The Biblical Timeframe: It Fits the Evidence

Have 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?

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.

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?

*** Bob Ellis *** Is a conservative author  and Life and Liberty News contributor

      Read more from Bob Ellis and other conservative authors at American Clarion