Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creation - Pre-Flood Genealogy

 

Genesis 5:3-32 (KJV)

3  And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat
a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his
name Seth:

4  And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were
eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5  And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and
thirty years: and he died.

6  And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat
Enos:

7  And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and
seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

8  And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve
years: and he died.

9  And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

10  And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred
and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:

11  And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five
years: and he died.

12  And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:

13  And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight
hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

14  And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten
years: and he died.

15  And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat
Jared:

16  And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight
hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:

17  And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety
and five years: and he died.

18  And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and
he begat Enoch:

19  And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred
years, and begat sons and daughters:

20  And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and
two years: and he died.

21  And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat
Methuselah:

22  And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah
three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23  And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and
five years:

24  And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God
took him.

25  And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years,
and begat Lamech:

26  And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven
hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

27  And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty
and nine years: and he died.

28  And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and
begat a son:

29  And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall
comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because
of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

30  And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety
and five years, and begat sons and daughters:

31  And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy
and seven years: and he died.

32  And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat
Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

 

Adam              to Seth                                     130 years

Seth                 to Enos                                    105 years

Enos                to Cainan                                   90 years

Cainan             to Mahalaleel                             70 years

Mahalaleel       to Jared                                     65 years

Jared                to Enoch                                  162 years

Enoch              to Methuselah                           65 years,

Methuselah      to Lamech                               187 years

Lamech           to Noah                                   182 years

Noah               to Shem, Ham, and Japheth    500 years

 

This gives us a total of 1556 years from creation to Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Now given the fact that odds are that none of the sons were born on their father’s birthday; though not impossible but unlikely; so the son’s birthdays would average six months from their father’s birthday resulting in a additional time of 5 years +/- 5 years. This gives us a time from creation to Shem, Ham, and Japheth of 1561 years +/- 5 years.

 

At the point since Adam was created on day six of creation, meaning that we have perhapse six more days here but six day well within the magin of error of  +/- 5 years  

 

 

 

Biblical evidence for Young Earth Creation - Creation Week

Genesis 1 (KJB)

1  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2  And the earth was without form, and void; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters.

3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
divided the light from the darkness.

5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
called Night. And the evening and the morning were the
first day.

6  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of
the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters
which were under the firmament from the waters which
were above the firmament: and it was so.

8  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening
and the morning were the second day.

9  And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be
gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear:
and it was so.

10  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering
together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it
was good.

11  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind,
whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13  And the evening and the morning were the third day.

14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven
to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule
the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the
stars also.

17  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth,

18  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide
the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20  And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the
 moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above
the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21  And God created great whales, and every living creature
that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after
their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw
that it was good.

22  And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply,
and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24  And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth
after his kind: and it was so.

25  And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and
cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the
earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26  And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth.

27  So God created man in his own image, in the image of
God created he him; male and female created he them.

28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue
it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon
the earth.

29  And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb
bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and
every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed;
to you it shall be for meat.

30  And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of
the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth,
wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for
meat: and it was so.

31  And God saw every thing that he had made, and,
behold, it was very good. And the evening and the
morning were the sixth day.

 

First of all we have in Genesis 1:1  

1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

 

Here we have the origin of  the universe with God is described as creating the heaven and the earth, which means God created space and matter and He is described as doing so at the beginning of the universe. Since the time of the universe hat to of started with the universe it shows God created the time of the universe here as well.

 

The evidence for a Young Earth begins here the key is in the repeated formula

5b  And the evening and the morning were the first day.
8b  And the evening and the morning were the second day
13  And the evening and the morning were the third day.
19  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
23  And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

31  And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

 

The repeated formula is “and the evening and the morning were the nth day.”  Not only does the number with the word day indicate a regular Earth day, but God took the extra step of adding “evening and the morning” to make it even clearer that the intent here is an ordinary Earth day.  God being smart enough to know that we would still mess such a simple message up emphasizes it by connecting the creation week to the work/ Sabbath.  

 

Exodus 20:11 (KJB) For in six days the LORD made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested
the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath
day, and hallowed it.

 

Exodus 31:14-17 (KJB)

14  Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto
you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death:
for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be
cut off from among his people.

15  Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the
sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any
work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.

16  Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath,
to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a
perpetual covenant.

17  It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever:
for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the
seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

 

The Six day work and sabbath are a standard week that we still run our lives by here in the 21^st century some 35000 years after Moses. It is the only unit of time not based in any celestial cycle, but it is passed on the period of time God used to create the universe. At the end of this week with Adam and Eve created on day six the Earth is 7 days old.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Ancient Mars Lake Could Have Supported Life, or Could It?

 Ancient Mars Lake Could Have Supported Life, or Could It?

 

 

This week the team operating the rover Curiosity made the announced the  discovery of evidence that fresh waster once existed in Gale Crater. They said the Rock called "John Kein" shows chemical  evidence of having been deposited in fresh water. they seem to be ignoring an aspect of the data that goes against habitability at least long-term habitability.

 

It is true that the clays found in the area do indicate fresh water but the sulfur dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide  suggest the past presence of sulfuric acid. The amounts suggest about 3% and thus a Ph of about 0.5, which  is quite acidic. The water seems to have been originally fresh when it erupted from underground but then turned acidic from the effects of large amounts of volcanic activity on the planet as described in Catastrophic Model of Martian geology.

 

 It needs to be noted that  no actual evidence of any life or organic compounds have been found, only compounds that life could use if present.

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

 

 

Evidence for Young Earth Creation.

This is the first in a series of posts on evidence for Young Earth Creation. I will present seven categories of evidence as follows.

 

1. Biblical evidence.

This is quite strait forward in that it involves what the Bible has to say about the age of the Earth.

 

2. Most challenging Old Earth evidence.

This best claimed evidence of an old Earth claims and historically hardest for young Earth creationists

 

3. Alleged Old Earth evidence easily dealt with.

This evidence usually claimed for an Old Earth but closes study of data makes dealing with the claim from a young Earth perspective easy.

 

4. Evidence against an Old Earth evidence.

These are peaces of evidence that show that the Earth can not be as old as is often claimed.

 

5. Young Earth models that explain data better than old Earth models.

These are theories developed from a young Earth perspective that explain data better than old Earth theories.

 

6. Young Earth evidence but greater than 10,000 years.

7. Young Earth evidence by less than 10,000 years.

These last two are represents evidence that show the Earth to be less than a million years old. The first set gives maximum dates over 10,000 years, while the second set gives dates less than 10,000 years and in some cases right at the 6,000 year mark.

 

It is not prscticale to deal with them all so I am going to take these one at a time in future posts.  

Human Chromosome 2 Fusion Theory Shown Wrong

The theory that human chromosome 2 is fusion from two chimp chromosomes has been shown to wrong.

 

The claim man evolved from a common ancestor with apes has bee recently supported by that claim that the human chromosome 2 is  an end to end fusion of chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b. This theory was proposed as a way to explain the fact that humans 46 chromosomes and all  apes 48. The evidence for the theory is rather weak because if the DNA sequences were originally centromere, and telomere sites they would are highly degraded possible time span.

 

This claim ignores the fact that such a mutation would probably render the individual infertile with rest of his species and if he or she were lucky enough to find a mate with the same fused chromosome the offspring that would be produced would have trouble finding a compatible mates So survival od such a mutation let alone dominance is highly improbable.

 

Furthermore there are no cases in mammals identified as telomere-to-telomere fusion. Chromosome fusions documented in living mammals involves satellite DNA . The fact is that telomeres have end caps called the shelterin protein complex that prevent  telomere-to-telomere fusion.

 

Chromosome fusion theory has another in the fact that DNA sequences in the area around the alleged  human chromosome 2 fusion site lack the  expected similarity between humans and chimps. There is even unexplained "missing"  chimp DNA in the area. To make it worsts alleged fusion site is surrounded by many functional genes that are not in the ends of the ends of chimpanzee chromosomes 2A or 2B.

 

The final fatal flaw in the chromosome 2 fusion theory is that the alleged fusion site is inside the DDX11L2 gene.  This gene contains three primary exons and serves several regulatory functions. In fact it is a highly expressed and complicated gene not found in apes.

 

If the human chromosome 2  were indeed a result of an end to end fusion from two chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b were would expect to find the fusion site in fairly good shape and surrounded by DNA sequences highly similar between humans and chimps but we do not. We also find a unique highly functional gene going right across the alleged fusion site. Thus this so called evidence for a human-chimpanzee common ancestor and human evolution can be considered falsified, that is has been shown to be wrong.

 

Reference

 

Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding 
Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion

 

Basics of Relativity Theory

 

Basic Relativity

 

Contrary to what it commonly thought Relativity theory was not invented by Einstein but the basic concept was actually developed by Galileo. Einstein realized that not only was motion was relative but time, mass and space were relate as well as well.

 

In Galilean Relativity space and time were seen as absolutes. This was a result of Galileo not considering the speed of light in his thinking because was unable to measure it. In fact Galileo tried measure the speed of light being the first recorded person to have tried to do so.

Newton’s laws of motion were partly based on Galilean Relativity. These laws formed the foundations of physics. However it was ultimately the failed attempt to detect the aether that led to Einsteinian relativity.

From here Einstein developed both his Special and General Relativity. Though Relativity had been used in the development of atheistic theories like the Big Bang, it has also been of great use to Creation Science Cosmology.



Mars Update

http://gscim.com/Science_News/10-13/Mars_update.html

 

Two discoveries about this week have provided further support for the  Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology. This helps show just how well the theory describes Martian. The Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology speaks of a planet wide Martian geological Catastrophe a few thousand years ago from about the the the Global Flood described in the Bible as happening on Earth.

The Mars rover Curiosity discovered that the regolith soil in Gale Crater contains about 2% water which would be consistent with the flooding event described by Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology for the crater. It all so contains higher percentages of chemicals that are poisonous or even potentially explosive such that it would not be safe to drink without considerable refinements, but the presence of the the water is consistent with a flooding evening within the last few thousand years.

 

Now while supervolcanoes were not original part of the  Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology, the possibility of them they on Mars is consistent with it. The possibility has been suggested by the similarity between some Martian, and features on Earth thought to be supervolcanoes . While Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology was based on known large Martian volcanoes, the addition of supervolcanoes only adds to and inproves the model by have more sources of volcanic activity.

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

Scientists claim to find life coming to Earth from space

Scientists claim to find life coming to Earth from space

 

A report from scientists at the University of Sheffield clams the discovery of microscopic life in the process coming to Earth from space. The "biological particles" that form the bases of this report were found in the stratosphere by a balloon. The reason why they concluded the particles come from space is that they are too big to have drifted up to such an altitude in the absence of volcanic activity.

 

One flaw in their conclusion is that there could be another mechanism by which these particles could have gotten that high. Another is that it is not even certain that they are biological in origin, scientists have been fooled before. However for the sake of argument lets assume that these particles are indeed life  coming to Earth from space. There is a high probability that they are simply returning having been ejected in the past. In fact from a creation science perspective it is likely that microbes got ejected into space from the Earth during Noah's Flood. 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

Life on Mars Refuted by the Rover Curiosity

Life on Mars Refuted by  the Rover Curiosity

 

 

Since landing on Mars the rover Curiosity has been test levels of methane in the Martian atmosphere looking for evidence of life. Evidence from Martian orbit had suggesting the presence of methane but Curiosity can not find it. This suggest that the previous evidence for methane was ether in error or the it was volcanic in origin and thus had been ejected into the upper Martian atmosphere. Methane is produced by microorganisms but if it were being produced by Martian microorganisms and Curiosity should have detect it and it has not, These results indicate that if methane is present at all that it is the upper Martian atmosphere making it more compatible with a volcanic origin than a biological one.

 

From a creation science perspective finding microorganisms on Mars would not be a problem, not only is native Martian microorganisms  not a problem for Biblical creation but there are any number of ways that they could have migrated from Earth to Mars, including Earth meteorites and our own space probes. The main reason for wanting to find life on Mars is too support the idea of abiogenesis which can be shown to be a thermodynamic impossibility. The claim is often made that finding life on Mars would prove abiogenesis not only possible but likely, however the odds would be far greater that life from earth got to Mars. In fact even giving abiogenesis unreasonably generous odds of actually occurring indicates that we should be alone in the universe.

 

The results of evidence methane in the Martian atmosphere from orbit and not one the surface would be constant with recent volcanic activity on Mars which is a main point of Catastrophic Model of Martian Geology as such this result was actually predicted by the model. However it all but totally falsifies the Martian microorganism model.

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

The Information Universe Predicts Three New Particles

http://gscim.com/Science_News/8-13/information_universe_predicts_three_new_particles.html

 

Efforts to develop the Information Universe model with a full description of particle physics have produced a prediction of there New Particles. In addition these particles fit the qualifications of dark matter. The process begins with the particles of the Standard Model of Particle Physic.

 

The standard model consists of 17 established particles and their antiparticles. In developing the Information Universe model for Particle Physics it was necessary to start known particles and find patterns that would aid the process. The first of these patterns is that there are six distinct mass groupings including neutrinos and massless particles like photons and gluons. Putting neutrinos and massless particles aside as special cases be dealt with separately leaves four mass groupings consisting of a total of 12 particles and their anti-particles. A close examination of the first and third groups suggest missing particles do to significant jumps in mass between particles. These gaps include the number of wave lengths of these particles bouncing back and forth within the Higgs field needed to satisfy quantum mechanics. It needs to be noted that the jump form 3 to 5 wave lengths between the Higgs and Top Quark do not suggest a additional particle since no significant mass gap exists.

 

The three new predicted particles are named for the  first, second and eleventh letters of the Hebrew alphabet. They are Alef (א), Bet (ב), and Kaf (כ) respectively and they were chosen for ease of writing and to avoid of confusion with Greek letters when hand written. Collectively they from a third group of Fermions dubbed Mosons.

 

The third pattern is in fundamental particle interactions. The pattern of interactions between these particle hints at a missing piece to the puzzle. The missing piece shows particles that interact with the nuclear forces. (W, Z, q)  This exactly where the Mosons fit into the picture. Mosons do not interact with photons and are thus could not be visible in light thus they are uncharged particles, whose  anti-particle simply has an opposite spin. They would however interact by way of gravity and as well as the strong and weak nuclear forces. This makes these Mosons  a good candidate for dark matter since they would form composite particles that would only be detectable by hitting atomic nuclei.

 

Recently events that are considered  possible dark mater hits in  underground detectors are consistent with these results. One hit suggested a dark mater particle of 8.6 GeV and the other one of 50 GeV. The would correspond to particles of  9.25   and 53.7 Atomic mass units. This makes the smaller one a little larger mass as a Beryllium-9 atom and larger one is a little lighter than Chromium-53. Since alefons would easily form atomic nuclei size particles because they lack an electric charge to keep them apart. This provides a testable prediction for the overall model.

 

This development is a major step forward in the Information Universe model as it provides a starting point for developing a specific digital model of particle physics.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/153782-particle-physicists-discover-strongest-ever-evidence-of-dark-matter

 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

Ball State University formally bans Intelligent Design

If you need more proof the main goal of Evolution theory is to explain our existence with out God, well here is some.  Ball State University formally banned the discussion of Intelligent Design from its science class rooms. While the usefulness of Restricted Intelligent Design to supporting Biblical Creation is limited with General Intelligent Design a better approach, the point of this ban is clearly a prohibition against any discussion of the possibility that there is intelligence behind the Universe.

 

This stands as solid evidence that the purpose of not only Darwinian Evolution but the entire Big Bang to Man Evolutionary theory of origins is explain our existence without any. This type of prohibition shows that God is thrown out of consideration as a starting assumption. If I set out to build a model of how the pyramids on Egypt could have come about with out the Egyptians and in fact by totally natural causes, I would produce a story that would sound like they never existed. This is the case with the Evolutionary theory of origins, it starts out with the atheistic assumption that God does not exist and thus they have produced an atheistic mythology of origins that seem to show that God is not needed.

 

The point is that Darwinian Evolution and the entire Big Bang to Man Evolutionary theory of origins are not but atheistic mythology being preached in guise of science, and the actions such as banning and discussion of Intelligent Design shows that this is indeed the case. If the goal were truly a pursuit of the truth then discussions not only Intelligent Design but Biblical Creation as well should be welcomed but instead they are banned.

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk

 

 

Evolution a Faith Based Belief System

http://relijournal.com/christianity/evolution-a-faith-based-belief-system/

 

The knee jerk reaction of any Evolutionist reading this will be, “Of course not, Evolution is science not religion.” However this claim presupposes that a belief in General Evolution theory is not at its heart religious in nature and it is a presupposition that is questionable given the religious like devotion of many of its adherents. This claim also limits the definition of faith in a manner deliberately intended to exclude evolution by definition. Before continuing let we need to define our terms so as to eliminate ambiguity.

 

Evolution refers to the evolutionary view of origins and not just decent with modification and natural selection. Basically the evolutionary view of origins the idea that we came into existence by totally naturalistic means as opposed to being created directly by God. This view includes the idea of common decent and specifically that man evolved from a common ancestor with apes. It can also include the entire Big Bang to man view of origins.  The word “Evolution” is being used to refer to the entire evolutionary view of origins so as to prevent needless wordiness.

Evolutionist refers to anyone who believes in Evolution.

 

Faith can be most objectively defined as a belief in something without direct evidence.

 

Now there are two types of faith: rational and irrational.

 

A ration faith is one founded on evidence as seen from the perspective of the person holding the faith. You have faith that a chair will hold your weight because it has done so in the past. However you have no proof that no one has tampered with that chair making it incapable of holding your weight, so sitting in a chair is by definition an act of faith be it a rational one.

An irrational faith is one contrary to evidence as seen from the perspective of the person holding the faith. You can have faith that a chair will hold your weight despite the fact that you can see that someone has tampered with the chair, so sitting in such a chair is by definition an act of faith and an irrational one at that.

 

The point is that a rational faith while lacking direct evidence is based on trust in the source that faith is based on. For example you can have faith that what a person is telling you is true without evidence because you have past evidence that what they tell you is true. In this case your faith is in the person giving you the information.

 

The reason for mentioning this is that in many cases where faith is contrasted to science, all faith is made to look irrational when it is not. The question here is not faith vs. science but weather or not a belief in Evolution is ultimately based on faith and no effort will be made to determine if that faith is rational or not.

 

So give our definition of faith is Evolution based on the believing in things for which there is direct evidence. 

 

The Evidence

 

The knee jerk reaction of any Evolutionist at this point will say. “See we have empirical evidence so Evolution is not faith based.” Aside from the fact that Creationists also have empirical evidence in support of Biblical Creation, the question is how do you know there is empirical evidence in support of Evolution? 

Before you start on the unusual Evolutionist rant that there is overwhelming evidence for Evolution, honestly ask yourself how do know there is? Have you seen it all? Have you even seen a significant fraction of it? Even if have seen some it have ever been able to study it personally? Have you ever seen a single important fossil in the ground where it was found?

The simple fact is that most people have never seen any of the evidence claimed as support for Evolution including scientists. Even those that have examined actual fossils and other evidence have only personally looked at only a small fraction of what is claimed even if the fraction is considered an important find.

Even if you have seen some photographs, reproductions or even actual evidence, did you ever see it where and how was found? If not how do you know it’s not a fake. Hoaxes have occurred from time to time and in some cases the hoax was not discovered for decades, and maybe not at all. How do you know a picture you see is not CGI or some other form of photographic fakery?

Have you ever even read any of the original papers on any major or minor discoveries? For example the age of the Earth is often sighted as 4.5 billion years, but few people have ever read the original paper Age of Meteorites and the Earth by Claire Patterson 1956 on which that figure is based. If you did you would see the 4.5 billion year figure is only valid if the Earth formed by accretion into an initial molten state and  that if it was formed any other way the 4.5 billion year figure is at best a maximum possible age. The fact is that most people, even geologists have never read this paper and so they do not know this detail but they spout they 4.5 billion year figure as absolute fact anyhow.

So if no one has seen all of the evidence claimed for Evolution, and most people have not seen so much a fragment of bone then what direct evidence do we have that there is any real evidence for Evolution? The answer is that there is no direct evidence for any of  it and thus by the above definition accepting the claim that there is evidence for Evolution is an act of faith in those claiming that there is evidence for Evolution.

 

Presentation

Having not actually seen any of the evidence claimed for evolution the reason most people think that there is overwhelming evidence for Evolution is the way it is presented. These presentations are in museums, schools, TV programs, and on the internet. However such presentations are also one sided. Not only are alternative interpretations usually ignored, but so are any weaknesses in the interpretations presented.

So when you watch such a presentation about any aspect of Evolution be it biological, chemical, geological, or cosmological there is no direct evidence that what you are being told if factual even from the perspective of those making the presentation. There is also no direct evidence that the material is being presented without bias or deception. 

As a result based on the definition we given above, accepting the content of Evolutionary presentations is an act of faith in the writers, producers, and presenters of the material in the presentation.

People

In many ways the validity of any evidence presented in support of Evolution comes down to the honesty, and unbiasness of the people making the discoveries, and presenting the material to people. So unless you personally know all or at least most of these people involved you have no evidence at all that they are honest, and unbiased. Even if you know them all unless you have personally followed every step of the process you have no direct evidence of the validity of any evidence presented in support of Evolution.

As a result based on the definition we given above, accepting the content of Evolution requires faith in the people if involved in the research and presentation of evidence presented in support of Evolution  .

Assumptions

Yes contrary to how many evolutionary scientists sound, Evolution has many underlying assumptions. An assumption is something taken for granted that is another way of saying that it is something believed without direct evidence. This means that by definition believing assumption is an act of faith. This means that faith does in deed underlay Evolution.

Let’s look at some of the assumptions remember I am using Evolution to refer to the entire evolutionary view of origins for purposes of convenience, as such it refers to more than biological evolution. A complete list would be quite long so let’s look at seven  big ones.

 

The Big Bang.

The biggest assumption about the Big Bang is that it actually happened. This assumption is made despite the fact that there is no evidence for it that is not easily explained or even predicted by other cosmologies.

 The other big assumption about the Big Bang is that it is even possible. It is purely an assumption that nothing can spontaneously exploded. While the appearance and disappearance of virtual quantum particles is presented as evidence that this can happen it, these virtual quantum particles do not appearance out of nothing, but they come from and return to the zero point energy of the universe.

 

Dark Energy

Dark Energy is based on the assumption of the reality of the Big Ban. In fact it was invented solely for the purpose of saving the Big bang from the reality of observation that indicates an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. It is now assumed to be real and to be the most abundant substance in the universe despite the fact that other cosmologies exist that explains the data without dark energy.

 

Planet Formation.

Planet Formation is assumed to occur despite no direct observation of the process and the fact that it does not predict any of the planetary arrangements of extra solar planetary systems. In fact they were total surprise to Evolutionary astronomers.

Like the Big Bang new add-on theories had to be developed to save the theory from the reality of extra solar planetary systems. These theories allow a planet found any place in a planetary system to be moved from where it would theoretically form. The point is  that the theory planets  forming from accretion is assumed to be true and has simply had migration  theories added to save the assumed accretion theory from reality.

 

Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis is one of the biggest Evolutionary assumptions there is because there not only is there no evidence that it is possible, but the thermodynamics indicates that it is impossible. Yes some of the building blocks of life have been shown to be produced by chemical process but that is far shore of life. That is like saying that demonstrating that bricks can form by some type natural process that you could get an entire house by some type natural process.   

The simple fact is that there is that the only evidence for abiogenesis is the assumption that it had to have occurred because the only alternative has already been rejected by another assumption. The makes a belief in  abiogenesis a 100% act of faith.

 

Mutations can result in increases in useful genetic information.

Another assumption is that mutations can result in increases in useful genetic information. While mutation can result in new traits they always represent a loss in the total amount of usable information in the organism. In fact it is the accumulation of mutations in the individual the leads declining health and ultimately death as one ages.

The usual response is that natural selection causes the increase in useful genetic information. However natural selection is just a filter and filtering out the worst mistakes won’t increase the amount of useful genetic information. It’s like taking pure water and dumping rat poison into it. No matter how much you filter that water you will not get milk.

The simple fact is that there is no evidence that mutations can result in increases in useful genetic information, and thus accepting that it happens is nothing short of an act of faith.

 

Absolute Naturalism

Absolute Naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon can be explained in term of the laws of nature. While starting an investigation of a given phenomenon with the assumption that it can be explained in term of the laws of nature makes sense holding to that assumption as absolute principle goes beyond reason, because there is no proof that all phenomenon can be explained in term of the laws of nature. In fact it is impossible to prove that all phenomenon can be explained in term of the laws of nature because there could always be an unknown exception.

Furthermore it is not really possible to explain all known phenomenon in term of the laws of nature. While it is possible to force a totally naturalistic explanation on all phenomenon, in many cases it involves ignoring facts or assuming that the phenomenon is some form of mental delusion. 

 

As a result of the fact that absolute naturalism cannot be proven and that there are reasons to question this assumption believing absolute naturalism is by definition an act of faith.

God does not exist

 

The ultimate assumption of Evolution is that God does not exist making it an intently atheistic theory. Yes you can believe in God and Evolution as well but it is not a logically consistent position.  The simple fact is that the main goal of the Evolutionary Big Bang to man view of origins is to explain our existence apart from God.

 

If you need proof that this is the case just look at some the reactions to Intelligent Design. If the main goal of Evolution was not to explain our existence apart from God, Intelligent Design would not be attracted the way it has even if the theory were bad. There would not have been the law suits to keep Intelligent Design out of public school curriculum.

 

The point is that this is an assumption and not based any evidence. Logically you can’t disprove the existence of God since it is impossible prove a universal negative. The most one could potentially do is show that God is not needed to explain the world around us. The result is that the Evolutionary assumption that God does not exist is an assumption made without evidence and thus believing this assumption is act faith.

Conclusion

The simple fact is that believing in the Big Bang to man evolutionary view of origins requires a lot more faith than most people tend to think. There is a lot about this view that cannot be supported by direct evidence and therefore must be accepted on faith. Faith that the evidence claimed is there and accurately interpreted, faith way evidence is presented, faith in the people and faith that all of the assumptions are right.

 

As result it has to be concluded that the Big Bang to man evolutionary view of origins has to be considered a faith based belief system as much and possibly more than any religion.

 

 

 

 

 

------ Charles Creager Jr.

Genesis Science Mission

Online Store

Genesis Mission

Creation Science Talk