Is Evolution True?
This is a video of creationist Kent Hovind addressing some of Bill Nye's evolution views. My husband has been watching a lot of these videos lately and is teaching our boys how to think critically about "evolution vs. creation."
You know, as I think about it, people who challenge the existence of God oftentimes use this as one of their arguments: "But how did God get here? And how can you know He's real if we can't see Him?" They act like if they can stump you with these questions then they have shown how irrational Christianity is.
Okay, sure, so we Christians ultimately have two "unanswerable" questions - questions we will never be able to answer to the satisfaction of an evolutionist. (Of course, the answers are that He was always here and that His creation proves His existence because you can't have a creation without a Creator. But people don't accept these answers because they just don't want to.)
But evolutionists have far more unanswerable questions than we do (and these are just a few):
How do you grow something out of nothing?
Where did the material for life come from if nothing existed in the beginning?
Where did the energy for the Big Bang come from?
One law of nature is that things degrade over time, not upgrade. So how is it that things got more complex and better functioning over millions of years to create highly evolved life and working bodies?
Why do some planets spin backwards?
Each person got half their genes from their mother and half from their father. The genetic material that we didn't get from each parent was lost. Therefore, every generation actually loses half of the parental genes. So then ... how is it that we acquire new genetic information, as evolution says, such as a reptile getting genetic info for growing wings or an ape getting genetic information to turn into a human? Where do our genes get this extra info from if we actually lose genetic information with every generation?
And nature also shows that the animal with any kind of defect is actually the most vulnerable animal in the bunch, the one most likely to get eaten. So if a reptile begins growing a wing, then it's lost some of its reptileness but gained some birdness. This makes it harder for it to function fully as a reptile or as a bird. How then can it survive when a predator comes looking for food? It's a deformed reptile and a deformed bird. Which one gets eaten first: the fully functioning reptile or the deformed one? The fully functioning bird or the deformed one? An evolving animal is more likely to go extinct than to live and pass on its genes.
And if animals change slowly into other animals over many years, what are the odds of them finding another half-evolved animal at the same point in its evolution so that they can mate? What are the odds that their bodies will even match up correctly enough to produce fully-functioning and better-evolved offspring?
We should have found many half-evolved fossils by now (not one or two fake ones or "supposed" ones) if creatures have been evolving over millions of years. Where are they?
Why has evolution stopped? Why are we not seeing any other evolutionary changes in creatures, especially now that people can observe nature and record results? How is it that all the changes seem to have happened before we were able to witness it? Convenient, don't you think! (People want to criticize Christians for believing in a God we can't see or test, while they think it's perfectly acceptable to believe in evolutionary forces we can't see or test.)
Evolutionary scientists start from the premise that there is no God. But the scientific process is about observing and gathering data and letting the results lead you to the answer. So how is it that these scientists can call themselves scientific when they ignore one big possibility (God) right from the start? When they refuse to consider all possibilities? It's no wonder that they have to then force all the data to fit with evolution and why they end up saying "We don't know why" when faced with something that doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. How scientific is that!?!
And the scientific process is also about being able to test theories, do experiments, and duplicate results in order to prove a hypothesis. So how is it that they claim that they have any conclusive, indisputable, "scientific" knowledge about anything that happened "millions of years ago" when there is no way to go back and observe what happened, no way to recreate the conditions, and no way to test their theories about what happened with controlled experiments that they do over and over again until they prove their hypothesis? How can they call the study of evolution "scientific" and say that it's backed up with "science" when it cannot be studied by the scientific process? Why don't they just call it what it is - "educated guesses"?
Why are we here in the first place?
Do we really ultimately matter?
Where are we going?
What does it matter how we live - if we are nice to people or mean - if we are simply cosmic accidents anyway?
What hope do we really have if we have no reason for existing, no God to watch over us, and no place to go after we die?
And they call Christians "unreasonable"!
Evolution: One of the most irrational, unscientific, hopeless, depressing views to have!
I simply can't understand why people fight so hard to promote this view when all it really does is turn us into meaningless, valueless, hopeless, purposeless, directionless, accidentally-alive bags of dust.
Actually, I know why people cling to this view so tenaciously - because to admit there's a God means that they have to change their lives, that they are accountable to Someone. And they would rather be their own gods, even if it holds no hope and makes no rational sense!
Some links to check out (I'll add them as I find them):
What's the Best "Proof" of Creation (3.5 minutes)
Rock layers and fossils prove a worldwide flood (1 hour)
You know, as I think about it, people who challenge the existence of God oftentimes use this as one of their arguments: "But how did God get here? And how can you know He's real if we can't see Him?" They act like if they can stump you with these questions then they have shown how irrational Christianity is.
Okay, sure, so we Christians ultimately have two "unanswerable" questions - questions we will never be able to answer to the satisfaction of an evolutionist. (Of course, the answers are that He was always here and that His creation proves His existence because you can't have a creation without a Creator. But people don't accept these answers because they just don't want to.)
But evolutionists have far more unanswerable questions than we do (and these are just a few):
How do you grow something out of nothing?
Where did the material for life come from if nothing existed in the beginning?
Where did the energy for the Big Bang come from?
One law of nature is that things degrade over time, not upgrade. So how is it that things got more complex and better functioning over millions of years to create highly evolved life and working bodies?
Why do some planets spin backwards?
Each person got half their genes from their mother and half from their father. The genetic material that we didn't get from each parent was lost. Therefore, every generation actually loses half of the parental genes. So then ... how is it that we acquire new genetic information, as evolution says, such as a reptile getting genetic info for growing wings or an ape getting genetic information to turn into a human? Where do our genes get this extra info from if we actually lose genetic information with every generation?
And nature also shows that the animal with any kind of defect is actually the most vulnerable animal in the bunch, the one most likely to get eaten. So if a reptile begins growing a wing, then it's lost some of its reptileness but gained some birdness. This makes it harder for it to function fully as a reptile or as a bird. How then can it survive when a predator comes looking for food? It's a deformed reptile and a deformed bird. Which one gets eaten first: the fully functioning reptile or the deformed one? The fully functioning bird or the deformed one? An evolving animal is more likely to go extinct than to live and pass on its genes.
And if animals change slowly into other animals over many years, what are the odds of them finding another half-evolved animal at the same point in its evolution so that they can mate? What are the odds that their bodies will even match up correctly enough to produce fully-functioning and better-evolved offspring?
We should have found many half-evolved fossils by now (not one or two fake ones or "supposed" ones) if creatures have been evolving over millions of years. Where are they?
Why has evolution stopped? Why are we not seeing any other evolutionary changes in creatures, especially now that people can observe nature and record results? How is it that all the changes seem to have happened before we were able to witness it? Convenient, don't you think! (People want to criticize Christians for believing in a God we can't see or test, while they think it's perfectly acceptable to believe in evolutionary forces we can't see or test.)
Evolutionary scientists start from the premise that there is no God. But the scientific process is about observing and gathering data and letting the results lead you to the answer. So how is it that these scientists can call themselves scientific when they ignore one big possibility (God) right from the start? When they refuse to consider all possibilities? It's no wonder that they have to then force all the data to fit with evolution and why they end up saying "We don't know why" when faced with something that doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. How scientific is that!?!
And the scientific process is also about being able to test theories, do experiments, and duplicate results in order to prove a hypothesis. So how is it that they claim that they have any conclusive, indisputable, "scientific" knowledge about anything that happened "millions of years ago" when there is no way to go back and observe what happened, no way to recreate the conditions, and no way to test their theories about what happened with controlled experiments that they do over and over again until they prove their hypothesis? How can they call the study of evolution "scientific" and say that it's backed up with "science" when it cannot be studied by the scientific process? Why don't they just call it what it is - "educated guesses"?
Why are we here in the first place?
Do we really ultimately matter?
Where are we going?
What does it matter how we live - if we are nice to people or mean - if we are simply cosmic accidents anyway?
What hope do we really have if we have no reason for existing, no God to watch over us, and no place to go after we die?
And they call Christians "unreasonable"!
I simply can't understand why people fight so hard to promote this view when all it really does is turn us into meaningless, valueless, hopeless, purposeless, directionless, accidentally-alive bags of dust.
Actually, I know why people cling to this view so tenaciously - because to admit there's a God means that they have to change their lives, that they are accountable to Someone. And they would rather be their own gods, even if it holds no hope and makes no rational sense!
Some links to check out (I'll add them as I find them):
What's the Best "Proof" of Creation (3.5 minutes)
Rock layers and fossils prove a worldwide flood (1 hour)
Fossils and the Flood (3.5 minutes)
Science Confirms the Bible (1 1/2 hours)
Atheists will hate this video (1 hour)
The Grand Canyon proves there was a flood (13 minutes)
Ken Ham on "Why They Won't Listen": Part 1 (20 minutes) ... Part 2 (20 minutes) ... Part 3 (13 minutes)
Kent Hovind Creation Series (long videos, 1-2 hour each):
Part 1: The Age of the Earth
Part 2: The Garden of Eden
Part 3: Dinosaurs and the Bible
Part 4: Lies in the Textbook
Part 5: The Dangers of Evolution
Part 6: The Hovind Theory
Part 7 part1: Questions and Answers
Part 7 part 2: Questions and Answers
Ken Ham on "Why They Won't Listen": Part 1 (20 minutes) ... Part 2 (20 minutes) ... Part 3 (13 minutes)
Kent Hovind Creation Series (long videos, 1-2 hour each):
Part 1: The Age of the Earth
Part 2: The Garden of Eden
Part 3: Dinosaurs and the Bible
Part 4: Lies in the Textbook
Part 5: The Dangers of Evolution
Part 6: The Hovind Theory
Part 7 part1: Questions and Answers
Part 7 part 2: Questions and Answers
