Hasn’t science proved that life has existed on the earth for billions of years?

Hasn’t science proved that life has existed on the earth for billions of years?

“And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” (Matthew 15:9)

It’s the most commonly touted error in the secular scientific community: “Science has proved evolution true.”

The fact is, however, there is hardly a single area in the field of evolution where even hardcore evolutionists don’t radically disagree on crucial points. Take the age of the earth, for instance. While some of the science can be interpreted in a way that shows long ages, it is only that: an interpretation. Unlike the perishable food packages we buy at a supermarket, each with a date stamped on them, no one has found a rock or fossil that says, “Made 5 billion years ago” or “Created in a volcano 1 billion years ago.” No, in each case, geologists can only interpret what they see to make conclusions that support their theory.

And what they see doesn’t always agree with their theories. For example, some geologists say that the rates of soil and land erosion are way too fast for the earth to be billions of years old. As one scientist put it, “Ten North Americas could have been eroded” since about a hundred million years ago. In other words, with current rates of erosion, the United States shouldn’t even be here if the earth were as old as some scientists say.

Another amazing discovery that casts huge doubts on the long age of the earth is the recent finding of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils. Yes, some highly elastic soft tissue – blood vessels, blood cells, and some hemoglobin protein – have been found in Tyrannosaurus Rex bones believed to be more than 65 million years old. This is clearly impossible because these kinds of tissues rapidly disintegrate. It’s like you’re being told that a can of peaches left open in a hot room for three years is still fresh enough to eat! That’s silly. The only logical explanation for the peaches’ freshness would be that they were not actually left open in the room for three years.

Another problem is that the amount of radiocarbon in coal and oil is way too high for them to be tens of millions of years old, as commonly taught. Given the current rate of radiocarbon decay, it should take only 100,000 years for it to disappear. The fact that so much radiocarbon remains in them casts serious doubt on the age of oil and coal that scientists dogmatically assert.

And these are just a few of the major problems with the theory that the earth is as old as some scientists claim. So why do they claim it? Hold on – we’ll get to that!

 

But what about the fossil record? Doesn’t it reveal that evolution took place?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.” (Genesis 7:19)

Nearly all evolutionists admit that the fossil record is a huge problem for their theory. Even Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, conceded that the fossil record did not show the kind of slow, gradual changes that his theory requires. In his day, other scientists were some of Darwin’s most outspoken critics precisely because the fossil record didn’t support his theory.

Still, Darwin suggested that his dilemma would be solved over time because with more exploration, the vast gaps in the fossil record would be uncovered. But a century and a half later, with thousands of people around the planet scouring through thousands of fossil beds, the evidence has decidedly not filled in the gaps. On the contrary, the fossil record remains as problematic now as it was in Darwin’s day. As one molecular biologist wrote, “Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin [of the Species].”

One of the greatest challenges to the theory of evolution is known as the Precambrian explosion. Representing a level supposedly 530 million years old, a vast array of life forms seems to have appeared out of nowhere; many of these forms are amazingly similar in structure to living things that exist today. The question vexing evolutionists for years is: Where did this come from? They call it the “explosion” because all these fossils seem to have “exploded” on to the scene all at once, with no fossil ancestors.

This explosion, of course, represents something that happened very quickly, which is opposite of what evolution teachers – but, of course, which fits much closer to the biblical account of creation. Darwin, aware of the fossils in Precambrian layers, was also forced to admit that they posed a serious challenge to his theory.

 

If the evidence isn’t as strong as some say, how does the theory survive?

“Knowing this first: that there will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beggining of creation.” (2 Peter 3:3-4)

Charles Darwin was not working as a purely objective scientist without any preconceived notions. Evolution began as, and remains, a religion as much as a field of science. For starters, Darwin did not invent the idea of evolution. In ancient Egypt some people believed that life evolved from primitive forms. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans had the same idea. Darwin simply came up with what many believed was the explanation for how it happened – a violent process of random mutations and natural selection.

Why? Well, Darwin and people like him have an idea of what they think a world created by God should be, and because it doesn’t meet their theological expectations, they want something else to explain what they see.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1 KJV). This is the reason why millions believe in evolution. They think that if a god created the world, there shouldn’t be suffering and death. And because there is suffering and death, then God couldn’t have created the world – so there must be another explanation. Indeed, some scientists who don’t believe in God don’t even believe Darwin’s story, so they have other theories for how life started – including the idea that space aliens seeded our planet with life.

Darwin wrote: “There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myseld that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the [parasitic wasp] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that the cat should play with mice.” He added, “What a book a devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horribly cruel works of nature.”

Of course, God didn’t design wasps or any other creature with the intention of them killing each other. instead, suffering and death are the results of sin, which has perverted all nature.

“Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Romans 5:12).

The Bible is clear: Sin brought death, suffering, and evil into this world. We must not forget that a rampaging Satan is himself causing havoc in nature. “Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having greath wrath” (Revelation 12:12).

Evolution continues to thrive based on the preconceived notions that Darwin and others have about God – notions that are wrong. The conflict between Christ and Satan, the fall of humanity, and the Flood best explain why the world is the way it is today.

Cikk megosztása

Hozzászólás írása