Is Evolution (Big Bang Theory) real?

Please note firstly, that evolution still and always will be a theory, not fact. Some aspects of evolution are real. The dog is a great example of empirical evidence of evolution. The house dog is derived from the wolf, and over centuries of inbreeding, there are many variations. But to say that the dog, human, ape, and housefly all came from a single celled ancestor is not only hypothetical, but I would propose factitious.

Carbon dating is accurate only up to a certain point of time (several thousands of years at best). There is no way carbon dating can distinguish between one item being one million years old, and another 10 million—moreover, dating a rock to be billions of years old.

Here is a conundrum of evolution: most species have both male and female. If evolution is supposed to be such a random event, how is it that most species have both male and female? Wouldn’t it take, according to how evolution works, millions of years for one species to derive? How then can almost all species strike lightning twice at the same spot at the same time? Evolution’s logic would say that to make a female horse would take millions of years, and the odds of the male coming along would take another millions of years, but by that time the female horse would be long dead. Most species need both the male and female to procreate and continue the species. Something else is definitively going on here.

I am not going to expound on the complexities of even a single celled organism (that’s a huge study of itself). Even a single celled organism shows evidence of an Intelligent Creator.

I concede one thing here. In my attempt to prove evolution to be false, I can only offer a theory of my own to counteract it—for no one really knows (except God, of course). Some would call what I am going to offer a theory, but since it comes directly from the Word of God, and I am a man of God, I have to conclude my conclusion to be superior and fact.

The bible offers a better solution to our question if we consider certain things. Genesis says that God created all animals, both male and female together. That solves the evolution-gender paradox. One thing that is often overlooked is that God created all things (except plants) aged. Plants started off as seeds: Genesis 2:9, “And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food.” Genesis 1:11 says, “Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation...””

Animals and man, however, were created aged. In fact, Adam and Eve were both young adults when they were created. Adam was never a zygote, embryo, and not even a baby. So the answer to the age old question—which came first the chicken or the egg—the chicken came first according to the bible. God did not start with single cells. He started with aged creatures created by the power of His spoken Word: “Let there be” and it was.

Therefore, I propose an apparently aged Earth, and also an apparently aged universe. Big Bang proponents argue that the evidence of the big bang is the fact that all galaxies are moving apart from each other. And therefore, they say, if we rewind the clock all the way back then all galaxies would be together in a single point, which is “proof” of the Big Bang. My theory says that the rewinding of the clock all the way back never existed, but rather, when God spoke the universe into existence, the universe was completely filled, and from that point, the galaxies were moving apart from one another. From that point the universe was already apparently aged.

(Side note: they say that our closest galaxy, Andromeda is scheduled to collide with us in several billions of years from now. Hmmm….so we will meet again [from the Big Bang perspective]).

God did make the universe self-generating. New planets and galaxies are forming all the time. (That’s another study I’m not getting into here.)

This may raise the question: What do I think happened to the dinosaurs? I saw a wonderful Christian theologian answer this question on television and much of what I think comes from him. The short answer is the flood of Noah killed off the dinosaurs.

The story of Noah itself allows us to assume that not all creatures of the Earth were put onto the ark. It allows us to use our common sense. Here is proof: were the fish, sharks, whales and creatures of the sea put on the ark? Of course not. The bible doesn't say it, but it allows us to use our common sense. So I can only suggest (this I have no conclusive evidence, just a suggestion that makes sense to me) that the dinosaurs were too massive to include on the list of species to go onto the ark.

Two great things happened during the day of the flood. One is that a deluge of rain came from the sky, but that is not the only thing. A great deluge of water came from the Earth itself. Before the flood, the Earth did not produce rainwater. Rather, water came gently from the ground itself. Genesis 2:6, "but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." Genesis 1:9, "And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."

The second great event, the deluge of water from the ground comes from Genesis 7:11, "...on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened." So here it says that the great waters came from both the sky and the ground. One only can look on the map of the continents to see that all continents were once one body of land. They all fit perfectly like a puzzle if we were to drift them back together. I believe that this event in verse 11 is the separation of the single continent into seven. The pressure of the waters was so great that it blasted the land apart, spewing the waters from beneath it and separating the continent. The mountains were all formed from the stopping of the continents after they came to a stop. Note that practically all mountains of the world are along the coastlines of the continents. There was a sudden ripple of the land as it came to a stop that formed the mountains, and also the Grand Canyon. (I truly believe that it is impossible for the Grand Canyon to form from millions of years of water running over it as they say.) The Grand Canyon was formed instantly from this great event.

Note that the first mountain mentioned in the bible comes in Genesis 7:20, just after the flood waters resided.

Most of what I have said about the dinosaurs, mountains, and the Grand Canyon is speculation on my part, but considering what the bible says and observing the placement of the mountains and the continents once being together lead me to this opinion.

Just watched Nova which commemorated Darwin and explained some new evolution discoveries. Nothing ground-breaking to me that would prove evolution to be the origin of the human species.

They say that the fact that we all derive from a similar looking embryo suggest that we all derive from a common ancestor. But I suggest that it only proves that we all derive from a common Intelligent Creator that created His creation similar in certain regards.

They mentioned genetic DNA switches that turns on and off features like limbs and an animal's color. I don't argue these genetic switches. But what turns on and off these switches? Can an embryo choose which switch it needs to turn on or off to best suit it in the evironment it is about to enter? The program never answered that question. It just showed that there are genetic switches. It seems to me that an intelligent creator would have to orchestrate which switches to turn on and off, just as I could not determine my own eye color, and make an extra limb.

They say that a snake used to have legs and a genetic DNA switch shut off the limb feature of a snake. Interestingly, the bible was the first to say that a snake had legs. Genesis 3:14, God punishes the snake by taking away its legs: "So the LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the livestock and all the wild animals! You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust all the days of your life."

How did the bible know? Lucky guess? Or perhaps the bible knows more than the scientists.

While the scientists and explorers of Columbus' day were debating whether the Earth is round or flat if they had only opened up their bible they would have found the answer. It is a good debate because if the Earth is flat, we cannot travel too far or we might fall out into the abyss; and, without an understanding of gravity, if the Earth is round, we might slide off at the sides or fall to the sky if we are at the bottom.

But opening the bible to Isaiah 40:22, God tells us that the Earth is round. It reads, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the Earth, and its people are like grasshoppers."

Scientists and physicists think that they are the source of all knowledge and that the bible doesn't know what it is talking about. But they have it all wrong. God's Word is the source of all the answers and man is just guessing. If we want to know what happened at the beginning, a man coming up with a Big Bang is not the answer; and, Darwin looking at how similar creatures are and coming up with evolution is not the answer; only God's Word is telling the truth of what really happened. Science must catch up to the bible, not vice versa. But science will never be able to explain HOW when God speaks it is created. Therefore, science can never be the source of truth.