Jim & GeorgiaDearmoreSPEEDINGThe Gospel Message On TheWEB and In Hardcopy BooksThis Page ByDr. Pat BrineyIs a Brief Defense ofThe Creation Model |
Brief Extract of a Lecture By Dr. Pat Briney Showing
Evidence For the Creation Model And the Lack
of Evidence For the Evolution Models of Origins
By Dr. Pat Briney
Without a doubt, the scientific evidence favors a
supernatural creation model for the origin of the universe, of life, and of species. Though there
are many creation models differing in specifics of sequence and timeof events, some fundamental
evidences are convincing many scientists that creation models are more credible than evolution
models.
Following is a three point argument to show this fact.
1. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy and matter cannot be created by
natural means.
2. Observation shows that the universe is made of energy and matter.
3. Therefore, the universe must have originated by supernatural means.
The first law of thermodynamics is a scientific law for which there are no known exceptions.
Because credible science relies on known, empirical evidence, an objective scientist is
compelled to admit that based on the first law of thermodynamics the origin of the universe
is best explained as a supernatual event.
In contrast, the evolution model proposes only natural explanations for origins. Thus, this
model is seriously flawed because it contradicts a known scientific law. With regard to the origin of life, the scientific evidence favors the
creation model.
First, the supernatural origin of life is a justifiable model because of the precedence
established for the supernatural origin of the universe. After all, if the universe originated
by supernatural means,it is reasonable to assume that life originated supernaturally.
The evidence for the supernatural origin of life also involves a law of science: the law of
biogenesis. This law states that living cells come from preexisting cells. There are no known
exceptions. Further, experiments conducted in the field of abiogenesis show that at all seven
steps of the proposed evolutionary events leading from lifeless molecules to a living cell,
even under carefully controlled conditions and utilization of sophisticated technology, living
cells cannot be made from molecules. Thus, one can conclude that under natural, spontaneous
conditions it far more unlikely that living cells could have evolved.
Though evolutionists argue that more time is needed to demonstrate the plausibility of the
evolutionary claim, it should be noted that this is an excuse for the lack of evidence. At
present, all evidence for the origin of life favors the supernatural creation of life from
lifeless molecules.
As for the origin of species, the evidence strongly favors the creation model. Consider the
following:
1. Because the supernatural origin of the universe and of life are overwhlemingly supported
and favored by the evidence of scientific findings, then the most reasonable explanation for
the origin of species is that of supernatural creation. Precedence and consistency compel one
to accept a complete model of creation.
2. Whereas, creationists and evolutionists both agree that change within populations occurs
by means of mutation of the DNA molecule and pressures of natural selection, they dispute the
degree of change that is possible. While evolutionists argue that change is unlimited,
creationists submit evidence for limited change. In both academic and industrial laboratories,
intensive research is conducted to induce genetic change in organisms. Without exception,
increased change brings about simultaneous decrease inviability. Thus, laboratory evidence
suggests that cumulative change in the DNA molecule will result in death. The evidence favors
the creationists' claim that change is limited.
3. In light of this evidence, it is not surprising to discover that the fossil record
reveals that populations resist change. Presently, the Darwinian model of proposed inevitable,
gradual change is under attack and has been abandoned by many evolutionists in favor of the
punctuated equilibrium model.
This model states that because the fossil record shows that populations resist change and
that there is an absence of transitional organisms from one kind to another, the best
evolutionary explanation is that populations under go rapid transition (one to two million
years rather than ten to twenty million years). Due to the rapid change and the relatively
small number of organisms involved in the transition, the links between major groups of
organism populations are missing (missing links).
This model is an excuse for the absence of evidence. It does not offer evidence in favor
of evolution. Further, it is an admission that evolutionary transition from one population
to another kind is not documented by the fossil findings. The fossil record supports the
creation model claim that population kinds of organisms experience limited change and that
they were created fully formed and fully functional independent of other populations. Once
again, the evidence favors creation.
Overall, evidence favors the creation model for the supernatural origin of the universe, of
life, and of species.The creation model conforms to the data and does not contradict known
laws of science. The evolution model, in contrast, offers excuses for the lack of evidence and
more importantly contradicts known scientific laws. It not only lacks credibility, it also
violates the principles of good scientific discipline.
The creation model is the most logical and scientifically supportable
model for origins.
Because of this, one is challenged to admit that the Bible is correct, namely, that, "In
the beginning, God created ...." If the Bible is correct, then there was an Adam and Eve,
and there is such a thing as sin, and there is judgment and a hell, and there is need for a
Savior, and God did come to humanity in the form of a man known as JesusChrist, and He does
offer salvation and eternal life to everyone who believes in Him and will surrender their lives
to Him. Are you prepared to meet your Creator?
These arguments or others in favor of creation by Dr. Briney will be
published in a book forthcoming. If you are interested in purchasing a copy, please contact
him at bapcoll@comp.uark.edu.
|
Optimized For Netscape
Navigator 3.XX |
E-Mail James H. Dearmore at: jhdearmore@mymail.net
|