Scientific Evidence For Creation
The Biblical account of creation as presented in the Old Testament book of Genesis is clear and straightforward. God used divine and creative power to form and light the vast universe. Out of all the galaxies He created, one was chosen for special attention. On a relatively small planet that orbited its sun at just the right distance, God placed life. The Creator spoke and vegetation came into existence, including seed-bearing plants and trees that bore fruit. Birds flew in the sky, mysterious creatures swam in the oceans, and both wild and domestic animals moved across the land. The crowning achievement of this creative work was the man, Adam, and Eve, the woman made from man's rib. "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made" (Genesis 2:1-3). The Genesis account is sufficient for Christians, but troublesome for unbelievers. Though evolutionists refuse to believe it, ample scientific evidence for creation completely destroys their theories of a universe this is billions of years old populated by organisms that evolved from some vague primordial soup.
Not all evolution can be discounted, however. The argument between the Biblical account of creation and those theories espoused by the followers of Charles Darwin's suppositions regards macro-evolution. Also known as organic evolution, this process claims to be the beneficial change and upwards movement from a single molecule to complex biological species occurring over billions of years. Of course, existing scientific evidence for creation exposes this as nonsensical dreaming by those who refuse to believe in God. However, micro-evolution is a legitimate, naturally-occurring process that affects such characteristics as size, shape, and color. Perhaps the most fantastic example of a species that is subject to micro-evolution is the one commonly referred to as man's best friend. The Biblical account doesn't say what the original Canis familiaris looked like. But God gave the first canines what biologists call plastic genes. The domestic dog can be as small as a teacup poodle or as large as an Irish Wolfhound. The bulldog's nose is so squished, he may have trouble breathing while the borzoi's nose is long and tapered. Almost every canine feature can be different sizes, shapes, and colors depending on the individual dog's genetic background. Darwin wrote about the finches he found on the Galapagos Islands in the 1830s as evidence for his views on natural selection. But the different species of finches, who differ in the size and shapes of their beaks, micro-evolved from the original created birds. They did not macro-evolve into entirely different kinds of creatures. Neither did this process take millions of years. The process of natural selection was observed in Galapagos finches during an eighteen-year study. Researchers meticulously recorded shifts in population between small-beaked finches and large-beaked finches as drought and rainfall conditions changed.
A major point of contention between creationists and evolutionists is the age of the universe. By calculating events recorded in Scripture, creationists hold to a young earth, perhaps created 10,000 years ago. Evolutionists need billions of years to give their theories even the slightest credibility. However, the scientific evidence for creation proves the universe cannot be that old. For example, an average of a cubic mile of volcanic debris a year is added to the earth's surface. In the past, volcanic activity was greater and even more debris was released. But only about twenty-five percent of the earth's sedimentary rock comes from volcanic debris. If the earth was over four billion years old, that percentage would be much greater. Similarly, the continents are slowly eroding. If the erosion rate was constant, the land would be level, with no mountains, in twenty-five million years. How then, can the earth be over four billion years old? Other similar rates also refute such a long past for the universe. These include the growth of coral reefs and of stalactites and stalagmites in caves, and the amount of river sediment and dissolved metals in the oceans.
Evolutionists like to point to geologic columns and the fossil record as proof of their theories, however, there are no fossils of transitional creatures. In fact, the Biblical account of creation and the great flood are supported by the fossil record. In examining layers of geologic strata, it appears that creatures were rapidly buried. The perfect explanation for these fossils is found in Genesis. While Noah, his family, and the animals were safe in the ark, the rest of the earth's creatures were destroyed by water pouring down from the heavens and shooting up from the earth's depths. So many aspects of this catastrophic event lend scientific credence to the truth of the Biblical account and provides much of the scientific evidence for creation and the destruction caused by the flood.
As if these few examples weren't enough, evolutionists beg their followers to believe a known superstition. At one time, people commonly believed that life just appeared out of nowhere. Somehow a pile of rags in a corner turned into mice. Maggots showed up on food. Frogs were formed from mud. French chemist Louis Pasteur won a prize in 1864 for scientifically proving that this notion, known as spontaneous generation, did not occur. Though evolutionists have no choice but to admit the validity of Pasteur's experiments, they continue to insist that it was still possible for all the chemical reactions to be just right, at one moment in the way-long-ago past, for life to spontaneously generate. This insistence ignores the mathematical improbability of such a moment and other considerations such as the symbiotic relationships among some species and genetic certainty that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. In contrast, the Biblical account of creation supports biogenesis, the principle that life comes from life.
Not all evolution can be discounted, however. The argument between the Biblical account of creation and those theories espoused by the followers of Charles Darwin's suppositions regards macro-evolution. Also known as organic evolution, this process claims to be the beneficial change and upwards movement from a single molecule to complex biological species occurring over billions of years. Of course, existing scientific evidence for creation exposes this as nonsensical dreaming by those who refuse to believe in God. However, micro-evolution is a legitimate, naturally-occurring process that affects such characteristics as size, shape, and color. Perhaps the most fantastic example of a species that is subject to micro-evolution is the one commonly referred to as man's best friend. The Biblical account doesn't say what the original Canis familiaris looked like. But God gave the first canines what biologists call plastic genes. The domestic dog can be as small as a teacup poodle or as large as an Irish Wolfhound. The bulldog's nose is so squished, he may have trouble breathing while the borzoi's nose is long and tapered. Almost every canine feature can be different sizes, shapes, and colors depending on the individual dog's genetic background. Darwin wrote about the finches he found on the Galapagos Islands in the 1830s as evidence for his views on natural selection. But the different species of finches, who differ in the size and shapes of their beaks, micro-evolved from the original created birds. They did not macro-evolve into entirely different kinds of creatures. Neither did this process take millions of years. The process of natural selection was observed in Galapagos finches during an eighteen-year study. Researchers meticulously recorded shifts in population between small-beaked finches and large-beaked finches as drought and rainfall conditions changed.
A major point of contention between creationists and evolutionists is the age of the universe. By calculating events recorded in Scripture, creationists hold to a young earth, perhaps created 10,000 years ago. Evolutionists need billions of years to give their theories even the slightest credibility. However, the scientific evidence for creation proves the universe cannot be that old. For example, an average of a cubic mile of volcanic debris a year is added to the earth's surface. In the past, volcanic activity was greater and even more debris was released. But only about twenty-five percent of the earth's sedimentary rock comes from volcanic debris. If the earth was over four billion years old, that percentage would be much greater. Similarly, the continents are slowly eroding. If the erosion rate was constant, the land would be level, with no mountains, in twenty-five million years. How then, can the earth be over four billion years old? Other similar rates also refute such a long past for the universe. These include the growth of coral reefs and of stalactites and stalagmites in caves, and the amount of river sediment and dissolved metals in the oceans.
Evolutionists like to point to geologic columns and the fossil record as proof of their theories, however, there are no fossils of transitional creatures. In fact, the Biblical account of creation and the great flood are supported by the fossil record. In examining layers of geologic strata, it appears that creatures were rapidly buried. The perfect explanation for these fossils is found in Genesis. While Noah, his family, and the animals were safe in the ark, the rest of the earth's creatures were destroyed by water pouring down from the heavens and shooting up from the earth's depths. So many aspects of this catastrophic event lend scientific credence to the truth of the Biblical account and provides much of the scientific evidence for creation and the destruction caused by the flood.
As if these few examples weren't enough, evolutionists beg their followers to believe a known superstition. At one time, people commonly believed that life just appeared out of nowhere. Somehow a pile of rags in a corner turned into mice. Maggots showed up on food. Frogs were formed from mud. French chemist Louis Pasteur won a prize in 1864 for scientifically proving that this notion, known as spontaneous generation, did not occur. Though evolutionists have no choice but to admit the validity of Pasteur's experiments, they continue to insist that it was still possible for all the chemical reactions to be just right, at one moment in the way-long-ago past, for life to spontaneously generate. This insistence ignores the mathematical improbability of such a moment and other considerations such as the symbiotic relationships among some species and genetic certainty that acquired characteristics cannot be inherited. In contrast, the Biblical account of creation supports biogenesis, the principle that life comes from life.
Scientific Evidence For Creation
![]()
Reviewed by Anonymous
on
4:52 PM
Rating:
