Time’s Oldest DebateRaffikkiPeriod 2According to recent studies, planet earth formed approximately four and ahalf billion years ago. Since then, the earth has undergone many evolutionarychanges. Earth began as a swirling gas which condensed to create an immenseland mass. The ancient earth was basically the same as today’s earth except forthe environment.
The atmosphere of the ancient earth was quite different,containing more carbon and nitrogen gases than oxygen. The former atmosphere iswhere much of present day organic molecules such as proteins, lipids, andenzymes were created in abundance. By chance or simply because of the laws ofnature, those life producing compounds bonded together to create the oldestknown life form on earth — a bacterium. Other life forms evolved from thebacterium through natural selection. These microscopic organisms formedsymbiotic relationships with each other and produced larger, multicellularorganisms, such as man. It may seem like a gigantic leap, bacterium to man, butgiven billions of years, it is certainly possible.
It is true that The Bibleholds certain truths which would imply a reliable source of information; however,some parts of The Bible are not true at all. According to science, life evolvedin the following order: bacterium to fish, fish to various land animals, andanimals to man. Coincidentally or divinely, The Bible states that God said,”Let the waters teem with fish and other life. . .
let the earth bring forth everykind of animal. . . Let us make man” (Genesis 1:20-26). The Bible accuratelydepicts the order in which life was established. But how could the primitivepeople who wrote The Bible know the order of which life was created withoutscience to aid them? This evidence would stand to prove that The Bible truly isthe word of God Himself.
However, evolutionists would prefer to believe thatthe writer of The Bible was an incredible guesser. That is because many partsof The Bible seem to be written based on conjectures of what people of the timethought was correct. An example of this would be from Genesis, “God made twogreat lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light togovern the night” (Genesis 1:16). Obviously the greater light is the sun andthe lesser light is the moon; however, the moon is not a light, it is a planetthat reflects light.
The people who wrote The Bible did not know that the moonwas a planet; nor did they know that other planets even existed. So, theydescribed the moon as a source of light just as the sun is a source of light. The writers of The Bible made a good guess; nevertheless, they were wrong. Thisis not to say that the entire Bible is completely inaccurate, but explanationsconcerning the creation are a little vague. Such an unclear source should not beheld accountable to explain the origin of mankind.
Other proof that the biblical account of creation is wrong lies withinthe process of carbon and uranium dating, and fossil records. Carbon dating isthe process of determining age by counting the amount of radioactive carbon in afossil or corpse. When a creature is living, it has a certain ratio ofradioactive carbon in it. That radioactive material decays at a fixed rate whenthe creature dies. Scientists know the fixed rate and can therefore determinehow old a carcass is by counting how much radioactive material remains insidethe carcass. Carbon dating is useful for dating remains less than fiftythousand years old.
Using carbon dating, scientists have discovered fossils ofanimals that lived five times as long ago as creationists say is possible. Uranium dating is similar to carbon dating except that it is used for datingthings much older than fifty thousand years, such as the earth. Using uraniumdating, scientists have accurately calculated the age of the earth to be fourand a half billion years old and the age of the earliest living creature to bethree and a half billion years old (Campbell 505). Carbon and uranium datingfurnish indisputable evidence that the biblical account of creation is wrong andevolution has occurred.
The most conclusive proof that man has evolved fromlower life forms lies within the physical characteristics of man and hisrelation to other creatures. One physical example that man evolved is thevarious stages of a developing embryo. For example, while a human is still inearly embryonic stages, it has gill slits. While the gill slits never fullymature, they serve as evidence that man’s ancestors at one time had gills.
During another period of embryonic development, a human has a tail. Sometimes,a human is actually born with a tail. The tail is evidence of a traitpreviously owned by an ancestor, but was discarded thousands of years ago. Thisis not to say that tails and other physical features are simply cast off, butafter years of disuse, a feature will grow smaller and eventually disappear. This is also evident in the growth of certain animals as well.
At certainstages of development, the embryos of various mammals, birds, fish, and humansare indistinguishable. Further evidence suggesting evolution is vestigialorgans (organs that are of little or no use to the organism). For example,whales possess a pelvic bone which would serve a purpose for functioning legs,and yet they have no legs. Millions of years ago sea creatures came onto land,acquired legs, then returned to the sea where legs were not needed.
The pelvicbone is vestigial in whales because it no longer serves a purpose. Another morefamiliar vestigial organ is the human appendix. It serves absolutely no purposeand, for some humans, is even removed. Embryonic proof, and vestigial organs aresufficient evidence that man has evolved from lower organisms.
While creationists may believe evolution is wrong in defense of theirbelief in God, evolutionists have extensive evidence to strengthen their claimthat man is the result of evolution. Evolutionists say that man is a highlyevolved ape-like creature. There is scientific evidence to prove that claim. There is also proof that evolution is occurring today. Modern apes are aperfect example: they portray almost identical physical characteristics to thatof man, use tools, and are learning to speak using sign language. Apes are notonly similar to man physically and intellectually, but genetically as well.
Human and ape DNA are ninety-nine percent identical. In fact, genetically,humans are more closely related to the ape than the ape is to the orangutan. Regardless of this scientific evidence, creationists will continue to believethat mankind was created by God. Of course, the creationist’s view only holdsif there is belief that The Bible is the true word of God. If mankind had nobelief in The Bible’s account of creation, the Book would remain a work ofmythology.
The Bible requires no ordinary belief, however, but a gigantic leapof faith because there is absolutely no evidence God created mankind. The onlyevidence of creation is in the opinions of millions of creationists. But ifopinion or belief were to be the only basis for determining human origin,couldn’t mankind believe in literally anything and claim it for fact? Humanscould believe the mythical god, Zeus, created mankind! It’s a sad truth, butcreationism is a relic in a world where the concept of evolution logicallyexplains the origin of mankind. Works CitedCampbell, Neil A.
Biology Third Edition. California: The Benjamin/CummingsPublishing Company, Inc. , 1993. The Living Bible: Paraphrased. 1971 ed.
Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale HousePublishers, 1971. Wertheim, Margaret. “Science and Religion: Blurring the Boundaries. “Omni Publications International, Ltd.
October 1994: 36. Religion: SIRS, Vol. 4. 77.Religion
