Creation vs. Evolution: How to Scientifically Win a Young Earth Argument; It's Surprisingly Easy

Creation vs. Evolution – How to Win a Young Earth Argument; It’s Surprisingly Easy seems to be a ridiculous title. How can anyone think creation is true and evolution is false in this scientific age? That’s what I thought until I heard the scientific arguments for creation. The first argument was, “There are fossils of bats and fossils of the rodents they were supposed to have evolved from. There are no fossils showing the evolutionary progression of flight from rodents to bats, no half-formed wings!” The evolution of flight for bats, birds, dinosaurs and insects should be readily available in the fossil record, if evolution is true. But there are no fossils of half-developed wings, that evolutionists point to, as being from an animal that is developing the ability to fly. As it turns out, the whole fossil record is filled with these kinds of huge gaps, including the “sudden” development of eyes. It is common knowledge that the primary evidence for the evolution of life is the fossil record. Planet Earth is very poor at making fossils. To make a fossil in rock, the plant or animal has to be incased in something like mud, which then becomes hard as a rock, to keep it from decomposing. Animals and plants decompose quickly after death. The more humidity there is in an area, the faster things decompose. Things would decompose much more quickly in the Philippines than they would in the Sahara desert. Most of these fossils didn’t just come from a humid area, most of them came from animals that lived in the ocean! Scientists know that shelled fossils such as clams decompose, as well as fish and whale bones. Yet even though there are no processes to make all of these underwater fossils today, there are trillions of these fossils around the world. You may consider it strange to think of the Biblical story of the Worldwide Flood that Noah and his family floated over as true, but consider this. If a worldwide flood struck the earth today, it would make fossils, and those fossils would have consistent gaps between the animals. In other words, since there are no rodents that are transitioning from walking to flying now, there wouldn’t be any found in the new fossil record either. How about this; if evolution is true, and the different layers, of say the Grand Canyon, took many millions of years to build up, where is the massive signs of erosion that would have been between the layers? Why are the layers of sediment, which make the walls of the Grand Canyon, consistently lacking the signs of erosion between them? There are two more arguments about the Grand Canyon, in Creation vs. Evolution – How to Scientifically Win a Young Earth Argument; It’s Surprisingly Easy, that are staggering to the argument for evolution, but agree magnificently with the Bible. Notice how the above arguments greatly favor the account of the Flood, but are woefully difficult for the theory of evolution? There are numerous arguments in the study of earth, the study of life, the study of the stars, and even the laws of science that strongly support the Creation and Flood accounts in the Bible. In reading Creation vs. Evolution you’ll find that evolution’s main friend is radiometric dating. Even though radiometric dating is a scientific measurement, you will find that it only has a weather forecaster’s accuracy. Actually, the accuracy can be much worse, even on the same sample of rock. There are many more “clocks” showing the earth is young instead of old, scientifically speaking. Creation vs. Evolution is not a one-sided argument. Evolutionists have asked some difficult questions of the creationists also. Creation vs. Evolution is a collection of the best arguments from creationists to evolutionists and from evolutionists to creationists. The more important question of why we are here, and why it is important to have a good grasp of where we and the universe came from, is discussed in the last chapter. Can the ultimate truth of