It is very hard to convince someone who believes that the bible is not true that God created the heavens and the Earth. So I'm going to try to do my best to explain what I believe without using the bible as the complete basis of my argument. With that being said, there are simply
two ways that the Earth was made and life began. That either evolution is true or there was a creator. There are no third options.
So lets evaluate the
theory of evolution first. The idea is that life began with two
non-living particles that turned into living, breathing, beings, which then turned into our supposed ancestors - the screaming apes. Continuing on this aspect, the theory continues saying that 4 billion years ago after the 'big bang' an ocean formed (somehow) and out of that arose a
non-living particle called an amino acid. And eventually arose another impersonal,
non-living amino acid, and over time eventually turned into a living cell, and over more time turned into algae and amoebas, and even more time turned into amphibians and personal humans. This means that these
non-living particles turned into all the life that we know today. Atheist and author Thomas Nagel puts it this way, "It is highly
implausible that life as we know it is the result of physical accidents and chance."
If evolution is true, then us humans, are simply animals that are just living here on the earth with no purpose to life at all. However, if evolution is false, then humans have a purpose and they have characteristics such as love and relationships, which clearly humans share. This is one of the primary reasons why I have banked my life off of creationism and the bible.
So continuing from the last part, a clear disproval of evolution comes with the word "
Biogenesis". This simply means the beginning of life. This is a scientific law that nearly all scientists confirm and it states that life
does not arise from
non-living matter. So think about that...it makes sense no? A rock cannot produce life with another rock. This has been proven true, yet evolutionists claim that life began from two
non-living particles completely contradicting the law of
Biogenesis. Scientists openly admit that it is simply not possible, but they say that it MUST have happened...somehow. This is a huge flaw in the theory of evolution.
Another key word to bring up is
Entropy. Many of you have probably heard of this word, but for those of you who have not it is the scientific law that when things are left to
chance they will
deteriorate and break down, rather than organize. But, evolution says the complete opposite, that when left to chance things will
organize. Now to paint a picture of this, I want all of you to think of your rooms. Lets say, when left to chance over time, does your room become more organized? Or does it begin to deteriorate? I'm assuming that most would have to agree that it would simply become more messy. This is another huge flaw that evolutionists have to battle with.
Now lets take a look at the information that
fossils give. Darwin himself stated in his book, "Geology does not reveal any graduated organic chain. This is the most obvious and serious objection which can be leveled against the theory." There has been a huge lack of intermediary fossils found to help prove the theory of evolution. Fossil records show fully formed organisms not fish with legs or wolves with fins, but fully formed fish and wolves. There are no signs of progression found in the fossil records. Genesis 1:24 states, "God made every living thing to reproduce after its own kind." Though many of you may question this, simply because of the skulls and fragments of skulls that might have belonged to intermediary apes/humans. Take a look at the Lucy Skull, the bones that were supposed to prove that humans derived from apes, discovered in 1974 by Donald Johanson. Johanson later stated that it was actually an
apes skull. The fossil record is an unresolvable problem for the evolution theory.
So why do scientists believe this theory? If it is scientifically disproven in so many ways? Dr. George Wall, a professor at Harvard University, a Biology Nobel Prize winner also an atheist wrote this, "When it comes to the origin of life, there's only two possibilities, either through the process of evolution or a supernatural act of God. There is no third possibility. Evolution, the idea that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 140 years ago, but that leaves only one possibility; that life arose by a supernatural creative act of God. But I will not accept that
philosophically, because I do not believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is
scientifically impossible." He is saying that the theory of evolution is simply a philosophical belief, not a scientific theory.
Scientist Fred Hoyle says this, "The probability of evolution being true is the same probability of a tornado weeping through a junkyard and forming at the other end a Boeing 747." That's the probability of evolution. So to those of you glob/others who may not believe in the bible or a divine creator, I just ask that you rethink the theory of evolution. Look at what science has to show on the issue, and simply consider the one and only other possibility.
Acherous
Works Cited
Merritt, Bob, auth. "Is Evolution True?." Eagle Brook Church, 5 May 2013. web. 14 Jun 2013. <http://eaglebrookchurch.com/media-resources/weekend-messages/is-evolution-true/>.
R: We shouldn't care about God. If he wanted something from us he should of asked. If God is what people make Him out to be then he should be accepting of people whether or not they go to church, as long as they are good people. History wrote the Bible. Not God.