Currently Reading Scientific Creationism By Henry M. Morris see related

Which of the following statements would you agree with:

1.      I believe in Creation according to Genesis. This includes a young earth, fall of man and ejection from Eden, and worldwide cataclysmic destruction by the flood of Noah. I believe all people and breathing animals alive today descended from survivors on the ark.

2.      I believe in Evolution according to modern science. The earth is billions of years old. Life came from “primordial ooze.” By natural selection and “survival of the fittest” life branched out to all forms of plant and animals present today. Man represents the highest development of evolution thus far.

3.      I believe in a combination (compromise) of Evolution and Creation ideas.

Follow up: What do you base your belief upon?

I base mine on the following...

What is the Importance of Origins?
• Why: Either there is a Creator or there is not. If there is, then the Creator is impersonal (deism) or personal (theism). Either way, the accepting reality of a Creator is essential to hope and purpose. Without a Creator the great question, "why are we here?" is left unanswered. If there is a Creator, then there is hope for finding out that answer and learning our purpose.
• Mental health: After the essentials of air, water, food, and shelter, humans need love and purpose. We need a sense of value for our mental health. Without a sense of reason for being and a sense of love, we are negative, fatalistic, depressive, and in general see little point in life. We need a Creator who is real and personal for our well being.
• Direction: For us to have any idea where we are going (or at least where we should be going) we need to have some grasp of where we came from. Scriptures give us a very clear picture of our origin and the path we've taken to get where we are. God has revealed in scripture our path forward as well. A person without this roadmap has no great direction in life. When a whole people group lacks direction it breaks down the civilization resulting in moral and social structural decay.
• Morality: If there is no God, then there are no absolute standards for morality. Only the forces of culture combine to enforce a general and relative moral standard. If there is a God, then there is order to the universe. If this God is personal, then the order extends to the people he created. In other words, the reality of a personal God infers absolute standards for morality. Scriptures provide a written blueprint for God's standards. The indwelling Holy Spirit takes those standards and imprints them into us in such a way we know them and have an internal desire to live according to them.
• Scripture: Either scripture is the revelation of God, by God, to and through men, or it is the invention of man. Scripture provides the outline of our origin, a record of God's personal involvement with humanity since, and provides us with at least enough information about our direction so as to have hope. If one accepts the reality of God, and then you go a step further to accept God is personal, then you are confronted with accepting the revelation of scripture.
• Jesus: Jesus Christ is the resurrected living Lord, or he was a liar or lunatic. There is more than enough evidence to prove in a court of law he was an actual historic figure and that the events of his life, death, and resurrection actually occurred. If one examines the evidence by reason, the result is invariably the revelation of the reality that Jesus Christ is exactly who he claimed to be. Once we are faced with this information, we either choose to personally accept him as Lord and as Savior, or we reject him. There are only two choices.

Why Study Origins?

2 Tim 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. How we came to be is critical to where we are going. Creationism is a giant question mark in the minds of many and to be fully equipped, you need to know a little about the subject.

2 Tim 3:1-7 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth. Liars creep in and try to make us disbelieve the Creation account. If there was no creation event, then Genesis is a lie and the whole of scripture must then be a lie. Jesus confessed Creation, so if Creation is a lie then Jesus was a liar and must not be Lord. Evolution is one of the most dangerous lies to confront Christianity.

1 Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, People will ask. It isn't something to be defensive about as many creationists are. I myself can get that way at times and it is wrong. We need to convey Truth with respect. A demonstration of respect and care for a person will open them up to receiving the Truth you know.

Jas 1:12,17 Blessed is the man who remains steadfast under trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life, which God has promised to those who love him ... Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change. God doesn't change. If our Lord rules us and lives in our hearts then we, too, must be resolute.

Why does it matter what you believe about it?

Jn 12:42-43 Nevertheless, many even of the authorities believed in him, but for fear of the Pharisees they did not confess it, so that they would not be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God. If you don't know what you believe then you can be deceived and not only fall away yourself, but drag others down with you.

Mt 12:26 And if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? United we stand, divided we fall. There is only one truth and only one bride to Christ.

Ro 1:24-25 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. Paul gives us a very clear warning that we must put our faith in the Creator, not the created. The former have hope of eternal life, but the latter are allowed to do as they will to their own demise. You must know what you believe and why!

Is creation important to the Gospel?

Jn 1:1-3,14 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. ... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. John testified to the involvement of Anointed One (Christ) as the Son of God in Creation. In fact, it declares the person of the Son was, as Son of God, with God and it was through the Son that Creation was made.

Rev 10:5-6 And the angel whom I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand to heaven and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay, An angel who spoke to John declared that Jesus was in fact the one by whose hand all was created.

Ro 5:12-15 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. Paul considered Adam to be a real individual and personally responsible for the fall of man. Here he speaks of sin being universal, with or without a written law. He also indicates Jesus has authority to forgive sin by the free gift of grace. If God set the standard for sin, only God can forgive. Therefore the person of Jesus Christ must be one with God which is to say, at least as far our minds can grasp and as revealed in scripture, the Son of God.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Regardless of whether this means anything about appearance, it definitely means character. Man was created sinless and perfect of character. It was only after man sinned that death came as a result of the sin.

Heb 1:1-4 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. Jesus is God’s image. He did what Adam could not, and that was to live his life without disfiguring the character (image) of God. This one short passage says a great deal about Jesus, crediting him with Creation, purification for sin, and superiority over creation.

Gen 3:22-24 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life. Immediately following Creation: as a result of sin man was rejected, sent away from the garden and the tree of life.

Rev 22:1-5 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. The final event of creation is the restoration of man to being in God's image, in personal community with our God, living life eternal without the pain and suffering the curse of Adam.

Can Evolution or Creation be proven by scientific methods?

To prove something scientifically you must be able to observe and test phenomena. If creation is true, no one was there except God. If you don’t trust God’s testimony (scripture) then you have no eye witness account. If evolution is true then no one was present for the formation of the planet, original life, and no one was evolved sufficiently to observe and document any actual evolution since man evolved. According to the bible creation was completed at the end of the sixth day, so there’s no more creative activity to be observed. Scientists have not observed any actual evolution in the almost two centuries since they started looking specifically for it. In short, neither Evolution nor Creation can be proven by scientific method.

Given that neither concept can be proven scientifically, a logical mind seeking an objective answer to the origin of life must observe what can be observed in order to intelligently choose a belief.

Is there a good objective way to compare Creation to Evolution to make a logical choice which to believe?

In applied science, it is useful to create a model for a theory. The evidence is then fitted into the model. If it fits, the model is probably good. If it doesn’t fit, you either modify the model or reject it.

Pure science does not limit the scientist to a rigid model, but accepts, observes, and tests all data without prejudice. It is my opinion that Evolution believing scientists are predisposed to a prejudice which assumes Creationists are wrong, stupid, or otherwise misguided. They use the aspects of science and observations which suit them to support their position. It is my further observation that many creationists operate from a primarily if not purely religious perspective. They choose to reject the raw data along with the Evolutionists’ interpretations. People on each side tend to present only what supports their position. It is admittedly difficult, if not impossible, for any person to be completely objective in their evaluation of the observable evidence.

IMHO
My study will compare the Creation and Evolution models, look at predictions from each model, and we’ll see which model best serves to explain the source cause for the effects we observe. As the reader knows, I am a Bible believing Creationist. I do not apologize for my belief. I do, however, have a desire to share more with my readers than my faith. I want to show them facts and offer a logical reason, point by point, for agreeing with me. I do not intend to insult anyone’s beliefs, let alone their intelligence, but if you do not believe in the Biblical account of Creation I will accept and answer your challenges with challenges of my own. I am not personally a scientist, and since this is my site I will set the boundaries for topical conversations. In some cases I may tell you I don’t know. In some cases I may tell you your point will be addressed in a future post. When you tell me I’m wrong, provide a logical explanation and I will listen. I’m wrong plenty. This isn’t about me, though. It also doesn’t mean I’ll change my mind or position on any given point. But that’s okay. Go ahead and try me.

What is the point of “Cause and Effect”?

The way to test something scientifically is to generate a cause and observe the effect. If a cause can be shown to generate the same result every time, the observation eventually moves from hypothesis to theory to scientific law. Since origins are not directly observable, the cause cannot be observed directly. The modeling method is thus the only meaningful tool to predict if a given cause (Evolution/Uniformitarianism or Creation/Catastrophism) will result in the effects observed.

What are apologetics?

Apologetics are data used systematically to justify a belief. Before going further with this study, it should be noted that both evolutionists and creationists use apologetics to justify their beliefs. It should be further noted that since neither Creation nor Evolution can be proven scientifically, both positions are ultimately the basis for a belief structure involving the origin of life and all matter. Technically, both are part of their respective and exclusive religions. For those who think you can reconcile the two, we will address this as our study evolves.

What evidence favors Evolution?

The Theory of Evolution is closely tied to a concept called “uniformitarianism.” Uniformitarianism is generally considered a key element to the Evolution model.

The primary basis for Evolution is the fossil record. Scientists observe certain fossils, called index fossils, and assign age based on where they seem best to fit the evolution model. Ages are only estimates based on what seems to make the most sense within the model. To the extent possible evolutionists use radiological dating methods to support the ages presupposed.

Rock is dated primarily by the fossil record. It is assumed the shifting of tectonic plates over eons accounts for construction of our present mountain ranges and oceanic trenches. The uniformitarian concept accounts for the slow buildup of sedimentary rock. This principle explains fossils being added slowly, over millions of years, to layers of rock sediments observed today in sedimentary bedrock (sandstone, limestone, dolostone, coal, etc.) around the world.

Radiometric measurements (U238, Sr87, and C14 are common methods) indicate great rock and fossil ages. Radiometric measures are helpful, but generally considered secondary to the index fossil method.

According to uniformitarianism and evolution, applying certain laws from physics, the universe has been expanding for billions of years. The planets came about from condensation of stellar matter in our local solar system. The organization and order of heavenly bodies has been and continues to become more organized. Heavenly bodies are billions of lightyears away, thus requiring an age of billions of years.

Anthropological data is supposed to support Evolution. In ancient times at least some people did in fact live in caves. They did use what looks like picture-art to convey a written record. Early people did use a range of tools and weapons ranging from simple wooden items to shaped rock and metal. It is supposed these items represent different ages in human development, thus supporting the idea of social evolution. In recent centuries human knowledge and technology has expanded as evidenced by electronics, flight, and all sorts of engineering disciplines.

Beyond stellar observation, radiometric measurement, and the index fossil record, the idea of Evolution appeals to a rational mind which seeks to put our origin into a framework it can grasp. It eliminates the need for a supernatural super intelligent being to create and organize everything we observe today. Everything we observe today appears to be static and generally unchanging, so an idea like Creation, taken from an ancient text from a relatively obscure tribal cult, sounds utterly absurd and completely devoid of scientific support.

What evidence favors Creation?

For the believer in the God of the Hebrew or Christian bible, the revelation of Creation found in scripture is the initial basis of the belief. Aside from the testimony of scripture, including not only the Genesis account, but also numerous other biblical writings, personal experience of divinity requires the believer to accept the written record of prior revelations to former believers from Genesis to the Revelation of John.

From a purely scientific perspective, the Creationist model accepts all of the same raw material observed by Evolutionists. The evidence is the same, the interpretations are what differs. Creation science also takes into account several additional scientific methods, observations, and disciplines. In summary here are a few: first and second laws of thermodynamics, physics laws relating to natural forces (gravity, nuclear, and electro-magnetic), hydrology, fossils and fossilization, radiometrics, statistical mathematics, genetics, anthropology, geology, to name a few. Ultimately, it is the application of rational thinking with all data present from both models that makes it possible to make a logical choice which system, if either, to accept.

Basic Model Comparison Chart

The following chart attempts to put into perspective the major differences between the two models for origin processes. I realize there are probably many dozens of other things which could be listed, but I was trying to just hit the high points.

Can you think of any big ones I left out?

Are any of the comparisons gross misrepresentations of the common models?

The First Law of Thermodynamics:

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed except by nuclear reaction. In classical physics this is the basis for the statement “every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”

Special Relativity:
E=mc². According to this well known formula, called the theory of special relativity, mass and energy are equated by the ratio of an unchanging constant. As it applies to the First Law of Thermodynamics, even when mass is not conserved due to nuclear reaction, the total energy equating to converted mass remains constant. For anyone interested, the constant may be calculated as the velocity of light (squared) if you are talking about accelerating particles such that they cease to be matter and convert to waves. It may also be calculated as 931 MeV/amu for nuclear reaction conversion as with a nuclear reactor, bomb, or a fusion engine such as our sun.

How does the First Law of Thermodynamics affect the Evolution and Creation models?

With regard to Evolution of life, the First Law does not pose an obvious direct problem. It does, however, present a problem to anyone trying to assign a beginning to the universe or to figure out where the universe came from. If all effects have causes, what can be the prime cause of the universe? If energy cannot be created or destroyed, was there a lot more energy before there was matter? Did the First Law itself not apply to whatever nature existed before the universe? The First Law of Thermodynamics presents a significant problem to the uniformitarian part of the model.

With regard to the Creation model, the First Law is actually predicted by Gen 2:1-3. According to the first chapter of Genesis, everything that was created was created in six days and since then there has been no further creation. When God rested, this effectively put the universe into a conservation mode. At that point the First Law came into full effect and since then there has been no observed net gain or loss of energy in the universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

In any energy conversion (work) there is a net increase in Entropy. Entropy is the amount of energy not usable for useful work.

In simple terms the Second Law says that in any system the net useful energy depletes with use. For the system to continue it must be acted upon with the addition of external useful energy. This explains why no one has ever been able to construct a perpetual motion machine. Another way of saying it is the universe is perpetually winding down and dying a slow but certain heat death. Everything becomes less ordered (more chaotic and thus useless) over time. A man can dig ore, smelt it, and form a piece of iron. Left to the devices of nature, however, it will rust and deteriorate until nothing is left but iron oxide dust.

How does the Second Law of Thermodynamics affect the Evolution and Creation models?

The Second Law appears to make evolution literally impossible. The applications to nearly any part of the Evolution model present seemingly untenable problems. In biology, for example, any natural deviation in the normal orderly arrangement of DNA and genetic code is called mutation. For Evolution to be true, it would require beneficial mutations to DNA to not only change the orderly structure, but to make a beneficial change of great complexity for even the smallest positive evolutionary change in the life form.

According to Gen 1:31 - 2:1, God completed creation and it was, at the commencement of the seventh day, perfect. As we have already seen the First Law was inaugurated at this point. According to Gen 2:17 and 3:19, the sin of Adam resulted in death at some point after this. When God cursed Adam it affected not only man, but the whole of creation (Gen 3:19). Decay began only after Adam sinned. This initiated the Second Law. This means the Second Law not only fits the Creation model, it is actually predicted by the Creation model.

The First and particularly Second Laws will appear later in our study as we apply numerous science disciplines to study the models.

If starlight is arriving at earth from billions of light-years away, doesn’t that mean the universe must be billions of years old?

Perhaps the biggest problem for the creationist model is distant starlight. This issue probably provides more support to the evolutionists’ argument than anything else, including the fossil record.

Stars appear to glow different colors from red to yellow to blue. Scientists tell us that the color differences are explained by star motion. Some stars are moving away from us and some are moving toward us. Although we can’t see them move due to distance, they move fast enough we see an apparent color shift due to Doppler effect. Just as sounds are a higher pitch as the source moves toward us, light shifts toward the red end of the spectrum as stars move toward us. Likewise, the blue shift occurs when stars move away from us. Since most stars look blue, it stands to reason most stars are moving away from us. Scientists use this visual phenomena to tell us the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, it then stands to reason it is expanding from a particular point. A little mathematical magic later and they come up with a number of something on the order of 30 or so billion years.

To provide a bit a perspective I’d like to share an experience I had once. With our local astronomy club we did a “walk” of the solar system. The sun was a beach ball. A few steps away Mercury was about the size of the head of a pin. Venus, almost the size of earth, was a green pea placed about 20 feet out. Earth was about the size of a piece of peanut butter Captain Crunch about 40 feet away. Mars was a peppercorn almost 100 feet away. Jupiter was about the size of ping pong ball nearly 100 yards out. Saturn was a bit smaller, about a two blocks away. Pluto was nearly a mile out. The next nearest star, according to our guide, would be about from Louisville KY to Los Angeles. Try to imagine 2000 miles between two beach balls being the empty space between our sun and the next nearest star.

Stars appear different colors. Stars certainly appear to be very far from us. But is the color really due to red or blue shift? Are stars really so far away? There are many reasons to question the popular interpretations of astronomic calculations and observations. One of the biggest problems with an old universe is the same problem with anything else being old. Where did it come from? It makes no difference how old something is if you cannot explain where it came from.

What are the problems with the Big Bang Theory?

If the universe is expanding from a single point, what is the first cause of the universe expanding out of that point, and where did that point come from? If the universe had one start, there must have been a prime cause. Years ago scientists came up with the “big bang” theory. This theory accounted for star color, but where did all the mass in the universe come from? If it is going to expand forever, the question of initial source and cause for explosion and expansion is extremely problematic. The big bang does not, on its own, account for an initiating prime cause. Either everything always existed, or there was a start and thus a starter. To overcome this problem, the uniformitarian scientists came up with something called the “oscillating universe” theory.

What are the problems with the Oscillating Universe Theory?
This theory suggests the universe has always existed and goes through periods of expansion and contraction. We are merely the lucky recipients of life via evolution during one such period of expansion. The concept of an oscillating universe is based on universal gravity eventually overcoming the expanding force of the point source explosion. Once the universe folds back into itself, the concentration of all the matter is supposed to cause a new explosion, thus repeating the cycle. This theory overcomes the main philosophical problem of a single big bang event.

Where’s the extra matter in the universe to create the gravity required to draw the universe back in on itself? Scientists have done their math and concluded the universe contains only a small fraction of enough matter necessary for gravitational forces to overcome the expansion previously calculated. They then decided the extra matter really does exist, but we can’t see it. They call this stuff dark matter. If the matter is really there, it must be measurable stuff we can find, observe, and specify. The problem is, it isn’t there. Scientists call black holes and other such cosmic anomalies the dark matter, but even accounting for all of this sort of deep space phenomena, they still come up with one to two orders of magnitude not enough matter. If there is really dark matter out there, it should interfere with our vision of extremely distant objects such as other galaxies. According to the most brainy nerds on our planet, however, this stuff just doesn’t appear to exist. The universe, therefore, isn’t oscillating. These scientist still cling to the hope of finding the stuff, or perhaps with better observation equipment and a little more head scratching they can come up with another answer.

Maybe, just maybe, the universe isn’t oscillating. Maybe stars aren’t even moving in the fashion our bright scientists think. Perhaps they really are different colors and they aren’t moving nearly as much as we think.

If the universe is expanding from a single point, where’s the shadow?

If the universe is expanding from a single location, where’s the shadow from the bang? Even if the universe is oscillating, the most recent bang should provide a vivid shadow behind everything moving away from the source. There is no shadow in our radiographic measurements. It simply isn’t there.

Another aspect of this question involves the spectrum and intensity of cosmic waves reaching earth. If the universe were flooding out from one place, there should be cosmic radiation coming from that direction in greater strength than in the direction of nothingness. Spectral analysis of cosmic radiation shows it comes from all directions with equal intensity at all frequencies. This alone should prove the universe is not expanding. By color observations the blue to red ratio makes it obvious the universe isn’t collapsing. Perhaps the universe is static.

If the universe isn’t billions of years old, how do you account for light getting here from billions of light-years away?

This is probably Creationists’ biggest science problem. Some Creationists claim the stars are not so far away as we suppose. Even if the most distant observable stars were only ten thousand light-years away, this doesn’t explain how we can see them now if the earth is only 6000 years old.

Perhaps the universe was created with an “apparent age.” We know for a fact that some new igneous rocks observed being created by volcanism measure millions of years old using U²³⁸ or similar measurement techniques. Just as God almost certainly created some lead daughter products of U²³⁸ decay when he created the rock and put the uranium in it, maybe God created the light waves between us and distant stars so that we can see His wonders in spite of the unfathomable distances involved. According to Genesis, God created all the matter of the universe in a very brief time. Genesis indicates there was light even before the sun itself was formed. Just as evolutionary cosmologists hope technology will eventually vindicate them with findings of additional dark matter, Creationists also hope to one day have the ability to make better measurements to prove stars are essentially static and young.

There are other theories such as local light speed variations, time discontinuity in open space, even time/space problems with the theory of special relativity. Additional dimensions, wormholes, and other Star Trek sounding theories are gaining popularity as people grasp for answers in the stars to the great mysteries of origin and destiny.

God will vindicate His name with or without scientific proofs. As for me, I don’t know the answer to this one, but I do know there are enough other problems with great celestial age to trust God’s wisdom in heavenly creation.

Do supernovas support Creation or Evolution?

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, entropy increases anytime work is done. At the celestial level, one example of entropy may well be supernovas. Every few years astronomers observe a star explode and wink out. In that time no astronomer has ever observed a nebula form into a solar system. No celestial body has ever been observed go from chaos to order even though scientists seem to talk about it as if happens once a week. Most stars or other deep space bodies never appear to do much of anything, but when something does happen observations are always from order to chaos.

Supernovas testify against the uniformitarianism model and therefore against Evolution.

Do comets support Evolution or Creation?

Many comets are observed moving around the sun at various rates with highly elliptical orbits at extreme angles to our solar system ecliptic plane. Comets are essentially just big chunks of ice and dust. They have tails because they are constantly loosing bits of dust and icy debris, particularly as they come relatively close to the sun. Astronomers have never observed them gaining mass as they circuit the solar system, only loosing mass.

Scientists tell us that most of the comets we know of today with relatively short orbits (less than a century) should dissipate in less than 10,000 years. If the solar system is billions of years old, why are they still here? If they started out big enough that what we see is all there is left, the inner planets should all have been torn apart billions of years ago by the gravitational forces of these giants as they passed by. Where did all that ice come from? Where is all the debris from all those billion year old comets now? The asteroid belt between and Mars doesn’t account for it. The many tons of meteorite debris and space dust we pick up each year doesn’t account for it.

Comets testify to a relatively young solar system.

Can the sun be billions of years old?

First, a few interesting facts about the sun: the sun contains about 98% of the total mass of our solar system. The surface at the equator rotates on axis faster than the poles. The core is believed to rotate about once every 27 days. The surface of the sun is believed to be about 11,000° F. The sun is made up mostly of hydrogen atoms. It is generally accepted that “burning” hydrogen as a massive fusion engine generates the radiant energy of the sun. When two hydrogen atoms fuse together they form a helium atom. The mass of the helium atom is less than the sum of the two individual hydrogen atoms. The difference is given off as energy and sub-atomic particles called neutrinos.