evolution – La Vista Church of Christ

The Beginning of Life

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 27 May 2026 00:38:50 +0000

by Terry Wane Benton

Fact: Not one experiment in the entire history of science has ever demonstrated life arising from nonliving matter. Not one. For all the confident headlines and bold claims, the lab tells a very different story. When researchers carefully set up controlled conditions, remove contaminants, control every variable, and stack the deck in favor of success, they still cannot produce life. What they do produce are broken fragments, unstable molecules, and systems that collapse without constant intelligent intervention.

The truth stands firm. Life does not build itself. It does not organize itself into coded, information-rich systems by accident. Every attempt to force that narrative has only exposed the staggering complexity required for even the simplest living cell. The more we learn about molecular biology, the clearer it becomes that life is not the product of blind chemistry, but of precise, purposeful design.

This is not a knowledge gap that will one day be filled by chance. It is a boundary written into reality itself. Life comes from life. That is what observation confirms, what experimentation reinforces, and what logic demands. And it points beyond the lab, beyond human speculation, to the One who is life Himself, the Creator who spoke it into existence in the beginning.

If Humans Are Just Animals, Nothing Is Evil

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 23 May 2026 00:32:53 +0000

by Andy Diestelkamp
via InLight Media

What happens to morality if human beings are nothing more than highly evolved animals?
If there is no God… then on what logical foundation do we base concepts like consent, human dignity, evil, or justice?

In this thought-provoking video, we explore one of the most important questions about worldview today: Is morality real and objective — or just biological instinct and social conditioning?

Through real-life observation of nature, philosophical reasoning, and key biblical texts, we examine the tension between naturalism and biblical Christianity — and the logical implications of each worldview.

From birds in nature acting on instinct, to the way humans define right and wrong, this message challenges the assumption that humans are simply advanced animals and asks whether that belief can actually support the moral standards we all live by.

In This Video, You’ll Discover:

Why “humans are just animals” creates a moral problem.
What consent means in a purely naturalistic worldview.
Whether morality can exist without God.
How Scripture defines human identity and value.
What it means to be made in the “image of God”.
Why human dignity cannot be explained by evolution alone.
The logical consequences of rejecting a Creator.

Bible Passages Referenced:

Genesis 1:1, 1:27–28
Genesis 2:7, 2:22
Psalms 19:1
Luke 12:24
Proverbs 19:3
Psalms 14:1
Acts 17:24–28

Why This Question Matters

If humans are only animals, then moral categories like “right” and “wrong” become subjective. But if humans are created in the image of God, then human dignity, consent, and justice are not opinions — they are grounded in something objective and unchanging.
This video walks through both conclusions and asks you to consider which one actually makes sense.

The Foundations of Radioactive Dating Methods

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 03 Apr 2026 22:12:21 +0000

by John Walton
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 4, December 1994

A recent Bible study class focused on the topic of the "age of the Earth." Considerable discrepancy exists between the age of the Earth as determined by some scientific methods and that indicated by the Bible. The accepted age of the Earth based on radioactive dating methods (radiometric dating) is about 4.5 billion years. The Bible gives an age of roughly 6,000 years. [Assuming that the genealogical records are complete and without gaps.]

Radiometric dating methods are considered reliable. Witness the various books, articles, museum placards, and the like that routinely state the age of objects as millions and sometimes billions of years, often without question or controversy. The incontestable use of radiometric techniques may be based on the relatively simple mathematical mechanics of radioactive decay.

It is a truism that when a thing is accepted without consideration of its assumptions, it is taken as a truth. Such, it appears, is the case for radiometric dating methods. These methods were discovered in the early 1900s and are now considered the de facto standard for quantitative age determination of various objects, including rocks, fossils, and other artifacts.

It is also a truism that a thing is only as strong as its foundation. In an effort to learn how radioactive dating is conducted, I discovered that these methods rely on assumptions that call into question the certainty of their age determinations. Two assumptions in particular will be discussed.

A Thumbnail Sketch of Radiometric Dating

All radiometric dating methods work similarly. The atoms of a radioactive (parent) element spontaneously decay into the atoms of a different (daughter) element. For example, uranium decays into lead, rubidium into strontium, potassium into argon, and carbon-14 into nitrogen, among other common elements used for dating. (The carbon-14 method is useful for determining the age of organic materials; things that were once alive.) The radioactive decay process is generally insensitive to changes in chemical or physical conditions and is thus considered reliable for dating old objects.

Radioactive decay obeys the following mathematical formula:
N = N₀e^-λi (1)

N₀ represents the original number of parent atoms in the sample, which, after time t, will decay, leaving N parent atoms and D daughter atoms. Rearranging the equation to solve for time t yields:

t = (1/λ)log_e(D/N + 1) (2)

To determine the age of a rock (or other item), a sample must be found that contains a specific radioactive element with a known decay rate, X. Then by counting the number of daughter atoms, D, and the number of parent atoms, N, remaining in the sample, a quantitative age determination can be made by using equation (2) above.

The decay rate, X, is related to the element’s half-life: the time it takes for half of the atoms of a parent element to decay to atoms of its daughter element. Half-lives range from billions of years to millionths of a second. Thus, an element’s half-life determines its applicability for dating certain objects. For example, half of a given amount of the uranium U₂₃₈ isotope decays to the lead Pb₁₀₆ isotope in almost 4.5 billion years, making it appropriate for dating very old objects.

The Foundations of Radiometric Dating

As shown, the mathematics of radiometric dating are relatively simple and straightforward. Implicit in radiometric methods, however, are several assumptions that can affect the accuracy of the calculated age. Among the assumptions are two that warrant consideration:

An element’s decay rate, X, is constant and has been constant since the beginning of time, when the radioactive element was created.
All the daughter atoms are a result of the decay of parent atoms, and none have been added or leached out.

These and other assumptions are rooted in a geologic concept that was first formulated in the mid-1800s called the Principle of Uniformitarianism. This principle holds that nature behaves uniformly and that, by studying the present, one can infer the behavior of the past. While this principle seems reasonable, note that it cannot be proven through scientific experiment. Geologists cannot travel back in time and confirm that details of past processes can indeed be inferred from present processes.

The first assumption of constant decay rate can be thought of in terms of the swinging pendulum of a clock. A clock will run fast if its pendulum swings too fast. Similarly, if the pendulum swings too slowly, the clock will run slowly. If the pendulum does not swing at a constant rate, the clock will run both too fast and too slow; it simply cannot be relied upon to measure time accurately. The decay rate of a radioactive element is equivalent to the swinging pendulum of a clock. The constancy of both is necessary for either to be of any value for measuring time.

Decay rates for radioactive elements have been determined only in the last 90 years, since radioactive decay was discovered. For geologists to assume that decay rates have remained constant for more than 4 billion years is a significant extrapolation. Supposed evidence of constant radioactive decay is not conclusive. Changing radioactive decay rates would render radiometric dating methods useless. There is no certain way to determine what effect—either too old or too young—changing decay rates would have on age estimates made by radiometric techniques.

The second assumption can also affect the accuracy of age estimates made with radiometric methods. An accurate count of the daughter and parent atoms in an object being dated is required. There is no way to be certain, however, that some of the daughter atoms were not already present in an object when the parent started to decay. For example, there may already have been some lead in a rock containing uranium, which ultimately decays into lead. Thus, when counting all the lead atoms in the rock (including the extra atoms originally there), the radiometric date would overestimate its age; it would appear that more of the uranium had decayed. Similarly, if some of the lead has leached from the rock, possibly due to groundwater, then the radiometric date would underestimate the rock's age.

It is true, however, that relatively small errors in age calculations will occur when small amounts of daughter atoms are already present in (or have been leached out of) a rock. For example, if 10 percent of the daughter atoms in a rock were already there when the parent started to decay, the age estimate would actually be slightly more than 4 billion years instead of 4.5 billion. Almost all of the daughter atoms would have to be pre-existing in a rock to make an error that would result in a true age of 10,000 years or less.

(This point is often omitted in criticism of this assumption. I make it on the basis of objectivity.)

These and other assumptions of radiometric dating methods can make their age determinations tenuous at best. For example, a certain Swedish shale, called "kolm", contains uranium nodules. This kolm is interesting because it can be dated using two radiometric methods: one employing uranium-lead decay and another comparing two isotopes of lead. The uranium-lead calculation yields an age of 380 million years—an age considered "disconcerting" by geologists (presumably because it is too low). The lead-to-lead calculation yields a figure of 770 million years, an age considered "clearly too large." Instead of rejecting either calculation, a compromise of 440 million years has been accepted for the Swedish shale! Conflicting age determinations are apparently routine for radiometric dating techniques.

All said, it should be noted that geologists are not ignorant of the assumptions made in radiometric dating. Diligent efforts have been made to reduce errors in radiometric dating and ensure accurate results. Recent radiometric dating of meteorites has yielded the generally accepted age of approximately 4.5 billion years (although apparently not without some of the same age contradictions as mentioned for the Swedish shale), and hence the presently accepted age of the Earth by most of science. Even with conservative consideration given to radiometric dating assumptions (conservative for the Christian, radical for the geologist), it appears that ages less than a few tens of millions of years would not likely be calculated.

Other Age Calculations

Several other secular earth-age calculations are often publicized by antagonists of radiometric techniques. Most of these methods give an age of the Earth significantly less than 4.5 billion years, some on the order of 10,000 years or less. These ages are more in line with the Bible and are probably the primary reason they are espoused by some opponents of radiometric dating techniques. Among these calculations are:

"The shrinking sun”: estimates of the rate at which the sun is consuming itself indicate that it would have been twice as large as it is now just 1 million years ago; so large that all life on Earth could not exist because of high temperature, so the sun, and consequently the Earth, must be much younger.
"Depth of space dust on the moon": measurements of the rate of accumulating interplanetary space dust indicate that the surface of the moon should have a layer of dust at least 200 feet deep. Astronauts found only a thin layer, suggesting a much younger moon and, by extension, a younger Earth.

These and several other secular "young earth-age” estimates are subject to at least one criticism they share with radiometric dating methods: they are based on the Principle of Uniformitarianism. Implicit in their age calculation is that the rate of some present-day process has been the same (or at least a determinable) rate in the past.

Thus, earth-age determinations based on these techniques are not inherently more reliable than radiometric methods and should be met with the same skepticism.

An Apparent Age of the Earth

So, is the Earth 4.5 billion years old, as indicated by radiometric dating techniques, or 6,000 years old, as indicated by the Bible? Could it be that both ages are correct?

A reasonable notion is the idea that God’s creation has an "apparent age." It is likely that God created the universe as a functioning system. For example, God evidently created Adam as a grown man. If we were to inspect Adam on the second day of his existence, would we have estimated his true age to be 2 days old? More likely, we would have guessed he was an adult. Using this information to infer the age of the Earth would result in an erroneous estimate measured in years (based on Adam’s apparent age) instead of the true age measured in days.

The Word of God indicates that the Earth is on the order of 6,000 years. "God said it, and that settles it," is the justifiable sentiment of most Christians on the age of the Earth and other controversial matters. However, the concept of creation with an apparent age provides a basis for reconciling the Earth's extreme age from radiometric techniques with the younger age in the Bible. Note that because of the previously discussed problems associated with radiometric dating, there is no particularly compelling reason to rectify it with the true word of God. But to many Christians, God is the creator of Earth and all of its processes, including radioactive decay. The apparent age concept provides a self-consistent explanation for the disparate ages.

References:

The Genesis Flood, The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications, by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., Th.D and Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., 1961.
McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, 7th Edition.
The Illustrated Origins Answer Book, by Paul S. Taylor, 1992.
"The Age-of-the-Earth Debate," by Lawrence Badash, Scientific American, August 1989.
Earth, by Frank Press and Raymond Siever, 1974.

The Moment Scientists Couldn’t Deny the Universe Had a Beginning

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sat, 21 Mar 2026 20:58:26 +0000

by Buddy Payne
via InLight Media

Is the universe eternal, or did it have a beginning? This is one area where scientists used to disagree with the Bible — until they realized they were wrong. In this video, Buddy Payne walks us through how scientific evidence in the 20th century—specifically astronomical evidence—changed how scientists think about the question of the universe's beginning. In fact, the broad consensus in the science community shifted to what the Bible had said all along.

The Biggest Misunderstanding About Evolution

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 02:30:19 +0000

by Buddy Payne
via InLight Media

For over 150 years, Darwinian evolution has been considered the best explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. But does modern science actually support the idea that natural selection and random mutation can explain the origin of all life forms?

In this video, we explore the biggest misunderstanding about evolution and examine scientific evidence suggesting that Darwinian evolution may have real limits.

Books Mentioned:

Darwin's Black Box (Michael J. Behe)
The Edge of Evolution (Michael J. Behe)
Darwin Devolves (Michael J. Behe)

Using examples from modern research — including Darwin’s finches, malaria resistance, sickle cell mutations, and the famous long-term E. coli evolution experiment — we take a closer look at what natural selection can and cannot do.

While evolution clearly produces variation within species, some scientists argue that the evidence points to boundaries on how far Darwin’s mechanism can go. What do these discoveries mean for our understanding of the origin and diversity of life?

This video examines the evidence and asks an important question: Was Darwin wrong — or is the theory of evolution often misunderstood?

Topics Covered

What Darwin actually proposed in On the Origin of Species
How natural selection and random mutation work
The scientific debate over the limits of Darwinian evolution
What research on Darwin’s finches really shows
Insights from the Lenski long-term E. coli evolution experiment
Why some scientists argue that evolution may be self-limiting

Without God, Can You Trust Your Mind?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Sun, 15 Mar 2026 02:15:44 +0000

by Doy Moyer
via InLight Media

Can we really trust our own thinking? Every argument — every conversation — assumes we can think, reason, and understand. But have you ever stopped to ask where that ability comes from? In this video, Doy Moyer explores a profound challenge facing the naturalistic worldview: if human thought is nothing more than the product of mindless, unguided material forces, can we actually trust our own reasoning? Even atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel wrestled with this very problem in The Last Word. We contrast this with the biblical view — that an Intelligent Designer made us in His image (Genesis 1:26-27) and gave us the capacity to think, reason, and know.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7).

Who Created God? (Hall)

Jeffrey Hamilton — Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:32:24 +0000

by Perry Hall

In “The God Delusion”, Richard Dawkins asks the question, “Who created God?” This is a favorite “gotcha” question of atheists. This is ironic because atheists often believe in abiogenesis, the scientific theory that life originated from non-living matter through natural chemical processes. I say ironic because theists can simply return the volley and ask, “Who created the original non-living matter?” and also, “Who created the natural laws by which chemical processes produced life?”

Both theists and atheists answer that nothing created their “source”. This means both theists and atheists believe in an eternal, uncreated source of life! And admittedly, neither can explain how their source eternally exists.

So, which best explains the evidence of how the original source exists?

Can an atheist explain how non-living matter existed without having a beginning? No. It is accepted on faith because non-theism needs an alternative explanation other than God.
Can a theist explain how God exists as a non-conditional, necessary being? No. It too is accepted on faith, not because an alternative explanation is needed, but because God Himself has provided evidence.

For atheists, one of their insurmountable problems is that life comes from non-life, that meaning comes from non-meaning, that rationality comes from non-rationality, and so on. And yet they claim miracles can’t happen!

For theists, is there any problem that comes from the theist’s position? An atheist will simply say the idea of God is the problem! And yet the idea of God does come with evidence (philosophical, theological, historical, and scientific). There is no scientific evidence for abiogenesis. That is why it is called a “theory”.

To help with this dilemma, the theist’s position is that a closed system is self-defeating. The solution to the origin of life, meaning, and rationality, how and why, must be outside of the system for these problems to disappear. God is life, meaning, and rationality.

To use an analogy, with full knowledge every analogy is flawed, let’s illustrate that when there is a problem within a system, the only solution must come from the outside:

You are 1 million dollars in debt. Your income cannot even cover the interest rate. Every time you make a payment, you therefore get further into debt. There is no solution to the problem because you cannot pay the debt. No one within your circle of family, friends, or business partners can help. What is the solution? You need someone outside your circle, unaffected by the debt, who is able and willing to pay it. You need a benefactor.

Atheism has a million-dollar debt problem. It is a closed system. There is nothing outside of that materialistic system that has the ability and will to begin all existence. Therefore, it can’t answer, “Who or what began that which begins everything, and why?”

Theism has the solution because it believes in an open system, a power outside of the finite, material existence, which is divine, having no beginning nor need for a beginning.

For atheism, asking who or what created that non-living original matter remains a valid question for which there is no answer. Being a closed system, it either accepts that the original matter is eternal or that there is an eternal sequence of created beginnings. That is not very scientific.

For theism, asking who created God doesn’t apply. God, being outside the system, outside of time, and outside of the material universe, does not have nor need a beginning.

Can Life Be Formed by Random Chance?

Jeffrey Hamilton — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 21:18:25 +0000

by Dr. Caleb Yu, Irvine, CA & Dr. James Ma, Kelsey Bay, B.C., Canada
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 3, September 1994

The smallest living cell in the human body is a virus [containing] 239 protein molecules. On average, a protein has 445 amino acids. The average molecular weight of the 19 essential amino acids for the human body is 137... By random chance, the odds of forming the first cell of a virus from an unlimited supply of pure essential amino acids are one in 2 x 10^{-239 x 445} = 2 x 10^-237,915.

The synthesis can hardly be completed on dry land because the semi-products are easily oxidized by air or destroyed by ultraviolet light. The best place to carry on the reactions is under water... the oceans hold 97% of our water. The total volume of ocean water is 1.3 x 10²⁴ liters, and the salt content is 3.9 x 10²⁵ grams. Suppose all the salts in our oceans could be converted into amino acids, then the total number of amino acid molecules in the oceans can only provide 7.8 x 10⁴⁶. We need 2 x 10^237,915 molecules. Our Earth is not large enough to provide the required amount of material.

[Thus we must] find another way to decompose...structures into amino acids...Suppose we used all the available amino acids in the oceans (7.8 x 10⁴⁶ molecules) to conduct the synthesis and degradation at a rate of 6 x 10¹⁸ times per second (the frequency of light). Every 3.8 x 10^106,325 years, there is one chance of success to form a virus cell by random chance. But the age of our Earth is only 6.4 x 10⁹ years old, and the age of our Milky Way is 1.7 x 10¹³ years old. [Using the ages typically given by evolutionists.] Our Universe is not old enough to have synthesized the first cell by random chance.

Even if a virus were... formed within the age of our Earth, the product would be a dead cell only.

Conclusion:

Quantitatively, the first Life in this earth cannot be formed by random chance without an external source.

Studies in II Peter 3: Naturalistic Uniformity

Jeffrey Hamilton — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 17:32:47 +0000

by Pat Hardeman
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 20 No. 2, June 1994

The second coming of Christ is the first of those “last” things (Greek: eschatos) scorned by scoffers in mocking words: “Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (II Peter 3:4). Notice the basis of their scorn: “all things continue as they were.” This doctrine of “continuity” or the “uniformity of nature” is “the ultimate syllogism” (John Stuart Mill) underlying the philosophic Naturalism which pervades so very much of our whole world. This doctrine excludes all Supernatural activity, including miracles and divine judgments involving cataclysmic events such as the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (II Peter 2:5-6). It insists that Nature, as the sciences and senses disclose it, is the whole show, all there is to reality. Examine the uniformity dogma for a moment. Yes, it is a dogma, for as Tennant observes, it is neither an “empirically knowable fact nor a priori truth, nor self-evident axiom, nor essential precondition either of experience or of such science as we have, nor inference logically derivable from anything certain” (F.R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology, Vol. 2, p. 21, London: Cambridge University Press, 1927).

Belief in universal laws of nature has a biblical background. The noted A.N. Whitehead said the belief “must come from the medieval insistence on the rationality of God, conceived as with the personal energy of Jehovah and with the rationality of a Greek philosopher” (Science and the Modern World, p.18. New York: The Macmillan Co., 1946). As the scientific revolution progressed from the Renaissance, certain philosophers began omitting God from the picture, arguing that God was unnecessary to the orderliness of the natural world. By the 19th century and the time of Darwin, much of the world jumped at the chance to leave God out of the picture completely. Darwin’s work seemed to promise a future of scientific discoveries in which all the gradations of progressively complex forms of life would be found. Though Darwin lamented in his conclusion “the extreme imperfection of the geologic record” (Origin of Species, p.372), he certainly anticipated a much more ample geologic verification than what followed.

When the most complex life forms appeared in the oldest strata, and the almost infinite “missing links” were never found, new theories were developed. Emergent Evolution appeared on the scene, in which the gradual development of new forms was said to be out the window. Now, such people as Henri Bergson (Creative Evolution, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1923), and Samuel Alexander (Space, Time and Deity, New York: The Macmillan Co., 1920), all argued, as did others (notably De Vries, Simpson, Goldschmidt), that, in Simpson’s words: “in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known” (Tempo and Mode in Evolution, p.106, New York: Columbia University Press, 1944). New qualities could simply not be explained by past repetitive changes. The qualities simply “emerge”; they happen! Darwin criticized such notions by saying, “little advantage is gained by believing that new forms are suddenly developed in an inexplicable manner from old and wildly different forms, over the old belief in the creation of species from the dust of the earth” (Origin of Species, p.369).

The doctrine of continuity or uniformity has had more important problems: Heisenberg discovered the uncertainty principle in physics; subatomic particles simply don't obey Newtonian laws. Then Max Planck discovered quantum mechanics: forces in nature are simply not continuous. I used Patrick Murphy’s Introduction to Philosophy (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1935) for many years in teaching introduction courses. Murphy speaks from the viewpoint of an emergent evolutionist, saying that Heisenberg’s principle “seems to disturb the foundations of science itself” (p.320). John Dewey said it meant that scientific laws are “formulae for the prediction of the probability of an observable occurrence” (The Quest For Certainty, p. 204, New York: Minton, Balch and Company, 1929).

Who should now listen to the mockers: “Where is the promise of his coming? for all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation” (II Peter 3:4). That doctrine is human dogma. Of a certainty, God does decree sunshine and shadow, seedtime and harvest, and the almost infinitely many detailed operations of nature. The same God, who has interrupted the natural order, does rule in the affairs of men and nations providentially and will indeed be our judge at the end (Hebrews 9:27).

Somewhat Scientific Thoughts on the Origin and the Age of the Earth and on Evolution

Jeffrey Hamilton — Mon, 15 Dec 2025 23:31:08 +0000

by Hans Waetjen
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 19 No. 1, March 1993

There is an immense difference between the biblical record of creation and man’s current understanding of evolution. In today’s society, few people accept the biblical explanation for creation. Furthermore, current public school teaching on the origin of life and on the age and origin of the earth directly contradicts the biblical account. In fact, if our kids tried to defend their biblical understanding of creation at school, they would probably be ridiculed. Public schools teach concepts totally contrary to the bible record concerning who we are and where we came from. Even if our kids
reject only a small part of biblical teaching because of what they learn in school, isn’t there a danger that this could lead to them starting to doubt other biblical information, information that may be fundamental to our faith? Could this be one of the reasons that so many children of Christians do not remain in the faith when they leave home? What can we do to reinforce their belief in the biblical account so that this will not happen?

In the material that follows, I will try to explain some current scientific theories about the origin of the Earth, the scientific method for dating the age of the Earth, and the theory of evolution of species. I will also attempt to identify some of the obvious errors, inconsistencies, weaknesses, and flaws in the scientific methods and theories. These obvious problems in the scientific understanding make it easier for me to explain my faith in the biblical account of the great miracle of creation. Hopefully, some of the information in this article will be useful for parents as they try to explain to their children why we believe in the biblical account of creation. Also, the current scientific account is not based on verifiable facts but on many assumptions and inconsistencies that are not verifiable and often contradict each other.

Thoughts on the Origin of the Earth and Motion of the Spheres

One of the theories for the origin of the Earth is the "Big Bang Theory". According to this theory, from a source of matter, through a big explosion, BANG — there it was — the solar system suddenly appeared, and by now it has developed in its complexity and order as we observe it today. All this happened totally by accident?!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics directly contradicts the "Big Bang Theory". It states that all matter continually deteriorates from a higher state of order to a lower, more chaotic state of order. Sort of what happens to a new car from the time it leaves the showroom until 15 years later. Below, I will show that there is a very high level of order in the universe and in our solar system, which would make the "Big Bang Theory" somewhat less probable. Could all this order have been created through some random process? Through an accident?

The Complexity Problem

One of the factors that makes life possible on Earth is its rotation and its specific orbit around the sun. The main factors that control the Earth’s orbit around the Sun are:

The sun’s size and mass.
The Earth’s distance from the Sun.
The Earth’s size and mass.
The Earth’s velocity (movement around the Sun).

If just one of these factors were slightly different, life on Earth as we know it would not be possible. As an example, if the Earth’s mass were slightly less, both the Earth’s orbit around the Sun and its temperature and climate would be very different. Also, the gravitational force of the Earth
would be changed, which would impact the Earth’s ability to retain gases necessary to sustain life.

I will try to provide more information, perhaps somewhat surprising information, on the order and complexity of the motion and orbit of the Earth, as scientists understand it:

The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 93,000,000 miles (93 million miles). This distance is the radius of the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. It takes the Earth one year to complete one orbit around the Sun. We travel about 292,000,000 miles (292 million miles) in one year! If we divide the yearly distance travelled by 365 days, we find that we cover about 800,000 miles in one day. If we divide the daily distance travelled by 24 hours, we find out that we may be in for a severe speeding violation. We are moving along at a velocity of 33,350 miles per hour! To complicate things slightly more, to provide reasonable temperatures on Earth and allow for day and night, the Earth turns on its own axis once every 24 hours. By dividing the earth’s circumference of about 24,900 miles by 24 hours, we can calculate that we are moving at a velocity of 1040 miles per hour (at the equator, a little less) around and around, "as the world turns". This motion is in a different direction from the motion around the sun. Now, if we want to get more complex and more technical, science claims that the sun is not just standing still either (and we have to match the sun’s motion to remain in a circular orbit around it). The sun is moving within our galaxy at a respectable 115,000 miles per hour, and we are matching that velocity, but in a different direction from the above velocities. Our galaxy is also in motion ...but you get the picture.

Perhaps the information above will make it more evident that there must be order and complexity in the motion of the earth, of the sun, and of other planets and stars, which is far beyond our understanding. This complex order did not just happen through a big BANG. There must have been planning and intelligence far beyond man’s abilities to comprehend, to put all this into motion to make our life possible on earth. This complexity flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that such does not occur in the natural realm.

To illustrate very simply: Potholes do not repair themselves. The disorder that exists is natural; the order necessary to repair it comes from outside intelligence.

How to Dismantle the "Earth Clock" to Find Out Its Age

Is there a way to accurately determine the age of the Earth? Both through scientific methods and through a study of the Bible, it is difficult to determine an approximate age for the Earth. The process of using biblical information to estimate the age of the earth starts with a study of Genesis, followed by a review of genealogies from Adam to Christ, and the addition of elapsed time after the birth of Christ. The difficulties in interpreting this information start in Genesis:

There is some disagreement over Genesis 1:1-31. Even though a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1-31 implies that creation took God six days, some Bible scholars disagree with this. Some suggest that what is described in Genesis 1:1-2 may have taken place much earlier, before the first day of the six days. Some bible scholars reason that perhaps the six days of creation may not have been six 24-hour periods, since the time concept of "day" to God may be different. (Editor’s note: Since the Bible defines the days of creation as "morning and evening," I am persuaded that they are twenty-four-hour periods, fdc.) II Peter 3:8 says that a day to God may be as long as 1000 years for us. Time estimates in the genealogies may be wrong, too, because some genealogies are incomplete or missing. Therefore, the time from creation to the time of Christ may have been longer than previously estimated. According to Bible scholars, the earth is somewhat more than 6000 years old. The best scientific estimate now places the Earth's age at about 4-5 billion years. Why is there such a vast difference between these two estimates? With the following information, I will attempt to show that the scientific method for determining the age of the Earth has serious flaws and uncertainties.

In some ways, the Earth resembles a clock, even though it is immensely more complicated than any clock built by man. A clock repeats its timekeeping process every 12 or 24 hours by timing a repeating cycle. Most of the forces that influence and shape the earth are cyclical too, like day and night, the lunar cycle, and the seasons caused by the earth’s yearly trip around the sun.

As science better understands geologic forces, it becomes increasingly likely that geological forces are cyclical as well, even though geological changes may take much longer. Erosion wears mountains down and washes sediments through streams and rivers into huge ocean basins, where these sediments slowly accumulate to tremendous thicknesses and may eventually be uplifted to form new landmasses and perhaps even new mountains, only to be eroded all over again. This erosion explains why the oceans are "salty," and the rest of the waters are not. However, when one measures the known rate of ocean salinization, one finds that there is not nearly enough salt in the oceans for the Earth to be 4 billion years old. In fact, not enough for it to be even 25,000 years old. One known "clock," therefore, says that the 4-5 billion-year age of the greater "clock" just isn’t so.

"Continental Drift Theory" is a recent geological theory that tries to explain how continents can divide to form new oceans, how they can be melted down, and how new landmasses can be formed in yet another cyclical process. It also explains the origin of earthquakes and volcanic activity. According to the theory, there are forces within the Earth’s core that somehow bring about slow movements of "plates". These plates, which make up the Earth's crust of continents and oceans, appear to be slowly drifting in different directions on the Earth's liquid core, bumping into each other. In these collisions, crustal material from the edges of oceanic plates is melted as they are pushed under continental plates, and new crustal material is formed through volcanic activity.

You may or may not accept the above theories. I only needed to include them to show the flaws in current scientific thinking: The above theories support the idea that most forces shaping the earth, as scientists currently understand them, are cyclical. Unfortunately, this causes a problem for scientists, since their current understanding of cyclical geological changes makes accurate age dating of the Earth impossible. Current dating procedures require that the material analyzed be original material. Since the earth material analyzed in the dating process may already have been reworked, it is likely that the dating results are not accurate.

The forces that shape the Earth appear to be cyclical. Trying to date the age of the world is like observing the workings of a huge, immensely complicated clock not built by man to find out when it was built. There is no scientific way to accomplish this! At best, scientists can hope to better understand the various cyclical processes, but they cannot determine the age of the "clock" (the Earth).

How Mother Nature Starts New Species and How a "Dollgg" Reproduces

The "Theory of Evolution" is generally accepted and taught in high schools and universities throughout this country as the process by which life formed and evolved on Earth.

The "Theory of Evolution" contains some segments on "selection of the fittest" and "adaptation," which may contain some truth. It also teaches that different species evolved through mutation. The species "evolved" means that the lower (simpler and smaller) species came first, and larger, more complex species evolved from them at a later time. "Mutation" means that reproductive cells were somehow altered by radiation, producing a major change that results in different offspring that reproduce, forming a new species. These concepts, which are significant components of the theory, are not supportable scientifically.

The weakness in the "Theory of Evolution" is that the process hinges on mutation to bring about the transition from one species to another. Mutation in simple life forms (reproduction through cell division of one-celled animals or asexual reproduction) may occur, but it is usually a step backwards. That means that the creature that results from mutation is less able to survive than the parent. Documented mutations usually have been degenerative, a step backward, not forward, as the "Theory of Evolution" requires. For more complex species (sexual reproduction), mutations are improbable. When they do occur, there is no easily identifiable benefit.

Let's deal with mutations in complex species in a little more detail. As an example, there are many different breeds of dogs. Different breeds of dogs are not different species; they are all part of the species "dog". All dogs can reproduce with one another (though this may be difficult due to differences in size). Being able to reproduce (only with dogs) is a requirement to be part of the species "dog". For a mutation to produce a new species, the altered young, by definition, can no longer reproduce with any of the species it mutated from, or it would not be a different species. As an example, let's assume that, through mutation from a dog, an animal that looks a little like a dog but has six legs is produced. Let's also assume that its chromosomes are different from those of a dog, and therefore, it could not reproduce with dogs. We will call it a "dollgg," since it has extra legs. The first dollgg really would not be able to reproduce with anything at all, since it would be the only living representative of the new species, "dollgg". To be able to reproduce, it would need another dollgg of the opposite sex. Mutations are very rare. Yes, mutations in dogs can occur once in a great while. Still, the results would not be another dollgg, since the effect of radiation on reproductive cells is random and can produce an infinite number of possible changes. Perhaps you are starting to understand why the likelihood of producing another dollgg just like our dollgg above, and of the opposite sex, is just about impossible. To have it happen during the life of our dollgg is virtually impossible. What makes it almost impossible is that while mutations do occur anywhere on the earth, if another dollgg would result from one of these dog mutations, it could live anywhere on this planet. What is the likelihood of a male and a female dollgg ever meeting during their lifetime so that they could reproduce more dollggs?

The random effect of mutation is the process that scientists believe is responsible for producing all the different species on Earth. It is taught to our kids as the "Theory of Evolution". The odds of producing just one new species through this process appear totally impossible. Scientists identified more than 10 million species living on Earth. All of these species evolved through mutation? Why is it that this scientific explanation seems a bit hard to accept? Why do most people swallow it, bait, hook, line, and sinker?

Conclusion

God created the universe, including the earth and life on it. Man, in his unwillingness to accept God’s word, has barely scratched the surface of the earth, and much less of the universe. Yet, based on poor understanding of limited observations, man provided "facts" to "prove" that the biblical explanation of creation is flawed — That man is right and God is not.

Through time, man’s understanding of evolution and of the origin and age of the earth has undergone continual changes, based on "sound" scientific principles. Numerous old theories have been discarded as new ones have been embraced, only to be discarded.

God can perform miracles. Why is it so difficult for man to realize that God, with His infinite power and wisdom far beyond our ability to comprehend, was able to create the earth and the processes that reshape it in such a way that scientists are just beginning to discover it to be? Why do scientists assume the world, if created by God, has to be solid, like cheese, with no layering inside? Why do they think God could not create matter in such a way that it does not provide accurate age data during their dating attempts? Why could God not have created the Earth with fossils already buried inside the layers of material, to confuse those who do not want to believe him? (Although with our knowledge of the flood of Noah, there is no reason to believe this took place, fdc.) II Thessalonians 2:10-11 (New King James) says: "... because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion that they should believe the lie..." This passage obviously applies directly to all people who reject Christ. There may also be a limited application of the passage to people who accept only parts of God's word and reject the biblical account of creation.

Millions of people profess to be Christians. Many of them believe that Christ was born of a virgin, performed many miracles, died for our sins, and was raised from the dead. None of the miracles concerning Christ can be substantiated by archeological evidence, nor can they be duplicated by science or medicine today, yet they are accepted by faith. Like Christ’s resurrection, creation is a significant miracle, since it made our existence on earth possible. Just as there is no archeological, scientific, or medical explanation for the miracles concerning Christ, there is no explanation for the miracle of creation. Why is it that so many so-called Christians reject the biblical record of creation?