Biblical Creation verses Evolution? I challenge you to gather and study the evidence that is available and make your own conclusion. Here is why I ask this question, it is not to prove Creationism or Evolution wrong, but rather to challenge you to understand why you believe what you believe.
Being a Christian I need to understand what and why I believe what I believe. We don't need to have blind faith any more. As an Evolutionist I do not need to have blind faith to believe what public schools have been teaching any more. Neither theory has been proven. You need to dig deep and discover the truth for yourself.
Over the past few months I have been studying science and observeable clues to both theories. I've been looking for evidence that proves that the Bible is right or wrong. We need to challenge our thinking on any subject and this challenge will strengthen your belief in Creation or Evolution, but you must first dig deep and challenge the fundamental explanation that the Bible presents and the presumptions that Evolutionary theory is based on. If you search deep enough the truth will be revealed.
I started on this journey with the question about the Grand Canyon. How did a narrow river carve out the steep walls over millions of years or did they get formed in a very short period of time as creationist present? The evidence of the steep walls point to a very rapid erosion with lots of moving material to create it. So is it possible that a large amount of water flowing very fast possibly created the canyon walls? https://someinterestingfacts.net/how-was-antelope-canyon-formed/ How is this possible and were did that water come from? Evidently the start of the Colorado river is actually at a lower elevation than the top of the Grand Canyon so how did the water get to the point of cutting through that part of the landscape? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR4YTY8HQPs The river can't flow up hill so how did it carve out a canyon? One theory is that a large amount of water was released in a short period of time and carved out the canyon. Where did this large amount of water come from? Possibly a lake? So maybe the Grand Canyon was created in a short period of time? This raises the question can other geographically formations be created quickly? In the 1980's Mt Saint Helen's erupted and caused great geographical changes to the landscape. One of those changes was a 100 ft deep canyon created in a matter of hours. Ok so it is possible to have rapid landscape changes in a short period of time. https://littlegrandcanyon.blogspot.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEj4IX3YjNc
Coal was the next big question. If coal is millions of years old how can Creationist believe that the earth is only 6-8 thousand years old? Trying to resolve this led to discovering research that was done to create coal in a short period of time in a lab environment. They were able to produce a coal like substance simulating natural coal in a short period of time. Not millions of years, so lets assume without further investigation (you can investigate these claims started with the source below) that coal can be produced in a short period of time. How did it get buried in thousands of feet of earth under multiple layers of sediment? Does this point to a flood and technic activity?
http://creationwiki.org/Coal_formation
Lets talk about rock. How do we know the age of rock? The United States Geological Survey holds the stance that, “the actual length of geologic time represented by any given layer is usually unknown or, at best, a matter of opinion.” This article also captures and asks the question of the circular logic of the rock age verses Darwins's chart.
http://www.readysetquestion.com/how-is-age-of-rock-determined/ So Creationists have challenged the logic of how plants and animal fossils are aged. This is a big hole that I have not seen a good rebuttal for yet.
This brings us back to the flood. Could a world wide flood create so much havoc that plant and animal matter was buried thousands of feet in the ground? Well the Bible claims that the whole earth was covered with water. Really over the mountains too? So this event is recorded in myths, written records, and other text. So lets assume that this flood did occur. Can a flood explain some of these challenges that are being raised by evolutionary theories? It seams that yes, in a short period of time geographical transformation can take place, as observed in the canyon of Mt St. Helen's. So how can a world wide flood bury and create several layers that are thousands of feet deep sediment in the time frame of one year as mentioned in the Bible? So a study was conducted by John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Los Alamos National Laboratory, retired. His research was focused on what a world wide Tsunami would do. He was surprised to discover that through his simulations waves created from that type of tsunami could easily cover the earth and the tallest mountains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ls51VtSQBs&list=WL&index=72&t=615s
Ok so back to the theory that dinosaurs are millions of years old. This led to discovering that actual dinosaur tissue and blood cells have been uncovered. It has been determined that animal flesh can not survive for millions of years. So this seems to point toward a young age for the dinosaurs? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-K7_H27Wq4&t=1s
How could there have been billions of people prior to the flood? Here is a short video on how that can happen (there are others, but this should do). This can easily have been accomplished in the time frame prior to the flood and after the flood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL6ih6QkaBo
Lets flip this over to the evolution side for a moment. Evolution is a theory that believes through random chance organisms have formed over millions/billions of years. So scientists have calculated that if you took the chance of 2 molecules coming together in the vastness of the ocean and having them combine into something is greater that all a the atoms in the universe. Ok, so the chances of molecules be formed is so improbable than its hard to believe that this same process can create, cells, animals, etc. chances of happening is pretty much zero.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1_KEVaCyaA
So DNA evidence points to an increase in mutated genes over time. Our DNA cannot survive for millions of years. Dive into DNA and the resent discovers with DNA. DNA is information. According the science, information can only come from an intelligent source. It has to be created?
DNA points to a single origin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5bPbwkjKMM
Animals that have multiple element functions, where one part is depend on other part in order to have purpose. Evolution can not explain this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKM9yoQ3Wug
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QVcViDEmGg
Historical timeframe for DNA mutations. "In school and in the movies, we are taught that mutants are “cool” and that mutations can be a very good thing. But that simply is not solid science."
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/the-human-race-is-dying-dna-degeneration-would-eventually-lead-to-the-total-extinction-of-humanity
Races, chromosomes and DNA by Geneticist and scientist Dr. Robert Carter addresses these.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAEBOl3ZE0Y&t=1095s
Closeness of the moon. If the moon is moving further away, billions of years ago it would have been touching the earth?
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/98811/true-or-false-the-moon-was-touching-the-earth-1-2-billion-years-ago
There are still some things that are questionable on both sides of the coin but the evidence seems to point in one direction. With recent discoveries in science including studies in genetics, geology, archeology, paleontology, to cosmology is science actually proving evolution wrong?
Since evolution is a theory and creation is a theory, why are both not considered? We need to be concerned that evolution is being taught as scientific fact, when in actuality, from my research, it is further from the truth than Creationism.
Weigh in on your evidence and challenge the theories and sources presented. I look forward to learning more about how we can all understand our world better!
There are several lines of evidence that point to evolution.
ReplyDelete1. The Fossil Record.
2. Comparative anatomy.
3. Comparative embryology.
4. Comparative genetics & genomics.
5. Observation.
The fossil record clearly shows that in earlier eras organisms existed that no longer exist today, and there is a lack of fossils of many types of organisms alive today. Though some organisms have been exceptionally successful, such as sharks, horseshoe crabs and cockroaches, it is also true that different organisms lived at different times.
Comparative anatomy shows us that some organisms have highly similar structures. One canonical example is the bones in forelimbs of mammals. You and whales and cats and bats all have the same basic bones in your arms and hands. These structures are specialized for the niche occupied by each species; whales have many more phalanges than us, and bat phalanges are proportionally longer than ours. This points to a common ancestor.
Comparative embryology shows us that our early phases of chordate embryological development happen in similar stages. The egg envelops one sperm and blocks others, the nuclei fuse, then the zygote begins to symmetrically divide without growing. At some point the sphere of cells folds in on itself, and this fold will develop into the backbone. Soon body segments emerge, and even at this stage, different organisms look the same. That it happens this way across taxonomic families points to a common ancestor for all these classes.
Comparative genetics and genomics show us that the more closely related two organisms are, the more similar are their genomes. Not only do we have many of the same genes with the same sequences as mice, but our genes are also in the same order on our chromosomes.
I would also like to address a few points and trends I see in your analysis.
“Neither theory has been proven.”
Theories are never proven in science. Cell theory, gene theory, gravity theory... They are added to, adjusted, rethought, and possibly discarded. But science isn’t about proof, it’s about evidence. Evolution explains the evidence.
- The Colorado River flowed for 3 million years before the Colorado Plateau began rising. As it rose, the water cut through the rock.
- If dinosaurs were only 6000 years old, we would see piles of evidence consistent with that conclusion. We don’t. The dinosaur evidence (fossils) we have points to them existing when Pangea was a continent. Africa and South America are moving apart at a rate of about and inch per year. Knowing there are ~6000 km between these continents today, a simple back of the envelop calculation shows that Pangea existed something like 200 million years ago. Dinosaurs didn’t have boats and planes, but fossil evidence shows the same species on South America and Africa.
- I LOVE BOMBARDIER BEETLES! The second video you posted about them actually explains how their explosive defense is NOT irreducible, and how evolution CAN explain it. Was that your intention?
- “Historical timeframe for DNA mutations. ‘In school and in the movies, we are taught that mutants are “cool” and that mutations can be a very good thing. But that simply is not solid science.’”
No we aren’t. Movies aren’t school, and in school we are taught that mutations can be beneficial, detrimental or neutral.
- Yes, the moon once “touched” the earth. That is how the moon was made. It started as a cosmic collision.
Jim,
You're asking good questions for science, but you aren't using science to answer them. Science is an attempt to answer questions on how the NATURAL world works. It is based on OBSERVABLE phenomena and measurements. It is TESTABLE, TENTATIVE and UNCERTAIN, not proof. Lastly, it is SOCIAL. Science can be thought of as a language or even a subculture. Scientists argue with each other about the validity and understanding their data provide in order to make meaning.
You might enjoy this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4r58o4cSh0
Amanda, Thank you for your feedback and investigation. I will take a look at what you have.
ReplyDeleteThank you for supporting your position with supporting references. I’ve made some additional comments to challenge some of what you suggest.
ReplyDelete1. The Fossil Record. Is based on assumptions and circular logic
2. Comparative anatomy. Also supports a creator, using similar DNA code to create similar parts/characteristics
3. Comparative embryology. Also supports a creator, using similar DNA code to create similar parts/characteristics
4. Comparative genetics & genomics.Also supports a creator, using similar DNA code to create similar parts/characteristics
5. Observation. Need specific examples to provide feedback
Talk about the fossil record and explain how the ages of the animals are categorized. What is the reference for the ages of the fossils? If the layers of the geology are used to determine the age of the organism, what determines the age of the geology? So animals have become extinct in the past, we have examples of that happening today, so this does not provide evidence for evolution.
This raises more questions than proof of evolution. This could also support the idea that a “designer”, using computer coding as an example, would use the same (genetic) code for similar functions or characteristics in one program (animal) to another program (animal).
Similar processes for development do not provide proof that these animals came from another animal that are common to both. There is no evidence that supports the idea that a different species has been created for an initial species.
To the point 2 paragraphs above.
Correct, but both are theories not proof.
I would suggest that maybe evolution has been used as a catch all for the scientific investigation of the past and life. Part of the issue maybe that when evolution is discussed, it is assumed to be correct and the only theory that is presented. Example is natural selection. This is not an evolution exclusive evidence of evolution. This is raised in this post:
https://soyouthinkyoureachristian.blogspot.com/2019/08/does-natural-selection-support.html
This is another theory, but not the only one.
You are assuming that the continents are moving at the same rate throughout the past? Cataclysmic events have happened in the past that would suggest that not all things have stayed constant throughout history.
No, but the idea that very complex organisms evolved is a bigger question which I did not address. The author suggests that it is possible for the beatle to have evolved these functions. The bigger question that he does not address is how mutations can evolve such a system, although he has a very good video series that opposes creationism..
I have not found any supporting evidence that suggests mutants result in a positive characteristic being created or a new species coming into being. The DNA research suggests that DNA is actually deteriorating not getting better.
:-) the point is that if the moon is moving away from the earth at a certain speed, assuming a constant rate (going back the conteiental drift question), then accepting the theory that the moon is billions of years old needs to be explained. If you can provide the evidence for this that would be great.
So I’m not sure what you mean by “not using science”? Ie. So we have evidence of observed canyons being formed in a matter of hours. This is the natural world, it is observable and it is measurable so I think this qualifies as evidence that canyons can form quickly. Does this prove that the Grand Canyon formed quickly, no, or that the world was created in a short period of time, no, but it is a theory that can not be ignored either.
Continued....
ReplyDeleteGood video on “The Birth of Planet Earth” and supporting evidence for how the earth was formed. So the radiometric dating of rocks makes assumptions about age. At the 25min mark they start talking about the age of the surface rock he is walking on is tested and determined to be 4.3 million years old. Be than say it was formed 12 miles below the surface. So the rock that is on the surface is 4.3 million years old but the rock was not there 4.3 billions years ago it was 12 miles down, So would all rock be that old if it was formed when the earth was formed? One can conclude that rocks age does not indicate the age of the layer or location it is found? At 26:00 it says that due to the chemical makeup of the rock it was formed within an ocean (water). So not sure when or where it was formed?
So science being “social” is an interesting perspective, yes I would agree. As I have stated in the past it's really about investigating the world around you to support what you have been taught or believe. I hope this question helps others consider their own understanding for what they believe. Thank you for your perspective.