Psalm 8:3–4).
David called the universe the work of God's fingers. He knew that God created the universe. Did the universe have a beginning? What do scientists say? Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, in a lecture titled "The Beginning of Time," stated the view of most astronomers today: "The universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
As Dr. Jeffrey Fall wrote: "Science now confirms that there has been no past eternity of matter!… Amazingly, science is finally catching up in understanding with the Bible concerning the origin of the universe" ("The Origin of the Universe," Tomorrow's World, January-February 2003, p. 28).
Science agrees with the Bible that the universe has not always existed. But how, then, did the universe arise? Did it come from nothing? If so, how? Can science give us an answer? Sir John Maddox, author of What Remains To Be Discovered, wrote a Time magazine article titled "A Theory of Everything." He observed: "Only 70 years ago, the universe was found to be expanding, but now there is a model of how it began: the Big Bang. At the beginning, it is said, there was literally nothing ('the void,' Genesis), not even space. Then there came into being a tiny speck of superheated space that contained enough energy to create all the stars and galaxies that fill the sky—with enough left over to drive the expansion of the universe ever since" (March 29, 1999, p. 206).
Maddox continues, "There are also serious philosophical problems created by the Big Bang, which can be described but not explained. Worse, nobody has been able to reconcile quantum physics with the other great triumph of 20th century physics: Einstein's theory of gravitation. Until that is done, the true nature of our universe will remain beyond our ken" (ibid.)
Maddox's candor is admirable. He recognizes that scientific truth is valuable, but limited. Science can describe the "how" of nature to a certain extent. But it cannot answer the deeper philosophical questions, such as "why the universe?" and "what is the purpose of human beings?" The Bible does answer those questions. Science can demonstrate that the universe began, but by itself it cannot reveal what—or Who—caused that beginning. Here, the Bible agrees with science, but adds a vital dimension to our understanding of the created universe: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Proof 2: Life Demands a Life-Giver. Scientists have tried in vain to create life from non-life, or even from "soups" of laboratory chemicals. They have utterly failed! The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross comments on these failed attempts: "Even under highly favorable conditions of a laboratory, these soups have failed to produce anything remotely resembling life. One problem is that they produce only a random distribution of left- and right-handed pre-biotic molecules… Life chemistry demands that all the molecules be either right- or left-handed. With all our learning and technology we cannot even come close to bringing life together in the lab" (The Creator and the Cosmos, Ross, 1993)
Even though science has never—not even once—created life from non-life, some scientists are so determined to reject the idea of a Creator God that they put aside their own scientific objectivity and stake their belief on what science has shown to be impossible. The scientific method requires observation, experimentation and human reasoning. No physical experiment can "prove" God in a scientific sense. Science can only produce experimental results that are either consistent or inconsistent with the hypothesis of a Creator God. Yet what happens when scientists encounter facts that are consistent with a Creator? Many will dogmatically declare that there cannot be a God, ironically making a "religion" out of their unscientific atheism!
Notice this quote by Nobel Prize-winning scientist George Wald: "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" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954)
Amazing! A Nobel Prize-winning scientist calls it "impossible" yet believes it to be true! We must not be deceived by scientific theorizing that has no basis in reality. Wald's phrase "spontaneous generation" may sound impressive, but however erudite such a phrase may sound, it is not scientific truth, and does not agree with true science and the real world! As true science recognizes, life can only come from life.
The Bible explains that life originally came from the Life-Giver: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). Or, as the KJV has it, "man became a living soul." God gave physical life to human beings and many other life forms. God is also the giver of spiritual life.
Proof 3: Laws Demand a Lawgiver. Science has discovered that our physical universe appeared from nothing. But how did this happen? Science cannot explain the origin of the universe, but there must be an answer. Contrary to what some believe, the Bible's simple answer is consistent with true science: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
Notice that the Bible does not tell us when this original creation occurred, only that there was a beginning of time, and a beginning of the universe.
Science and the Bible agree that the universe began, and that it immediately operated according to predictable natural laws. When the universe came into existence, all the laws of physics and chemistry were intact; they did not "evolve." Patrick Glynn, in his book God: The Evidence, writes that everything had to be "'just right' from the very start—everything from the values of fundamental forces like electromagnetism and gravity, to the relative masses of the various subatomic particles, to things like the number of neutrino types at time 1 second, which the universe has to 'know' already at 10-43 second. The slightest tinkering with a single one of scores of basic values and relationships in nature would have resulted in a universe very different from the one we inhabit—say, one with no stars like our sun, or no stars, period. Far from being accidental, life appeared to be the goal toward which the entire universe from the very first moment of its existence had been orchestrated, fine-tuned"
Science has found no reason for the many laws of physics and chemistry, and for the many precise values and relationships, to have come into existence exactly as they are. From a mathematical point of view, the odds against our universe having just the right laws to sustain life are astronomical.
Remember, these laws were in existence at the first moment of creation. Scientists recognize that they had to be. As Hawking acknowledged in The Nature of Space and Time: "The only way to have scientific theory is if the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe"
Is it reasonable, then, to assume that these laws came about from nothing—from random chance? Absolutely not! The existence of such marvelous and predictable laws in nature points to a master intelligence and Lawgiver. Add to that evidence the existence of unseen spiritual laws, and you double the evidence of a great Lawgiver.
What is the origin of these natural laws that permeate our universe? As your Bible reveals: "There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy" (James 4:12). Yes, the Creator God is the Lawgiver, both of natural law and spiritual law. "The Lord is our Lawgiver" (Isaiah 33:22).
Have some scientists recognized the significant evidence of intelligence behind the natural laws of our universe? Yes! Albert Einstein, the great physicist and Nobel Prize winner, saw awesome intelligence revealed in the existence of natural law. He wrote that the scientist's "religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (Einstein: A Centenary Volume, ed. A. P. French, Harvard University Press, 1979)
Einstein was amazed at the intelligence he saw in natural law. He called human intelligence, compared to that superior intelligence revealed in natural law, "an utterly insignificant reflection." That far superior intelligence behind the laws of the universe is the God who created the universe—the great Lawgiver!
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and religion cannot coexist. On the other hand, many who believe in God say that you should "just have faith" and not try to examine the evidence. What does the Bible say?
Contrary to common assumptions, the Bible does not advocate "blind faith." The God of the Bible challenges human beings to test and prove what is true and real. He tells us to: "Test all things; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Or, as the King James Version puts it: "Prove all things…" (v. 21, KJV).
Can you prove that God exists? What evidence do you have for your belief? Those who believe in God have many different—often contradictory—ideas about God's nature. What does the Bible reveal about the true nature of God? Here is what God Himself says, in the first person: "'To whom then will you liken Me, or to whom shall I be equal?' says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high, and see who has created these things, Who brings out their host by number; He calls them all by name, by the greatness of His might and the strength of His power; not one is missing" (Isaiah 40:25–26).
The Bible reveals a God who provides evidence of His existence, as we will see in this article by examining seven proofs of God's existence. If you find this brief overview helpful, please write for your free copy of our booklet The Real God: Proofs and Promises, which covers these seven proofs in more detail.
Proof 1: Creation Demands a Creator. The Hubble telescope continues to reveal previously unknown galaxies. Our awesome universe simply astounds us. Under the night sky, King David of ancient Israel asked God: "When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have ordained, what is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him?"(Psalm 8:3–4).
David called the universe the work of God's fingers. He knew that God created the universe. Did the universe have a beginning? What do scientists say? Famous astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, in a lecture titled "The Beginning of Time," stated the view of most astronomers today: "The universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago."
As Dr. Jeffrey Fall wrote: "Science now confirms that there has been no past eternity of matter!… Amazingly, science is finally catching up in understanding with the Bible concerning the origin of the universe" ("The Origin of the Universe," Tomorrow's World, January-February 2003, p. 28).
Science agrees with the Bible that the universe has not always existed. But how, then, did the universe arise? Did it come from nothing? If so, how? Can science give us an answer? Sir John Maddox, author of What Remains To Be Discovered, wrote a Time magazine article titled "A Theory of Everything." He observed: "Only 70 years ago, the universe was found to be expanding, but now there is a model of how it began: the Big Bang. At the beginning, it is said, there was literally nothing ('the void,' Genesis), not even space. Then there came into being a tiny speck of superheated space that contained enough energy to create all the stars and galaxies that fill the sky—with enough left over to drive the expansion of the universe ever since" (March 29, 1999, p. 206).
Maddox continues, "There are also serious philosophical problems created by the Big Bang, which can be described but not explained. Worse, nobody has been able to reconcile quantum physics with the other great triumph of 20th century physics: Einstein's theory of gravitation. Until that is done, the true nature of our universe will remain beyond our ken" (ibid.)
Maddox's candor is admirable. He recognizes that scientific truth is valuable, but limited. Science can describe the "how" of nature to a certain extent. But it cannot answer the deeper philosophical questions, such as "why the universe?" and "what is the purpose of human beings?" The Bible does answer those questions. Science can demonstrate that the universe began, but by itself it cannot reveal what—or Who—caused that beginning. Here, the Bible agrees with science, but adds a vital dimension to our understanding of the created universe: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible" (Hebrews 11:3).
Proof 2: Life Demands a Life-Giver. Scientists have tried in vain to create life from non-life, or even from "soups" of laboratory chemicals. They have utterly failed! The law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. Astrophysicist Hugh Ross comments on these failed attempts: "Even under highly favorable conditions of a laboratory, these soups have failed to produce anything remotely resembling life. One problem is that they produce only a random distribution of left- and right-handed pre-biotic molecules… Life chemistry demands that all the molecules be either right- or left-handed. With all our learning and technology we cannot even come close to bringing life together in the lab" (The Creator and the Cosmos, Ross, 1993)
Even though science has never—not even once—created life from non-life, some scientists are so determined to reject the idea of a Creator God that they put aside their own scientific objectivity and stake their belief on what science has shown to be impossible. The scientific method requires observation, experimentation and human reasoning. No physical experiment can "prove" God in a scientific sense. Science can only produce experimental results that are either consistent or inconsistent with the hypothesis of a Creator God. Yet what happens when scientists encounter facts that are consistent with a Creator? Many will dogmatically declare that there cannot be a God, ironically making a "religion" out of their unscientific atheism!
Notice this quote by Nobel Prize-winning scientist George Wald: "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" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954)
Amazing! A Nobel Prize-winning scientist calls it "impossible" yet believes it to be true! We must not be deceived by scientific theorizing that has no basis in reality. Wald's phrase "spontaneous generation" may sound impressive, but however erudite such a phrase may sound, it is not scientific truth, and does not agree with true science and the real world! As true science recognizes, life can only come from life.
The Bible explains that life originally came from the Life-Giver: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). Or, as the KJV has it, "man became a living soul." God gave physical life to human beings and many other life forms. God is also the giver of spiritual life.
Proof 3: Laws Demand a Lawgiver. Science has discovered that our physical universe appeared from nothing. But how did this happen? Science cannot explain the origin of the universe, but there must be an answer. Contrary to what some believe, the Bible's simple answer is consistent with true science: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).
Notice that the Bible does not tell us when this original creation occurred, only that there was a beginning of time, and a beginning of the universe.
Science and the Bible agree that the universe began, and that it immediately operated according to predictable natural laws. When the universe came into existence, all the laws of physics and chemistry were intact; they did not "evolve." Patrick Glynn, in his book God: The Evidence, writes that everything had to be "'just right' from the very start—everything from the values of fundamental forces like electromagnetism and gravity, to the relative masses of the various subatomic particles, to things like the number of neutrino types at time 1 second, which the universe has to 'know' already at 10-43 second. The slightest tinkering with a single one of scores of basic values and relationships in nature would have resulted in a universe very different from the one we inhabit—say, one with no stars like our sun, or no stars, period. Far from being accidental, life appeared to be the goal toward which the entire universe from the very first moment of its existence had been orchestrated, fine-tuned"
Science has found no reason for the many laws of physics and chemistry, and for the many precise values and relationships, to have come into existence exactly as they are. From a mathematical point of view, the odds against our universe having just the right laws to sustain life are astronomical.
Remember, these laws were in existence at the first moment of creation. Scientists recognize that they had to be. As Hawking acknowledged in The Nature of Space and Time: "The only way to have scientific theory is if the laws of physics hold everywhere, including at the beginning of the universe"
Is it reasonable, then, to assume that these laws came about from nothing—from random chance? Absolutely not! The existence of such marvelous and predictable laws in nature points to a master intelligence and Lawgiver. Add to that evidence the existence of unseen spiritual laws, and you double the evidence of a great Lawgiver.
What is the origin of these natural laws that permeate our universe? As your Bible reveals: "There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy" (James 4:12). Yes, the Creator God is the Lawgiver, both of natural law and spiritual law. "The Lord is our Lawgiver" (Isaiah 33:22).
Have some scientists recognized the significant evidence of intelligence behind the natural laws of our universe? Yes! Albert Einstein, the great physicist and Nobel Prize winner, saw awesome intelligence revealed in the existence of natural law. He wrote that the scientist's "religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (Einstein: A Centenary Volume, ed. A. P. French, Harvard University Press, 1979)
Einstein was amazed at the intelligence he saw in natural law. He called human intelligence, compared to that superior intelligence revealed in natural law, "an utterly insignificant reflection." That far superior intelligence behind the laws of the universe is the God who created the universe—the great Lawgiver!
Kara wrote: "Abby wrote: "What proof is there that we were put here by a god or something else."
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and religion cannot coexist. ..."
Proof 4: Design Demands a Designer. Not only do we find predictable physical laws throughout the universe, we find tremendous evidence of intelligent design. The human body, for example, shows insurmountable evidence of design. See John H. Ogwyn's article "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?" on page 16 of this issue for more on this fascinating topic. Consider the human eye. Even Darwin admitted that "complex organs such as the eye would be difficult to explain in terms of the gradual stepwise process outlined by his theory." But Darwin did not realize the complexity of vision's molecular biology, which science would later discover (Christian Century, July 15–22, 1998, pp. 679–80).
If we find design in the universe, we naturally expect a designer. Significantly, then, we may ask: was the universe designed for a purpose? As Patrick Glynn notes in his book, God: The Evidence: "The most basic explanation for the universe is that it seems to be a process orchestrated to achieve the end or goal of creating human beings" (Glynn, p. 32). Glynn states further: "From the scientist's viewpoint, the fact that the universe looks as though it had a definite beginning might be upsetting enough. But what appears to drive cosmologists nearly to distraction is the anthropic principle"—that the earth and the universe were created for mankind (ibid., p. 42).
What is the alternative? Some scientists, like zoologist Richard Dawkins, espouse the idea that human beings are merely animals with no purpose in a purposeless universe. As he put it: "the universe we observe has… no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference… we are machines for propagating DNA… It is every living object's sole reason for living" (Science, August 15, 1997, p. 892).
Certainly one may ignore evidence of design behind the laws that govern the universe, and behind the universe itself. But in the face of so much evidence, it takes greater "faith" to believe in a godless universe than to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion: the existence of a Creator God who set in place His laws for a purpose. Why would people exercise so much "faith" to ignore the evidence right in front of their eyes? Even some atheists and agnostics admit that by choosing to remain ignorant, they can continue living their lives without God, denying the consequences. Aldous Huxley, the famous English author, expressed this perspective well: "Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless" (Ends and Means, p. 312).
What an admission! Huxley's statement sounds very much like what the Apostle Paul wrote: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:20–21).
Do not be like these foolish people! Examine the universe, creation and the purpose of human life, and you will find that design demands a designer!
Proof 5: Fulfilled Prophecy. Regular readers of Tomorrow's World are familiar with the framework of Bible prophecy. Hundreds of prophecies given thousands of years ago have been fulfilled, are right now being fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the years soon to come.
One such prophecy involved Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, who had a dream that none of his advisors could interpret. Only Daniel, through God's revelation, was able to reveal and interpret King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Daniel explained that the king had seen a mysterious image, with head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and feet of iron mixed with clay. The head of gold represented Nebuchadnezzar. The rest of the image foretold future kingdoms.
"But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay" (Daniel 2:39–41).
Reputable Bible scholars and historians agree about the identity of these empires. After Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian Empire from 625bc to 539bc came the Medo-Persian Empire from 558bc–330bc, the Greco-Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great from 333bc–31bc and the Roman Empire from 31bc–476ad. Finally, the ten toes of iron mixed with clay represent a future revival of the Roman Empire. The prophecies of Daniel are genuine, and his predictions of these four empires did come to pass.
Also, there are more than 100 fulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament foretelling the coming of the Messiah. Among them is Isaiah's prophecy that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David, the son of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1), that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that He would live in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1–2), that His mission would include the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:1–4) and that He would die with the wicked (Isaiah 53:9). Other prophecies foretold that He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12–13), that He would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9) and that He would be like a smitten shepherd (Zechariah 13:7). These are just a sampling of the many prophecies that came to pass about the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ.
Proof 6: Answered Prayer. Skeptics and doubters will not experience this proof, unless they begin to study the Bible and meet its challenges. According to a recent Barna Research report: "Americans believe in the power and impact of prayer. Four out of five (82 percent) believe that 'prayer can change what happens in a person's life.'"
Luke 11:1-4 gives us instructions on how to pray. The Bible also gives these guidelines in praying: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened" (Matthew 7:7–8). The "faith chapter" of the Bible reminds us: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6); and we find this principle: "And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight" (1 John 3:22).
God has answered thousands of my prayers over the past 40 years, just as He has answered the prayers of all true Christians, and He will answer your prayers if you meet His challenge.
Proof 7: A Way of Life that Works! The history of the world is generally the history of mankind living its own way, apart from the instructions of its Creator. Human beings have experimented, and continue to experiment, with man-made institutions of education, science, government, business and entertainment. And what progress have we made? Have we brought about world peace? As the Apostle Paul wrote: "Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:15–18).
The way of man brings about death, not life: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). But there is a way of life that works. That way is revealed in the Bible. As the Messiah, Jesus Christ, proclaimed: "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'" (Luke 4:4). The Bible challenges you to live the way of life, not the way of death! God's way of life produces abundant living and true peace, not death and destruction. Jesus said: "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).
May God help you to take the challenge. Study the Bible. Begin to live by the Creator's instruction book for His creation. Whether or not you yet realize it, God's purpose is to create in you His character of love, joy, peace and abundant living.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to all human beings is found in the book of Isaiah: "Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon" (Isaiah 55:6–7). May the great Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ, help you to prove His existence, and to find the true way of life.
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and religion cannot coexist. ..."
Proof 4: Design Demands a Designer. Not only do we find predictable physical laws throughout the universe, we find tremendous evidence of intelligent design. The human body, for example, shows insurmountable evidence of design. See John H. Ogwyn's article "Evolution: Fact or Fiction?" on page 16 of this issue for more on this fascinating topic. Consider the human eye. Even Darwin admitted that "complex organs such as the eye would be difficult to explain in terms of the gradual stepwise process outlined by his theory." But Darwin did not realize the complexity of vision's molecular biology, which science would later discover (Christian Century, July 15–22, 1998, pp. 679–80).
If we find design in the universe, we naturally expect a designer. Significantly, then, we may ask: was the universe designed for a purpose? As Patrick Glynn notes in his book, God: The Evidence: "The most basic explanation for the universe is that it seems to be a process orchestrated to achieve the end or goal of creating human beings" (Glynn, p. 32). Glynn states further: "From the scientist's viewpoint, the fact that the universe looks as though it had a definite beginning might be upsetting enough. But what appears to drive cosmologists nearly to distraction is the anthropic principle"—that the earth and the universe were created for mankind (ibid., p. 42).
What is the alternative? Some scientists, like zoologist Richard Dawkins, espouse the idea that human beings are merely animals with no purpose in a purposeless universe. As he put it: "the universe we observe has… no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pointless indifference… we are machines for propagating DNA… It is every living object's sole reason for living" (Science, August 15, 1997, p. 892).
Certainly one may ignore evidence of design behind the laws that govern the universe, and behind the universe itself. But in the face of so much evidence, it takes greater "faith" to believe in a godless universe than to follow the evidence to its logical conclusion: the existence of a Creator God who set in place His laws for a purpose. Why would people exercise so much "faith" to ignore the evidence right in front of their eyes? Even some atheists and agnostics admit that by choosing to remain ignorant, they can continue living their lives without God, denying the consequences. Aldous Huxley, the famous English author, expressed this perspective well: "Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. It is our will that decides how and upon what subjects we shall use our intelligence. Those who detect no meaning in the world generally do so because, for one reason or another, it suits their books that the world should be meaningless" (Ends and Means, p. 312).
What an admission! Huxley's statement sounds very much like what the Apostle Paul wrote: "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened" (Romans 1:20–21).
Do not be like these foolish people! Examine the universe, creation and the purpose of human life, and you will find that design demands a designer!
Proof 5: Fulfilled Prophecy. Regular readers of Tomorrow's World are familiar with the framework of Bible prophecy. Hundreds of prophecies given thousands of years ago have been fulfilled, are right now being fulfilled, and will be fulfilled in the years soon to come.
One such prophecy involved Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, who had a dream that none of his advisors could interpret. Only Daniel, through God's revelation, was able to reveal and interpret King Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Daniel explained that the king had seen a mysterious image, with head of gold, chest and arms of silver, belly and thighs of bronze, and feet of iron mixed with clay. The head of gold represented Nebuchadnezzar. The rest of the image foretold future kingdoms.
"But after you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours; then another, a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be as strong as iron, inasmuch as iron breaks in pieces and shatters everything; and like iron that crushes, that kingdom will break in pieces and crush all the others. Whereas you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay" (Daniel 2:39–41).
Reputable Bible scholars and historians agree about the identity of these empires. After Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian Empire from 625bc to 539bc came the Medo-Persian Empire from 558bc–330bc, the Greco-Macedonian Empire of Alexander the Great from 333bc–31bc and the Roman Empire from 31bc–476ad. Finally, the ten toes of iron mixed with clay represent a future revival of the Roman Empire. The prophecies of Daniel are genuine, and his predictions of these four empires did come to pass.
Also, there are more than 100 fulfilled prophecies in the Old Testament foretelling the coming of the Messiah. Among them is Isaiah's prophecy that the Messiah would be a descendant of King David, the son of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1), that the Messiah would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that He would live in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1–2), that His mission would include the Gentiles (Isaiah 42:1–4) and that He would die with the wicked (Isaiah 53:9). Other prophecies foretold that He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), that He would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12–13), that He would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9) and that He would be like a smitten shepherd (Zechariah 13:7). These are just a sampling of the many prophecies that came to pass about the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ.
Proof 6: Answered Prayer. Skeptics and doubters will not experience this proof, unless they begin to study the Bible and meet its challenges. According to a recent Barna Research report: "Americans believe in the power and impact of prayer. Four out of five (82 percent) believe that 'prayer can change what happens in a person's life.'"
Luke 11:1-4 gives us instructions on how to pray. The Bible also gives these guidelines in praying: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened" (Matthew 7:7–8). The "faith chapter" of the Bible reminds us: "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6); and we find this principle: "And whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight" (1 John 3:22).
God has answered thousands of my prayers over the past 40 years, just as He has answered the prayers of all true Christians, and He will answer your prayers if you meet His challenge.
Proof 7: A Way of Life that Works! The history of the world is generally the history of mankind living its own way, apart from the instructions of its Creator. Human beings have experimented, and continue to experiment, with man-made institutions of education, science, government, business and entertainment. And what progress have we made? Have we brought about world peace? As the Apostle Paul wrote: "Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:15–18).
The way of man brings about death, not life: "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death" (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). But there is a way of life that works. That way is revealed in the Bible. As the Messiah, Jesus Christ, proclaimed: "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God'" (Luke 4:4). The Bible challenges you to live the way of life, not the way of death! God's way of life produces abundant living and true peace, not death and destruction. Jesus said: "I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).
May God help you to take the challenge. Study the Bible. Begin to live by the Creator's instruction book for His creation. Whether or not you yet realize it, God's purpose is to create in you His character of love, joy, peace and abundant living.
Perhaps the greatest challenge to all human beings is found in the book of Isaiah: "Seek the Lord while He may be found, call upon Him while He is near. Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him; and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon" (Isaiah 55:6–7). May the great Creator of the universe, and His Son Jesus Christ, help you to prove His existence, and to find the true way of life.
Kara wrote: "Kara wrote: "Abby wrote: "What proof is there that we were put here by a god or something else."
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and religion can..."
In the nearly 150 years since it was first published in 1859, Charles Darwin's Origin of Species has certainly proven to be one of the most influential books of our time. Not only has it shaped modern science; it has had a far-reaching effect on society as a whole. Today, millions of people assume that Darwin's theories, and those of his successors, have established evolution by natural selection as an established scientific fact.
In its November 2004 cover article, National Geographic magazine asked the question: "Was Darwin Wrong?" Unsurprisingly, the author answered: "No!" As is typical with advocates of Darwin's theory, the article asserted that the evidence in favor of evolution is "overwhelming." Even so, debate continues between those who believe in evolution and those who find its assumptions flawed. Many proponents of evolution insist that no educated person can deny its validity, but more and more scientists are finding fatal flaws in Darwin's theory.
What is the truth? Do those who dispute Darwin's theories have a leg to stand on? Can an educated person rationally deny the claims made by evolutionary theory? What does this mean for the creation account given in the Bible's book of Genesis? Does the Genesis account teach literal truth, or can a Christian accept the Bible as God's word, yet believe that evolution was God's chosen means of creation? Is it logical to believe in a Creator God?
The answers to these questions may surprise you. When you really look at the facts, you will find that it is the evolutionists who do not have a leg to stand on!
Make no mistake about it: the concept of evolution through natural selection is the basis of a particular worldview shared by most leading figures in both education and the media. Darwin and his successors have provided a theory that links a variety of biological facts together into a coherent whole that many find logical and attractive—even beautiful. National Geographic, in its November 2004 cover article, proclaimed: "Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It's also deeply persuasive—a theory you can take to the bank" (p. 8).
Oh, really?
This "beautiful concept" has important implications that we need to understand. Also, far from being "deeply persuasive," evolution requires a degree of "blind faith" far beyond what is asked of those who believe in the Bible's account of creation. Notice National Geographic's remarkable admission that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (ibid., p. 25). While asserting that the fossil evidence proves Darwin's theory correct, evolutionary theory asks its believers to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data are missing! Ask yourself: if you tried to watch a film that contained only one out of every thousand frames, would you be able to follow the story or recognize the action that occurred? How much would you know about what really happened? Practically nothing! The "fossil record" to which evolutionists point consists overwhelmingly of "missing links."
UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLUTIONARY WORLDVIEW
What do evolutionists mean when they declare that Darwin's theory is crucial to our understanding of the world around us? Simply stated, they mean that evolutionary theory shows that we live in a world that is the result of random chance, not the result of a great plan and purpose. In other words, all life—including human life—is the byproduct of natural physical processes, and is not something bestowed by an all-powerful Creator.
Consider the great moral implication of this theory. If our lives are the result of a direct creative act by a real God, that God may have something to say about how we live those lives. He may hold us accountable for our choices. But if our lives are merely a fluke of biochemical processes, then there is no Supreme Authority to whom mankind is accountable, and no need to adhere to the constraints of biblical morality. After all, if human beings are merely animals, we should expect them to act like animals. Darwin's biological theory of evolution naturally spawned the concept of "social Darwinism"—that society benefits when its weak and "unfit" members are not cared for, and even exterminated—as was the case in Nazi Germany when "survival of the fittest" became a justification for the systematic annihilation of Jews, Gypsies and other groups deemed "unfit" by those in power.
Does human life have a great transcendent purpose, or are we merely a blip on the screen of evolutionary time? Are we made in the very image of our Creator, or are we simply "trousered apes"? Do we have a Creator who has revealed definite laws defining good and evil, or are such codes of ethics and morality mere human constructs that have evolved and will continue to evolve along with human society? Will a Creator sit in judgment of His creation, or does all life meet a nihilistic end? These fundamental questions affect who and what we are, and how we live. Evolution provides one set of answers to these questions. The Bible provides a very different set of answers. How can we be sure which answers are correct?
Even before Darwin, scientists had discussed the idea that life evolved from the simple to the complex. Darwin, however, added something new. Through his explanation of evolution by natural selection, Darwin sought to explain the appearance of design without having to acknowledge a Designer. The late Stephen Jay Gould, a noted Harvard University professor who for years worked tirelessly to popularize evolutionary theory, argued this point in a famous talk titled "The Darwinian Revolution in Thought." Gould told his audience at New Zealand's University of Victoria that Darwin's theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose and anti-meaning. Gould saw this as a virtue of the worldview that comes from accepting evolutionary theory.
By contrast, the Bible provides the foundation for a worldview vastly different from what evolutionary theory proposes. When human beings look at our world, filled with so much pain, sorrow and death, we naturally ask: "Why?" Evolutionary theory says that there is no plan, purpose or meaning to answer this question. The Bible, however, teaches us that sorrow and death are the direct consequence of sin—of disobedience to the Creator (see Genesis 3). In fact, as the Apostle Paul wrote: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). Paul further explained that there is redemption and salvation from death and destruction. "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
Evolution presents a materialistic worldview in which death has always accompanied life; death is seen as just another feature of the natural world. According to Darwin, there was no Adam nor an Eve. There was no serpent. There was no Garden of Eden. There was no first sin. But if we cannot believe Genesis 3 regarding the origin of sin and the current human condition, we have no logical basis to believe John 3 regarding God's solution to sin and death by the gift of His Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ! If one considers Genesis 3 a metaphor or a lie, then by definition Christ's sacrifice is also reduced to a metaphor or a lie. Evolution and the Bible are simply not compatible. Any who claim that they believe in both simply show that they understand neither!
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?
Anyone can invent a theory, as Darwin did. But a theory stands or falls based on the evidence. Does the evidence prove or disprove evolution? Can we see evolution currently taking place? Can it be replicated in the laboratory? If mankind and the other creatures that inhabit our world have gradually evolved from a one-celled life form over many millions of years, surely there should be fossil evidence of transitional species. After all, if changes occurred gradually, and "nature" selected only the most efficient while others died out, then the transitional species should far outnumber those with which we are familiar.
The physical evidence for evolution is so minimal (as noted above, 999 out of 1,000 required pieces of evidence are missing) that evolutionists sometimes seem quite gullible in their search for evidence. Note, for example, the excitement that accompanied the 1999 discovery of fossil evidence that supposedly "proved" a key step in the evolution of dinosaurs. In November 1999, a National Geographic magazine headline proudly trumpeted the news: "New Birdlike Fossils Are Missing Links in Dinosaur Evolution." Underneath a picture of the fossils, a caption proclaimed that "this creature found in Liaoning Province, China, is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds." The fossil was called a transitional species, and was named Archaeoraptor by scientists. Through the latter part of 1999, it was displayed proudly at the National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington, DC. But then came "the rest of the story."
Further research demonstrated that scientists had not found the "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs after all. In the February 14, 2000 issue of U.S. News & World Report, editors could not resist taunting their embarrassed counterparts at National Geographic with an article that they titled: "The Piltdown Chicken." As the article explained, "paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution. The 'very bad news,' delivered to the society December 20 in an E-mail from Chinese paleontologist and co-researcher Xu Xing, has rekindled debate over the origin of birds" (p. 53).
An innocent museum-goer, looking at the exhibits in a museum of natural history, might easily be led to believe that the fossil record provides much evidence of the transition from one species to another. Viewing lifelike re-creations of modern man's supposed simian-appearing ancestors, the average person would be amazed to learn upon just how little evidence elaborate "reconstructions" are commonly made. For example, take the case of "Lucy," whom some have touted as the "oldest human." A small piece of the top of a skull, along with a tooth and a piece of shin bone—found scattered in the dirt more than 40 feet apart—served as the basis of this "scientific" reconstruction! Such displays reveal far more about the imagination and talent of artists than they do about the original appearance of what was actually found.
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and religion can..."
In the nearly 150 years since it was first published in 1859, Charles Darwin's Origin of Species has certainly proven to be one of the most influential books of our time. Not only has it shaped modern science; it has had a far-reaching effect on society as a whole. Today, millions of people assume that Darwin's theories, and those of his successors, have established evolution by natural selection as an established scientific fact.
In its November 2004 cover article, National Geographic magazine asked the question: "Was Darwin Wrong?" Unsurprisingly, the author answered: "No!" As is typical with advocates of Darwin's theory, the article asserted that the evidence in favor of evolution is "overwhelming." Even so, debate continues between those who believe in evolution and those who find its assumptions flawed. Many proponents of evolution insist that no educated person can deny its validity, but more and more scientists are finding fatal flaws in Darwin's theory.
What is the truth? Do those who dispute Darwin's theories have a leg to stand on? Can an educated person rationally deny the claims made by evolutionary theory? What does this mean for the creation account given in the Bible's book of Genesis? Does the Genesis account teach literal truth, or can a Christian accept the Bible as God's word, yet believe that evolution was God's chosen means of creation? Is it logical to believe in a Creator God?
The answers to these questions may surprise you. When you really look at the facts, you will find that it is the evolutionists who do not have a leg to stand on!
Make no mistake about it: the concept of evolution through natural selection is the basis of a particular worldview shared by most leading figures in both education and the media. Darwin and his successors have provided a theory that links a variety of biological facts together into a coherent whole that many find logical and attractive—even beautiful. National Geographic, in its November 2004 cover article, proclaimed: "Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It's also deeply persuasive—a theory you can take to the bank" (p. 8).
Oh, really?
This "beautiful concept" has important implications that we need to understand. Also, far from being "deeply persuasive," evolution requires a degree of "blind faith" far beyond what is asked of those who believe in the Bible's account of creation. Notice National Geographic's remarkable admission that "the fossil record is like a film of evolution from which 999 of every 1,000 frames have been lost on the cutting room floor" (ibid., p. 25). While asserting that the fossil evidence proves Darwin's theory correct, evolutionary theory asks its believers to accept a premise for which 99.9 percent of the data are missing! Ask yourself: if you tried to watch a film that contained only one out of every thousand frames, would you be able to follow the story or recognize the action that occurred? How much would you know about what really happened? Practically nothing! The "fossil record" to which evolutionists point consists overwhelmingly of "missing links."
UNDERSTANDING THE EVOLUTIONARY WORLDVIEW
What do evolutionists mean when they declare that Darwin's theory is crucial to our understanding of the world around us? Simply stated, they mean that evolutionary theory shows that we live in a world that is the result of random chance, not the result of a great plan and purpose. In other words, all life—including human life—is the byproduct of natural physical processes, and is not something bestowed by an all-powerful Creator.
Consider the great moral implication of this theory. If our lives are the result of a direct creative act by a real God, that God may have something to say about how we live those lives. He may hold us accountable for our choices. But if our lives are merely a fluke of biochemical processes, then there is no Supreme Authority to whom mankind is accountable, and no need to adhere to the constraints of biblical morality. After all, if human beings are merely animals, we should expect them to act like animals. Darwin's biological theory of evolution naturally spawned the concept of "social Darwinism"—that society benefits when its weak and "unfit" members are not cared for, and even exterminated—as was the case in Nazi Germany when "survival of the fittest" became a justification for the systematic annihilation of Jews, Gypsies and other groups deemed "unfit" by those in power.
Does human life have a great transcendent purpose, or are we merely a blip on the screen of evolutionary time? Are we made in the very image of our Creator, or are we simply "trousered apes"? Do we have a Creator who has revealed definite laws defining good and evil, or are such codes of ethics and morality mere human constructs that have evolved and will continue to evolve along with human society? Will a Creator sit in judgment of His creation, or does all life meet a nihilistic end? These fundamental questions affect who and what we are, and how we live. Evolution provides one set of answers to these questions. The Bible provides a very different set of answers. How can we be sure which answers are correct?
Even before Darwin, scientists had discussed the idea that life evolved from the simple to the complex. Darwin, however, added something new. Through his explanation of evolution by natural selection, Darwin sought to explain the appearance of design without having to acknowledge a Designer. The late Stephen Jay Gould, a noted Harvard University professor who for years worked tirelessly to popularize evolutionary theory, argued this point in a famous talk titled "The Darwinian Revolution in Thought." Gould told his audience at New Zealand's University of Victoria that Darwin's theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose and anti-meaning. Gould saw this as a virtue of the worldview that comes from accepting evolutionary theory.
By contrast, the Bible provides the foundation for a worldview vastly different from what evolutionary theory proposes. When human beings look at our world, filled with so much pain, sorrow and death, we naturally ask: "Why?" Evolutionary theory says that there is no plan, purpose or meaning to answer this question. The Bible, however, teaches us that sorrow and death are the direct consequence of sin—of disobedience to the Creator (see Genesis 3). In fact, as the Apostle Paul wrote: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). Paul further explained that there is redemption and salvation from death and destruction. "For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive" (1 Corinthians 15:21–22).
Evolution presents a materialistic worldview in which death has always accompanied life; death is seen as just another feature of the natural world. According to Darwin, there was no Adam nor an Eve. There was no serpent. There was no Garden of Eden. There was no first sin. But if we cannot believe Genesis 3 regarding the origin of sin and the current human condition, we have no logical basis to believe John 3 regarding God's solution to sin and death by the gift of His Son and our Savior, Jesus Christ! If one considers Genesis 3 a metaphor or a lie, then by definition Christ's sacrifice is also reduced to a metaphor or a lie. Evolution and the Bible are simply not compatible. Any who claim that they believe in both simply show that they understand neither!
WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE?
Anyone can invent a theory, as Darwin did. But a theory stands or falls based on the evidence. Does the evidence prove or disprove evolution? Can we see evolution currently taking place? Can it be replicated in the laboratory? If mankind and the other creatures that inhabit our world have gradually evolved from a one-celled life form over many millions of years, surely there should be fossil evidence of transitional species. After all, if changes occurred gradually, and "nature" selected only the most efficient while others died out, then the transitional species should far outnumber those with which we are familiar.
The physical evidence for evolution is so minimal (as noted above, 999 out of 1,000 required pieces of evidence are missing) that evolutionists sometimes seem quite gullible in their search for evidence. Note, for example, the excitement that accompanied the 1999 discovery of fossil evidence that supposedly "proved" a key step in the evolution of dinosaurs. In November 1999, a National Geographic magazine headline proudly trumpeted the news: "New Birdlike Fossils Are Missing Links in Dinosaur Evolution." Underneath a picture of the fossils, a caption proclaimed that "this creature found in Liaoning Province, China, is a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds." The fossil was called a transitional species, and was named Archaeoraptor by scientists. Through the latter part of 1999, it was displayed proudly at the National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington, DC. But then came "the rest of the story."
Further research demonstrated that scientists had not found the "missing link" between birds and dinosaurs after all. In the February 14, 2000 issue of U.S. News & World Report, editors could not resist taunting their embarrassed counterparts at National Geographic with an article that they titled: "The Piltdown Chicken." As the article explained, "paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution. The 'very bad news,' delivered to the society December 20 in an E-mail from Chinese paleontologist and co-researcher Xu Xing, has rekindled debate over the origin of birds" (p. 53).
An innocent museum-goer, looking at the exhibits in a museum of natural history, might easily be led to believe that the fossil record provides much evidence of the transition from one species to another. Viewing lifelike re-creations of modern man's supposed simian-appearing ancestors, the average person would be amazed to learn upon just how little evidence elaborate "reconstructions" are commonly made. For example, take the case of "Lucy," whom some have touted as the "oldest human." A small piece of the top of a skull, along with a tooth and a piece of shin bone—found scattered in the dirt more than 40 feet apart—served as the basis of this "scientific" reconstruction! Such displays reveal far more about the imagination and talent of artists than they do about the original appearance of what was actually found.
Kara wrote: "Kara wrote: "Kara wrote: "Abby wrote: "What proof is there that we were put here by a god or something else."
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and..."
Sometimes, evolutionists reach conclusions so outlandish that one might rightly wonder whether they are truly serious. Take this statement from National Geographic, regarding a discovery made by paleontologist Philip Gingerich, who has spent years researching the ancestry of whales: "In the year 2000 Gingerich chose a new field site in Pakistan, where one of his students found a single piece of fossil that changed the prevailing view in paleontology. It was half of a pulley-shaped anklebone, know as an astragalus… Suddenly he realized how closely whales are related to antelopes. This is how science is supposed to work. Ideas come and go, but the fittest survive. Downstairs in his office Phil Gingerich opened a specimen drawer, showing me some of the actual fossils from which the display skeletons upstairs were modeled. He put a small lump of petrified bone, no larger than a lug nut, into my hand. It was the famous astragalus, from the species he had eventually named Artioocetus clavis" ("Was Darwin Wrong?" November 2004, p. 31).
Gingerich believes that he "proved" the connection between whales and antelopes from a fossil the size of a lug nut? How absurd!
Aside from the fossil record—in which even evolutionists admit that 999 out of every 1,000 items that they seek are missing—where is the evidence to prove Darwin's theory? Evolutionary scientists seek support by pointing to variation within a single species. For instance, pigeons vary in size and color. On his trip to the Galapagos Islands, Darwin collected small brownish birds whose beaks displayed variations in their size and shape. Darwin interpreted this pattern of diversification as evidence of evolution, and as the means by which different species arise.
However, there is a vast difference between the "micro-evolution" that is merely the variation within a particular kind of creature, and the "macro-evolution" that would cause a totally different kind of creature to develop. Dogs, for example, display tremendous variety of size, shape and coloring. However, they are all dogs, and in their variation are not "evolving" into something else. The ample evidence of variation and adaptation within species simply shows the marvelous engineering that God used in designing His creation.
"The Darwinist materialist paradigm… is about to face the same revolution that Newtonian physics faced 100 years ago. Just as physicists discovered that the atom was not a massy particle, as Newton believed, but a baffling quantum arena accessible only through mathematics, so too are biologists coming to understand that the cell is not a simple lump of protoplasm, as Charles Darwin believed. It's a complex information-processing machine comprising tens of thousands of proteins arranged in fabulously intricate algorithms of communication and synthesis. The human body contains some 60 trillion cells. Each one stores information in DNA codes, processes and replicates it in three forms of RNA and thousands of supporting enzymes, exquisitely supplies the system with energy, and seals it in semipermeable phospholipid membranes. It is a process subject to the mathematical theory of information, which shows that even mutations occurring in cells at the gigahertz pace of a Pentium 4 and selected at the rate of a Google search couldn't beget the intricate interwoven fabric of structure and function of a human being in such a short amount of time. Natural selection should be taught for its important role in the adaption of species, but Darwinian materialism is an embarrassing cartoon of modern science."
(George Gilder, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute,
quoted in "Biocosm," Wired, October 2004, p. 160).
EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Evolutionists say that all life evolved from "simple" one-celled organisms. But how "simple" is the simple cell? In recent years, the development of powerful electron microscopes has revealed that the "simple" cell is not really so simple!
Jonathan Sarfati is a research scientist in Australia. He holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand and has written about the complexity of "simple" life forms. His research has confirmed that even the simplest self-reproducing organisms contain encyclopedic quantities of complex information. The mycoplasma genitalium, which has the smallest known genome, contains 482 genes consisting of 580,000 base pairs.
But there is even more. The discovery of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and the genetic code of life was one of the 20th century's most momentous scientific discoveries. Scientists found that every living organism possesses DNA, a specialized molecule containing the "code" that controls metabolism, repair, replication and specialized function. How does DNA work? Researchers have identified a four-letter genetic "alphabet" that is formed into three-letter sequences called codons. These provide the "instructions" for DNA. Even the simplest bacterium has a genome of about one million codons. As Dr. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, asked: "Do coded algorithms which are a million words in length arise spontaneously by any known naturalistic process? Is there anything in the laws of physics that suggests how such structures might arise in a spontaneous fashion?" Baumgardner answered his own questions with a frank scientific appraisal: "The honest answer is simple. What we presently understand from thermodynamics and information theory argues persuasively that they do not and cannot."
If evolutionary theory cannot explain million-codon cells, then what is the explanation? Is there evidence of intelligent design behind the world we see around us? More and more scientists are acknowledging that this is indeed the case. One of the best-known proponents of intelligent design is Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University and the author of Darwin's Black Box. Dr. Behe sees "irreducible complexity" in the microscopic workings of the flagellum and the eye. Flagella—tiny whiplike appendages on microbes—have a molecular motor so intricate that even many scientists concede that it looks like it was designed. Some argue that the flagellum is itself "irreducibly complex; others suggest that it contains two irreducibly complex subsystems whose coordination cannot be explained by evolution. As for the eye, Dr. Behe challenges evolutionists to explain the 11-cis-retinal molecule, which reacts with light to set off the biochemical process that produces vision. Note, too, the intricate cellular architecture of the retina—if you remove even a single component, then the whole system fails.
We could go on and on, discussing specialized creatures ranging from bombardier beetles to woodpeckers. We could examine the life cycle and migration patterns of monarch butterflies or the sonar possessed by bats. The more you look into the creation, the more evidence you find of design and of irreducible complexity. We live in a universe of interrelated intricacy, not one of random chance.
With all of the physical evidence that points to intelligent design, why do so many educated people cling tenaciously to an unproven theory that is not even a theory in the strict scientific use of the term, but is rather a fatally flawed hypothesis? Nearly two millennia ago, the Apostle Peter foretold the controversy about origins, and explained the reason behind it: "Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 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 creation. For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old…" (2 Peter 3:3–5). Dismissing the evidence of the catastrophes in ages past that bespeak God's previous intervention in judgment, they cling to a doctrine of uniformitarianism. If everything merely continues along with very gradual changes, then one need not worry about God suddenly stepping into history to call His creation into account.
Make no mistake about it: the evidence of creation demands a Creator! That Creator reveals in His word that He will soon intervene to judge His creation.
Millions around the world believe that there is no God. Many believe that science and..."
Sometimes, evolutionists reach conclusions so outlandish that one might rightly wonder whether they are truly serious. Take this statement from National Geographic, regarding a discovery made by paleontologist Philip Gingerich, who has spent years researching the ancestry of whales: "In the year 2000 Gingerich chose a new field site in Pakistan, where one of his students found a single piece of fossil that changed the prevailing view in paleontology. It was half of a pulley-shaped anklebone, know as an astragalus… Suddenly he realized how closely whales are related to antelopes. This is how science is supposed to work. Ideas come and go, but the fittest survive. Downstairs in his office Phil Gingerich opened a specimen drawer, showing me some of the actual fossils from which the display skeletons upstairs were modeled. He put a small lump of petrified bone, no larger than a lug nut, into my hand. It was the famous astragalus, from the species he had eventually named Artioocetus clavis" ("Was Darwin Wrong?" November 2004, p. 31).
Gingerich believes that he "proved" the connection between whales and antelopes from a fossil the size of a lug nut? How absurd!
Aside from the fossil record—in which even evolutionists admit that 999 out of every 1,000 items that they seek are missing—where is the evidence to prove Darwin's theory? Evolutionary scientists seek support by pointing to variation within a single species. For instance, pigeons vary in size and color. On his trip to the Galapagos Islands, Darwin collected small brownish birds whose beaks displayed variations in their size and shape. Darwin interpreted this pattern of diversification as evidence of evolution, and as the means by which different species arise.
However, there is a vast difference between the "micro-evolution" that is merely the variation within a particular kind of creature, and the "macro-evolution" that would cause a totally different kind of creature to develop. Dogs, for example, display tremendous variety of size, shape and coloring. However, they are all dogs, and in their variation are not "evolving" into something else. The ample evidence of variation and adaptation within species simply shows the marvelous engineering that God used in designing His creation.
"The Darwinist materialist paradigm… is about to face the same revolution that Newtonian physics faced 100 years ago. Just as physicists discovered that the atom was not a massy particle, as Newton believed, but a baffling quantum arena accessible only through mathematics, so too are biologists coming to understand that the cell is not a simple lump of protoplasm, as Charles Darwin believed. It's a complex information-processing machine comprising tens of thousands of proteins arranged in fabulously intricate algorithms of communication and synthesis. The human body contains some 60 trillion cells. Each one stores information in DNA codes, processes and replicates it in three forms of RNA and thousands of supporting enzymes, exquisitely supplies the system with energy, and seals it in semipermeable phospholipid membranes. It is a process subject to the mathematical theory of information, which shows that even mutations occurring in cells at the gigahertz pace of a Pentium 4 and selected at the rate of a Google search couldn't beget the intricate interwoven fabric of structure and function of a human being in such a short amount of time. Natural selection should be taught for its important role in the adaption of species, but Darwinian materialism is an embarrassing cartoon of modern science."
(George Gilder, Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute,
quoted in "Biocosm," Wired, October 2004, p. 160).
EVIDENCE FOR INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Evolutionists say that all life evolved from "simple" one-celled organisms. But how "simple" is the simple cell? In recent years, the development of powerful electron microscopes has revealed that the "simple" cell is not really so simple!
Jonathan Sarfati is a research scientist in Australia. He holds a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand and has written about the complexity of "simple" life forms. His research has confirmed that even the simplest self-reproducing organisms contain encyclopedic quantities of complex information. The mycoplasma genitalium, which has the smallest known genome, contains 482 genes consisting of 580,000 base pairs.
But there is even more. The discovery of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and the genetic code of life was one of the 20th century's most momentous scientific discoveries. Scientists found that every living organism possesses DNA, a specialized molecule containing the "code" that controls metabolism, repair, replication and specialized function. How does DNA work? Researchers have identified a four-letter genetic "alphabet" that is formed into three-letter sequences called codons. These provide the "instructions" for DNA. Even the simplest bacterium has a genome of about one million codons. As Dr. John Baumgardner, a geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, asked: "Do coded algorithms which are a million words in length arise spontaneously by any known naturalistic process? Is there anything in the laws of physics that suggests how such structures might arise in a spontaneous fashion?" Baumgardner answered his own questions with a frank scientific appraisal: "The honest answer is simple. What we presently understand from thermodynamics and information theory argues persuasively that they do not and cannot."
If evolutionary theory cannot explain million-codon cells, then what is the explanation? Is there evidence of intelligent design behind the world we see around us? More and more scientists are acknowledging that this is indeed the case. One of the best-known proponents of intelligent design is Dr. Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University and the author of Darwin's Black Box. Dr. Behe sees "irreducible complexity" in the microscopic workings of the flagellum and the eye. Flagella—tiny whiplike appendages on microbes—have a molecular motor so intricate that even many scientists concede that it looks like it was designed. Some argue that the flagellum is itself "irreducibly complex; others suggest that it contains two irreducibly complex subsystems whose coordination cannot be explained by evolution. As for the eye, Dr. Behe challenges evolutionists to explain the 11-cis-retinal molecule, which reacts with light to set off the biochemical process that produces vision. Note, too, the intricate cellular architecture of the retina—if you remove even a single component, then the whole system fails.
We could go on and on, discussing specialized creatures ranging from bombardier beetles to woodpeckers. We could examine the life cycle and migration patterns of monarch butterflies or the sonar possessed by bats. The more you look into the creation, the more evidence you find of design and of irreducible complexity. We live in a universe of interrelated intricacy, not one of random chance.
With all of the physical evidence that points to intelligent design, why do so many educated people cling tenaciously to an unproven theory that is not even a theory in the strict scientific use of the term, but is rather a fatally flawed hypothesis? Nearly two millennia ago, the Apostle Peter foretold the controversy about origins, and explained the reason behind it: "Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 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 creation. For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old…" (2 Peter 3:3–5). Dismissing the evidence of the catastrophes in ages past that bespeak God's previous intervention in judgment, they cling to a doctrine of uniformitarianism. If everything merely continues along with very gradual changes, then one need not worry about God suddenly stepping into history to call His creation into account.
Make no mistake about it: the evidence of creation demands a Creator! That Creator reveals in His word that He will soon intervene to judge His creation.
HECK YES KARA!!!!!! How the heck do you type that fast?? 😂
Anika (I slay my enemies with very shiny swords) wrote: "HECK YES KARA!!!!!!
How the heck do you type that fast?? 😂"
HAHHAHA I didn't. I found an article, copy-pasted, and put in some of my own thoughts here and there
How the heck do you type that fast?? 😂"
HAHHAHA I didn't. I found an article, copy-pasted, and put in some of my own thoughts here and there
Ah, that makes more sense lol
Anika (I slay my enemies with very shiny swords) wrote: "Ah, that makes more sense lol"
Hahha yeahhh
Hahha yeahhh
ALSOOO evolution takes millions of years, yet we have plenty of proof that the earth is a "young earth" (meaning only a few thousand years old) like...
A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees. The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.
Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.” Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it? Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood. The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.
In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years. Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the electric current. After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.
Factoring a worldwide Flood into the equation, scientists arrive at a higher initial erosion rate for the 71/2 mile Niagara Gorge. Since an increase in the quantity of water is directly related to the rate of erosion, the great volume of water receding after the Flood could easily account for half of the erosion of Niagara Falls. Using the evolutionist time frame, Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie. The reason why Niagara Falls has not eroded farther over the “millions of years” of the earth’s existence continues to elude evolutionists. Science always seems to correspond with the creation time line while evolutionists struggle to make their assumptions and theories plausible.
After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.
The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.
Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.
A bristle cone pine is approximately 4,300 years old—dated via tree rings. The method may not be perfect, but it is the best we have for dating trees. The Great Barrier Reef is less than 4,200 years old—dated via measuring the growth rate for 20 years.
Even though both are less than 5,000 years old, they are the two oldest living organisms on earth. Their ages easily fit the creationist point of view, but leave loose ends for the evolutionist. Why aren’t there older trees or more ancient reefs? With the evolutionist time line, surely something is closer in age to their “millions of years.” Evolution doesn’t fit the facts, does it? Prevailing winds are caused by two phenomena. The sun’s heat causes north-south or south-north winds, depending on latitude. The rotation of the earth causes the winds to shift east or west—clockwise north of the equator and counterclockwise to the south. This Coriolis effect is proportional to the speed of the earth’s rotation: the greater the rotational speed, the greater the Coriolis effect. Due to these prevailing winds, the Sahara Desert is in the process of desertification, expanding approximately four miles per year. Calculations based upon the rate of the Sahara’s expansion show the desert to be 4,000 years old. This young age of the Sahara Desert fits quite well in the creationist time line, beginning its desertification process soon after the global Flood. The current slowing rate of the earth’s rotation, and its relationship with the Coriolis effect, allows for a variety of climates around the world without creating a menacing environment. Following the evolutionist time line over a period of millions of years, the Sahara Desert should have already expanded to its maximum size. However, since the earth’s rotational speed is decreasing measurably, the Coriolis effect would have been far greater millions of years ago, exacerbating the evolutionists’ difficulty explaining the Sahara Desert’s young age.
In 1810, about one billion people lived on earth. In less than 200 years, the population hit six billion. This fits the biblical chronology perfectly as the current population started about 4,400 years ago with Noah and his family after the Flood. An evolutionary time line would require not only a nearly non-existent growth rate but also three trillion deceased humans within the last million years. Studies over the past 140 years show a consistent decay rate in the earth’s magnetic field. At this rate, in as few as 25,000 years ago, the earth would have been unable to support life because of the heat from the electric current. After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.
Factoring a worldwide Flood into the equation, scientists arrive at a higher initial erosion rate for the 71/2 mile Niagara Gorge. Since an increase in the quantity of water is directly related to the rate of erosion, the great volume of water receding after the Flood could easily account for half of the erosion of Niagara Falls. Using the evolutionist time frame, Niagara Falls should have already eroded back into Lake Erie. The reason why Niagara Falls has not eroded farther over the “millions of years” of the earth’s existence continues to elude evolutionists. Science always seems to correspond with the creation time line while evolutionists struggle to make their assumptions and theories plausible.
After Charles Lyell published his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, society began accepting the theory that the earth and mankind evolved from a previous lesser state. Lyell used Niagara Falls as one of his illustrations to promote uniformitarianism. He estimated that Niagara Falls was 10,000 years old. He did this to try to discredit the Bible. Skeptics like Lyell leave out one important factor in their calculations—a worldwide Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.
The water in the oceans contains 3.6% dissolved minerals, giving the ocean its salinity. Salt, composed of the elements sodium and chlorine, is the primary mineral. For years, scientists have been measuring the amount of sodium in the oceans and have found that an estimated 457 million tons are deposited into the oceans annually, while only 122 million tons leave the ocean via numerous methods.
Given the current amount of salt in the oceans, the data strongly favors a recent creation and global Flood. If applied to the evolutionist’s time frame of millions of years, the oceans would be saturated by salt. Even using liberal estimates of salinity levels,the maximum possible age is 62 million years.
CITE EVIDENCE!!!!! I do NOT want to see blanket statements!!! *team policy debater showing* (that goes for me too if y'all see me make a statement without citing some source from somewhere please call me out!!!)