Is there really any evidence for six 24-hour creation days? Was Noah’s flood worldwide, and what were the results? Who was Cain’s wife? What about dinosaurs? Are there problems with Darwin’s evolutionary theory? Read this article in PDF format.
*Select Page references from “Reasons” by Josh McDowell
Continued from part 1…
Natural Selection and “Survival of the Fittest”
One of the assumptions of Darwinian evolution is that natural selection only allowed the “fittest” to survive and that there was severe competition between species- this is the driving force of evolution. The best and fittest society would be one where its individuals look out only for themselves and would advance themselves, if possible, at the expense or even destruction of others. Natural selection demands the destruction of the weak and the free domain of the powerful. [It demands annihilation of anything weaker than necessary and the ruling of anyone or anything more powerful than others.]
In his theory, Darwin gives NO examples of this fierce competition. Since then, in fact, observation shows competitive fighting as relatively harmless activities.
Translates mostly into territoriality (animal holds and defends territory against species) which is an attribute of most animals. Lethal fighting between territorial species is very rare!
When two animals face off against each other, many use displacement activity:
- Fish chase each other back and forth, face off, then bury in the sand
- Roebuck destroys saplings in the forest
- Gulls pull grass
- Howling monkey howls
If anything, the very opposite is true! Observation of animal society seems more cooperative than destructively competitive. (quote, pg. 161)
Many have observed the lack of support for this fierce competition. Petre Kropotkin best documented (quote). Whole books describe examples of animals within a species helping each other. Some of the examples come from Darwin’s own work! (pg. 163)
What about symbiotic relationships? (pg. 170) Two animals or plants live in mutually advantageous relationships.
Ex. Sirex and Ibalia Wasp, Dodo Bird and Calvaria Major Plant (they depend on one another to survive)
And obviously we humans should fall in line with this “survival of the fittest” trend as products of evolution. However, people exhibit mercy, pity, and morality, all of which inhibit natural selection. And I think we can all agree that our need for love and friendship cannot be explained if all that we do is for survival.
BUT, survival of the fittest tells us only of how something survives, NOT how it evolves from one species to another.
Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation
According to Darwin and his followers, natural selection is the driving mechanism behind evolution.
Natural selection (along with mutation) is said to have caused organisms to evolve from one basic kind (animals that reproduce with one another) into another basic kind.
Problem: Prohibited genetically because all of the information for the development of an organism has already been encoded into the DNA of its parent. Called information science. Variation and Adaptation must remain within its basic kind. A wide variety of dogs can exist, but a dog cannot become anything other than a dog. (Reminds us of Gen. 1:21, 24-25).
Evolutionists admit this is true. They explain that natural selection must have happened in conjunction with genetic mutation.
Problem: Mutations are small, random, and harmful alterations to the genetic code. This makes evolution from mutation impossible. A wristwatch is not improved, but is harmed when its inside parts are randomly altered, or even if one part ceases to work.
We could stop here, but talk a little more about this. Evolution says it evolved using small successive modifications:
Problem: The natural selection process could not have had the forethought to allow an organism to become worse temporarily in order to create over time some characteristic or part that would make it better overall. For instance, the creation of an eye.
Natural selection requires that organisms begin as crude, yet some organisms could not survive at all without basic functions such as respiration and reproduction, which had to exist from the beginning of an organism.
Also, consider this: Some new ‘features’ of an animal would have to have developed simultaneously in order to be a benefit or even usable at all. (Quote, pg. 164)
[Ex. Surinam Toad is used by evolution as an example of how land-based amphibian solves the problem of no water. Female toad lays eggs on back with long oviduct. After eggs are laid, skin on back grows around eggs. How did this evolve? Darwin would say, ‘because the need was there.’
However, 3 phenomena had to happen at the same time or they would be extinct:
- Long oviduct evolved
- Skin capable of surrounding eggs
- Had to use them properly
No reason for either to evolved by themselves. A toad without water to lay eggs in is doomed… they would not need these modifications millions of years later, they would need it immediately.
Slight modifications don’t work because many times they have to appear all at once, or it is useless. Ex. Another toad female lays eggs in male’s mouth whose vocal sacs become a nursery.]
*Also contradicts the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (All things, left to themselves, will tend to deteriorate rather than develop)
Comets are made of ice and dirt and orbit the sun. Every time a comet passes near the sun, some of the ice is blasted away (forms the tail) and the comet loses mass. A comet could orbit AT MOST 100,000 years before running out of material. Can be destroyed in one pass. They don’t last that long. If the solar system really were 4.5 billion years old, why do we still have comets?
Rescuing Device- Way to protect evolution worldview… Perhaps there is a vast reservoir of comets beyond the visible solar system called an “Oort Cloud.” (vast sphere of potential comets beyond our detection) Comets are occasionally dislodged from this cloud and thrown into the inner solar system. New ones replace the old ones.
How convenient… see universe could be billions or trillions years after all. Let’s ask: Is there any observational evidence for it? They say, “No, but you can’t prove that it isn’t there.” And that’s true. So, comets confirm the young universe, but they don’t prove it. Just like I can’t prove there isn’t an invisible unicorn in the room.
Evolutionists can always invoke a rescuing device. Understandable because they are starting from a different worldview. Hold off on this until the end.
Evolutionary Scientists believe the universe is 10-15 billion years old. But galaxies appear young! Much younger than 10 billion years.
Stars are gathered into clusters called galaxies. In a galaxy, stars revolve around galactic center. Stars nearer the center make more rotations around the center than do the ones farther out make in the same amount of time.
8,000 light years from center VS. 16,000 light yrs from center → 2.8 : 1 ratio 16,000 vs. 32,000 → 2.8 : 1
The nearer star will have revolved 2.8 times around the center by the time the farther star has rotated around once.
So in most galaxies, the innermost star has gone around 8 times in the time it takes for the outermost star to go around only 1 time.
Effect is that spiral arms would have wrapped themselves around center until arms were no longer noticeable. If our galaxy is 4.5 billion years old, then we would have made 22 revolutions (200 million years per rev.) A star half the distance to the center as we are would have orbited 62 times. No spirals should be visible in our galaxy, or any other, BUT THEY ARE!
Just as stars are grouped into galaxies, galaxies are grouped into clusters as well. There is a lack of gravitational force to hold these galaxy clusters together.
Mass of galaxy is based on brightness. Once all galaxy masses in a cluster is calculated, the gravitational force holding the cluster together can be calculated. Then you calculate the velocity of galaxies in relation to each other.
These two combined can be used to calculate the necessary gravity to hold the cluster together. If measured mass is anywhere close to correct, galactic clusters would have dispersed long ago.
Ex. Coma Cluster- For this cluster to be stable enough to last for alleged 10 billions years, it would need 7 times more mass than calculated
Ex. Virgo Cluster- Missing 98% of mass needed to hold it together
If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, sun must be at least as old. Solar system- 4.5 billion years. The sun could not have lasted this long.
Sun’s luminescence is caused by slow gravitational contraction; sun is shrinking under its own weight. Present luminosity is 1041 ergs/yr, which would keep in shining approximately 100 million years.
Proven that the sun has been shrinking for 400 years.
The sun would have scorched earth or touched earth if it was big enough to last this long. And if that’s ok, then you have to deal with changed orbit, length of year, etc.
Objection: Sun’s energy comes from hydrogen fusion, so doesn’t necessarily need to burn off and shrink constantly. But hydrogen fusion gives off neutrinos. Only 4/month are given off which is less than 1/10 what would be expected if hydrogen fusion were occurring in the sun.
Earth’s Revolution Speed
Since man has been recording time, the earth’s rotation slows by one second per year. The spinning of the earth is slowing down.
This means that 30 million years ago, the earth would make one revolution every second. The earth would be like a strobe light- on and off and on and off with the sun flashing across the sky.
If you go much farther back, you run into problems with gravity, etc.
“Origin of life is chance formation of amino acids, and the chance of union of amino acids to make protein.” Even the chance of the smallest protein to form would be extremely rare → large spans of time needed. (monkey example?)
Age of universe: 10 billion. Age of earth: 4.5 billion. Insulin → 8×1027 combinations possible (billion is 9 ‘0’s)
Let’s say each second the universe has existed, it produced a different combination. After 10 billion years, we would have 3×1017 combinations. This is 1/10,000,000,000 of all possible combinations. We would need to wait another 10 billion times the present age of the universe to be sure to get a combination the body could use. Or wait another 100 quintillion years.
Hemoglobin → 135×10165 combinations- only a few are useful. Let’s say 10100 combinations created every second the universe has existed. (actually total number of atoms in observable universe is 1078, so factory would consume 10 sextillion universes to keep production rates up) Even at this rate it would take ten trillion trillion years to produce all combinations.
Compared to the formation of a virus, this is nothing. In the smallest known virus, DNA has only 5,000 small chemicals making it up. That’s 10×101505 combinations.
This is so far beyond scientific impossibility. There’s not been close to enough time in the universe for even the chance occurrence of the formation of chemicals needed for life.
Conditions for Chemical Evolution
Chemical evolution says that once a necessary chemical is formed by chance, it must be preserved until all other chemicals necessary are formed and brought together. When this happens, life appears.
Can we see this today?
- If complex chemical formed, it would be eaten by microscopic plant/animal
- Oxygen in atmosphere would oxidize chemicals (like iron left to rust) which breaks them down making them useless for evolution of life
So if life originated by chance on earth, these must be absent. (1) is true. What about (2)? If oxygen were in the atmosphere, evolution of life could not occur. Evolutionists state this as evidence that atmosphere was different (see the bias here?). But NO alternative given! There must be some atmosphere of gas around any planetary body to hold it. Only conjectures based on the abundance of certain chemicals in atmosphere now, AND what is needed for evolution to have occurred.
*Also, goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Process: Carbon-14 is produced when Nitrogen-14 is struck by a cosmic ray in the atmosphere. Disperses and is absorbed into plants through photosynthesis (small animal eats plants, big animal eats small animal) until all creatures have about same degree. When plant/animal dies, it quits absorbing Carbon-14 and starts to decay back Nitrogen-14. One can date object if conditions are met:
- Know how much C-14 present upon death
- Assumes level of C-14 in atmosphere has been constant for 30,000 years (this means atmospheric nitrogen and rate of cosmic ray bombardment has been constant. First measurements were taken 80 years ago)
- Can measure proportion of normal C-12 to C-14 (true!)
- Rate of decay does not change
But rate of decay can be changed in a lab! Experiment by John Lynde Anderson → electrical charge drastically changes rate of decay. What about electrical storms?
|Antler (Yale): 3 tests:||Specimens in same rock||Bark:||Mastodon:|
|5,340 yrs old||strata (Mich):||(Chico)- 1168||Outside- 7820|
|9,310||1430||(Mich)- 2200||Inside- 750 yrs later|
11 tests done in village of Jarmo in Iraq- 6,000 year spread in dating.
[Diamonds have C-14. C-14 doesn’t even last one million years. The crystal structure of diamonds does not allow for recent contamination of C-14. If the whole earth was C-14, it would be gone in 1 million years- decayed into nitrogen]
Matter from Nothing: More philosophical, but matter could not simply have come into existence from nothing without a cause. It is a logical absurdity. We live in a cause/effect world.
Life from Non-life: Life is far too complex to have resulted from trillions of chance occurrences. Life coming from matter (non-life) violates the law of biogenesis and the cell principle which state that life must come only from life. Evolutionists have never come up with an decent explanation- most popular one being that it rode on the back of a crystal attached to a meteorite.
Order from Disorder: Our bodies, as well as most other organisms, depend on systems that run according to intricate order such as from DNA. A system dependent on order cannot be created by disorder. (2nd Law of Themodynamics)
Developed from Crude: Small and undeveloped things do become grown and developed (seed to tree, baby to adult), but small and undeveloped things first come from the developed (seed from tree, baby from adult). The pattern of growth is circular, not from crude to developed as natural selection states.
Evolved Into or Created For: Evolutionists say that organisms are suited for their environment because they evolved into it, but it is better explained by the fact that they were created for the environment.
Similar DNA: Evolution’s overall argument is based on the similarity of our DNA with those of apes and on down the line. First, life could only happen if certain things are similar. Secondly, is it not as good or better an explanation to say there was common designer rather than a common ancestor?
Origin of Morality: There is no objective basis or explanation for morality in human beings under Darwin’s Evolutionary Theory, or even our mental capacity and overall dominance of the physical world which sets humanity apart by any reasonable means from the rest of the living world.
Moon Dust– don’t use this one! Not evidence for either.
Personally, I have never found any argument for evolution that I could not find the answer for in creationism! (“Star Light” below is the closest I have come)
It would take millions of years for the light from stars to reach earth. The fact that we can even see as many stars as we can is evidence that the universe is at least as old as these stars. This is an evidence on the side of an old universe! (not evolution per se). Milky Way Galaxy is 80,000 light years across.
Though this evidence goes on the side of the old universe, there are possible explanations (see below for more thorough possibilities):
- The make-up of the universe (density, etc) has not always been the same. Do we know the
speed of light has always been constant?
- The universe is constantly expanding, so at one point these stars were closer to earth.
- We, as Christians, believe that God’s most important creation is human beings. Are we not in awe of the beauty and power of God when we look up and see all the stars in the night sky. If we are the center of God’s universe per se, then what would be the point of creating stars that we could not see? Is it too far a stretch to say that God could have created the starlight in route to the earth for the purposes of His glory? (Valid objection to this: This means that we would see events happen in the heavens that never actually happened. There are problems with this- see below)
This is the best argument for old universe, but not a good argument.
Is distant starlight solvable?
- Creation was a one-time event, not repeatable.
- Creation was supernatural (way God upholds the universe today, natural law, is not the way that He created the universe, so there will always be things we can’t understand through science)
- The dominion mandate (must understand things to take care of the world, Ps. 32- don’t be like horse or the mule, have understanding)- “gives us the right to ask the question”
- God is sovereign- not required to make all the universe understandable- “God doesn’t have to answer if He doesn’t want to”
- History has shown that many “problems” for creation are easily explained by newer evidence. (Mt. Saint Helens eruption, many layers formed, great canyons very quickly formed)
The Travel-time Equation → D = vt (distance = velocity x time) Ex. 120 miles = 60 mi/hr x 2 hours
Speed of light © is 670,000,000 mi/hr or one light year per year. One light year equals the distance light can travel in one year (6 trillion miles).
- “Those distances are not real”- not true, distances to these stars are accurate
- Light in Transit: light was created already on its way- not best solution. Support- universe was created “mature.” Philosophical Problem: We see events. We would be seeing events… that never happened. We see super-nova… blue star blew up in 1987 and we see it happen → this is 179,000 light years away. If God created that beam of light, then he created the picture of that explosion, but in fact it never happened; blue star never existed. Don’t think God would create pictures of things that never happened- more philosophical.
- CDK: Is the speed of light constant in time? Proposes that the speed of light in the past may have been much greater than the speed of light today. Potential Problem: The speed of light is not arbitrary. It is ‘linked’ to nature. Lots of things depend on light speed being this speed, such as E=mc^2. If speed of light had been significantly greater in the past, then there should have been dramatic changes in the energy or mass of everything in the universe. Other constants could have changed to, so not fatal. Testable? Nothing tells us that speed of light has changed. This changes V
- GTD: Gravitational Time Dilation: Time can flow at different rates. Perhaps the universe has aged millions of years, while only 6,000 years has elapsed on Earth. From universe’s perspective, there was plenty of time for light to reach earth. General Relativity has shown that the rate at which time passes is related to the gravitational potential. Clocks tick more slowly when they are in a “gravitational well.” Gravity affects time. Clock at sea level ticks slower than official clock in Boulder, Colorado. If the earth were near the center of a finite universe, time would flow more slowly here than elsewhere. That would allow time for starlight to get here in 1000s of years, per Earth clocks. This is well-tested physics. Potential Problem: If universe is infinite, or at least galaxies throughout, and earth’s position is not special, there would be no gravitational well. Also, is GTD significant enough to get starlight here in 6,000 years (earth-time), in a way that is compatible with known red shifts. Potential solution, but details yet to be resolved. This changes T
- ASC: Alternate Synchrony Convention: (use plane example) Possible that Stars were created on Day 4 (Cosmic Local Time), and their light reaches Earth on Day 4 (Cosmic Local Time). Only
works if plane is going west… only works for light coming towards earth (stars were created in the firmament to shine upon earth, right?). If we use CLT, events in space happen as we see them from Earth. Why use this? More convenient! …doesn’t require knowing distance to the source. They use Cosmic Universal Time and CLT (they name supernovas by CLT). Issue: Does Bible use CLT or CUT? Today, CUT is considered the standard, but CLT used throughout history (they didn’t know light speed or distances). Objection: Does that mean stars were really created before Day 4? Works only if Bible uses CLT.
- Always possible supernatural acts were at work. (see this in Bible)
CDK: The speed of light may have been greater in the past. GTD: Time may have flowed more slowly on the earth.
ASC: “Time-zones” allow light to leave stars on Day 4 and arrive at Earth on Day 4 (CLT) Conclusion: Distant starlight does not prove universe is old.
Light Problem with the Big Bang: There is uniform temperature in the universe, but even in billions of years, there would not have been time for light to have been transferred between galaxies for this to happen.
Astronomers have measured the observable universe as 156 billion light years. We can see 78 billion light years out into space. But they say the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Secular astronomers believe that light can travel 78 billion light years in only 13.7 billion years?
Isaiah 55:9 (scale)
How could so many people and scientists be wrong?
- Presupposition of Anti-supernaturalism
- We come at things with presuppositions (i.e. senses are basically reliable, ex. Rock, that memory is reliable). We all have access to the same information. Your worldview tells you what to make of the evidence. Its not that people don’t have enough evidence… Romans 1 says everyone has enough evidence to believe in the Creator God, but the problem is that they suppress the Truth in unrighteousness and God tells us there is no excuse for that. [Story of man who thought he was dead- walk, talk (spasms), charts (wrong interpretation, name swapped), dead men bleed?]
- Evolution is taught as fact, not as theory, through school, television, movies, etc. Creationism has not been offered as an alternative explanation.
- Scientific fields of study have become very narrow; a scientist can easily believe that missing evidences for evolution is found in another field.
- The theory of evolution was welcomed as it made sense at the time, and allowed for people to explain the earth without God.
- Scientists want to be accepted by other scientists; if someone falls outside the common belief, especially when it comes to denying evolution, many are written off. Non-Christian scientists normally don’t have the incentive and self-will to do this to themselves, so they believe in order to be accepted.
- When a scientist says that “Evolution is proven,” it is true in one sense of the word, but there is a difference between Micro-evolution and Macro-evolution:
- Micro-evolution: living things have a built-in variability which allows for adaptation within species to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is proven, this is what they mean. This is true!
- Macro-evolution: People from hydrogen gas. Large scale change possible because of small scale change. But living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.