Creation vs evolution

Earlier this summer, we did a four-part series at the church on Genesis 1-2, looking at Creation and how the Bible stands strong, being backed up even by the scientific evidence, which is conspicuously lacking in the evolutionary atheist camp.  It was probably the most well-received Bible study series I’ve taught in the past year.  You can listen to the series here, also followed by a link to a gospel study from Genesis 3-4.

Genesis 1a– Creation and the big bang

Genesis 1b-Creation of life

Genesis 2a-Creation of humanity, a closer look

Genesis 2b–Creation of marriage and family

Genesis 3-4 “The first family and sin”

The entire series is in English and Romanian.

17 thoughts on “Creation vs evolution

  1. Morsecode, I would encourage you to listen to the series, and then comment on it. It answers the question of these types of evidence for evolution. Just a brief answer in writing to one of your points, though. A fossil when it is found proves one thing: that something died. It is supposition to look at a fossil and claim that it had offspring, and it is ridiculous to look at a fossil and claim that it had offspring of a different kind from itself.

    1. Evolutionists almost always claim that the fossil record is evidence of evolution, and I was simply making the point that fossils don’t provide any evidence of change of life forms, either instantaneously or over time. They just provide evidence that there something lived and died.

  2. Part 3 in the series answers in detail the genetics argument. It takes longer than I have time to write about this afternoon here. As for comparative biology–the reason for similarities between lifeforms is the fact that all lifeforms have a common designer. He is God. There is evidence in all of His creation that He is there, in the fact that every life form shows evidence of having been designed. Genesis 1 says 11 times that every life form was created to reproduce according to its own kind. As you observe nature and test that Genesis 1 theory of everything reproducing its own kind, you find that is exactly what happens. While macroevolution (changing from one kind of animal to another) has never been observed, nor can it be, because it never happened. The complete lack of transitional forms in existing animals also points to the fact that it is not in the process of happening in the world now, either.

    1. You’re playing a game common to evolution’s proponents, looking at something in the genetic code and claiming it is something that it isn’t. This “broken gene” is only supposed by evolutionary scientists to have previously been for the purpose of breaking down vitamin C because they presupposed it to be so, not because they observed it to be so and saw the change happen. I can think of far more than a dozen such examples of things you might share with me as “evidence” of evolution in the genetic code, but in each case you won’t supply scientific evidence that what you say is true. In each case, you will assume facts not in evidence and ask people to accept the claims on faith.
      And there are no transitional forms, either in the fossil record nor in existence today. Every animal kind named in the book of Genesis is still in existence in the same form as it has been in for all of history. The transitions exist in only one place–the imagination of evolutionary scientists. They draw their charts and graphs and make their claims, but when their views are subjected to scrutiny, they fall apart every time.

    2. As I predicted, you provided an unsupported “we know…” kind of statement about what the evolutionary theorists presuppose. And of course, you didn’t answer my statement that this would be a decrease in genetic complexity, not an increase in genetic complexity, which would be required for evolution to a higher life form to take place. There is no example of an increase in genetic complexity ever taking place when mutations occur.

  3. But let’s pretend for a moment that shamelessly atheist were right, and that this broken gene that used to break down vitamin C now no longer works. That would not be an example of increased genetic material. It would be an example of LOST genetic material. For a single-celled organism to evolve into a being able to read and understand these words would require the opposite–an increase in genetic complexity. The evolutionary geneticists have zero examples of that happening. They always point to things like bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics, because they know that to a layperson that might sound like an advance; but even those cases are the result of a loss in genetic complexity, not a gain.

    1. There is no example of increased genetic complexity. You can play with words all you want about increasing the size of the genome, but there has never been a change in nature that resulted in a species increasing the complexity of its gene code. That doesn’t happen. No reputable scientist even claims to have evidence that it does–just that they believe it does because of the microevolutionary process they observe.

      1. Rearranging and copying genetic code is not what would be necessary for a one-celled organism to evolve into a being of trillions of cells. An increase in genetic complexity would be required for that.

    2. “We have 11 copies of the NANOG gene which resulted from such copying events over our evolutionary history. Only one is still working.”
      Again, this is supposition, not observation. That “evolutionary history” must be presupposed; it has not been established by evidence, nor can it be. You have to first believe it to be true, and then use that belief as evidence of your conclusions. You did not observe this history of genetic change over time. You just accepted the theory because it sounded reasonable to you.

  4. I look forward to seeing if anyone will listen to the series this post is about and respond to it. So far there have only been arguments from people who have not even heard any of what they are responding to.
    I do like it, though, when the atheists debate me on the issue of the origins of the universe. Not because I expect to persuade them. After all, they didn’t arrive at their conclusions as a result of logic or examination of the evidence, so they can’t be expected to change based on those things. And further, their blindness, I believe, is a spiritual blindness, not intellectual blindness. That’s why even some really intelligent people believe in disproved ideas like the big bang and macroevolution.
    But the reason I want them to debate me is because it is an enjoyable exercise to show the readers how true science supports the biblical account of creation and how true science is always at odds with the philosophy of atheism.
    People need to be shown that. Most people who believe in evolution just believe it because a professor or teacher or relative or Discovery Channel documentary told them it was true. They didn’t ever scrutinize it as a philosophy and didn’t ever look into the question of “What does the scientific evidence say?” I believe most people who believe in evolution aren’t in the ardent God-hater category who will continue to believe in the science fiction of evolution even after seeing the truth. Most will, I think, believe the truth of creation science if they examine the issue at all. Once they see how evolution as a theory implodes upon itself every time the evidence is openly displayed, they will have their eyes opened.
    And it is this majority of people I seek to persuade–the ones who want to believe the truth, but have been misled by teachers who pretended to be knowledgeable as they told them the earth is billions of years old and life evolved from proteins that evolved from nothing, and that they are of no more value than the germs they washed off their body when they showered this morning.

    1. Again, you refuse to listen to the messages and claim I haven’t provided evidence. There are a few hours of seminars this post is about for you to listen to and find that.
      Of course, I haven’t claimed that creation is a new idea, just a well-supported one.
      As for your third comment, if you haven’t heard atheistic evolutionists claiming that human beings are of no more value than the lower life forms, then you haven’t read very many textbooks, because that is a common drumbeat theme of their writings.

    2. The quote about people who believe evolution because they didn’t scrutinize it doesn’t apply to you–you would be in the other group I talked about–the ones who will believe in evolution in spite of the evidence against it.

  5. hello.

    has this study taken place in Cluj, Romania? it would have been interesting to participate, but I do not remember being announced anywhere.

    anyways, it is nice to have the audio recordings, I will look forward listening to them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s