Welcome    Why Christianity?    The Cosmos    The Bible    Absolute Truth    God and Suffering    God's Eternal Plan    

The Cosmos

Please try to view this article in its entirety.  While they are thorough, they are not exceptionally long.

How was the earth formed?  How did life originate?  Either substance in some form of matter or energy has always existed, or there is a Creator that has always existed.  The first is no more exceptional a thought than the latter.  Men's theories say that something cannot be created out of nothing, but they try to paste the formation of the universe to a point in time.  If something cannot be created out of nothing, something has always been.  This should be at least as hard to accept (that something has always been, but was never created) as to accept that there is an eternal being who existed from forever to forever.  Men's theories culminate in the idea that the created must have always been and must always be because our lives are defined by time.  But what if the created was not that which is eternal but a Creator is eternal, understanding eternity in a way in which we cannot, and that this Creator established a temporal creation, one in which we being part of it cannot fully understand eternity? 

In the beginning…so starts the creationists view of the earth.  Young earth creationists believe that the earth can be only 6,000 or 10,000 years old.  They believe that God created the universe in a mature state.  The evolutionary creationist believes that the universe was created by God, but that God used evolutionary forces to create life over millions of years.  Their views are not very much different than that of the atheistic evolutionist, except that they believe in a creator.

It would appear that the Bible agrees with the young earth creationist theory.  Jesus said in Mark 10:6, “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.”  This appears to show that humans were present from the beginning.

Atheistic evolutionists believe that there is no God, that the universe has formed over billions of years under the forces and laws which govern it.  They believe that the complexity we see around us today has formed by chance and natural selection.  According to the pure evolutionary model, life on earth began over 3 billion years ago when amino acids, by chance, fell into the correct order to produce some sort of Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) or Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).  These strings of ribonucleic acid then happened to, by chance, fall into the correct order to produce a cell.  This cell then, based upon natural selection and survival evolved into a multi-cellular organism.  And so, from evolution and the drive to survive, these microscopic organisms developed into all life on earth as we know it.  As you can see, the odds of such an event occurring are very questionable, but that alone does not disprove the evolutionary theory.  We will progress understanding that this is a possibility, not having a way to yet discredit it. 

Have scientists ever observed evolution?  If not evolution, they have at least viewed adaptation.  The moth which became darker in color after the industrial revolution to be camouflaged against the soot covered countryside is one example.  So we know that evolution of this degree does take place.  Adaptations of this degree take long periods of time, so to evolve from a microscopic organism into a horse must take huge amounts of time. 

Is there evidence in the fossil record that such evolution or adaption has ever taken place?  Scientist have organized fossils to make what they believe to be a timeline of human evolution.  A detailed site about this may be found at http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html#chart.  Each class of human ancestors is dated to have existed at different times in the history of the earth.  This means that the ape-like skeletons cannot be easily dismissed as monkeys, and that evolution must be occurring, right?  Unfortunately, it is a little messier than this.  Carbon dating can only be used to date things to about 50,000 years old.  After this, there is so little carbon 14 left that it cannot be measured.  So to date things older than this, radiometric dating methods must be used.  Radiometric dating is based on the properties of radioactive decay.  For example, over millions of years, radioactive uranium breaks down into lead.  The amount of time it takes for this to happen can be predicted fairly precisely.  In order to use this data to date something, one must know the original ratio of the parent element (Uranium) to the daughter element (Lead).  It is impossible to know what the original ratio was since there were no original measurements taken.  Carbon dating is questionable for the same reasons.  The ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in the earth’s atmosphere and life is dependent upon the amounts of nitrogen and carbon in the atmosphere at the time and the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth. Therefore scientists calibrate their systems constantly to try to get accurate dates.  This calibration is not minor.  Dates may be changed by millions of years by this calibration.  See:  http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html.  In order to show that radiometric dating is not accurate, we look at the 4.5 billion year dating of the earth and moon.  The moon is receding from the earth at a velocity of approximately 3.8 cm per year.  If the moon and earth had started in contact and the moon moved to its current position at that velocity, it would take less than 1.5 billion years.  This would prove the 4.5 billion date impossible.  Some scientists argue that this rate was much less in the past, allowing a 4.5 billion date.  The scientists argue that the tidal pull of the earth on the moon would cause the moon to speed up, increasing the rate at which it moves away from the earth.  Even then, in order to get the necessary rates, they have to assume that there was once a super-continent (http://www.talkorhigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html).  The theory will not work with the earth in its current configuration.  I would seriously question these calculations.  How would one model a turbulent body of fluid (the one ocean) that is more immense than anything that has ever been observed or modeled? 

We can see that there is a lot of supposition in the dating game and the evolutionary process.  Recently, scientists dated a planet at 12.5 billion years, and the planet is 7200 light years away  (http://www.msnbc.com/news/937147.asp.)  How can they possibly do this?  It is all supposition.  The same type of supposition that is used to date the earth and promote evolution.  However, we have not yet shown definite evidence that this theory is wrong.  Where then is this evidence? 

Here is the one fact that proves that there is a God and that creationism is the correct view.  Are you ready?

The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.  (http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/nsfoutreach/htm/n50_z2/pages_z3/01_pg.htm)

How can this possibly prove that there is a God?  This is one minute, technical, but incredibly influential fact.  Think about it for a minute.

Scientists used to think that the universe was created in a Big Bang where all of the matter was concentrated in a space the size of a pea or a basketball or something relatively small.  The matter then exploded, spreading out and forming the universe.  However, they believed that the gravity of all the matter in the universe would cause it to collapse on itself, forming the small basketball of matter again.  This cycle would repeat indefinitely, and would have always repeated indefinitely.  This would mean that force, matter, energy, etc… would have always existed and that there was never a need for creation or destruction on a macro level.  Time would be only something we perceive, but the universe was eternal and did not need a creator.  However, in light of this one little fact, this cannot be so.  The universe had to have a beginning.  Gravity should cause the expansion of the universe to decelerate.  Some other force or constant must exist that counteracts the gravitational force and causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.  One could argue that it did in fact come from a big bang, but that would mean that there was a universe before this one.  And if there was a universe before this one then it could not have been governed by the same forces and constants or it would not have ended, as this universe will not.  Why would we make such an assumption?  Only in order to try to refute the idea that there could be a Creator or God.  Our lives exist in the fact that there are unchanging laws that govern nature.  When we plant corn we know that corn will grow.  When we breed cattle, we know that we will get more cattle.  Everything produces after its own kind and follows the exact same laws of science every time.  Otherwise, we could have no such thing as science.  No, to throw out the assumption that laws and forces were different, when we have no evidence to suggest such is only an attempt to dodge the bullet that there must be a God.  Man does not want to accept that there must be a God because he does not want to submit to God.  At some point, men’s efforts to make up stories and refute creationism must be questioned.    Where did all of this stuff come from then?  Where did the matter and energy come from?  Where did the forces and laws come from that govern this universe?  They must have originated from something greater than the universe.  One might find the acceptance of an eternal God and the rejection of an eternal universe hypocritical.  However, it is no more hypocritical than the converse. 

The idea that substance has always been and always will be is hard to fathom.  However, so is the idea that there is an eternal being.  In response to this, think about why humanity would possess the idea of a God or gods.  For all recorded history, and in practically every culture this idea is shared.  The idea that energy/matter was born from nothing is impossible.  However, the idea that there is some being beyond our level of understanding is not.  It is just as Einstein's relativity reveals.  A man living on a three dimensional globe may only perceive two dimensions because of the enormity of the globe.  This does not remove the fact that there are three spatial dimensions.  Einstein showed that while we perceive movement in only three dimensions, space is composed of more dimensions which we do not perceive directly.  (Scientists now believe that we live in a universe of up to 9 dimensions.)  So it is with the Creator.  The only explanation is to go outside of humanity itself (which cannot possibly supply an answer for the created) and find that there must be a Creator which is of a higher, or even completely different level of understanding than humanity.

You will find these arguments may not necessarily prove one thing as disprove another.  By eliminating choices you may isolate the correct answer.  Are more proofs needed to establish that there must be a creator?  Then here they are:

1)  The Beneficial Universe – The universe around humans supplies humans with everything that they need to survive and more.  The environment is perfect for life.  The earth is in a very small range of distance from the sun which could support life.  The atmosphere is perfect to support and protect life.  It supplies the perfect temperature range, and reflects harmful solar rays away from earth’s surface.  Evolutionists might tell you that the universe is beneficial to humans because humans evolved to live in these exact conditions.  Why then has life not evolved to live in other conditions?  Why is there no life anywhere else of which we know?

2)  Perception of Beauty – Evolutionists would tell you that all of our desires we possess are based on the evolutionary need to survive and proliferate.  However, this is not true.  They would tell you that we perceive things as beautiful because they are beneficial to our survival or genetics.  However, think about things that are beautiful and enjoyable that are not conducive to our survival; for instance, a snowy forest.  It may be beautiful, but it would not be beneficial to our survival to stand out in a very cold environment for long periods of time.  Just think of all of the other instances. 

3)  The solar model – Benjamin Franklin once made a model of the solar system.  His atheistic friend saw it and asked him who had made it.  He replied that no one had made it.  Of course the atheist knew that someone had to have made it.  It could not have spontaneously generated.  Franklin then made the point that the true solar system had to have a maker just as the model did.

4)  Spontaneous generation – Since 1600 or 1700 it has been understood in the scientific community that spontaneous generation does not occur.  Mice do not form out of old cloth.  They simply like to nest in old cloth.  Life does not come from inanimate matter.  However, science would now like to make the argument that it is possible.  Think about the odds of some 20 amino acids falling into the correct sequence to form a chain of RNA.  Then that RNA being in the exactly correct sequence to form a cell.  Then that RNA adapting over time so that we have all the life on the earth today.  Think about how long it has taken scientists to decode the human genome.  It has taken a very long time to decipher it even though it is already formed.  Think of the chances of this immensely long chain falling into place by chance.  The chances are astronomical. 

5)  Complexity – Continuing the previous point, think about the complexity and specialization of all life on earth.  Aside from the complexity of million cell organisms, think about the complexity of the earth and it’s ecosystem.  Scientist could not recreate it when they tried Biosphere 2.  That was a complete failure.  The set up that is beneficial to life must not have come about by chance.  Look around you.  You must be convinced that all that you see did not fall into place from the random formation of a few amino acids. 

6)  The second law of thermodynamics states that energy tends toward a higher state of entropy.  When you burn a piece of wood, that energy is given off as heat, but that heat cannot be put back together to form a piece of wood.  Useful energy is turned into non-useful energy.  This means that eventually all useful energy would be used up and therefore there must have been a starting point, a beginning.  Some scientists argue that this phenomenon does not prove a beginning, that it simply shows in a closed system, our solar system for instance, this phenomenon occurs.  They argue that this law is not true for the universe as a whole, that possibly this waste energy could be converted back into useful energy somewhere.  However, none have ever observed this happening.  Why should we believe something that we have no evidence for?  The second law proves that there must have been a beginning, just as the accelerating expanding universe. 

It may be seen that neither argument can ever be made completely water tight to every person.  However, the STRONG proofs for creation exceedingly dominate those for evolution.  God left enough proof that those who seek might find Him, but only enough that if someone wants to reject the evidence they may.

As Romans 1:20 says, “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,” so we are without another explanation.  There must be a God and “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible,” says Hebrews 11:3.  The evidence for a Creator is much more compelling than for evolution.  There are many flaws with the evolutionary argument.  It cannot explain a beginning as the creationist theory can.  As the song says, “There is a God, He is alive, in Him we live, and we survive.”  And as Acts 17: 28 says, “’For in him we live and move and have our being.’”