Back To The Basics, Part 4: Creation



We're going to take a good hard look at creation, because this is the foundation on which everything else rests. If they can somehow cast doubts and discredit the very foundation, then nothing else the Bible says can ever be trusted. If we can' t believe the message of Genesis, how can we believe the message of the Gospel? How can we believe in the account of the Resurrection, if we cannot believe the account of the Creation? If any part of God' s word is doubtful, then none of it can be trusted.

And you can bet your boots the enemy knows this. Casting doubts has been his specialty from the get-go: isn' t that exactly what he did with Eve, made her doubt what God had actually said? He made God out to be a liar, when he told Eve You shall not surely die. (Gen. 3:4) And here we are almost 6000 years later, and Satan is still using the same old method: casting doubt on God' s Word, trying to make us believe that it isn' t really true. Why is he still using the same old tactics he used way back then? Because they work! Human nature never changes; we always have a tendency to doubt God and twist the truths found in His Word!

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1

Genesis 1 tells us God created not only the earth but the entire universe. Darwin came up with a THEORY: a "what if" or a "maybe could be". A theory is defined as "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something". That is what science does: someone proposes a theory to explain the hows and whys of something, and the scientific community works to proves or disprove that theory. If they can get verifiable and recreate-able results, it is assumed that the theory is true. However, even if the theory is "proven" to be true, it is still subject to change as more data becomes available, or as conditions affecting the outcome change over time.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created
He him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1:27)

The theory of evolution said that the universe and the earth were NOT divinely created, but somehow evolved from some sort of cosmic explosion that just happened to result in life (hence the name, Big Bang theory) The theory stated that man was NOT divinely created, but evolved from apes. But Darwin's theory was never proven to be true - and there is much that discredits it totally! Let' s put that whole ridiculous theory to rest once and for all.

Most scientist claim the universe is around 14 Billion years old, and the earth itself is around 4.5 billion years old. Then they try to tell us that after millions of years of evolution, finally man comes on the scene, having evolved out of apes. The first question we have to ask is, If, in fact, man somehow evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Or do they suppose that only certain apes evolve, and the rest remain apes? What criteria determines whether or not the ape evolves into a human being?

The most basic evidence AGAINST evolution is the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. Darwin could not cite a single example of a new species originating, and neither has anyone else, in all the history of evolutionary study. Something that has never been seen at any time in human history, cannot be considered very scientific!

The fact is, no species has EVER somehow evolved into a different species. Fish are still fish, cats are still cats, birds are still birds; nothing has ever evolved into a different species. Each species has it's own unique DNA, or genetic blueprint, that determines all it's characteristics and features. That DNA may mutate, but such mutation only causes a malfunction in some part of the species, it does not change it to a different species!

Even plants have DNA: although some have been cross-bred, and hybrids are carefully cultivated for various reasons, corn has never evolved into green beans, and marigolds have never evolved into roses, and grass has never become an oak tree. So if nothing else has ever evolved into a different species, how could anyone reasonably argue that man somehow evolved from a lesser species? Doesn' t make much sense, does it?

In the beginning God ..... (Genesis 1:1)

The study of genetics overwhelmingly supports the biblical account of created species - and is proof against the supposed evolution of new ones. DNA is the building block of all things, and contains massive amounts of information: so much that scientists are still decoding it! Information can only come from previously existing information, it doesn't just form by itself. Thus it is clear there had to be something besides just matter in the beginning. Some higher source of information to give DNA it's information in the first place. So when the Bible says "In the beginning God created ..." , the truth of that statement is confirmed by observational science. No matter how old the world is, whether it began 6000 years ago or 14 billion years ago; no matter where you consider "the beginning"..... God was already there. God: omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent: all knowing, ever present, and all powerful.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together
unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the
waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:9-10

Then let's look at the age of the earth itself. We can read the genealogies in the Bible and come up with the approximate number of years man has been on the earth. The earth was created only a couple days before man, according to the Genesis account, not some 9 million years before! So why the discrepency between science and the Biblical account? The simplest explanation is this: Couldn't the earth have been created with some age already on it? Man was not created by God as a brand new, tiny baby, he was created as a grown man. God created him already grown. He had some age on him when he was created. Couldn't God have done the same thing with the earth? Couldn't it already have had some age on it when it was created?

The most common way so called scientists measure the age of the earth is by various methods of radiometric dating, such as carbon dating. Simply put, all living things take in carbons from the atmosphere; then, when the organism dies, it stops drawing in those carbons, and some of them begin breaking down at a verifiable rate. So by measuring the ratio of the remaining carbon atoms, scientists believe they can estimate the age of an object. Sounds very impressive, and believable. And since we are not scientists ourselves, we tend to give credence to the so- called experts in a field that most of us know very little about.

But do you see the HUGE GLARING FLAW in their figuring? How can they possibly measure how much carbon is LEFT, unless they also know how much was present at the beginning? There is no way! Even if the rate of decay is constant, without a knowledge of the exact ratio of carbons in the initial sample, the dating technique is flawed. So, they look at things that they DO know the age of, and then make ASSUMPTIONS, based on these figures. That's right: ASSUMPTIONS! This whole science of radiometric dating is based on assumptions! You can call it an educated guess if you want to, but it is still just an assumption. And these scientists themselves acknowledge that carbon dating is subject to error because of a variety of factors, including contamination by outside sources of carbon, weather conditions, and other variables.

Suppose we attended an Olympic swimming match, and when it was over, I show you my very precise, very expensive Swiss watch with a stopwatch that shows a time of 7:08:41. I can point out how it measures precisely to the 1000 of a second, it is the finest in the world, how expensive it is, and the precision craftsmanship that makes it free of error and the most dependable watch on the planet. Impressive, right?

However, if I tell you well, no, I wasn' t actually there when the race started, and didn't see most of it, but I was present at the end of it, so, based on other races I' ve seen, and using my very precise watch, I can calculate precisely how long the race took. How much confidence would you have in my "scientific" answer? Not being present when it all started, and having no way to know the factors and conditions that affected the outcome, makes any guess as to the actual timing pretty much a shot in the dark!

This illustrates the problem of carbon dating. Those who promote it's reliability talk impressively about the technical details of radioactive decay. But they refuse to allow for the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history. So much for the "science" of carbon dating!

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light
from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness
He called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
(Genesis 1:4-5)

Another proof against the randomness of the evolutionary view of creation is the fact that there is demonstrable and continual order in nature. The sun always follows the moon, day always follows night, the seasons remain unchanging year after year. The earth always circles the sun in the same orbital pattern, crops always grow in their own season, the stars in the sky are always right where they should be.

Order never evolves from chaos. If you don't think so, just look at a teenager's room, or a man's garage (or my sewing room!)! That chaos never somehow magically evolves into order, without some plan and some effort! Order is a deliberate effort, made with a particular plan to accomplish a specific goal. The order in all things on earth and in the entire universe did not just happen by accident. It was part of God's divine plan, and a result of His effort.

Jesus himself confirmed both Creation and the age of the earth when He said:

But from the beginning of the creation
God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)

Did you get those two points? 1) God made - created - man and woman, they did not somehow evolve from something else; and 2) this took place AT THE BEGINNING of the creation; they didn' t somehow evolve millions of years later.

Why would anyone cast doubt on the Biblical story of creation? It's very simple, really: because if we negate God' s role in Creation, then we can totally ignore Him. If He isn' t the Creator, then the earth doesn't belong to Him, and we don't belong to Him, either. And if nothing belongs to Him, then He isn't Sovereign over anything. You can't be sovereign over something that isn't yours. And if He is not Sovereign, the Supreme Ruler of all creation, then no one has to listen to a thing He says, His Word is meaningless, and everyone can just do whatever they want, believe whatever they want, freely and without restraint. But the Bible has the last word:

And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega,
the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is thirsty
of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcomes
shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be
my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable,
and murderers, and fornicators, and sorcerers, and idolaters,
and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burns with
fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Rev. 21:6-8)


Some References:
http://www.icr.org/article/vanishing-case-for-evolution/
https://carm.org/carbon-dating












To assist you in your Bible Studies,I am very pleased to be
able to add this King James Bible Search Engine.

Enter a word, phrase, or passage:

The results of your search will open in a separate window.
My sincere thanks to "King James Version Of The Bible"
who made this search engine available.