Evolution Versus Creation

One of the main issues in society today that very strongly affects the theology of each and every individual living on the face of this earth is the issue of Darwinian Evolution vs. Biblical Creation.  The side that is the most popular is obviously the evolution camp.  However, are they really that accurate in their claims.  I will let you decide that as I give you a full synopsis of both sides of the argument below.  Evolution is a theory that has existed for over 2000 years.  We do not know exactly when it was first conceived as a thought, but we do know that the theory became widespread during the time of Aristotle who popularized it after one of his students told Aristotle about the theory.  recent evidence shows that theory was around even 300 years before Aristotle and new evidence now shows that the theory of evolution originally started in the form of a revelation.  Evolution did not even come close to receiving majority support of the public until the time of the enlightenment in the 19th century.  This was when Charles Darwin did a study in the islands of Galapagos and noticed the similarities between different species of animals.  In the twentieth century, 15 years after the Scopes trial, Evolution became the accepted dogma of science.  For the past sixty years, it has been the only theory of the origin of the world that has been taught in the public school and college science classrooms.  Is evolution really as reliable as scientists claim, or does it just gain support because much like many other developments in life it is a system of faith- a dogma or creed of which scientists have to have more faith in than they to in believing that God created the world.  Before I proceed further in this, let me first of all state that there are two different types of evolution.  First of all, there is microevolution which states that species over time change within their own features of their species but that they do not evolve from one species to another.  Then there is macroevolution, which is the belief system that says that species do change over time and evolve into different species.  Microevolution is what macroevolutionists usually are referring to when they say that without evolution, many of the biological theories and laws would not be as unifying as they are.  That statement is absolutely true when it comes to the belief in microevolution.  However, macroevolution is a complete opposite faith of the laws of science.  Evolution contradicts the three laws of thermodynamics which are eseential to the study of science.  These laws are that: You can not pass down what you do not have genetically, energy can not be created or destroyed, and that everything in nature is moving from order to disorder.  How can an ape which does not possess the same genetic coding of humans, pass down genes that would lead to the dudden appearance of a race of humans?  Think of how energy can not be created nor destroyed by natural processes.  This is a bullet right to the heart of the theory of evolution, for evolutionists assume that everything operates according to the principle of uniformitarianism, which asserts that the Earth is a closed system and that there are no factors outside of nature that could have brought the universe into being.  When thinking of how illogical and how anti-tehological this principle us, I laugh at the absurdity of such a weak and feeble argument.  Think of it clearly, there has to be some outside non-natural force somewhere in the universe in order for the world to have come into existence.  Evolutionists have to say that nature is the supernatural force.  If nature is the supernatural force, then we need to start calling it supernatural.  If it is supernatural, then it is the principle of which we all must call God.  If nature is the principle of which we call God, then we(as a part of the evolutionists claim of the unity of macroevolution) as a part of nature are supernatural in and of ourselves.  If we are supernatural, then why do laws of science govern our everyday lives.  When it comes to the test of reason, evolution falls by the wayside as just another rediculous system of faith used to try and disprove the historicity of the Genesis account of creation.  When we consider the third law of thermodynamics, we see that the evolutionists basically do not have a leg to stand on in their crummy little system of faith theory.  Evolutionists claim that we evolve from worse to better over time and that  everything is moving from disorder to order.  A distinct contradiction to the third law of thermodynamics.  In creation, you have the same laws applied to whoever you think the Creator may be.  However, I remind you that these are laws of nature and that the Creator thus would have to be supernatural.  As stated above, if there is no creator outside of the system, then the system itself is the creator which theologically makes absolutely no sense at all.  In order to refute this idea, evolutionists have come up with the argument that "the cosmos is all there is, was, and ever will be.  Still in such a case nature would have to possess supernatural powers which would force it to be defined as something other than nature, for if it has always been and always will be then the fact of the matter is that it contradicts the law of cause and effect.  But evolution somehow has managed to maintain its drive into the minds of many people today and is a popular theory of science.  The claims of evolutionists are that there is tons of evidence that proves evolution.  While microevolution is obviously proven true by the fossil record, macroevolution is embarassed by fossil findings.  Shortly after he came up with the theory of evolution, Charles Darwin quoted, "I have full faith and confidence that my theory will firmly be supported by the fossil record.  However, if you do not find at least 200 missing links (transitional fossils) within the next 20 years- I want the scientists who come after me to forget the theory for if such turns out to be the case, then I am willing to admit that I am wrong.  Darwin said this with assurance that they would find tons of fossils within the next twenty years.  However, 140 years after Darwin made the contributing theory of natural selection to the belief in evolution, there has not been a single unquestionable missing link found.  Rather, there are only a handful of highly questionable transitions of which evolutionists themselves can not come to agreement upon.  But the science supported by the theory of evolution is the only science taught in the classrooms.  From the time children are five or six years old, they are taught that the earth is billions of years old.  Evolutionists use radiometric dating as their support for this.  However, radiometric dating has four assumptions which can not possibly be proven as more than just assumptions.  These are that the half-life(the amount of radioactive decay in an element) occurs at a constant rate for each element, that it is possible to know the ratio of parent to daughter elements, that there were no daughter elements when the clock was set in motion, and that the clock is a closed system which means that no factors outside nature can alter the clock.  Evolutionists claim that they have tested the theory of whether or not the half-life is a constant in the laboratory.  However, since when can the laboratory produce the effects of a worldwide flood(which all scientists believe happened at some time).  They think they casn know the ratio of parent to daughter elements, but how do they know that they do not just have a small portion of what is really out there as far as the supply of that element/isotope.  They claim that the pirnciple of uniformitarianism allows room enough to prove that there were no daughter elements in the beginning and that no outside factors altered the clock at any time.  However, how do they know that it is purely natural, because they weren't there.  Just like I can not know whether or not it was created by a supreme being, because I was not there.  Whatever the case, In order for evolution to be true- then some principle beyond nature  had to have at some time brought the universe into being and whether you call this principle God or the Big Bang- the fact is that it transcends nature and thus the theory of uniformitarianism goes right down the tubes.  Evolutionists in recent years have started to realize how rediclous their claims of purely natural evolution on this planet are.  They have now started concocting new theorys. One such theory is the theory of spontaneous generation, which states that the evolution of species happens all of a sudden and only lasts about 100 years.  That really makes sense that everything just narutally happens to fall into place with such order and design and that it decides on its own to do that in a very short matter of time compared to what geologists call geochronology.  Other evolutionists such as one of the world's most famous Carl Sagan, now realize that even if the earth is billions of years old, the theory of macroevolution does not have a leg to stand on on this planet.  So now he says that aliens must have brought us here after we evolved on other planets. One of the most famous evolutionists Robert Gastrow himself has spoken out with honesty in saying that evolution will never stand up against creation in a court of law.  One famous evolutionist said that the more he studies evolution, the more it seems to convey antiknowledge than knowledge.  All of this evidence equates together to lead to the inevitable truth that evolution is just another system of faith- and it is explicitly a system of a lot more faith than one must have in order to believe in Creation
.  In order to learn more about how evolution affects the beliefs of the individual on ethical issues such as abortion, racism, etc.-click here