My Personal Home Page
menu connecting bars
Children Evolution Extreme Fahrenheit 451 Straight Topics Truth
Here we will look at the following:


Evolution is an attempt at explaining how different species came to be different species. Quickly though, science is based on observation and reproducibility. Can you observe it? Can you produce it repeatedly? Does evolution fit with these basics? I think that any discussion about how the earth was formed and how life began on that earth is going to be more philosophical than scientific.

First of all, have you ever noticed how many headlines and news stories there are about evolutionary discoveries, but not many news items for discoveries about creation? For example, there are the headlines "New Discovery! Scientists Now Believe That Life Started X Years Ago" or "Scientists Discover That Humans First Lived in (insert different geographic region here)." While some may say that is the liberal bent of the media not to cover creation stories, it probably has more to do with the static nature of creation and the dynamic nature of evolution.

Creation is static because the Creator has given the account of creation. That account, found in the book of Genesis in the Bible, has not changed in thousands of years. So if it is true, then it is true. It is not being revised. There may be some people who try to interpret the text differently from the normal story, but they do not change the actual text; that has remained the same. Contrast that with evolution, which is constantly being revised. Do you put your belief in a fixed standard or one that is changing all the time so, if you have not read the latest periodicals, you actually might not know what it is you are supposed to believe? Also, since new discoveries and theories about evolution are always appearing, and some "overrule" the previous theories, could it not be that a headline might appear that says "New Finding! Scientist Now Believe That Human Life Started 6000 Years Ago Near Iraq" (Mesopotamia is the approximate location of the garden of Eden)? That headline does not sound too different from today's headlines. If that discovery did occur, it would not really be new, since Christians have known that for quite some time. But it would be new to the evolutionists, and if they did find something which agrees with creationism, they would probably discard that information.

As I was collecting information on the subject, I found that most everything I could write in this page already exists on the Internet. I had a list of recommended links, which had a lot of good material. I decided that this page would be mostly links, with little content. There are many people whose full-time jobs are to research and discuss this stuff. I am not one of those people.


for discussions by people who are those people.

Overview Statement

From my understanding of this theory, lower life forms gradually turned into higher life forms. This process took a long time, millions to billions of years. A current, popular definition of evolution is "descent with modification".

It appears that the terms "lower life form" and "higher life form" are no longer used. Perhaps it was too human-centric or perhaps it promoted social castes. Now the modern diagrams show that everything that is currently alive is of the same evolutionary level and are merely "newer" than the "older" life forms. No one is higher or lower than anyone else. It is almost socialistic. It at least reduces the chance that people might think that humans are different from all other animals. I feel that humans are different and were created different (in the image of God). Which other species pursues knowledge? Why do no other animals wear clothes?


From most literal readings of the Bible, the age of the earth is approximately 6,000 years. This is drastically different from the hundreds of thousands of years that evolutionists believe humans have lived, let alone the unfathomable millions of years they say earth has existed. The problem is that if humans have been around for so long, then why did evidence of our existence suddenly appear right around 6,000 years ago? The official year of creation is up for debate, but the standard early (AKA young earth) figure is 4004 B.C.

For example,

  • When was the wheel invented? The oldest known wheel was discovered in Mesopotamia. It just happens to date from around 3500 B.C.
  • When were horses domesticated? Apparently somewhere between 2000 - 4500 B.C.
  • When was writing invented? That was 3500 B.C. when alphabets started appearing.
  • In fact, all of recorded history exists in the time since The Creation took place.
  • Layers

    Much of evolution was and is based on the fact that the earth is made of layers of dirt, sediment, rock, etc. That's fine that the layers are there, but from where did all the dirt, sediment, and rock come? For one part of the earth to have a layer deposited, another part of the earth must have had a layer removed. What natural process causes a layer to be deposited that would not remove a different part of the earth? Lava flow would be one good answer, but not much of the earth layers consists of old lava.


    The existence of extinction brings other questions into the debate. Many people seem worried about the loss of species from extinction. Some extinction is due to direct hunting of that animal, but most seems to be from the loss of habitat. There are two questions that arise from that.

    One, why should anyone worry about the loss of a species, since evolution is producing new species? Also, if that species did not always exist (it was formed sometime between the beginning of the earth and now by the process of evolution), then the earth should do just fine without that species.

    Two, why cannot those species adapt to fit their environment? Since that was supposedly the force that caused the species in the first place, and should still be true today, then a loss or change of natural habitat should not cause the species to die; it should cause the species to adapt to its new environment.

    There could be the argument that the change is too abrupt; extinction is killing the species faster than they can be produced. The phrase "survival of the fittest" is often used when discussing evolution, natural selection, etc. Why is extinction such a big deal, since it is just the "less fit" species getting what it deserves? And then if the dominant species of the planet messes up things too much, cannot evolution handle that? If the worst happens, and all life disappears because the "delicate balance" of the earth is disrupted, then the earth is merely back where it started. If it is so important to the universe that life exists, then it will somehow find a way to randomly happen again.

    Hopefully such statements cause the reader to ask if there is something more to life on this earth than just living and dying for no reason.


    These next ten sites are transcripts from a daily radio show (about five minutes long) that covers a variety of current issues. The main site is here, but the following links go directly to the scripts pertaining to evolution.