why creationism is true
now browsing by tag
Logic and Reason: Creationism vs Evolution – Pt 2
In part one of this article, I simply introduced the elementary difference between Creationism and Evolution. Now we will dive into what I believe are logic and reason behind why, like the extinct pterodactyl, the overall General Theory of Evolution (GTE) doesn’t, ehem, fly.
Proponents of GTE, especially that lay variety of proponent that believes everything the supposed science “seems” to indicate, love to state something like this: “Yes, everything evolved from lower life forms over great expanses of time to bring us to where we are today.” But as soon as you dare to mention the unlikelihood of everything coming from nothing, they will say that you are talking about origins and that is a different topic altogether. Sooo, we don’t need to concern ourselves with how everything came to be in the first place; just believe the people in clean white coats and even cleaner science terminology? I don’t think so.
Fraud, By Any Other Name
Look, they may be highly intelligent and all but, considering all of the times scientists have twisted the truth and even resorted to fraud to try to prove GTE true…nah, I’ll stick to common sense! And why is that? Why have scientists throughout the ages felt the need to twist and alter the truth, even to the point of committing fraud (Earnst Haeckel’s evolution embryo fraud, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Java Man, etc.), just to prove evolution is true? After all, scientists today say that GTE is fact and indisputable. If it’s fact, then why go to such means to try to prove it? When was the last time you saw a Christian scientist purposefully commit fraud to prove creationism? I just wait right here…. None, huh? That’s what I thought! Clearly, science doesn’t truly have the answer if it so frequently has to cheat to get it!
Some Logic and Reason
As stated, I am considering only logic and reason here, not religion, or even creationism itself. I am simply examining the logic of GTE alone….
First, let’s consider origins, whether the evolutionists want to or not! How can you possibly, and with logic and reason, claim GTE to be true and then choose to ignore the obvious problems it has with origins? Seems to me like that would be similar to claiming that the moon is made of green cheese and then refusing to discuss how it became so. If GTE is true, then by scientists’ own discoveries, it had to have begun at some point. In order for something to begin, it must, by definition, have been non-existent at some prior time. In other words, something had to “become” before it could evolve, right? Well, of course. Scientists, however, insist that what came before life was non-living stuff! Did you get that? What they are claiming then is that living organisms came from rocks and dirt and some chemicals (many of which would, in reality, have prevented life rather than helping it! But let’s not even consider that, says the sly scientist!). Can you spell illogical, class? I would love for an evolution-believing scientist to tell us exactly HOW a bunch of junk could somehow assemble itself into something that is alive? Imagine claiming that Transformers is a true story. What sort of looks do you think you’d get? Yeah, that’s the look! And I am not even going back to the very beginning and considering how a small ball of immense power could somehow poof into existence from absolute nothingness (0+0=1 anyone?)!
2. Better Nate than Lever
Let’s consider something as simple as a lever. The lever is one of the most basic tools we know of. Only two parts: lever and fulcrum, right. Now, try to picture the following scenario: you are walking along the beach when you happen upon a long board that has curiously found itself resting atop a rock. That’s it, a rock and a board. Is that a lever? Sure. Could it have happened on its own…sort of created itself? Sure, with the help of some wind, it very easily could have. Now let’s say you walk a little farther down the beach and you find another such scene, but this time the board is attached to the rock with a hinge of some sort, made of metal and bolted onto the rock. Could the wind have done that? Hmm?
I think your logic and reason would have to tell you absolutely not. One would be found insane if he claimed such a thing! It would defy everything we know about science and logic, wouldn’t it? But why? Why is that so unbelievable? It’s because of something known as complexity. The addition of the hinge adds complexity to the situation, even though we are still talking about something as basic as a lever. So how much the more insane is it to think that that same sort of business is responsible for the exceeding complexity of something as relatively simple as the single cell (Darwin himself believed the cell to be nothing more than a bit of goo!)? We now know that the cell is an amazingly complex piece of living machinery. So, Mr. scientist, you say it would be silly to believe that the wind could make a see-saw, but that life itself, well that just sort of created itself? Seriously?
3. What’s good for the goos….
Finally, here’s the nail in the coffin, as though it really needs any more! How could subtle changes occur over large spans of time and yet remain viable? Picture this: imagine you are a single celled, non-sexual, er um, thing. You’re a glob of goo that can feed, grow, and multiply. Now. one day, your little goo comes up to you and says, “Dad, I’d really like to find a way to recreate myself without having to split in half…it looks kinda painful!” You say, “Well, goo, I’m sorry but you can’t. However, it might happen if you have a little goo and some other glob has a little goo and those two completely separate, unrelated goos just happened to accidently have something mutate into two separate parts that, over a looooooong time and with more tiny changes that don’t happen to go off in the wrong direction, somehow become mutually usable, almost like they were made to go together….. I think you get the idea. The chance that mutations could happen in small increments over time without losing their way, so to speak, and still allowing the organism to function normally, is, well, it’s just ludicrous!
Returning briefly to the Goo scene: So little goo becomes a Glob and divides and it has the rudiments of that mutation and so does the goo next door and so you’re well on your way to….oh, never mind, the other goo just got run over by a paramecium! Well, maybe next time!
In conclusion, I realize that this is very simplistic and all, but I think the logic is still sound. There are simply too many hurdles for GTE to overcome to be realistic. Now, does all of this prove that God exists and had to have created everything. Perhaps not, but I would challenge anyone to think of some other reasonable cause for the incredible origins, complexity and precision in the universe and here on our own planet!
Talk to you soon!
More Faith Articles
A Word About Creationism Vs Evolution-Part 1
Every once in a while I like to discuss elements of faith that I believe are important. In this blog, I am going to talk (perhaps rant a little:) ) about creationism vs evolution. Why this subject? Well, as one of those “crazy Christians,” I think that creation is the foundation of the Christian belief system. After all, if it could be proven that God didn’t do what he said he did in Genesis, then why believe the rest of the Bible, right? Therefore, creation being the beginning of the word of God, establishes it as the Bible’s most basic infrastructure.
Creationist believe that God, just as he claims in the first book of the Bible, created everything out of nothing. He simply spoke it into existence. Now of course we don’t know exactly what that means. Did he speak and everything suddenly formed into a small ball of energy to then explode and spread out in an instant. Perhaps. That might appeal to the Big Bank theorists. And since he didn’t specifically say what took place when he spoke, we don’t know for sure that it didn’t happen that way. I believe it could have.
If it did, then that would explain everything that scientists observe.
So as to prevent anyone from thinking I am making up my own definition, here it is from a science website: “The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin’s book ‘On the Origin of Species’ in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.”  So the basic idea is that in the beginning, there was nothing, and then nothing became something, which then somehow changed over great spans of time into what we see today.
Ok, that may seem facetious, but it is somewhat true. To believe in evolution, one must inherently decide how everything began. Don’t let anyone tell you that origins study is different or separate from evolution study. The latter absolutely requires the former to exist! If you accept that, then you have to acknowledge that there had to have been a beginning point at which time there was nothing at all in existence. Many books have been written about all of this, so I won’t belabor it. It makes sense if you are willing to open your mind to it.
In part two of creationism vs evolution, I will examine this subject and discuss my reasoning with what I believe will be logic and reason. I will not even refer to the Bible or creationism, but rather discuss why evolution simply doesn’t make good sense!