Creation vs Evolution
But if there is no evidence, how can we truely know how to find the answer to this question? Well, maybe there is evidence. Maybe people just choose to overlook it.
Evolutionists claim to have "proof", but their "proof" better supports the idea of creationism than of evolution. Has anyone ever stopped to think that maybe there's a reason for that? Maybe there's a reason that the evolutionists have NO proof, and what they THINK they have opposes their ideas rather than supporting them.
Creationists and Evolutionists both use the same three points (that better support the idea of creation) to support their beliefs:
1) Living things are similar in many ways.
2) Changes in nature have always occured.
3) The fossil record.
How could these same three points be used to support both perspectives? Well, maybe the only reason it's seen as supporting is because these people are trying to see something, so what they see isn't really there. Let me explain a bit more.
First off, not all evolutionists believe that we came from monkeys per say. There are other animals that we have genetic things in common with, although monkeys are the closest relatives. We have organs in common with pigs and frogs. But, hey, if you want to get THAT technical, most living things have eyes, right? Would you assume that because people have eye problems, we came from moles? Didn't think so. So why would it make more since to say men came from monkeys? If that were true, then why are monkeys still around AS A SEPERATE SPECIES?! Humans cannot repopulate with monkeys. It's genetically impossible (and morally disgusting) because they are a DIFFERENT species. Put simply: Science shows that while genetic mutation is possible, evolving from one species to another is not.
The evolutionists believe that because living things are similar in many ways, that there had to have been a common ancestor. The creationist side of this arguement says that of course there would be similarities if the similar things that they had in common were used for similar purposes. This goes back to what I was saying before. Most living things have eyes. Have you ever heard of an animal that had eyes that were just for show? The purpose of eyes is for seeing.
Point number two: changes in nature have always occured. Evolutionists say that this is because of uniformitarianism (weathering and erosion). The opposite arguement is catastrophism (a worldwide catastrophe). Well, here's the thing that gets me that no one seems to be paying attention to in their arguements: Both. Things. Happen. Both parties agree that natural selection occurs, but the thing is this (my point before): if you're going to rely on these changes in nature to support your theory, you have to take into consideration the process of adaptation.
Adaptation is proven by Science to take place to assist living things in changing their needs to suit what's available to them. Example: camels store water in their huge back hump so that it lasts them in the desert. Adaptation proves that while animals are capable of changing into different types, they are NOT capable of changing into different species. Have you ever heard of a camel changing into a cactus? Therefore, this further proves the creationist's point that living things change over time. But it disproves the point of the evolutionist because it shows that animals can't transfer species.
The last common point between the two is the fossil record. Evolutionists believe that these fossils hold information about seperate stages of evolution. In my opinion, that just shows that they're so desperate for evidence to disprove the creationist view, that they use rock pictures to do story telling so that they can speak for the dead when in reality, they know they can't back anything up.
On the creationist side of this, they say that it simply misproves the idea of evolution because there are no records (at all) in the fossils that show any kind of species turning into another kind of species. In fact, what it does show is the way the organisms changed WITHIN THEIR OWN SPECIES through adaptation and mutation, but never trans-species.
My last point is the differences in how they believe the world began. Not all evolutionists believe in the "Big Bang Theory", though it can't really be called a "theory" because, again, there is no solid evidence that they can prove it with. The opposing idea: Special Creation (by God or another deity).
Here's the deal: in truth, neither idea can be told as fact because neither can be proven 100%. These things take faith of some kind. The main cause of wars, murder, prejudice, fights, and just pure hate is generally because of skin color or religion. Hence Bin Ladin. That's why we need to look at this from a distance and not try to fight over it. This is for Science. Not for arguement. If you want to fight to make someone believe your view, join a debate team. Because here, I genuinely couldn't care less whether you think I'm right or not. I'll happily assault you in the face with my Bible if that's what you want, but it isn't necessary. I have a point to make with this: people try so hard and fight so much because of what they believe.
The thing is that you won't win people over with threats (I.E. "You're going to hell if you don't repent"), conceit (I.E. "I'm better than you because I believe in Jesus so I'm going to heaven and you aren't because you're a terrible person."), or lingering on their imperfections (I.E. "God is going to punish you because you're a slut" or "You're not a Christian so you can't go to heaven" or "You shoplifted a necklace which is the same as stealing but I would NEVER do that, so God loves me more"). It's people like that who are pushing these people AWAY. We are commanded to share his love, not his punishment. Tell them the truth, but don't exalt yourself. Don't try to seem like you're better than them. Teenagers can be cruel. But it's people like that who die first in school shootings.
Anyway, back to the topic of the "Big Bang". I know I got mildly off topic, but at least I had a valid point to make, so deal with it. Personally, it seems ridiculous to me that people are so desperate to believe anything but creation and purpose, that they would choose to believe in the Big Bang.
In a way, both sides of the beginning claim that everything came from nothing. The difference: one side argues creation and purpose and the other side argues coincidence, randomness, accident, and no purpose.
Wouldn't you think that those people would be, like, really depressed? They seem like they'd do anything to make their life have some purpose to it: drugs (pot, crack, acid), drinking, sex, prostitutes, careers, binges, anything they could get their hands on. But at the end of the day, they still feel empty...like something is there that can't be filled...and they can't seem to find the only thing that can fill it. So they get into harder drugs (hash, crank, E., heroin) to try to fill that spot. They don't make happy pills, though. Then they get suicidal. Most O.D., hang themselves, slit their wrists, or jump off a building. Their choice of suicide reflects their choices in life. For example, the ones that slit their wrists or O.D. generally had the most screwed up childhoods and either started popping or started cutting. Or both. Maybe what happened was just an accident.
What Is the Big Bang Theory?
I know that seems random that I'd put in a subtitle this far into the report, but it's my paper, so get over it and just keep reading.
In order to understand the two views (creationist vs evolutionist) of the Big Bang, first you have to know what it is. According to the Scientific overall stuff about it, it was this huge explosion that created everything. One moment there was a really really tiny ball of hot nothing and the next it exploded and the Universe just magically appeared. Can I just throw this in: there are different branches of evolutionists: Darwinists, the Big Bang believers, and the ones who believe that the first man was abducted by smarter life forms from another planet and then brought back to Earth. I'm not being a smart alec, that is actually in one of my text books.
Anywho, it claims that everything that is was formed in a split second in this explosion. It also claims that the explosion was so big, that even today material is still flying away from it at incredible speeds.
I call bologna. I mean, A) If there was nothing, where did the ball of nothing come from, what made it that hot for no apparent reason, and what caused the non-existant chemical reaction that caused it to explode? B) If there's still stuff out there, where is it and how do you know? C) What formed the chemicals that caused said imbalance?
The most common question asked by the evolutionist is "If God created the world, who created God?" Well, here's what I think. I don't understand why you think asking that question scores you any points in this debate because the same can be asked of you. The only difference is that YOU don't have an answer. And the most common comeback used by evolutionists at this point would be "Neither can you, though, and you've already admitted that!" Slow your roll, Jedi, I'm not finished yet. We have no physical proof that proves it 100%. As I said before, some things take faith. So here's the deal: God didn't need a creator. He was always there, always has been, always will be. God created time itself, so he isn't effected by time. That IS the answer. The evolutionists simply don't accept it because it means you'd have to believe it by faith.
* * *
"I don't have your kind of faith. How could this all-powerful God have created everything when nothing was there to create him?"
Well what do you believe happened, then?
"Oh, I believe that there was nothing, then this Big Bang happened because there was a hot ball of nothing that exploded, then out of it came planets and the whole Universe. But the planets weren't fully developed when they were first formed. Instead, once Earth was placed completely randomly in the only spot in the Universe that is the perfect distance to support life everywhere on the planet whereas all other planets are either too hot or too cold and have no water, the water that had just appeared from nowhere had little nothings in it. These nothings became the first living cell which multiplied and evolved into simple plants like algae which evolved over a huge amount of time into a tadpole-like creature which further evolved into a fish which became a lizard which became a bird. After lots and lots of time, all animals were formed and monkeys slowly evolved into people. The fossil record proves it, too!! We just can't find the certain fossils that are the missing links."
Well why do you think it is that you can't find the missing links that show that men evolved from monkeys?
"Oh, because of weathering and erosion. Yeah, even though they only effect the surface, somehow they've caused the missing fossils to get buried so far into the crust, it almost reaches the mantle! But because the crust is thousands and thousands of feet thick, we can't reach these fossils, which is why we can't prove it. Yet."
Uh huh...well, what do you believe about the Bible?
"It's just a collection of childhood fairy tales that mean nothing. It's well written and has nice stories, but it shouldn't be taken seriously. As for the parts that have actually been proven to be true, those shouldn't be taken seriously either. They should be read as they were written: for their time. Things have changed since then."
But it says in the Bible that God doesn't change.
"Well, like I said, it should be read in the context it's written. It's not to be taken seriously. Out of curiosity, what do you believe?"
Well, I believe we were all created with purpose. See, God is perfect and can't be around sin. In heaven, His will is done and everything bows to him and obeys and there is no sin and there are no more tears and everything is beautiful and perfect.
Originally, Satan's name was Lucifer. He was the head archangel - God's messenger - and he lead all of heaven in worship. But God created mankind and chose them as his heirs - his children - whereas the angels were simply there and their only purpose was to praise him and obey him.
But mankind were called the children of God and they were made to praise him and take care of his creation (the world). Lucifer was outraged because God made us - the weaker - of more importance than His angels. We had free will. They did not. So Lucifer rebelled and God created hell for him. That day, 1/3 of the angels from heaven went to hell along with Lucifer. That's why there is a consistant number of demons as well as there are angels. Both sets are immortal.
So, Lucifer became Satan, and he was known as the Prince of Deception; the Father of Lies. He manipulates and tempts and tries to trick mankind into falling into sin. His view: if he has to go down, he's taking as many of us with him as he can.
The first man and woman created were Adam and Eve. Adam was created to take care of God's creation and Eve was created to...take care of Adam. He was formed from the dust. She was formed from the flesh. But Satan came to her in the form of a serpent and persuaded her to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil - the only tree in the whole Garden of Eden that she and Adam were commanded to not eat from.
So, sin was unleashed into the world because Eve chose to take the only thing God said she couldn't have. And because of that, sin and death were let into the world - and the first death occured: God made attire for her and Adam out of animal skins. An innocent being lost its life because she chose to disobey God.
But God sent His Son - His only Son - to Earth so that He would die for our sins, therefore defeating Satan and saving all of mankind. He crushed death and now we're free. Because Jesus gave His life for us, all we have to do is accept Him into our hearts and allow Him to live through us. No strings attatched.
"Well that's just silly."
It says in the Bible to see things through the eyes of a child. They're innocent, forgiving, amazed by everything, trusting, and they have the kind of faith that God wants us to have - they don't need to see things to believe them. There are all these stories told to them about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy and the Sand Man and Santa Clause. It appeals to their imagination.
So, if you look through the eyes of a child, everything becomes new. Fresh. Exciting. Intriguing. There's no more going through the motions. Everything is beautiful. And anything becomes possible.
"Well, if anything is possible, then how come the Big Bang is automatically written off as impossible?"
Because for one, it's proven to be impossible. But also, you see through the eyes of a grown up. You believe it, not because you want to, but because you want to prove someone else wrong. Some things require faith.
"I don't have your kind of faith."
You're wrong. You have much more faith than I do.
