The recent Ham-Nye creation debate’s premise was: does the creation theory of origins have better answers for today’s modern scientific age? More precisely, “Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern, scientific era?” However, the debate question really wasn’t discussed much. Nye had other fish to fry.
I hope to prove to thinking people that scientific creationism has better answers for the questions posited by scientists, be they evolutionists or creationists.
Note that the debate title referred to “origins.” However, evolutionists run from that topic as if their hair was on fire. They want to start the creation/evolution discussion at Darwin’s warm mythical pond and focus on non-life becoming life. That’s slime-to-slug-to-sloth-to-scholar evolution, or, expressed another way, molecules-to-monkeys-to man. But I insist on knowing the origin of the universe and how the little pond arrived when nothing existed!
Evolutionists, not wanting to open that can of worms, tell us that cosmology is different from Darwinian evolution. But if words mean anything, origins must deal with origins so how did we get here?
What’s the origin of the universe? There are only four possibilities that explain our presence in the universe: (1) The universe created itself, but then that is contrary to the First Law of thermodynamics that says no new matter is being created, so a well-established scientific law disqualifies that possibility. (2) The universe has always been here, but that is contrary to the Second Law of thermodynamics that says everything is running down and if the universe had always been here, it would have totally unwound and disintegrated. Evolution requires the universe to run up to complexity not down to death. (3) The old Greek notion that the universe is not here. Everything is an illusion! That is contrary to the law of common sense, a law not known to most evolutionists! (4) God did it! Maybe you can guess which one I chose.
That’s it. Most modern evolutionists hold tenaciously to number one hoping that a pushy creationist will not ask them about the First Law. Creationists have the same four possibilities as to origins but they choose number four–God did it. Ockham’s Razor demands that choice!
Another origin problem is the origination of natural laws. Focus on Earth Science, a high school text, tells students that nothing created everything as the natural laws (where did they come from?) were suspended (by whom?). We are told the Big Bang “…represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden, abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle–transcending physical principles….” Hey, here’s a scoop: some evolutionists believe in “true miracles”–just not Bible miracles! Of course, no rational person believes nothing created something, anything, or everything. However, evolutionists must believe that since they can’t believe God did it even if He did it! Which He did!
So, natural laws were suspended so the Big Bang could “kick off” this thing called “life,” but when and how and by whom did the natural laws originate? And what power “suspended” those laws? What about the laws of gravity, inertia, First and Second Laws, Laws of Planetary Motion, etc.? Since we are discussing origins, when and by whom did those laws arise? Those laws are here so there had to be a Cause!
Moreover, maybe some evolutionist will inform us how a massive explosion took place and resulted in an incredible universe that runs like a Swiss clock with planets, stars, and moons. Evolution requires a random, haphazard cosmos; instead the universe is orderly, precise, and functional.
After the evolutionist, who must have enormous faith, explains the origin of the universe and the natural laws that no one disavows, I want to know man’s origin! According to evolutionary scientists this globe was at one time rock, so how did plants originate followed by animal life? How did goo-to-you evolution get started? After we nail down evolution from amoeba-to-aardvark-to- astronaut, we can discuss the fossil record, natural selection, mutations, and adaptations.
When we get an explanation for the origin of the universe, the natural laws, and man; we can then look at the physical condition of the earth and see whether evolution or creationism has the better explanation.
One of the greatest mysteries of life is how life appeared abruptly in the Cambrian strata, the lowest level of the geologic column in which are found an abundance of complex fossils! The lower four-fifths of the rock of the earth’s crust are without any signs of life! Then, all at once, life abruptly appears out of nowhere! Maybe, as if it had been created? Evolution requires ancestors but there aren’t any so their model doesn’t work. The creation model works perfectly since all scientists admit that the Cambrian Explosion seems to indicate that the fossils began without precursors.
The physical condition of the earth screams carnage, cataclysm, and change. The strata all over the earth, the sea creatures on mountaintops, the mass burial of land and sea creatures, elephants and whale fossils on mountains all fit with creationism not evolution. By the way, elephants don’t climb mountains and neither do whales!
In the fossil record we see distinct creatures, not the gradual formation and transition from one creature to another as evolution demands. There are changes but never from one species to another. No new information is ever introduced. A dog is always a dog, a cat is always a cat, and a horse is always a horse–of course. Again, creationism is the best model, not evolution.
How does evolution provide the origin of mind/intelligence, meaning, conscience, altruism and morality? It has no answer; however, the creation model provides a concrete, correct, and complete answer.
The main proof of evolution is based on the assumption that evolution is factual but that assumption is a farce, a fraud, a fake, not a fact. Evolution is a cockamamie religion about which we can dicker, discuss, and debate–but it will never be true.
Evolution is a sacred cow that needs to be butchered and made into hamburger. Ken Ham helped in that process and posterity will credit him with changing the world’s perception of creationism.
Good job, Ken.
http://bit.ly/1iMLVfY Watch these 8 minute videos of my lecture at the University of North Dakota: “A Christian Challenges New Atheists to Put Up or Shut Up!”
Copyright 2014, Don Boys, Ph.D.
Fact, Fraud or Faith?
by Don Boys, Ph.D.
Only an uninformed fanatic says that evolution or creation can be proved scientifically. Christians believe in creationism because we believe in the veracity of the Bible but we also have scientific evidence to support our position. In every debate I’ve had with evolutionary scientists, the arrogant, asinine accusation is made, “Well, evolution is scientific while creationism is religion.” Evolution is about as scientific as a voodoo rooster plucking ceremony in Haiti. Almost.