Get back to the Bible.  It is the same yesterday today and forever.  Evolution is only a “theory”  that is why they call it the “theory of evolution”.  It simply amazes me how quick people are to believe something that nobody has even proven.  When we have the real thing with the Lord and His Word.  Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution. 

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.

God bless you!!! :):)

Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to support punctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.  That is why it is called a “theory”  God bless you!!!:):)

Alleged Evolutionary Ancestors Coexisted with Modern Humans

by Marvin L. Lubenow, M.S., Th.M.

Shock waves are reverberating through the halls of evolution at the recent redating of the Java Solo (Ngandong Beds) Homo erectus fossil skulls. These alleged evolutionary ancestors of modern humans were assumed to be old. The new data—a maximum of 46,000 years before the present (YBP) with a probable date of 27,000 YBP—strongly suggests that Homo erectus coexisted with anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) long after Homo erectus was supposed to have become extinct. These finds conflict with the concept of human evolution.

The discovery was reported in Science, 13 December 1996, by a team headed by Carl Swisher III and G. H. Curtis of the Berkeley Geochronology Center. They dated two fossil sites in central Java, the Solo (Ngandong) site and the Sambungmacan site using two different dating methods, electron spin resonance and mass spectrometric U-series. Through this project, Swisher and his group were seeking new evidence for one of the most vexing problems in anthropology—the origin of modern humans.

Since their discovery over 60 years ago, the Solo fossil skulls have troubled evolutionists. The problem is that they have a clear Homo erectus morphology (shape) but their geological context seemed to demand a very late date. Evolution cannot tolerate this combination. Although this same combination of erectus-like fossils with a very late date exists in Australia, evolutionists solved the problem there by arbitrarily calling those erectus-like fossils Homo sapiens. This semantic solution could not be applied to the Java Solo fossils because most paleoanthropologists had already agreed upon their Homo erectus status before the very recent date was determined.

Between 1931 and 1933, a Dutch team found human cranial remains of 12 individuals in a 1/2-meter-thick sandstone deposit by the Solo River. Two human leg bones were also found. Although the site was only 50 by 100 meters square, over 25,000 vertebrate fossil fragments were also found. Between 1976 and 1980, Gadjah Mada University (Java) excavated an adjacent 25 by 14 meter area recovering human cranial remains of two more individuals some human pelvic fragments, various human artifacts, and an additional 1200 vertebrate fossils. The human fossils recovered are not complete skulls, but are called calvaria, calottes, and cranial fragments. (A calvarium is a skull without the bones of the face or lower jaw. A calotte is just the top of the skull.)

Since their initial discovery, every aspect of the interpretation of these Solo fossils has been controversial. Early on, it was obvious that the Mesolithic cultural assemblage found in association with the fossils (which Kenneth Oakley called the “bone industry of Azilian facies”) would allow a date of 10,000 YBP or less, since Australian aborigines continued to live at an essentially Mesolithic cultural level until recently. ¹

Evolutionists, seeing how awkward such a late date would be for the theory of human evolution, responded to the cultural evidence by claiming that the human fossils and the artifacts were not in association and were not from the same stratigraphic levels. This “after the fact” charge flies in the face of direct eye-witness testimony. While it is true that the fossils were found before many modern excavation techniques were in place, the Dutch Geological Survey was in charge of the entire operation. The famed paleoanthropologist, G. H. R. von Koenigswald, was on hand many times, saw Skull VI (Ngandong 7) and Skull VIII (Ngandong 11) in situ, excavated both of them, and described the cultural items found with the skulls. ²

The history of the dating of the Solo skulls is colorful. Since the original finds occurred well before the advent of radiometric dating, almost all of the dating was based upon the fauna (animal fossils) found with the skulls. The most recent age ascribed to the fossils was about 150,000 to 100,000 YBP. These dating estimates were in spite of the fact that all records regarding the association of the human fossils and the fauna were lost during World War II ³and “… most of the 25,000 fossils from the original Dutch excavations appear to be lost.” ⁴The thought that these erectus-like human fossils could possibly be only 100,000 years old made evolutionists uncomfortable, so some suggested that the fossils and the fauna were not the same age, the human fossils being much older. However, unpublished photographs of the site taken by von Koenigswald clearly show that the human fossils and the vertebrate fauna were in the same geological context. ⁵

Since evolutionists questioned the age of the fauna in the original excavation, some of them toyed with “morphological dating” by computing regression estimates of brain size on time. The result obtained for the Solo people was between 463,000 and 790,000 YBP. ⁶ Later, magnetic polarity determinations seemed to confirm a Middle Pleistocene date of between 350,000 and 700,000 YBP. ⁷ The newer 1976 to 1980 excavations produced 1,200 vertebrate fossils. Based upon this fauna, G. G. Pope estimated that the Solo humans could possibly be as old as one million years. ⁸ It is understandable why a date of 27,000 YBP for the Ngandong Solo people is a shock. Another human fossil site 40 km upstream at Sambungmacan, thought possibly to be as old as 1.3 million years, also gave a new date of 27,000 YBP. ⁹

Classifying the Solo fossils has been as great a problem as dating them. When they were first discovered, von Koenigswald believed them to be “tropical Neanderthalers.” In 1963, Bernard Campbell classified them as Homo sapiens soloensis. Santa Luca, in 1980, classified them asHomo erectus erectus, with Milford Wolpoff declaring that they were not Homo erectus. Still others called them “archaic Homo sapiens.” Because of their obvious similarity to the other Javanese and Chinese “classic” Homo erectus material, most investigators today recognize them as Homo erectus. The Solo fossils do, however, have a larger cranial capacity than does the average Homo erectus skull. For this reason, many evolutionists could not resist the temptation to consider the Solo people as “transitional” between Homo erectus and modern humans. Unfortunately, since evolutionists believe that modern humans arrived on the scene by 100,000 YBP, transitional fossils at 27,000 YBP will not fit.

The condition of the human skulls and the vertebrate fauna argues against their being washed in from upstream. Beals and Hoijer write: “The skulls were all found lying base upward without signs of wear or movement.” ¹⁰ Carleton Coon echoes these facts: “The skulls were all lying base upward and were in perfect condition. They had not been moved or rolled.” ¹¹Swisher et al. state that the nearest upstream mammalian fossil-bearing exposures are 30 km away. He goes on to say that at the Solo site there are “… a few articulated vertebrae and a few crania with associated mandibles …” and that “… both hominid and nonhominid crania show little evidence of abrasion because fragile processes such as the pterygoid plates are preserved.” ¹² Further, human fossils at Sambungmacan, 40 km upstream, are of the same young age. All of this indicates that the fossils were found in their original location.

While at one point in the Science article there is equivocation regarding the human fossils being washed in, elsewhere in the same issue of Science Ann Gibbons writes: “As for the flooding theory, Swisher’s team points out that it’s hard to imagine how 12 crania and other human remains could have moved to the same level and at two sites (Ngandong and Sambungmacan).” ¹³ Referring to the possibility that the fossils might have washed into younger beds, Time magazine says: “Swisher disagrees, arguing that the remains are too well preserved—its fragile structures are generally intact—to have been bumped around in a flood.” ¹⁴

Many later researchers agree with the interpretation of the site by von Koenigswald. The Solo (Ngandong) people were the victims of cannibalism. He writes: “A vast number of different bones of all the animal types were unearthed, but of human remains only a very particular selection whose incidence was certainly not natural.” ¹⁵ All of the skulls had their faces smashed, and all but two had the bottom of the skulls broken open. Von Koenigswald calls them “skull-trophies,” and likens them to the practice of modern head-hunters, such as the Kyaks, who eat the brains to acquire the wisdom and skill of the defeated foe. The skulls were placed there to mark the area. “It seems that even today various tribes in New Guinea demarcate their dwelling-or hunting-grounds in a similar manner. They evidently suppose that the spirit dwelling in the skull can help them defend a particular area against invaders.”¹⁶

Past evolutionist attempts to deny the Solo (Ngandong) people a late date and coexistence with modern humans have been rather successful. Now, the evidence for such coexistence is strong. Chris Stringer (Natural History Museum, London), who holds (wrongly) that the Neanderthals are also a separate species, says: “If the dates are right, we have three different species coexisting at the same time.” ¹⁷ There is more bad news ahead. Evolutionists must now face the fact that there are many late-date Australian fossils almost identical to the Solo (Ngandong) people.

Milford Wolpoff (University of Michigan), commenting on the alleged evolution of an earlier australopithecine into Homo erectus, states: “Disproof could be accomplished … by showing that Homo erectus could be found earlier than the first appearance of the proposed ancestral species… .” ¹⁸ Wolpoff is absolutely right. That is the way paleoanthropology should work.

There is a scientific principle behind Wolpoff’s statement. It is this: “An evolutionary sequence is falsified when a specific form in that sequence turns up woefully outside its proper evolutionary time-frame.” This is what the Solo (Ngandong) people have done.

 God bless you!!!  Merry Christmas!!! :):)

I think that the Lord God answers your question perfectly in Genesis.

The creation account is found in Genesis 1–2. The language of the Genesis account makes it clear that all of creation was formed from nothing in six literal 24-hour periods with no time periods occurring between the days. This is evident because the context requires a literal 24-hour period. The description specifically describes the event in a manner that a normal, common-sense reading understands as a literal day: “And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day” (Genesis 1:5). Further, each sentence in the original language begins with the word “and.” This is good Hebrew grammar and indicates each sentence is built upon the preceding statement, clearly indicating that the days were concurrent and not separated by any period of time. The Genesis account reveals that the Word of God is authoritative and powerful. Most of God’s creative work is done by speaking, another indication of the power and authority of His Word. Let us look at each day of God’s creative work:

Creation Day 1 (Genesis 1:1-5)
God created the heavens and the earth. “The heavens” refers to everything beyond the earth, outer space. The earth is made but not formed in any specific way, although water is present. God then speaks light into existence. He then separates the light from the dark and names the light “day” and the dark “night.” This creative work occurs from evening until morning – one day.

Creation Day 2 (Genesis 1:6-8)
God creates the sky. The sky forms a barrier between water upon the surface and the moisture in the air. At this point earth would have an atmosphere. This creative work occurs in one day.

Creation Day 3 (Genesis 1:9-13)
God creates dry land. Continents and islands are above the water. The large bodies of water are named “seas” and the ground is named “land.” God declares that all this is good. 

God creates all plant life both large and small. He creates this life to be self-sustaining; plants have the ability to reproduce. The plants were created in great diversity (many “kinds”). The earth was green and teeming with plant life. God declares that this work is also good. This creative work takes one day.

Creation Day 4 (Genesis 1:14-19)
God creates all the stars and heavenly bodies. The movement of these will help man track time. Two great heavenly bodies are made in relation to the earth. The first is the sun which is the primary source of light and the moon which reflects the light of the sun. The movement of these bodies will distinguish day from night. This work is also declared to be good by God. This creative work takes one day.

Creation Day 5 (Genesis 1:20-23)
God creates all life that lives in the water. Any life of any kind that lives in the water is made at this point. God also makes all the birds. The language allows that this may be the time God made flying insects as well (or, if not, they were made on day six). All of these creatures are made with the ability to perpetuate their species by reproduction. The creatures made on Day 5 are the first creatures blessed by God. God declares this work good, and it occurs in one day.

Creation Day 6 (Genesis 1:24-31)
God creates all the creatures that live on dry land. This includes every type of creature not included on previous days and man. God declares this work good.

God then takes counsel with Himself, “God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26). This is not an explicit revelation of the trinity but is part of the foundation for such, as God reveals an “us” within the Godhead. God makes man, and man is made in the image of God(men and women both bear this image) and is special above all other creatures. To emphasize this, God places man in authority over the earth and over all the other creatures. God blesses man and commands him to reproduce, fill the earth and subdue it (bring it under the rightful stewardship of man as authorized by God). God announces that man and all other creatures are to eat plants alone. God will not rescind this dietary restriction until Genesis 9:3-4. 

God’s creative work is complete at the end of the sixth day. The entire universe in all its beauty and perfection was fully formed in six literal, concurrent, 24-hour days. At the completion of His creation, God announces that it is very good.

Creation Day 7 (Genesis 2:1-3)
God rests. This in no way indicates He was weary from His creative efforts, but denotes that the creation is complete. Further, God is establishing a pattern of one day in seven to rest. The keeping of this day will eventually be a distinguishing trait of the God’s chosen people (Exodus 20:8-11).  On Day five and six God created all animals on the earth.  Evolution is not proven but simply a theory.  I choose to believe what the Lord God says in the Bible.  God bless you! :):)

It is not the purpose of this answer to present a scientific argument in the creation vs. evolution debate. For scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution, we highly recommend Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. The purpose of this article is to explain why, according to the Bible, the creation vs. evolution debate even exists. Romans 1:25declares, “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.”

A key factor in the debate is that the majority of scientists who believe in evolution are also atheists or agnostics. There are some who hold to some form of theistic evolution and others who take a deistic view of God (God exists but is not involved in the world, and everything proceeds along a natural course). There are some who genuinely and honestly look at the data and arrive at the conclusion that evolution better fits with the data. However, these represent an insignificant percentage of the scientists who advocate evolution. The vast majority of evolutionary scientists hold that life evolved entirely without any intervention of a higher being. Evolution is by definition a naturalistic science.

For atheism to be true, there must be an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence. Although belief in some form of evolution predated Charles Darwin, he was the first to develop a plausible model for the process of evolution—natural selection. Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist. Darwin’s goal was not to disprove God’s existence, but that is one of the end results of the theory of evolution. Evolution is an enabler of atheism. Evolutionary scientists likely would not admit that their goal is to give an alternate explanation of the origins of life, and thereby to give a foundation for atheism, but according to the Bible, that is exactly why the theory of evolution exists.

The Bible tells us, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1; 53:1). The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in a Creator God. “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). According to the Bible, anyone who denies the existence of God is a fool. Why, then, are so many people, including some Christians, willing to accept that evolutionary scientists are unbiased interpreters of scientific data? According to the Bible, they are all fools! Foolishness does not imply a lack of intelligence. Most evolutionary scientists are brilliant intellectually. Foolishness indicates an inability to properly apply knowledge. Proverbs 1:7 tells us, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.”

Evolutionary scientists mock creation and/or intelligent design as unscientific and not worthy of scientific examination. In order for something to be considered a “science,” they argue, it must be able to be observed and tested; it must be “naturalistic.” Creation is by definition “supernatural.” God and the supernatural cannot be observed or tested (so the argument goes); therefore, creation and/or intelligent design cannot be considered science. Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists. As a result, all data is filtered through the preconceived, presupposed, and pre-accepted theory of evolution, without alternate explanations being considered.

However, the origin of the universe and the origin of life cannot be tested or observed. Both creation and evolution are faith-based systems in regards to origins. Neither can be tested because we cannot go back billions (or thousands) of years to observe the origin of the universe or of life in the universe. Evolutionary scientists reject creation on grounds that would logically force them to also reject evolution as a scientific explanation of origins. Evolution, at least in regard to origins, does not fit the definition of “science” any more than creation does. Evolution is supposedly the only explanation of origins that can be tested; therefore, it is the only theory of origins that can be considered “scientific.” This is foolishness! Scientists who advocate evolution are rejecting a plausible theory of origins without even honestly examining its merits, because it does not fit their illogically narrow definition of “science.”

If creation is true, then there is a Creator to whom we are accountable. Evolution is an enabler for atheism. Evolution gives atheists a basis for explaining how life exists apart from a Creator God. Evolution denies the need for a God to be involved in the universe. Evolution is the “creation theory” for the religion of atheism. According to the Bible, the choice is clear. We can believe the Word of our omnipotent and omniscient God, or we can believe the illogically biased, “scientific” explanations of fools.  god bless you! :):)

The Bible does not use the term “caveman” or “Neanderthals,” and according to the Bible there is no such thing as “prehistoric” man. The term “prehistoric” means “belonging to the era before recorded history.” It presupposes that the biblical account is merely a fabrication, because the book of Genesis records events which precede the creation of man (namely, the first five days of creation—man was created on the sixth day). The Bible is clear that Adam and Eve were perfect humans from the time of their creation and did not evolve from lower life forms.

With that said, the Bible does describe a period of traumatic upheaval upon the earth—the flood (Genesis 6-9), during which time civilization was utterly destroyed except for eight people. Humanity was forced to start over. It is in this historical context that some scholars believe men lived in caves and made use of stone tools. These men were not primitive; they were simply destitute. And they certainly were not half ape. The fossil evidence is quite clear: cavemen were human—men who lived in caves.

There are some fossilized ape remains which Darwinian paleo-anthropologists interpret as being some sort of transition between ape and men. Most people seem to think of these interpretations when they imagine cavemen. They picture furry half-men, half-ape creatures crouched in a cave next to a fire, drawing on the walls with their newly developed stone tools. This is a common misconception. And as far as Darwinian paleo-anthropology goes, we should keep in mind that these interpretations reflect a peculiar worldview and are not the result of the evidence. In fact, not only is there major opposition to these interpretations within the academic community, the Darwinists themselves do not entirely agree with each other on the details.

Unfortunately, the popular mainstream view promotes this idea that man and ape both evolved from the same ancestor, but this is certainly not the only plausible interpretation of the available evidence. In fact, the evidence in favor of this particular interpretation is lacking.

When God created Adam and Eve, they were fully developed human beings, capable of communication, society, and development (Genesis 2:19-25; 3:1-20; 4:1-12). It is almost entertaining to consider the lengths evolutionary scientists go to prove the existence of prehistoric cavemen. They find a misshapen tooth in a cave and from that create a misshapen human being who lived in a cave, hunched over like an ape. There is no way that science can prove the existence of cavemen by a fossil. Evolutionary scientists simply have a theory, and then they force the evidence to fit the theory. Adam and Eve were the first human beings ever created and were fully-formed, intelligent, and upright.  God bless you! :):)

There is currently a lot of debate over the validity of creationism, defined as “the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.” Creation science is often dismissed by the secular community and accused of lacking scientific value. However, creationism is clearly compatible with a scientific approach to any topic. Creationism makes statements about real world events, places, and things. It is not concerned solely with subjective ideas or abstract concepts. There are established scientific facts that are consistent with creationism, and the way in which those facts relate to one another lends itself to a creationist interpretation. Just as other broad scientific ideas are used to lend coherence to a series of facts, so, too, does creationism.

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Creationism, like naturalism, can be “scientific,” in that it is compatible with the scientific method of discovery. These two concepts are not, however, sciences in and of themselves, because both views include aspects that are not considered “scientific” in the normal sense. Neither creationism nor naturalism is falsifiable; that is, there is no experiment that could conclusively disprove either one. Neither one is predictive; they do not generate or enhance the ability to predict an outcome. Solely on the basis of these two points, we see that there is no logical reason to consider one more scientifically valid than the other.

One of the major reasons naturalists give for rejecting creationism is the concept of miracles. Ironically, naturalists will typically say that miracles, such as special creation, are impossible because they violate the laws of nature, which have been clearly and historically observed. Such a view is ironic on several counts. As a single example, consider abiogenesis, the theory of life springing from non-living matter. Abiogenesis is one of the most thoroughly refuted concepts of science. Yet, a truly naturalistic viewpoint presumes that life on earth—self-replicating, self-sustaining, complex organic life—arose by chance from non-living matter. Such a thing has never been observed in all of human history. The beneficial evolutionary changes needed to progress a creature to a more complex form have also never been observed. So creationism actually holds the edge on evidence for “miraculous” claims in that the Scriptures provide documented accounts of miraculous happenings. To label creationism as unscientific on account of miracles demands a similar label for naturalism.

There are many facts that are used by both sides of the creation vs. naturalism debate. Facts are facts, but there is no such thing as a fact that absolutely requires a single interpretation. The divide between creationism and secular naturalism rests entirely on different interpretations. Regarding the evolution vs. creation debate specifically, Charles Darwin himself made this point. In the introduction to The Origin of Species, he stated, “I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I arrived.” Obviously, Darwin believed evolution over creation, but he was willing to admit that interpretation was key to choosing a belief. One scientist might view a particular fact as supportive of naturalism; another scientist might view that same fact as supporting creationism.

Also, the fact that creationism is the only possible alternative to naturalistic ideas such as evolution makes it a valid topic, especially when this dichotomy has been admitted to by some of the leading minds of science. Many well-known and influential scientists state that the only possible explanations for life are naturalistic evolution or special creation. Not all scientists agree on which is true, but they almost all agree that one or the other must be.

There are many other reasons why creationism is a rational and scientific approach to learning. Among these are the concepts of realistic probability, the flawed evidential support for macro-evolution, the evidence of experience, and so forth. There is no logical basis to accept naturalistic presuppositions outright and flatly reject creationist presuppositions. Firm belief in creation is no barrier to scientific discovery. Simply review the accomplishments of men like Newton, Pasteur, Mendel, Pascal, Kelvin, Linnaeus, and Maxwell. All were clear and comfortable creationists. Creationism is not a “science,” just as naturalism is not a “science.” Creationism is, however, fully compatible with science itself.  god bless you! <3