Creation or Evolution

Many have questioned where we came from or our origin. Why are we here?

What is the purpose of life? Where or why did it all begin? It is particularly

important what one’s viewpoint is concerning this area as one’s viewpoint will

determine in whom or in what his faith lies.

If one’s viewpoint is based on evolution, they are denying the existence of an

Almighty God and believe that man happened by accident. One who believes

Creation as stated in Genesis 1:1 acknowledges that there is a God and that we

were created to have fellowship with Him. It has been stated that if one can

believe the first four words of the Bible- In the beginning God-, he is likely to

believe the rest of the Bible is true. Therefore, if one does NOT believe the first

four words of the Bible are true, then he is not likely to believe the rest of the

Bible either. Let’s take a closer look at not only the evidence which is interpreted

to prove evolution but also at the problems of evolution.

The philosophical basis of evolution started in 1500 A.D. with humanism which

presents man as becoming better and better. Then came rationalism following

humanism which holds the “I won’t believe it if I can’t see it“ attitude, especially

in relationship to God. This prepared the soil for Darwinism (which was laid out by

Charles Darwin) to be quite convincing due to the groundwork laid by the

 2

philosophies of the day. His evolutionary theory, thereby, was readily accepted by

the public.1

Evolutionists have their “proofs” that uphold their theories. As you may already

know, evolutionists claim that we evolved from monkeys. If this were the case,

then “we are throwing peanuts at our relatives on our visit to the zoo” (special

quote by Pastor Johnson). Assuming that we evolved from monkeys because we

might have some similarities in our look, is like seeing two books on a shelf,

having the same type of paper , the same cover , but the thickness and the words

are different, and then one who doesn’t know anything about books assumes that

the thicker one had evolved from the thinner one. 2 Obviously, you would say that

assumption is impossible, and it does not make any sense, but if my argument was

that both books look similar, according to evolution, it should make sense. In the

book Why not Creation, Arthur C. Custance states,” Resemblance and relationship

are by no means the same thing”.3 Scientists know that it is biologically impossible

for a simple cell to reproduce. When someone is convinced of a preconceived

idea, they tend to be biased in their thinking.

The desperation and dilemma of the evolutionist’s search for a means by which

evolutions could have come about is shown by the fact that have been forced to
 3

select mutations. They did not select mutations because they offered good logical

possibility, but because those things which had seemed to offer good possibilities

had all been eliminate. The problem with this theory is that mutations almost

always degenerate instead of evolving. What has been observed of mutations is

that practically all are degenerative, and when they are extensive. they are likely

to bring about destruction of the organism .4 For example, the chance of a9 man

winning the lottery 1,000,000 times in a row is about the same chance mutations

would have to be beneficial as to evolve. Let’s take the example of a production

factory. If a factory that produced bicycles had a malfunction in the computer,

then the bikes may come out with a broken handlebar. The belief that if enough

select mistakes were made that eventually the bike would come out with a spare

tire mounted in the right place, and then come out an Apple Mac, then as a F-350

truck, and finally as a F-22 Rapture jet is hilarious and ridiculous. It makes just as

much sense to believe that bird underwent mutations producing what we now

know as a rabbit. The fact is, no human being was there to testify our origin, but

we do see that God was there, because he spoke and created man and breathed

into his nostrils the breathe of life (Genesis 1:1, Genesis 2:7).

Another “proof” of evolution is the use of fossils. Throughout the years many

fossils have been found. Some are fossils of animals, others might be fossils of fish
 4

trees, plants etc... In Siberia, the remains of many animals have been found.

Among these have been some which were frozen so rapidly that the hair and even

the flesh of some species was in good enough condition for sled dogs to eat and

enjoy. This rapid freezing and staying frozen is hard to explain by conditions

observed today..5

The Bible says in Genesis 7:17-24,” And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon

the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

(v20) Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail: and the mountains were

covered.(v21) And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of

cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and

every man:(v22) All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the

dry land, died.(v23) And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the

face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping thing, and the fowl of

the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained

alive, and they that were with him in the ark.(v24) And the waters prevailed upon

the earth an hundred and fifty days. It is very important to note that the whole

earth was flooded and not only parts of it (v19). As you can see these verses give

the account of the Flood. This explains how fossils could have been fossilized in a

short amount of time. Evolutionists exclude the flood and say it took millions of
 5

years for fossilization.

Have you ever come across different books and one says earth is 9 billion years

old and then another says 355 million years old, and so on? I must say this first,

that with all these estimations being different, even a difference of 1 million years

would be significant! In his book, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Thomas F.

Heinze states,” Evolutionist maintain that older rocks contain fossils of animals

which are simpler; whereas younger rocks contain fossils of animals which are

more complex. Here we find our first problem. In most mountain regions on every

continent there are many examples of strata with fossils where less complex

fossils are stacked on top of more complex fossils. It would be natural to think that

the strata on top are more recent than the strata underneath, but since they are

“less evolved” they are called older. The problem of how these rocks were laid

down earlier or climbed on top of how rocks laid down later is so serious for the

evolutionists, that to resolve it, they say that the rocks on top did not form there

by sedimentation but came from some other place. This is possible in the case of

actual thrust faults which are relatively small amounts of rock which have been

pushed over older layers, but that would mean countless millions of tons of rock

would have to have moved, sometimes for hundreds of miles, to find themselves

on top of “most recent” strata. Even this might occasionally be possible if we were
 6

dealing with broken and twisted layers, but it is often smooth, even strata –in

many cases thousands of square miles in area—many parts of which show no

signs of wear or breakage from the trip, but from all evidence seem to have

formed in place.”6

Another-way evolutionists use as evidence for an aging earth would be using

radioactive dating. In the book Why not Creation, R. H. Brown made a good point

when he stated,” In approaching any body of scientific literature, it is well to keep

in mind the unavoidable tendency of an investigator to harmonize the information

available to him with his general world view. The human mind is designed to

integrate and summarize its observations into generalized principles and

viewpoints. This characteristic is necessary for the development of understanding

and capability. Because of their cultural and educational background, most of the

radiocarbon specialists have a world view that is based on uniformitarianism and

progression evolutionary development of life.”7

First of all, whether the radioactive material be carbon, potassium, uranium, or

some other substance, the general method is the same. The substance which

breaks down by shooting off atomic particles must be accurately measured, and

the production of this breakdown must be accurately measured. Then by knowing

 7

the rate of disintegration we can assume it to have been constant throughout the

rate at which it presently burns. If the candle has always burned at that speed,

and you guess right at its original length, you can be quite accurate. You can never

know for sure, however, that these assumptions of speed and original length were

correct.8

Heinze stated,” Another major problem is that the original element and the

product of radiation have differing degrees of solubility in the various mineral

solutions contained in the ground water, and it is impossible to be sure how much

of each has been carried away during the ages, a problem which is fantastically

compounded if one accepts the millions of years which are generationally

presented. In addition, however, there is also a problem of one or the other

element being washed in from elsewhere to further reduce the method’s

accuracy.”9

More factors add on to revealing earth to be much younger than many realize.

For example, if the original pair of people had appeared a million years or so ago,

as evolutionists believe, this reproduction rate would allow a present population

greater than could be packed into the entire universe. Another example is found

the mass the sun uses as it produces energy. We find that the sun loses mass
 8

4.289x1012 g every second to energy. Therefore the sun loses mass 1.353x10 20 g

every year to energy.10 With that information, that’s one puzzle piece that doesn't

fit evolution’s theory, for if the earth were billions or even millions of years old

then it would be logical to think that earth would have been a baked potato

because there is no way that there would be any form of life on earth as earth

would have been swallowed up by the sun long ago.

The Bible does not state the age of world; consequently, several opinions are

held by creationists. The Bible simply states that God created the world in six days

and rested on the seventh and that God declared the seventh a day of rest. The

word “day” appears to have been meaning 24-hour days because in the rest of the

Bible the word day refers to a typical 24-hour day. It is also very important to

realize that God does not live in a time manner in which we might image. An

example of this is found when Jesus was talking with the Jews in John 8:57-59,”

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen

Abraham? (v58) Jesus saith unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before

Abraham was, I am. (v59) Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid

himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so

passed by. As you may have noticed Jesus’s answer to the Jews was “I am” (v58)

which refers to the present participle, He didn’t answer I was because that would
 9

have a past participle indicating time. So, in other words, we can image it like the

world being like a published book to God, and God is currently in every page. So

that right there can remind us that God is already in your tomorrow. With all that

to say, I believe that God would use “days” for men to have an interpretation of

the length of time. Most Creation scientists would agree that the earth is between

six and seven thousand years old.

In the Bible you will never find a verse that contradicts another verse. Men have

attacked God’s Word. In Genesis chapter one you find the devil attacks Gods Word

when he says” Yea, hath God said. . . (Genesis 3:1) Today, even with all the new

technology coming out, the devil is still using the same old tricks as he did in the

Garden of Eden. That is how evolution came about; men started questioning God’s

Word.

We see the fall of man was solely based on pride. We see in Genesis 3:5-6,” For

God doth know that in the day ye shall eat thereof, then your eyes shall be

opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.(v6) And when the

women saw the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and

a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat,

and gave also to her husband with her, and he did eat. See in verse 5 how man
 10

believed the devil’s lie that he could be as god. This is the same concept in

evolution’s theory that man is becoming better and better. God hates pride, the

Bible refers to pride as an abomination to the Lord– Proverbs 6:16b-17a,” . . . an

abomination unto him. A proud look . . .Every sin in some way has to do with

pride, even when someone doesn’t accept Christ as Savior is a sin, and that sin is a

produce of pride (Matthew 12:31). Evolution leaves no hope for the sinner and

since it does deny the existence of God, it puts man in the position that he is on

his own and even indirectly calls man an accident. That would mean that the

evolutionist is even calling even himself an accident. Romans 1:22 says,

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” And we see that today.

I Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Another thing

we find in studying God’s Creation is that it is very orderly. The more one studies

the earth. the more he finds that the Bible and Creation have “no missing links.”

Have you ever taken time to look at the stars, watch the sunset over the

horizon, or maybe visit the Grand Canyon? You clearly see that it couldn’t have

just come about by a “big bang,” but that God spoke and BANG! It appeared.

It is up to you to decide if you will put your faith in God or evolution.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House

Company, 1972.

Arthur C. Custance, Why Not Creation?, Presbyterian and Reformed Co., 1970.

R. Kippenhahn, Discovering the Secrets of the Sun, Wiley Press, 1994.

 Endnotes

1
Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House Company,

1972, p. 12, 13

2
Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House Company,

1972, 17

3
Arthur C. Custance, Why Not Creation? Presbyterian and Reformed Co., 1970, p. 194

4
Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House Company,

1972, p. 58, 60

5
Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House Company,

1972, p. 29

6
Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House Company,

1972, p.25,26

7
R. H. Brown, Why Not Creation, 1970, p. 80

8
Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House Company,

1972, p. 31

9
Thomas F. Heinze, The Creation Vs. Evolution Handbook, Baker Book House Company,

1972, p. 31, 32

10
R. Kippenhahn, Discovering the Secrets of the Sun, Wiley Press, 1994