Since when does belief in God constitute a lack of confidence in science? Pardon my style, but you will see some discussion here from the Creation/Evolution page in the menu. You should recognize some of the arguments from that page if you have been there before now.
I believe in God and the Word of God as described in the Bible. I also work every day with computers at my job, drive an automobile to work every day, do not float into space when I try to walk outdoors, and use thousands of products in everyday life that are the result of the applications discovered and developed through the use of scientific knowledge. If you will look at the top of this page, you will notice dinosaurs. Yes, I believe that dinosaurs once walked the earth, and I believe that the earth is no older than 10,000 years - probably less. Now, if you listen to the evolutionists, I should be living as the Amish people live because I cannot believe in science and God at the same time. This assertion is absurd.
The discussion is not about whether those who believe in God are too ignorant to believe or understand the principles of science, but about how the laws and principles of science came to exist in the first place. The question is not whether there is a law of gravity, but where the law came from. When God created the universe, the stars, planets, solar systems and the laws that govern their interaction with each other, He set things up as we see them. Just because I believe God did the creating in a much more feasible way than described in "the explosion of nothing into everything", this does not make the properties of light any different than those observed by an atheist or evolutionist.
Which type of evolution explains the presence of the universe and how it came to be as it is?
Evolution is kind of a tricky word. It has as many as six definitions, depending on the subject matter, and none of them can be connected to the modern concept of Evolution in any scientific manner. Five of the six definitions attempt to describe some thing or condition that brought about our situation, but have no basis in fact. Only one can be shown to have happened, and this one is used by evolutionists to imply that the others are a proven fact. Let's take a look at them.
There are six types of evolution that people are talking about when they discuss this subject. The problem is, five of them are not provable, demonstrable, or even logical. Here is a list:
Stellar and Planetary
Of these six, only number 5, the next to last one, has been observed. We have seen changes in kinds of animals - like the varieties of dogs, though they are still dogs. I still don't call that evolution, but for the sake of the discussion, let's accept that as a step "forward" in evolution. Now, because of that acceptance, evolutionists can say that evolution is a fact (silently implying that all have been observed).
The trouble here is that the other five are not proven, so the statement that evolution is a fact is not true for all types of evolution. However, in school, how many students make that distinction? For them, the statement that any evolution has been observed makes it a foundation for belief that all forms are proven.
It takes faith...
Cosmic evolution, the bang and supposed start of the universe we know today, is someone's idea. No one observed this and any description of how it may have happened is merely a guess. The foundation for the guess is theories (general and specific relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, etc.), and extrapolations from evidence viewed through telescopes.
Chemical evolution, the creation of all the elements through some pretty fancy fusion (which doesn't explain the elements above iron (Fe)) is still unexplained. Stellar and planetary evolution concepts are merely extensions of the concepts of matter, gravity, and the possibility that things formed as a result of enormous amounts of time and some pretty fancy expectations.
Isn't this called design...?
Then there is my favorite - organic evolution. Not the part about the unimaginable strings of coincidences that supposedly brought us to this stage of our existence, but the poof that started organic life from non-organic chemicals, fed it something (remember, there is nothing else organic to eat yet), taught it to replicate itself for continued survival, yada, yada, yada. This is followed closely by macroevolution where this "miracle" was not satisfied with its "chance-given" life, but changed through "beneficial mutations" (an oxymoron, by the way) into something bigger, better, faster, smarter, and in some cases, totally different.
Sounds like a religion to me...
So, please explain to me how a thinking person can "know" that these happened without a shred of "scientific" proof or even a possibility of logical "scientific" explanation for the astounding events that had to transpire to make it happen. Sure, I believe in unexplainable events when I believe in God, but my belief is a declared faith, not a fabrication spoken as though it were truth in order to deny the existence of God. Not only that, but when I look around at the world, I see evidence of a Creator that makes more sense than the "scientific" explanation of the same evidence. Also, the people of this country pay taxes to have the unproven evolutionary line of nonsense taught to the same kids they take to church to learn about God.
Problems for Evolution
Instead of making Creationists jump through imaginary hoops, let's set some up for the Evolutionists.
In a book called Tornado in a Junkyard by James Perloff, the author makes a statement on on page 132 that:
By comparing the number of meteorites in the earth to the rate at which they fall, we should be able to roughly estimate our planet's age. Meteorites' scarcity suggests that Earth is only a few thousand years old. They are found only in very recent (uppermost) terrain. If the geologic layers slowly formed over millions of years, as evolutionists say, they should be full of meteorites.
This is confirmed by Sean D. Pitman, M.D., in his site at The Geologic Column in the section called Meteorites in the Geologic Column. Briefly, he says that while meteorites in the geologic record are rare, they are not completely absent:
For example, looking at the layers in the Grand Canyon in particular, according to mainstream geology, it would take an average of 100 million years to deposit about 100 feet (~30 meters) of sediment (link). Sandstone weighs about 2,323 Kg/m3. There are 3 billion cubic meters in a 30 meter layer of sediment covering 10 km2. That's a total weight of almost 7 trillion Kg. Of this, 140 million Kg should be made up of meteoric material ( 0.002%). Another way to look at the same problem is that there should be enough meteoric material to make up about 60,000 cubic meters of sediment in 100 million years (0.002%).
Now, this might not seem like a significant percentage, but it is quite significant given that only a handful of meteoric rock fragments have ever been found in the layers of the geologic column. There should be literally tons of them. Yet, geologist Davis Young (1988, p.127) writes that, "The chances of finding a fossil meteorite in sedimentary rocks are remote. It is not to be expected." G. J. McCall, in Meteorites and Their Origins (1973, p.270), said, "The lack of fossil record of true meteorites is puzzling, but can be explained by the lack of very diagnostic shapes and the chemical nature of meteorites, which allows rapid decay..."
It seems that rapid decay would have to be very rapid indeed - especially since far more delicate fossils are discovered far more commonly than are meteorites within the geologic column and fossil record.
It seems that evolutionists would rather appear to be blithering idiots than recognize that the evidence overwhelmingly points to Creation.
Mississippi River Delta
This well-known river delta provides evidence that, when interpreted scientifically, confirms some Biblical history. Under item 43 - RIVER DELTAS, the site at Evolution Handbook declares the following:
Did you ever see an air-view photograph of the Mississippi River delta? You can find an outline of it on any larger United States map. That river dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cubic meters] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico every year, at the point where the river enters the gulf. For this reason, the State of Louisiana keeps becoming larger. Yet, for the amount of sediment dumping that occurs, the Mississippi delta is not very large. In fact, calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years.
The Mississippi-Missouri river system is the longest in the world and is about 4,221 miles [6,792 km] in length. Because, below Cape Girardeau, flatland inundation along the Mississippi has always been a problem, over a hundred years ago, Congress commissioned *General Andrew A. Humphreys to make a survey of the whole area. It was completed in 1861. The English evolutionist, *Charles Lyell, had earlier made a superficial examination of the river and its delta and declared the river system to be 60,000 years old since, he said, the delta was 528 feet [1609 dm] deep.
But Humphreys showed that the actual depth of the delta was only 40 feet. Below that was the blue clay of the Gulf, and below that, marine fossils. His discovery revealed that the lower Mississippi valley used to be a marine estuary. Using Lyell's formula for age computation, Humphreys arrived at an age of about 4,620 years, which would be approximately the time of the Genesis Flood.
Oil Reserves Pressure
At Science vs Evolution, article 33 - OIL PRESSURE makes the following claim:
33 - OIL PRESSURE - Frequently, when oil well drillers first penetrate into oil, a geyser ("gusher") of oil spews forth. Studies of the permeability of the surrounding rock indicate that any pressure within the oil bed should have bled off within a few thousand years, but this obviously has not happened yet. The excessive pressure within these oil beds refutes the "old earth" theory and provides strong evidence that these deep rock formations and the entrapped oil are less than 7,000-10,000 years old. The great pressures now existing in oil reserves could only have been sustained for a few thousand years.
"Why do we see an explosive gusher when a drill strikes oil? Because oil, like natural gas, is maintained in the earth at enormously high pressure - about 5,000 pounds per square inch at a depth of 10,000 feet. Supposedly oil and gas have been lying there for millions of years. But how could they have lasted that long without leaking or otherwise dissipating those extreme pressures." - James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 136.
If we make the same analysis regarding natural gas deposits, where does the logic lead? Similarly, that logic also applies to oil leaks that are "polluting" the ocean. If these leaks have been going on for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, why aren't the oceans polluted beyond use by now? Where are the oil slicks? See article 34 on the same site Science vs Evolution for a plausible explanation - they haven't been there that long:
34 - OIL SEEPAGE - A 1972 article, by *Max Blumer, (*"Submarine Seeps: Are They a Major Source of Open Ocean Oil Pollution?" in Science, Vol. 176, p. 1257) offers decided evidence that the earth's crust is not as old as evolutionist geologists had thought. *Blumer says that oil seepage from the seafloor cannot be a source of oceanic oil pollution. He explains that if that much had been regularly seeping out of the ocean floor, all the oil in offshore wells would be gone long ago if the earth were older than 20,000 years.
In contrast, geologists have already located 630 billion barrels [1,002 billion kl] of oil that can be recovered from offshore wells. But if our planet were older than 20,000 years, there would be no offshore oil of any kind to locate and recover through oil rigs.
What does it all mean?
So, rather than listen to the evolutionists tell us their system is factual and ours is nonsense, ask them to please use the facts to explain how something supposedly so old could only work if it was actually young?
Disagree? Find an error? Contact us at email@example.com and give us your view.