Many people claim to know that evolution is proven and creation is mythology. I offered on Digg.com and Fark.com to have people e-mail me to engage in intelligent discussion, since obviously the two sites are not exactly conducive to intelligent anything. This is my e-mail record thus far with one individual who took me up on the offer, with my e-mails in bold:

I'm glad you're interested.

First, you should probably think for yourself about exactly what kind of evidence there could be for creation. Scientifically, how could we prove the world was created 6000 years ago? The age of the earth being 6000 years comes from the genealogies in the Bible. We add up the lifespans we know and, using the historical dates we know, come up with an age of approximately 6000 years. The earth was created with age, as well. As were Adam and Eve. What I mean is, if you cut open one of the trees in the garden of Eden, you'd find rings in it. Adam was a mature male, the garden had mature fruit in it, light from the distant stars was hitting the earth, etc. If we were there at the moment of creation, it would look to us as if the earth had age.

So, anyway, what possible evidence, then, can we possibly have for the earth being only 6000 years old? Well, we have a couple things we can do. We can show the accuracy and trustworthiness of scripture. We can show that man-made theories that contradict the Bible don't have evidence to support them. What happens is that you end up with a source you can trust on testable things, and no evidence to contradict that source on any issue. When that source claims the earth was created 6000 years ago by God in a period of 6 days, then everything points to creation being what is true. It's not absolute proof just as no one can absolutely prove that gravity is constant everywhere, that we're not in the Matrix, etc. But it is extremely well-supported by evidence.

This is a huge topic to cover, and there's no way I'd ever be able to cover everything, but let's look at the evidence for the Bible. Feel free to check this stuff out for yourself and to test my claims:

The Bible is inerrant. It has no contradictions, no factual faults, etc. If you think it has some, please bring them up and I'll be sure to address them. We have evidence to support the Bible's claims from history, archeology, and science. Not one scrap of evidence to disprove any of it. The flood explains much of the world's geography today perfectly. Plenty of evidence exists to support the flood. For instance, folds of rock in the Grand Canyon that could only be formed if the rock was formed at the same time it was folded--the flood is the only explanation we have for this. The strange locations of numerous fossils point to the flood.

The prophecies of Daniel show that God truly does exist and revealed to Daniel many things no man could otherwise know. It's a long article, but http://othello.alma.edu/~07tmhopk/bookofdaniel.html covers many of these prophecies (among other things) to explain just how accurate the predictions in Daniel were. Then there's the lack of counter evidence for the Bible. Not one person ever argued that, no, Moses didn't part the Red Sea. Not one person said that, no, Christ wasn't seen walking around after the crucifixion, or that the Jews survived on something other than manna, or that Jericho didn't fall in the manner suggested, etc, etc, etc. The crucifixion of Christ is another huge piece of evidence to support the Bible. Evidence for the crucifixion can be found at (among other places):

http://www.ici.edu/gql/resurrection.html

http://www.apu.edu/infocus/2002/03/crucifixion/

http://www.westmont.edu/~work/faq/resurrection.html

The perfection and accuracy of scripture, the validity of the prophecies of Daniel, the crucifixion of Christ...all point towards the Bible as being absolutely true, and to Christ being God. Again, the evidence shows the source to be trustworthy. So what about the evidence against creation, then? What about the evidence for evolution?

There is none. Most evolutionists can't even agree amongst themselves what happened to cause people to evolve, how it worked, or how life came about, because they all see each other's theories as being absolutely impossible. Let me quote from R.L. Wysong:

"A summary of explanations is interesting. It has been shown that life could not form in the presence of oxygen, so life must have formed in a reducing atmosphere. Yet that couldn't be, since living organisms need oxygen to survive, and without atmospheric oxygen there would not be an ozone canopy to shield the fragile chemicals of life from ultraviolet light. Therefore, life must have formed under the protective shield of several feet of water. But if the chemical precursors to life were under several feet of water, what would supply the chemicals with the necessary energy to react and form more complex molecules, and how could proteins be formed if water favors their dissociation rather than their synthesis? Furthermore, what would prevent currents within the water from bringing the chemical precursors to the surface where they would meet their demise from the action of the ultraviolet rays? It must be, therefore, that the biochemicals were formed on dry clays and rocks, but if that were so then we're back to the original problem of the chemicals being exposed either to the destructive powers of oxygen (oxidizing atmosphere) or ultraviolet light (reducing atmosphere), etc., etc., etc. And round and round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows!"

This is what happens when you truly look at evolution. There is no actual theory that can explain anything, because the theories we have are all proven wrong by our knowledge and experiments. You'll have to start asking yourself exactly why it is that you believe in evolution, and if you say it's because of the evidence, you'll have to try and figure out exactly what evidence there is to support evolution, other than just poor random speculation. Of course, you could always say that you have none, but that you trust science will be able to explain it all at some point in the future, but then you're just admitting that there truly is no evidence for evolution--you just need something because you don't want to believe in Biblical creation.

Here's a quote from evolutionist Dr. Watson:

"If so, it will present a parallel to the theory of evolution itself, a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

Here's what most evolutionists believe about evolution, as stated by T. Dobzhansky:

"Evolution is a historical fact that was proved beyond reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the 19th century. No one who takes the trouble to become familiar with the pertinent evidence has at present a valid reason to disbelieve that the living world, including man, is a product of evolutionary development."

He also said this, however:

"These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. It is as impossible to turn a land vertebrate into a fish as it is to effect the reverse transformation. The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter. And yet it is just such impossibility that is demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for 'proofs' of evolution which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory."

Basically, he says evolution has been proven, but then says it can't be proven. So, my question to you is, what evidence do you have to support evolution as truth? I would like to see some.

R.L. Wyong used to be an evolutionist, before truly examining the arguments. In his book, Creation - Evolution Controversy, he takes an unbiased look at evolution and creation, using only science and logic, not once claiming that creation is true. He just offers the facts. Here's something he looked at:

Theoretically, the smallest living organism would consist of 124 proteins. This is much smaller than what we've actually found, but this is what scientists guess would be the smallest. Now, living organisms consist ONLY of L-amino acids, and no D-amino acids (just has to do with orientation). Outside of a living thing, the proteins change to 50% L and %50 D, no matter what we do to try to stop them. Even if we START with all L-forms, they change to D-forms. So somehow, without intelligence (even though we can't do it today WITH intelligence), 100% L-forms would have to be found and maintained and put together just right to create a chemical similarity to living organisms. So let's say we had 1031 earths in the universe. That's 100000000000000000000000000000000 earths in the universe, each with oceans of, instead of water, amino acids. EVERY molecule in these oceans, we'll say, is an amino acid. Let's say every single amino acid in each ocean of each earth combined with another amino acid every second for 10 billion years, non-stop. The likelihood that 100% L-amino acids would ever form to create the smallest 124 proteins is 1 to 1078436 against. I don't have enough time to type all those zeros, but you get the picture. And that's not even being picky about which proteins you get (very few of the thousands of proteins we know could be used in these living organisms that supposedly formed). Now, the law of probability says anything that is 1 to 1050 against will never happen, though it's been recently accepted that anything 1 to 1020 against will never happen, no matter what. Looks like even just L-proteins could never form. That's forgetting about D-sugars, cell organelles, atmospheric conditions that would destroy anything that DID form the instant it happened, etc.

I could go on, but perhaps you'd like to read over the articles I've given you and maybe ask a question or two about the material I've given you so far. I hope, at least, that you've begun to question why you believe in evolution. If you want more general stuff, just ask. If you want more on anything specifically (ie, if you want to see why the Miller-Urey experiment doesn't at all support evolution), just ask.

Hi thanks for the in-depth reply!

You have to realize that evolution is not without its basis, most biologists do believe in evolution. I think a major point of error in these discussions is the concept of what evolution is. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. I repeat: Evolution does not explain the origin of life! Now that that's clear, there is two main types of evolution: Microevolution and Macroevolution. Microevolution is the one about small changes within DNA in a given species and is also the type with the most evidence. There is just too much evidence supporting this to dispute it. Antibacterial resistance, pesticide resistance..etc.

Macroevolution is the one where one species diverges from another. This is harder to prove because: 1) We don't have a perfect fossil record 2) The term species is very limiting as it is used right now.

In essence, we can't determine when a "new" species comes about but their DNA is changing over time. That change is evolution no matter how you look at it. There isn't really an arguement between biologists of the existence of evolution. Its the mechanics and such that are questioned.

The creation of life in the "scientific way" discribed by you is not scientific because it cannot be tested or refuted so it cannot be used in an arguement supported by evidence.Your explaination of creation theory is not scientific either. ex."The earth was made with age." How can you ever know then that the earth was created 6000 years ago instead of the scientific estimate of around 4.5 billion years? Its not testable. Its not science. It's obvious that we are not argueing about evolution anymore but the origin of life and into the realm of non-logic. For that, science has yet to provide significant hypothesises.

On a different topic, I find "the bible is inerrent" very very hard to believe. Just the translation would have provided many room for error. Not to mention the many times it was edited by the church and scholars. To say ANYTHING is absolutely true is just closing the mind to possibilities. There is nothing we can prove to be absolutely true because we can't see/test everything from absolutely every angle.

I am well-aware that evolution does not explain the origin of life. However, Neo-Darwinism has its very roots in the attempt to explain the origins of life without the presence of a god. Also, if evolution does not explain the origins of life, then why do we need to theorize about it? There is nothing to point us towards evolution on our own. The reason evolution came about is to try to remove the need for God, and not because the evidence indicates that evolution must be true.

And you're absolutely correct about biologists arguing over the mechanics of evolution. The reason they argue is because they both point out the impossible difficulties for the other side to explain. When you look at all arguments with a critical eye, there is no theory that works. Not even a basic theory explaining evolution holds up against scrutiny. Evolutionists are left begging the question. That is, they say that evolution happened because we've proven that it has, but then they're looking for a way to prove evolution has happened, because they know that it is. It's circular reasoning.

Is creation science? Well, that's really irrelevant. When people argue as to whether or not creation falls into the category of "science," they're generally trying to manipulate the original meaning of the word (or discard it completely) so that evolution is included and creation is excluded, hoping to lend credibility to one and not the other. This is fallacy. Evolution itself is not science, because evolution has not been observed. The scientific tests we've done have merely confirmed for creationists that evolution is impossible, and has forced evolutionists to say, "Well, we'll know more tomorrow, and the evidence will show itself." But again, why argue about whether they're scientific or not? Science is not the source of truth, nor the only way to try to understand it. The Biblical accounts have been observed and are in fact testable. Did Daniel's prophecies really come true? If so, that might be strong evidence for the God of the Bible. Are there errors in the Bible? If so, that disproves the Bible, and Jesus Christ as well.

You say that believing the Bible to be inerrant is very very hard. But as I said above, we can test it. History, archeology, geology, geography, and science all support the Bible. You're absolutely right when you say that translation and edits by church scholars can taint the Bible, but the original Bible is still inerrant. The Dead Sea scrolls testify to the untainted nature of the majority of scripture (as much as is found int he DS scrolls), and many translations (NASB, NET) are trying their best to give the most accurate translation possible. No language can ever be translated to another perfectly. But the Bible still stands as true. In fact, there are a few known copyist errors in our translations that haven't been corrected, and we've left them that way on purpose. However, Biblical inerrancy refers to the original Word of God, not the copies of it. Again, this is something you can test. Surface readings often lead people (especially those seeking to discredit the Bible) to find supposed contradictions all over the place. Most of these are easily reconciled with only a bit of knowledge. And don't the prophecies in scripture that have never been inaccurate testify to its accuracy? Its divine inspiration? The Bible has stood the test of time, and its stood against every critic to ever come against it.

About your "scientific estimate" of 4.5 billion years, I don't think it's any such thing. I believe it's a biased guess. In fact, let's look at scientific evidence that suggests a young earth, shall we?

  • Oil would bleed off into surround rocks in most reservoirs given a large amount of time. The pressure in most oil beds suggests an age of less than 10,000 years. Oil is also being produced in people's backyards in a matter of hours, not millenia.

  • Robert Whitelaw found that carbon dating is inaccurate. In reality, C14 disintegration versus production rates indicate that the "carbon clock" was turned on sometime between 5600 and 11200 years ago.

  • The decay of the earth's magnetic moment suggests that the earth is lass than 10,000 years old.

  • Uranium and Thorium in the atmosphere constantly decay to form helium. If this was going on for millions of years, the atmosphere would contain much, much more helium than it does. In fact, the rate of helium formation and the current concentration suggests an age of less than 10,000 years.

  • The Mississippi river dumps 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico every year. That would mean the Gulf would have disappeared long ago, but the rate of growth of the delta suggests an age of 4000 years.

  • Uranium, sodium, nickel, magnesium, silicon, potassium, copper, gold, silver, mercury, lead, tin, aluminum, carbonate, sulfate, chlorine, calcium, lithium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, zinc, rubidium, strontium, bismuth, thorium, antimony, tungsten, barium, molybdenum, and bicarbonate concentrations in the ocean suggest an earth age of not more than a few thousand years.

  • Sharp cliffs and unlevel continents testify to a young earth age.

  • We're only able to find civilizations of man dating to about 3000 years ago.

  • Some tree species--like bristlecone--are able to live thousands of years. There's no known reason these trees wouldn't live to be tens of thousands of years old, yet all of them date to less than about 6000 years.

  • When plants and animals die in the ocean, they build up an ooze on the ocean floor. This builds at a rate of roughly one inch every 10 to 50 thousand years. The amount of ooze also suggests a young earth.

  • The rotation of the earth gradually slows. If the earth were billions of years old, it would have been spinning so fast that the oceans would be moved to the poles, and land would have been spun out to 40 miles high, making the earth into a pancake. But the earth is actually quite round.

  • Ocean sediment deposits would leave a layer of sediment in the ocean over 100 miles thick, yet the sediment is actually only a few thousand feet deep at most.

  • Evolutionists say that the water on the earth was brought about by volcanic eruptions, but even if there were no water to start with, all the water on the earth would have been generated in MUCH less time than old earth theorists suggest. Also, the amount of water would require more volcanic material (including rocks) than our planet contains.

  • Cosmic dust filters down to the earth at a rate of about 14 million tons per year. In the millions of years this would accumulate according to evolutionists, this dust would be 50 feet thick. The amount of dust on the earth and the moon both indicate only a few thousand years of existence.

  • According to astronomers, no new comets have ever been added to our galaxy. The rate of decay of comets suggests that millions of years ago, the hundreds of comets in our galaxy would have been much larger than even the sun, which means the sun would have revolved around them!

  • Small particles of cosmic dust exists in abundance in space. Stellar radiation pushes this dust out of the solar system, and if the universe were only a few million years old, this dust would be completely gone, and yet so much of it remains.

  • Cosmic dust accelerates over time. The speed of this dust indicates an age of a few thousand years.

  • Almost all meteorites that have hit earth are found in surface rocks. All the craters we have are dated at only a few thousand years old. We are the meteorites in the rest of the geologic strata?

  • The rate of earth cooling suggests that the earth could in no way of formed as long ago as big bang theorists and evolutionists require it to have formed.

  • The inert gases on the moon suggest a date of between 1 and 10 thousand years.

  • The worldwide amount of topsoil averages to about 8 inches thick. This would take no more 8 thousand years to form.

  • The geologic strata actually argues for creation, not against it. Unconsolidated Cambrian rocks indicate that the earth is nowhere near millions of years old, as they would have been consolidated long, long ago. Many geological features suggest the Biblical creation account, and also give evidence for the flood of Noah. The horizontal exposed layers of rocks found all over, including the Grand Canyon, would not exist after millions of years of weathering. River bed formations and shapes suggest a sudden cutting through a young, soft bed, and would not exist if the earth were millions of years old.

  • Niagara Falls is calculated to be only as old as 5 to 10 thousand years old, based on the weathering of its edge.

  • The radiative dust on the moon is only deep enough (not the same as cosmic dust) for a few thousand years of accumulation, and much less than even a million years would produce.

  • Hydrogen is constantly being converted to helium in the universe. The huge amount of hydrogen in we still have speaks to a youthful earth. Fred Hoyle, who doesn't believe in special creation, said, "How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If matter was infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we see that the universe being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged."

  • The temperature of the moon speaks for its age being less than 50,000 years.

  • U-236 and Th-230 are isotopes found in lunar material. If the moon were millions of years old, these isotopes would have long since decayed, yet their presence and abundance indicates an age of only a few thousand years.

As you can see, the "scientific estimate" of the world&'s age is disputed by science itself. Carbon dating and other theories used to derive the age of the earth have been criticized and proven inaccurate on multiple occasions, and yet we have a mountain of evidence for a young earth. Whether creation is "science" according to man's arbitrary definition or not doesn't matter. "Science" points towards a young earth.