The Biblical Timeframe: It Fits the Evidence

Phil Jensen

ADVERTISEMENT

creation_population_growthHave you ever thought about the evidence for or against the claims made by evolutionists and naturalists?

Have you ever thought about the evidence for or against the claims made by creationists?

Evolutionists and those who believe our universe came about billions of years ago by random chance claim that science backs up their claims. But is what they have at their backs really science…or is it little more than assumption being marketed as science?

Rick Kriebel 2016

ADVERTISEMENT

As a former believer in evolution, I have come to find that the more I learned about evolution, the less I found it to be credible.  In addition to learning that its claims are built on assumption rather than actual science, I’ve come to understand that the claims of materialistic evolution are actually contradicted by science.

For example, science tells us that matter does not come into existence from nothing.  If, according to materialistic and naturalistic doctrine, the universe and everything in it had to come into existence without a supernatural cause, and science tells us that matter does not come into existence from nothing, then we have a huge problem at Square One of materialistic evolution.  According to materialistic doctrine, there isn’t an intelligent designer and creator of the universe, and according to science, matter doesn’t come into existence spontaneously from nothing.  Therefore, we have a choice: believe the claims of materialistic evolutionists, or believe science.  I choose to believe science.

Science also tells us that matter does not spontaneously organize itself into higher functional forms. This behavior has never been observed in nature or in the laboratory.  In fact, science demonstrates to us over and over and over that matter tends toward disorder, not order. The natural tendency is for matter to break down and become disorganized (e.g. erosion, death and decay, etc.), not spontaneously organize itself into more cohesive forms of matter that begin to perform higher functions on their own.  Therefore, we have a choice: believe the claims of materialistic evolutionists, or believe science. I choose to believe science.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

Science also tells us that life does not come into existence spontaneously from lifeless materials.  This hypothetical development (which is absolutely essential to naturalistic evolution) has never been observed in the field or in the laboratory.  Remember Louis Pasteur’s experiments disproving abiogenesis? Life only comes into existence from other life. Life always has its origin in other life. So where did the original life on earth come from…but other life (i.e. a living creator)?  Therefore, we have a choice: believe the claims of naturalistic evolutionists, or believe science. I choose to believe science.

Science also tells us that one form of life does not spontaneously morph into another distinct form of life.  Those who believe in the doctrine of evolution look to extinct forms of life found in fossils and conclude that some of these were transitional life forms, that they were intermediate forms of organisms that were changing from one kind of organism to another.  But were these really transitional forms…or merely the Collie in between the Chihuahua and the Great Dane?  In other words, were these so-called “transitional forms” not a different kind of organism, but rather a variation of the same kind of organism, just as we have different breeds of dogs, cats, horses, and so many other organisms?  We have never observed one kind of organism (e.g. a reptile) change into a different kind of organism (e.g. a bird) either in the field or in the laboratory, so science cannot confirm that evolution has or can occur; this is only assumption, not science. Therefore, we have a choice: believe the claims of naturalistic evolutionists, or believe science. I choose to believe science.

There are other ways in which the evidence goes against the claims of materialistic evolutionists.  Sometimes the scientific evidence is not direct, but can be extrapolated based on sound scientific principles and logic.

For example, as this video below illustrates, we can make calculations about the world population of human beings based on current rates of population growth and certain timelines.  While extrapolation backwards into the past is always risky (because the farther back we go, the less we know about the variables that could affect the accuracy of our calculations), this is a practice with which materialistic evolutionists should be extremely comfortable because virtually all of their claims are based on backwards-looking assumptions involving even less reliable evidence.

Materialistic evolutionists assume humanity is about 1 million years old (give or take, depending on what evidence is currently contradicting the last thing they “knew” yesterday), based on, well, assumptions about still more assumptions. The current population growth rate is 1.1% per year.  Of course, the population growth rate was almost certainly lower in the past because we had little in the way of techniques to protect and save people from disease and injury.  For the sake of the argument (to make things as “fair” as possible for evolutionists), if you assume a growth rate of 0.01%, there would be 1043 people on the earth today. That’s 10 the 43rd power, or a 1 with 43 zeroes following it, or

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 people

Biblical creationists assume a timeframe for the dawn of humanity at about 6,000 years ago, and re-started with eight people after the global flood some 4,500 years ago.  This claim is based on the genealogies recorded in the Bible–a document which purports to be authored by the Creator of the universe (which, incidentally, has never been proven to contain a single historical or scientific error–a record of veracity that would seem, for lack of a better word, supernatural). Assuming a population growth rate of 0.5%, that would be about 7 billion people in 4,500 years starting with eight humans. How many people are there in the world today? About 7.4 billion as of 2016.

Which extrapolation is closer to the scientific reality?

Which framework is better supported by science and logic…and which framework is contradicted by science and logic?

Forgotten_Factor_Banner_Ad_653x197

ADVERTISEMENT



This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year U.S. Air Force veteran, a political reporter and commentator for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for over 20 years. He was a founding member and board member of the Tea Party groups Citizens for Liberty and the South Dakota Tea Party Alliance. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Print Friendly
  • MMaximuSS1975

    Seems that you failed in the description of the link before I even clicked on it. Pasteur only disproved Spontaneous Generation, not Abiogenesis. On the contrary. Science is actually making headway into it. There is an ever growing body of evidence pointing right at it. Life came about through chemistry, not magic, or any religious fairy tale.
    Sorry, but you have absolutely no clue what you’re talking about.

    • Oh, how they try to wiggle to escape unpleasant truths.

      Abiogenesis is the hypothetical process by which life arises naturally from non-living matter. How might (if it was even possible) abiogenesis take place? Spontaneous generation of life from lifeless materials.

      Sorry, materialistic evolution is contradicted by science. Why continue placing your faith in a scientifically-contradicted idea?

    • DCM7

      “Science is actually making headway into it. There is an ever growing body of evidence pointing right at it.”

      Add that to the ever-growing list of claims that any honestly inquiring person can see are utterly hollow. Ever-growing creativity at inventing and speculating does not equal an ever-growing body of evidence. You appear to make the common error of mistaking scientists’ speculation for actual scientific knowledge — an easy mistake to make when it’s inevitably presented as if it *were* actual knowledge.

      Chemistry, with no intelligent intervention, cannot create things that are far beyond human capability to invent. If real science has shown anything, it’s this.

      Contrary to what you’ve been taught, there is nothing irrational about acknowledging a higher creative power, especially when one honestly studies what has been created.

  • Edward MacGuire

    You are nearly 100 years out of date in your physics as Dirac in the 1930’s showed that matter not only can emerge from nothing (the vacuum), but that it must. Understanding the chemistry of life has also advanced since Pasteur who died in 1895. Your knowledge on evolution seems to predate even Darwin so the only thing I can suggest is a visit to a good library.

    • DCM7

      “Understanding the chemistry of life has also advanced since Pasteur”

      And what does that understanding tell us more and more? That life’s specified complexity is far beyond human capability to invent, and could not have come about without a supreme intelligence. One can either face that reality, or speculate endlessly to invent hypothetical ways of trying to getting around it — as far too many otherwise intelligent people keep doing.

      • Edward MacGuire

        “That life’s specified complexity is far beyond human capability to invent …”

        You are stating an argument from incredulity, exactly like those who believed that Neptune caused storms, Persephone the change in seasons, Helios drove the sun chariot across the sky each day and Selene the moon. One of the last was Copernicus who, not knowing about gravity, believed that the ‘hand of god’ kept the planets in orbit about the sun.

        They were all wrong, and so are you.

        • DCM7

          “You are stating an argument from incredulity”

          It’s not just a matter of me (or anyone) not believing that life’s complexity could come about without intelligence. It’s not a matter of opinion, whether yours or mine. It’s a matter of what is or is not scientifically possible.

          Your implied claim here is that something could still happen whether I believe it could or not. That does nothing whatsoever to prove that it could or did happen, especially given how clearly scientific evidence shows that it couldn’t.

          You can call me “wrong” and make false comparisons all day, but ultimately you’re just playing logic games so as to avoid facing the real issues. (Not to mention your own “argument from incredulity”: you don’t believe that life required an intelligent designer.)

          • Edward MacGuire

            I do not dismiss the possibility of a god. I certainly doubt that god would be anything at all like what is believed by Christians or Jews or Muslims or Zoroastrians or Scientologists or Raelaens or Buddhists or Mormons or ‘insert religion here’ ad infinitum.

            As far as life is concerned, I can tell you that the chemical reactions that comprise the biology of life is very well understood to the point that one biochemist once told me that creating life is not a scientific but an engineering problem. Some people are working at understanding life from the top down i.e. working backward from existing life which has several billion years of evolution behind it, while others are working from the bottom up by trying to understand the environment and chemistry of earth 4 billion years ago.

            Once we create artificial life, which I’m confident will happen in the next few decades, will we be gods? Since the last mystery that requires god is life, I guess we will be.

            • DCM7

              “I certainly doubt that god would be anything at all like what is believed by… ‘insert religion here’ ad infinitum.”
              It sounds like you have a distorted view of what is believed (or, rather, understood) about God by Christians. Not that that’s uncommon or anything.

              “one biochemist once told me that creating life is not a scientific but an engineering problem”
              Whether it is a scientific or engineering problem, what should make anyone believe that it would have been “solved” by chemistry with no intelligence involved? Certainly nothing in real science.

              “working backward from existing life which has several billion years of evolution behind it… trying to understand the environment and chemistry of earth 4 billion years ago.”
              It must make for an interesting challenge to try to understand that which is speculated, but not at all known, to have happened.

              “Once we create artificial life, which I’m confident will happen in the next few decades, will we be gods?”
              No, any more than a monkey who successfully mimics one action of a human would become a human.

              “Since the last mystery that requires god is life”
              God IS, whether or not anyone thinks any mystery “requires” him.

    • A vacuum is not nothing. Space is a vacuum, but there is a lot of matter and energy there.

      Science has yet to record a SINGLE instance of matter coming into existence from nothing, or a SINGLE instance of life spontaneously springing into existence from lifeless materials.

      If you aren’t aware of that, it is YOU who is in desperate need of a visit to a library.

      • Edward MacGuire

        Definition - the vacuum is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. Generally, it contains no physical particles.

        ” Science has yet to record a SINGLE instance of matter coming into existence from nothing ” — All our understanding of quantum systems REQUIRES this. All our semiconductor technology is based on quantum mechanics. Look up Feynman diagrams for a pictorial representation. We absolutely require the creation of particles from the vacuum and their interaction with other particles to explain what we see at atomic distances.

        “a SINGLE instance of life spontaneously springing into existence from lifeless materials” - for the very good reason that if something like that occurred the lifeforms here now would immediately consume it. Life arose 3.5 billion years ago and the earth was a very different place. If you are really interested look up articles on the RNA World.

        • DCM7

          “Life arose 3.5 billion years ago and the earth was a very different place.”

          Here you remain firmly in the realm of speculation and imagination, rather than of knowledge, discovery or evidence. You (and others) can try to associate the imagined scenario with things from legitimate science in order to make it appear plausible, and maybe people who don’t know better will fall for it. But some people do know better.

        • It doesn’t matter what our ideas and guesses require. What matters is reality, and science has never recorded a single instance of matter coming into existence from nothing, or of life spontaneously springing into existence from lifeless materials.

          We can theorize and wish all we want. Science proves materialistic evolution does not happen. Evolutionists may embrace fantasy and scientifically-contradicted assumption, but I prefer sticking with empirical science.

          • DCM7

            “science has never recorded a single instance… of life spontaneously springing into existence from lifeless materials.”

            More to the point, science doesn’t show any reason why that ever *could* happen.

            People often insist that there “doesn’t have to be” a supreme creator of life (though they actually seem to expect science to assume there “couldn’t be” one). I have to wonder what such people actually understand about life and how it works.

            • Indeed. The random complexity of a coastline never repeats itself. Look around the world. You will never see two pieces of coastline that bear more than a superficial resemblance to one another.

              Yet life is programmed with an immense amount of information (and information always comes from an intelligent source) that enables it to replicate itself according to its kind over and over and over and over, always giving rise to the same kind of organism, never a different kind.