Why I believe in creation as opposed to evolution. (expanded)


True Science Harmonizes With the Bible

When the Bible does refer to natural phenomena, it is consistently accurate. Galileo himself said: “Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another.” Consider the following examples.

Even more fundamental than the movement of stars and planets is that all matter in the universe is governed by laws, such as the law of gravity. The earliest known non-Biblical reference to physical laws was made by Pythagoras, who believed that the universe could be explained by numbers. Two thousand years later, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton finally proved that matter is governed by rational laws . The earliest Biblical reference to natural law is contained in the book of Job. About 1600 B.C.E., God asked Job: “Have you come to know the statutes [or, laws] of the heavens?” (Job 38:33) Recorded in the seventh century B.C.E., the book of Jeremiah refers to God as the Creator of “the statutes of the moon and the stars” and “the statutes of heaven and earth.” (Jeremiah 31:35; 33:25) In view of these statements, Bible commentator G. Rawlinson observed: “The general prevalence of law in the material world is quite as strongly asserted by the sacred writers as by modern science.” If we use Pythagoras as a point of reference, the statement in Job was about a thousand years ahead of its time.

Another example we can consider is that the earth’s waters undergo a cyclic motion called the water cycle, or the hydrologic cycle. Put simply, water evaporates from the sea, forms clouds, precipitates onto the land, and eventually returns to the sea. The oldest surviving non-Biblical references to this cycle are from the fourth century B.C.E. However, Biblical statements predate that by hundreds of years. For example, in the 11th century B.C.E., King Solomon of Israel wrote: “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.
Likewise, about 800 B.C.E. the prophet Amos, a humble shepherd and farmworker, wrote that God is “the One calling for the waters of the sea, that he may pour them out upon the surface of the earth.” (Amos 5:8) Without using complex, technical language, both Solomon and Amos accurately described the water cycle, each from a slightly different perspective.

The Bible also speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” or he “suspends earth in the void,” according to The New English Bible. (Job 26:7) In view of the knowledge available in 1600 B.C.E., roughly when those words were spoken, it would have taken a remarkable man to assert that a solid object can remain suspended in space without any physical support. As previously mentioned, Aristotle himself rejected the concept of a void, and he lived over 1,200 years later!

Does it not strike you as amazing that the Bible makes such accurate statements—even in the face of the erroneous yet seemingly commonsense perceptions of the day?

Supported Scientific Principles in the Bible.

In the first verse of the Bible we read: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) At one time scientists hotly debated whether there even was a beginning, or whether matter had always existed. In 1979, though, Time magazine stated: “Most astronomers now accept the theory that the universe had an instant of creation. . . . The Big Bang theory sounds very much like the story that the Old Testament has been telling all along.”

Back in the seventeenth century, for example, the Italian scientist Galileo taught that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth. The Catholic Church ordered him to recant. Why? Because they considered that what he was saying contradicted the Bible. Well, Galileo was right and the Church was wrong. But the Bible was not wrong. The Bible nowhere states that the sun orbits the earth. It was the ancient astronomer Ptolemy who said that. Science and the bible do not contradict. It’s a shame when religious organizations disregard the basis for their beliefs.

Another instance where the Bible is largely in agreement with modern science is in the handling of disease. Of course, in the days when the Bible was written the medicines that are available today were unknown. But within the limitations of the times, God’s Word protected his worshipers from the worst effects of sickness. In the days of Moses, for example, leprosy was a serious threat. The Bible gives detailed instructions that many modern doctors would agree with about how to quarantine someone suspected of having leprosy, and so keep the rest of the nation clean. (Leviticus 13:1–14:57) In fact this part of the Bible contains many laws about cleanliness that suggest a knowledge of sanitary principles far in advance of that early time. This, of course, is what we would expect when we remember that it was God who gave them these laws.


Hence, the objections raised by some that the Bible is contradictory or unscientific are no reason for rejecting this book as the Word of God. Most of these objections spring from a lack of understanding, and when investigated, they only add to the evidence that the Bible truly is divinely inspired.

..Oh man, carpel tunnel..okay…now what…. All of that ^^^, points to the bible as scientifically accurate and inspired by a creator, evidence of biblical truths which predate human discoveries point to divine intervention... Now to some various points….

some interesting points

1- Life did not arise and cannot arise spontaneously from lifeless material. This is in complete agreement with scientific laws and experimental tests. The laws of statistics, the law of entropy, calculations from thermodynamics and kinetics all converge on the conclusion that spontaneous generation of life cannot occur. Older reports of spontaneous generation are given no credence since the experiments of Pasteur. In controlled experiments, it just does not happen. Examination of soil from the moon and chemical tests on the surface of Mars verify that life has not arisen on those planets.


2- Every living thing brings forth its own kind of offspring. (Genesis 1:11, 21, 24) Neither the evidence from paleontology nor experiments in breeding or mutation have ever been shown to refute this principle. Fossil remains from ancient geologic strata of species that are still alive are identical with present-day forms. Wide diversity within a given kind may appear both in nature and in breeding experiments, but in no case does it ever pass beyond the limits to produce a new kind.

3-Thirdly, with respect to man the Bible discloses the time of his beginning, about 6,000 years ago. (Plants and animals have been here much longer.) With this date history and archaeology are in close agreement. Claims for older human fossils by evolutionists are subject to dispute and do not disprove the Bible record.

Man I need coffee….

The complexity of life and the universe.

When Darwin developed his theory, scientists had little or no knowledge of the amazing complexity of the living cell. Modern biochemistry, the study of life at the molecular level, has revealed some of that intricacy. It has also raised serious questions and doubts about Darwin’s theory.

The components of cells are made up of molecules. Cells are the building blocks of all living creatures. Professor Behe is Roman Catholic and believes in evolution to explain the later development of animals. However, he raises serious doubts about whether evolution can explain the existence of the cell. He speaks of molecular machines that “haul cargo from one place in the cell to another along ‘highways’ made of other molecules . . . Cells swim using machines, copy themselves with machinery, ingest food with machinery. In short, highly sophisticated molecular machines control every cellular process. Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex.”

Now, all of this activity is taking place on what scale? A typical cell is only one thousandth of an inch [0.03 mm] across! In that infinitesimal space, complex functions vital to life are occurring. Little wonder that it has been said: “The bottom line is that the cell—the very basis of life—is staggeringly complex. Behe argues that the cell can function only as a complete entity. Thus, it cannot be viable while being formed by slow, gradual changes induced by evolution. He uses the example of a mousetrap. This simple apparatus can function only when all its components are assembled. Each component on its own—platform, spring, holding bar, trap hammer, catch—is not a mousetrap and cannot function as such. All the parts are needed simultaneously and have to be assembled for there to be a working trap. Likewise, a cell can function as such only when all its components are assembled. He uses this illustration to explain what he terms “irreducible complexity.”


This presents a major problem for the alleged process of evolution, which involves the appearance of gradually acquired, useful characteristics. Darwin knew that his theory of gradual evolution by natural selection faced a big challenge when he said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”—Origin of Species.

The irreducibly complex cell is a major stumbling block to belief in Darwin’s theory. In the first place, evolution cannot explain the leap from inanimate to animate matter. Then comes the problem of the first complex cell, which must arise in one fell swoop as an integrated unit. In other words, the cell (or, the mousetrap) must appear out of nowhere, assembled and functioning!

Our unique planet.

Among the many precise conditions vital to life on the earth is the amount of light and heat received from the sun. The earth gets only a small fraction of the sun’s energy. Yet, it is just the right amount required to sustain life. This is because the earth is just the right distance from the sun—an average 93,000,000 miles. If the earth were much closer to the sun or farther away from it, temperatures would be too hot or too cold for life.
As it orbits the sun once a year the earth travels at a speed of about 66,600 miles an hour. That speed is just right to offset the gravitational pull of the sun and keep the earth at the proper distance. If that speed were decreased, the earth would be pulled toward the sun. In time, Earth could become a scorched wasteland like Mercury, the planet closest to the sun. Mercury’s daytime temperature is over 600 degrees Fahrenheit. However, if Earth’s orbital speed were increased, it would move farther away from the sun and could become an icy waste like Pluto, the planet whose orbit reaches farthest from the sun. Pluto’s temperature is about 300 degrees below zero Fahrenheit.
In addition, the earth consistently makes a complete rotation on its axis every 24 hours. This provides regular periods of light and darkness. But what if the earth rotated on its axis, say, only once a year? It would mean that the same side of the earth would be facing the sun all year long. That side would likely become a furnace-like desert, while the side away from the sun would likely become a sub-zero wasteland. Few, if any, living things could exist in those extreme circumstances.
As Earth rotates on its axis, it is tilted 23.5 degrees in relation to the sun. If the earth were not tilted, there would be no change of seasons. Climate would be the same all the time. While this would not make life impossible, it would make it less interesting and would drastically change the present crop cycles in many places. If the earth were tilted much more, there would be extremely hot summers and extremely cold winters. But the tilt of 23.5 degrees allows for the delightful changing of seasons with their interesting variety. In many parts of the earth there are refreshing springtimes with plants and trees awakening and beautiful flowers coming into bloom, warm summers that allow for all kinds of outdoor activity, crisp autumn weather with gorgeous displays of leaves changing colors, and winters with beautiful scenes of snow-draped mountains, forests and fields.

Also unique—indeed, amazing—is the atmosphere that surrounds our earth. No other planet in our solar system has it. Nor does our moon. That is why astronauts needed space suits to survive there. But no space suits are needed on the earth, because our atmosphere contains the right proportions of gases that are absolutely essential for life. Some of those gases, by themselves, are deadly. But because air contains safe proportions of these gases, we can breathe them without harm.
One of those gases is oxygen, making up 21 percent of the air we breathe. Without it, humans and animals would die within minutes. But too much oxygen would endanger our existence. Why? Pure oxygen becomes toxic if breathed too long. In addition, the more oxygen there is, the more easily things burn. If there were too much oxygen in the atmosphere, combustible materials would become highly flammable. Fires would easily burst forth and would be difficult to control. Wisely, oxygen is diluted with other gases, especially nitrogen, which makes up 78 percent of the atmosphere. But nitrogen is much more than just a dilutant. During thunderstorms, millions of lightning bolts occur earth wide every day. This lightning causes some nitrogen to combine with oxygen. The compounds produced are carried to the earth by rain, and plants make use of them as fertilizer.
Carbon dioxide makes up less than one percent of the atmosphere. What good is such a small amount? Without it, plant life would die. That small amount is what plants need to take in, giving off oxygen in return. Humans and animals breathe in the oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. An increasing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would tend to be harmful to humans and animals. A decreasing percentage could not support plant life. What a marvelous, precise, self-sustaining cycle has been arranged for plant, animal and human life!
The atmosphere does more than sustain life. It serves as a protective shell too. About 15 miles above the ground, a thin layer of ozone gas filters out harmful radiation from the sun. Without this ozone layer, such radiation could destroy life on earth. Also, the atmosphere shields the earth from bombardment by meteors. Most meteors never reach the ground because they burn up in their descent through the atmosphere, appearing to us as falling stars. Otherwise, millions of meteors would strike all parts of the earth, resulting in extensive damage to life and property.
In addition to being a protective shell, the atmosphere keeps the warmth of the earth from being lost to the coldness of space. And the atmosphere is itself kept from escaping by the earth’s gravitational pull. That gravity is just strong enough to accomplish this, but not so strong that our freedom of movement is hampered.
Not only is the atmosphere vital for life, but one of the more beautiful sights is the changing sky. Its scope and grandeur simply stagger the imagination. The earth is enveloped with the sky’s endlessly majestic and colorful panoramas. In the east a golden glow announces the dawn, while the western sky bids the day farewell in glorious displays of pink, orange, red and purple. White billowy, cottonlike clouds proclaim a fine spring or summer day; an autumn mantle of clouds like lamb’s wool says that winter is approaching. At night the sky is magnificent in its starry splendor, and a moonlit night has a beauty all its own.

What an amazing provision our earth’s atmosphere is, in every way! As a writer in The New England Journal of Medicine commented: “Taken all in all, the sky is a miraculous achievement. It works, and for what it is designed to accomplish it is as infallible as anything in nature. I doubt whether any of us could think of a way to improve on it, beyond maybe shifting a local cloud from here to there on occasion.” This comment calls to mind what a man millenniums ago recognized when confronted with such remarkable things—that they are “the wonderful works of the One perfect in knowledge.” He meant, of course, “the Creator of the heavens and the Grand One stretching them out.”—Job 37:16; Isaiah 42:5

What I am trying to point out with all of this, is that how could all of this JUST HAPPEN? Evidence points to intelligent design, not fluke. There are so many more amazing things to consider, the scope of the universe, heck even substances like water are amazing. The preceding pages are some reasons why I believe in creation. Now im going to reply to all those who replied to my first post, which will also take a while so please bear with me.And I do have many more reasons for beleiving in a creator..im sure i will mention them in replies to others or in time.

My problem with evolution

A fact is something that exists beyond question. It is an actuality, an objective reality. It is established by solid evidence.
A theory is something unproved but at times assumed true for the sake of argument. It has yet to be proved as factual. Nonetheless, sometimes something is declared to be a fact that is only a theory.
The theory of organic evolution falls into this category.

“Geological evidence does not provide us with the spectrum of intermediate species we would expect. Moreover, laboratory experiments reveal how close to impossible it is for one species to evolve into another, even allowing for selective breeding and some genetic mutation. . . . The gradual transformation of the population of one species into another is a biological hypothesis, not a biological fact”- New York University professor, Irving Kristol


Where is evolutions solid evidence?