Forum Comments

What Are Your Favorite Pieces Of Evidence For Or Against Evolution?
In Discussion Questions
Mar 04, 2019
That depends on Atheistic Evolution versus Theistic Evolution. If we're talking Atheistic, Then they are as follows: 1. How did the universe ultimately come to be? Without an ultimate creator, atheists are left with two, (possibly three, but we won't discuss infinite universes separately...) options. The first, and possibly most widely accepted, is the Big Bang. This theory suffers from multiple issues, ( some of which have already been discussed here... e.g. the light-time travel problem) but foremost involves tracing the ultimate source of the initial "speck" it had to start somewhere, or be created by something, unless it itself is eternal, a theory we will discuss in a moment. (Some may respond to this "Well, who made God!?" however, if there was someone who made God, we would worship that someone, however, God is eternal, and not created, that's why he's God... anyway, moving on....) The second option they have, is an eternal universe, which is, if possible, more wrought with issues than the Big Bang. All of the evidence we can turn up in the universe points to it's being finite, that is, NOT eternal. The earth's magnetic field points to an age of only around 6000 years, the sun's distance from the earth points to an age of only at most 20000. All of these are a far cry from 4.5 billion years, much less "infinite" length of time. The universe, as we know it from the evidence, simply could not last forever. 2. Second, I would ask: "how did life come to be?" once again, atheistic evolutionists are left with a single option, a theory which was disproved hundreds of years ago: "Spontaneous Generation" I won't go to deep in detail here, but you simply can't get life from non-life, which is absolutely required for evolution to work. A primordial soup coming out of a "Big Bang" simply could not contain, or create life. Nevertheless, atheistic evolutionists are forced to believe it could, because their religion, evolution, demands it. If THEISTIC evolution is the focus, then my favorite evidences vary in approach. Largely theological in nature. 1. Where, in scripture, do you find the time necessary for evolution to work. The Hebrew is very clear regarding the literal 24-hour days of creation, and leaves no massive gaps where millions of years could be fit in. The Hebrew is also very clear regarding the historical nature of the Genesis account. God created the world in six 24-hour days, using miraculous creative abilities only He possesses. People of Bible times were just as smart as we were, and if God had done it differently (I'm assuming here that we all believe God never lies) he surely wouldn't have been so misleading in his account of creation. Either God isn't all truthful, or maybe he did exactly what he said he did, created the world in six literal days in the relatively recent past, NOT using evolution. 2. What reason do you have to believe evolution, since we already have a historical record by the One Who created the world? Considering evolution needs God to work (as we discussed earlier) what reason does anyone have to believe in a theory that is continually defended for the very reason that scientists don't want to believe in God. ( Richard Dawkins pointed to evolution as allowing atheists to actually explain the origin of the world.) Evolutionary scientists continually interpret science and evidence through the lens of their atheistic world view, and since evolution is currently their best explanation, they are forced to find a way for the evidence to support it. The bottom line is, evolution is a religion, not science, since it cannot be observed or repeated. Likewise, Creation is a religion, since it cannot be observed or repeated either. I choose to believe creation, because the very One who created the world left us a written record of how he did it, a written record which is supported by the evidence we find in the world. Evolution has no such record, and instead relies on their interpretation of the evidence (a very flawed one, in my opinion, which I would be happy to discuss).


Worthy Contributor
Living Fossil
More actions