What About Evolution?6 min read


Logical Inconsistencies

Below are given a few logical inconsistencies with evolution. 1). The Big Bang Problem: It is common knowledge that what was before the Big Bang is an unknown. But how can a theory of origins be considered viable when its most original point is undefined? Evolution requires faith to believe. 2). In the Beginning, Dirt: Rather than give an Almighty God the credit for what is here, atheists give lifeless matter God-like qualities. It merely operates on a longer time-scale. Is matter God? 3). Order From Disaster?: If a print-shop exploded, a dictionary would not be formed, not even eventually, because disaster scientifically can not create order; this has never been observed or tested (real science is observable and testable). 4). Which came first?: Did male or female evolve first? If one did evolve first, reproduction could not happen. They had to evolve at the exact right place at the exact right time with the right gender all by chance in order to properly evolve. Did the ability to breath or the need to breath evolve first? Did blood, the heart, or the need for blood evolve first? Evolution says that things evolve according to their need, but this is paradoxical if it is scrutinized.

Missing Links

Charles Darwin said regarding missing links: “As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!” Evolution depends, not on minor variations within a certain genus nor on the alleged age of the earth, but on undeniable and abundant transitional forms. In reality, the number of transitional forms should be almost the same as the number of common species, yet this is so far from the truth. Archaeoraptor, Piltdown man, Neanderthal, Lucy, and such – these have all been proven fraudulent or have a scientific explanation denying their status as missing links. Missing links have been called ‘missing’ for a reason, because every form presented before the scientific community is not an undeniable transitional form. The very fact that missing links have to be found and that they are not found automatically in abundance proves beyond doubt that macro evolution did not happen and is not based on science… unless people are willing to have more faith than those who simply believe in God.

How Old Is the Earth?

Not only are missing links a problem for evolutionists, but the age of the earth is a problem. 1). The sun is shrinking, which means that millions (let alone billions) of years ago, the gravity and heat would have been far too immense for earth to even exist. 2). Because of the consistent decline of the magnetic field of earth, studies have shown that the heat produced even 25,000 years ago would have made life impossible (Dr. Kent Hovind – Seminar Notebook). 3). Dating methods are not absolute and based on several assumptions; in fact, studies have shown that carbon dating is only effective up to 50,000 years. And when a date from various dating methods is procured that contradicts the preconceived notions of the evolutionists, they reject it and use another method to get the date they desire. This is not science. 4). The man who invented carbon dating concluded that earth would reach atmospheric equilibrium (of C14) by 30,000 years of it’s existence. The earth has not reached equilibrium. Why? Perhaps it is under 30,000 years after all. 5). The rock layers could not have formed over time, because fossils have been found spanning several layers, meaning the layers had to form quickly around the fossil. So many more proofs could be given, and they can be found on several websites. How could evolution be possible if the earth is young?

What Is Evolution Really?

If only variations can be seen and not transitions of kind, how can (macro)evolution then be considered scientific? After all, science is observable and testable in the here and now. So what is evolution really? It is simply a worldview that gives no basis for morality (except opinion) and no meaning to life. It gives man a reason to live according to his own standards and enjoy pleasures without accountability to a Creator. Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist) said, “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.” Most have approached this debate with the assumption in mind that God can’t exist, nor do they want Him to exist as this next quote shows by Sir Julian Huxley: “I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origins of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.” Evolution is only a belief that people want to have; and in reality, this is all it can be because it gives no meaning to life except “eat, drink, and be merry; for tomorrow we die.” How sad if this were the only explanation to life! How sad when humans are told they are worthless animals, that life is pointless, filled with tragedy, and yet that this is all life has to offer us. Evolution would be life’s greatest tragedy if it were true.

But look at what the Christian has: 1). Meaning: Knowing that we are made in God’s image means that we were made to be special. This means that life filled with tragedy (which was because of our sin) is not all we have to live for. Instead, it means that we have a solution to evil through Christ; there is a Solution to guilt before God. That is forgiveness through Christ. 2). The Christian also has Assurance: True believers will never become atheists because they know God personally and know for sure that their eternity is safe in the arms of Christ. 3). Believers have a Saviour: Though all have sinned and have defied God in every way, God Himself in the form of Christ Jesus offers all salvation through His death. Rather than living with guilt of sin and traveling on the road to eternal punishment for it, the believer is forgiven through Christ and can rest assured that he has eternal life free from sin.

Evolution is a frightening belief, for it makes man himself god, even though he is evil in nature and prone to failure every day. Without God, there is no absolute Authority, and all is subject to chance – yes, even the laws of nature that keep us alive. It would be a scary thing if life was this subjective. However, even if evolution were true, the Christian has nothing to fear except ceasing to exist. But if God is true, the evolutionist has great reason to fear, and he must make sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that God doesn’t exist. But this is impossible, unless he is all-knowing; for God may exist outside of his realm of knowledge. So will you take the evidence?

Leave a Reply