Creation: All Things New Again

A guest post today from my brilliant husband, Gregg.

The 6 types of evolution taught as fact in the average public school today, the first 5 being types of Darwinian evolution which are preached as religious beliefs, and the 6th being simple modifications within kind and not even really “evolution” are:

Cosmic evolution
Stellar evolution
Chemical evolution
Abiogenesis—Life from non-life
Macro-evolution

Micro-evolution (Variations within kind, not really evolution)

A Big Fish Story

Imagine you are visiting the beach. You look out at that vast ocean and suddenly you think to yourself, “I want to live under the ocean.”

Now, you are going to have to go through some pain. You are going to have to jump into the water and force yourself to learn how to breath water. You must leverage unknown “evolutionary forces” to change your nose and mouth into gills and your air breathing lungs into water breathing lungs.

Then, you are going to have to survive. Your body, which was perfectly designed to live on the land is not at all well engineered for survival under water from your limbs to your eyes to your skin. Just about any predator that lives under the ocean is faster than you and a great deal more toothy. You must use unknown “evolutionary forces” to change your hands and feet into fins and such. You must evolve eyes that can see better under water. You must adapt skin that won’t get all wrinkled and so forth.

And you need to eat. You knew what fruits and meats and berries were good to eat when you were a landlubber. What plants and animals are safe to eat under the ocean? Any idea? Often the brightly colored ones are the most deadly. How will your digestive system handle all of that raw sea food and all of those different microbes and parasites without first cooking your meal?

Assume you figure all that out. Fine. So now, you’re a fish. Did you plan your transformation well enough to be able to — reproduce? Did you bring your spouse along for the ride? Or will you find a fish you can marry in the vast, vast ocean who — first of all likes you and — is genetically and mechanically compatible for interspecies reproduction?

Now, turn this ridiculous fairy tale around and start with a fish.

The fish decides that he wants to leave the ocean for which he was perfectly designed in order to walk around on his fins — which were certainly not designed to support his weight on dry land — and breath air and eat land food and so on and so forth.

Just as an aside, have any of you, dear readers, ever seen what happens to a fish when it tries to breath air? Right. So have I. Sort of similar to what would happen to you when you try to breath water.

Then, our fish makes that leap, finds something to eat, and finds someone to marry, and manages to avoid all manner of predators and dangers along the way. All of this had to have occurred in a single generation in order for even the neo-Darwinist theories to be slightly plausible.

This is the fairy tale that Darwinists teach in public schools each and every single day without ever even once addressing a single logical or scientific problem that the theory encounters. There is something fishy about that. The story simply doesn’t hold water. It has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with the methodologies or the disciplines of science. It has nothing to do with facts or observation. It has nothing to do with empirical evidence. It has nothing to do with truth.

It is just the biggest “fish story” ever told in history.

The Time Problem and Darwinist Rationalizations

Previously, I covered the Darwinist worldview, some of the social ills Darwinism is directly tied to from kidnapping to genocide, and I have revealed numerous problems with the prevalent theories of both Cosmic and Stellar Evolution. I have also discussed the implausibility and fallacy of assigning living traits and characteristics to nonliving things. Before I dive into the impossibility of Chemical Evolution which is the next chapter in the Darwinian myth, I have to provide some additional context.

Last Sunday, I discussed how Darwinists attribute traits that our Designer actually posesses to things He created like nature and our planet. Kind of a problem. The other problem they constantly have with every one of their silly theories is there isn’t enough time — even using their horribly flawed timeline. After I lay the time groundwork in this post, subsequent posts will focus specifically on the Age of the Earth.

In order for Darwinism to be true, they need lots and lots of time. As recently as 30 years ago, school children were still being taught that the universe and time were infinite. This was according to the Constant State Theory or the Enduring Universe it was sometimes called. Infinity was very comforting to Darwinists because it allowed them the wiggle room of infinite possibility so that no matter how improbable their half-baked theories, they were still possible.

Then we got better telescopes and better ways of storing, sorting, accumulating, analysing, and correlating data. There was now too much evidence that the universe was, in fact, finite and had a beginning, and that the beginning, in cosmic terms, was fairly recent.

This presented a gigantic problem for evolutionists. The anointed apologist for Darwinian theory, the late Stephen Jay Gould, worked tirelessly to refine just how Darwinian evolution might have occurred given a universe that was, at most, 20 billion years old. The result was the holy writ entitled Punctuated Equilibrium, a 435 page rationalization of how unguided, random, unthinking processes can pause, now and then, and take time to reflect, and plan, and project, and perfect their craft without any guidance, planning, pausing, reflecting, designing, or thought.

At a cosmic level, the age of the universe, the age of our galaxy, the age of our solar system, and the age of the earth all present major limiting factors to Darwinists. They need plenty of time to have passed in order for “slow, gradual, random changes” and “Natural Selection” to have evolved all known life in the entire universe. (By the way, all known life in the entire universe is found on our planet.)

Because of the Hubble Constant, their math doesn’t even work out anymore. There are stars that are moving far too fast; stars that are far too distant, stars that are far too bright; etc., ad nauseam. Informed scientists know this. Many have abandoned the accepted theories and are in dedicated pursuit of the truth. Many others refuse to do so because of the metaphysical implications alternative theories present. The latter group has the loudest voice.

Still Time to Evolve

In order for Darwinism to be true, our planet has to be billions of years old. The age of the earth as estimated by Darwinists has changed many times just in the space of my lifetime. As I write this, the most accepted number is 4.2 billion years old. That is a very long time. Even though it isn’t an infinity, it still allows Darwinists to cling to the notion that no matter how improbable their half-baked theories, they are still — somehow — possible.

But what if the earth is much — MUCH — younger?

What if an infallible method of dating objects was discovered tomorrow and demonstrated that the earth was precisely 6,500 years old? Would this bring Darwinists to abandon their idiotic theory? What about 5 million years? How about up to 2.1 billion years old and not a second older, thus cutting the 4.2 billion exactly in half? Would this change their minds? Any of those spaces of time are far too young for Darwnian evolution to have occurred.

The fact is the probability of the occurrence of the smallest possible theoretical life form is only 1 chance in 10^119,879. The years required for the smallest theoretical life form to evolve would be 10^119,841 years or 10^119,831 times the assumed 4.2 billion year age of the earth.

That is a gigantic number. If those years were pennies and you were to stack that number in dimes from here to our nearest star, that stack of dimes would go there and back seven times.

These are well known facts in the scientific community. Yet these facts have not caused Darwinists to abandon their silly theories in droves.

The Truth

I believe that the reason that you don’t find rocks embossed with “Made by God^TM Copyright 6,500 years ago, Patent #1, ” on the bottom of them is because our Creator does not want to interfere with our ability to choose. He allows room for faith. He allows us to believe on Him, put our trust in Him, and seek Him, in order to better offer Him what He deserves. God allows room for us to exercise our freewill, to seek the truth or to believe a lie.

In light of that, God has left us with mountains of evidence that His story of creation, as described in the book of Genesis chapters 1 to 11, are actually true. In subsequent posts, I will reveal a tiny sampling of that evidence.

The truth is that no one either living or dead has come up with a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be, how the galaxies and stars and planets follow their orderly paths, how life on our planet even exists — without having been created. There is no sound theory in existence that leaves out the Architect.

I encourage you in this post Christmas season to reflect on the wonder of God’s creation. Reflect on how He stepped into his creation in the form of his only Son, Jesus, who was sent into this fallen creation to redeem it. Reflect on how that Being whose mind is infinite and whose ways are as far outside of our understanding as the east is from the west loved you that much. He loved you so much that he sacrificed His very own Son, His very own blood, in atonement for our wickedness and perversion of His perfect creation.

Scripture assures us that one day soon, God will remake the heavens and the earth into a new heaven and a new earth. Just as, soon, we will enjoy a brand new year, God will remake the perfection of His original creation and make all things new again. And the wonderful thing is that He has invited you to join Him there.

I hope to see you there.
Gregg

Resources:

Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism

Pin It