I can't believe
they let me do a research paper on this subject. I found it very
interesting that I was asked so many questions about it after I let my
professor read it. Since it was so interesting I posted highlights from
my paper which were taken from various sources. If any of the people
who I used for my research read this I give you thanks for your hard
work in the field of creation science, and I say keep up the good work.
Proof of Creation
Irreducible complexity. The eye is a good example of this. According to evolution things evolve parts so they can achieve an advantage for survival, and anything that dosen't contribute to the survivability of the species is eliminated.
The eye has to have all of its parts before it can function. If you take the retina, the lens, the blood vessels, the nerves, or any other part away from the eye it can not function at all.
According to evolution the different parts formed slowly, or peice by peice. A half formed eye is no good as it offers no advantage. The eye uses a large amount of brain power to process information. It would be a waste of resorces on any creature to have a good portion of its brain capacity used up by something that is not working. Since the eye is present in so many creatures it obviously had to appear fully formed, since it is something that even evolution would have to say would not contribute to the survivability of the species unless fully formed. In fact since it uses up so many resources it would be detrimental if not fully formed, and would allow a species without one to survive better.
Charles Darwin admitted,
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,succesive,slight modifications,my theory would absolutely break down"
the greatest proof of the creator's existence is seen when you gaze into the
mirror. Your eyes have focusing muscles that move an estimated 100,000 times
each day. Each eye has within it a retina that covers less than a square inch
and contains 137 million light-sensitive cells.
Even a wide eyed Charles Darwin said
"To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree"
The famous statistician George Gallup said,
"I could prove God statistically. Take the human body alone: The chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen is a statistical monstrosity"
Radiohaloes and the decay
rate of polonium.
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical areas of damage to the surrounding crystaline structure in rock. A small peice of U-238 for example will leave a spherical area of discoloration that is characteristically different for each element it produces in its decay chain to Lead 206. When you look at cross-sections with a microscope these discolorations appear as rings called radiohaloes. A scientist named Dr. Robert Gentry has researched radiohaloes for years, and has published his results in leading scientific journals.
Some of the intermediate decay isotopes, for example polonium have short half lives. Polonium has a half life of only 3 minutes, in other words it decays very quickly. Strangely enough rings created by polonium decay are often found in rocks without the parent uranium haloes. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before it solidifies, but it can not derive from a speck of uranium, or else it would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, and not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past. If the latter then radiometric dating is definately useless.
Evolution states that all
forms of life evolved from lower forms of life. If this were the case there
would be plenty of transitional forms in the fossil record. This is not the
case. Throughout the fossil record when any form of life appears it is fully
formed. All 32 orders of mammals are found fully formed in the fossil record
with no intermediates. The first bats and birds were fully fledged fliers with
no transitionary forms. Evolutionists believe that turtles evolved from
cotylosaurs, but they admit there are no fossilized intermediate forms. They
can't argue an incomplete fossil record since turtles leave more and better
fossils than other vertibrates. The oldest known sea turtle fossil was a fully
formed sea turtle, not at all transitional.
The renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination,to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. And also: I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.
The reason there are no transitional fossils is because God created all things fully formed.
Ralph Muncaster is an author who states why he came to a belief in the God of the Bible, and more specifically faith in Jesus through examining the evidence available in his book A Skeptics Search for God. Here are a few statements from his book. A couple of statements that refute evolution are the contradiction of the first law of thermodynamics and general relativity. The first law indicates that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but general relativity, along with supporting observations, indicates that there was clearly a beginning of everything. They cant be reconciled without supernatural intervention and there is a lack of any proven mechanism for transition from lower to higher life forms. Theories of positive mutational change have been shown to be statistically impossible.
Dr. William B. Tripp has done an analysis of the probability of life arising by chance, and in his analysis he has given evolution a very generous time period of thirty billion years, is using only one fifth of the required enzymes to form the most simple single celled organism, stating that each error can not be repeated in the time given, and allowing one hundred trillion tries per second.
To summarize his findings it is impossible for life to have formed by chance. 10^55 is the line science considers the line of impossibility, yet to achieve the most simple single celled organism possible it would require 3 x 10^64 tries to achieve even this simple life form. That puts the possibility of evolution well beyond the realm of possibility.
Zuill is a professor of Biology at
Biodiversity in nature is something that gives strong support for creation in six days simply because of the fact that so many species are interdependent on each other, that is to say if you take a certain number of organism types out of a diverse ecological area then the whole system will become unable to sustain itself. It appears that life on earth is what makes life possible on earth. The truth of the preceding statement rules out the possibility that life evolved from some chemical stew rather than being created already fully formed and integrated within the environment is a short period of days.
If evolution is true then the big bang accidentally happened, which caused all matter to come into being, which eventually caused the solar system to accidentally form, then organic life accidentally formed on this planet, which accidentally evolved into man. Our thought processes then are an accidental by product of the movement of atoms, including the thought processes of the athiestic scientist. If their theories are merely the by-product of random movements of atoms then why should we believe them? There is no reason for one accident to give a true account of all of the other accidents. I saw something like this quoted by C.S. Lewis.
Some evolutionists know there is no way that life arose from some primordial stew on the planet earth. They are putting forth another theory called panspermia. Panspermia is the theory that aliens seeded the earth with life sometime in the distant past. I have one question for them. If life couldn't arise on earth, then how could it arise on another planet? It seems that we're getting some excuses here.........
Here is a pretty cool link to some highlights from a creation -vs- evolution debate. Debate
Some good books about creation science....
In Six Days by John F. Ashton This is a very good book with fifty different essays that contain scientific proof of creation. Each essay is written by scientists who have at least a PhD in their chosen field of study, which includes physics, biology, chemistry, geology, information science, engineering, and many more.
Faith, Form, and Time by Kurt P. Wise This contains some of the viewpoints of both evolutionists and creationists and what they mean in light of the Bible and science.
The Revised and Expanded Answers Book by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. This book takes the twenty most asked questions about creation, evolution, and the book of Genesis and awnsers them.
The Lie Evolution by Ken Ham This book tells how evolution is not only false science, but also is a religion itself.
Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati This book is a response to the National Academy of Sciences' Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science
A good source for books on creation science is Master Books
Good creation science links: