Now let`s consider the demands of creation versus the demands of the theory of evolution. First, creation demands the presence of a Creator. The theory of evolution demands the absence of a creator. Second, creation demands the creation of matter. The theory of evolution has no explanation for the origin of matter. Third, as for the time span of the existence of the universe, creation demands the time span of recorded history. The theory of evolution demands eons of time, billions of years. Fourth, creation demands a `spirit world`. That is, the presence of a `higher power`, one who created this universe and governs its operation. This `higher power` is the giver of life. The theory of evolution does not allow for a higher power or a giver of life. The theory of evolution says life emerged spontaneously from non-living matter. Fifth, there is the fossil record. Creation demands a sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record. The theory of evolution says that the fossil record should show the `evolution` of life forms. The theory of evolution says the fossil record should show species changing from one life form to another. There should be many, many examples of this in the fossil record, if all the many life forms we see today truly `evolved` from the `primeval soup`. We will look in detail at this subject later.
Now, to consider all of these demands in detail, we will begin with the first. Since the belief or non-belief in a Creator is a personal matter, this is something that science cannot measure. It is either yes or no, depending on what a given person believes. The creationist has a choice here. Ironically, the evolutionist DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE. The creationist can choose to believe in a Creator or to believe in evolution. The evolutionist MUST believe in evolution, since he `knows` that there is no Creator.
Secondly, there is the question of the origin of matter. The creationist believes that a Creator created matter. Where does the evolutionist say matter came from? Why, it came from the `Big Bang`. Hold it. I didn’t say, “how did matter come into its present form?”. I said, WHERE DID MATTER COME FROM? The evolutionist might say it condensed into this big blob before the `Big Bang`. Well, you missed me again. I asked, `Where did it come from?`. The point is, the evolutionist has no answer for this question. If matter `condensed` from energy, as some evolutionists say, where did that energy come from?
Evolution by `aly
The creationist has no problem with this demand. The evolutionist has MANY problems with this demand. It is true that the evolutionist could ask, `Where did the Creator come from?`. That is an area where man`s mind fails, because man cannot comprehend the actions of the infinite, or the workings of a Being infinitely greater than man. There are no words to comprehend or describe a Being so far advanced from us mere mortal beings. My answer is that their position on creation demands an answer, and my position does not, because my position deals with an infinite Being. The evolutionist`s position does not deal with the infinite.
Third, the subject of the age of the universe has been covered in the previous material. We have seen that dating methods are far from reliable, and we have seen that there is a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests that the universe is not nearly as old as the theory of evolution claims it is.
Fourth, there is the question of where life came from. The creationist has no problem with this demand. Life was given from the Creator to man. The creationist has an understanding of life; of what life really is. The creationist knows that a man is much more than just a collection of matter and chemicals. If you ask an evolutionist what life is they will likely tell you that it is the result of the production of chemicals. In essence, their only concept of life is the arrangement of matter. I believe that this question can be proven. Suppose that there is a person in the hospital who has just died of a heart attack. I challenge the evolutionist to take this person, to cool him down, and to go in and repair or replace his heart. If life is nothing more than a collection of chemicals and the specific arrangement of matter, let`s correct the chemical imbalances in his body, and then the evolutionist can bring him back to life.
The evolutionist wouldn’t have to wait for lightning to strike the primordial soup, here`s a human already `evolved`. Let`s see if the evolutionist can bring him back to life. I don`t mean to be morbid or sarcastic, but I believe that this example, though it may be offensive, readily illustrates the shortcomings of the evolutionist`s concept of life. In reality, the average evolutionist knows almost nothing of what life is really all about, especially the spiritual world. The evolutionist is spiritually DEAD.
The creationist`s understanding of life enables him to see that the Creator has taken back the life that was given to this man, AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT THE EVOLUTIONIST CAN DO ABOUT IT.
Source
The Theory of Evolution: This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S (Freeware)
Reading Sources: First moon walk disproved evolutionary theory | Where’s the proof for evolution? | Darwin himself said there was no proof! | Can Evolution Produce an Eye? | There are NO Fossils to Show Even One Animal Turning into Another! | Is Evolution a Theory, Fact or Law? Or None of the Above? | There’s a Law Against Evolution–It’s Called the Second Law of Thermodynamics! | Evolutionists Say Mutations are Good–are They? | What About the Human “Tail�
3 thoughts on “Evolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 8 – Creation Demands vs Evolutionary Demands”
Can you please define “evolution?” I think a lot of theistic evolutionists would be surprised to find that it requires the absence of a creator. Also.
The evolutionist has MANY problems with this demand. It is true that the evolutionist could ask, `Where did the Creator come from?`. That is an area where man`s mind fails, because man cannot comprehend the actions of the infinite, or the workings of a Being infinitely greater than man.
You should read up on the Cosmological Argument, there’s an easier and much less evasive solution to that objection.
The article is referring to Darwinian Evolution: Darwin theorized that at one time no life on this planet existed. Out of this non-life came about all life. Once life started, it evolved through naturalistic stages from the earliest single celled organisms through modification or mutation. Darwin rejected the idea of a Creator of life; he believed only in a series of fortunate adaptations prescribed by nature and need for survival. Darwinian Evolution can also be refereed to as Macroevolution: Macroevolution is evolution on a scale of separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. All of these were discussed in earlier articles.
Excellent work on such a touchy subject with some people. I really get people riled up when I tell ’em I believe in a young earth…a few thousand years not a few million/billion. God Bless for sharing!