7 years ago, a friend and I were in a science class, when the teacher asked us how old the earth was. Replying with the truth, I answered “6 to 7 thousand years”. When the teacher told me I was wrong, I was confused. And when I debated his answer of 12 billion or so years, I was scolded.
In this essay I will show how science and creation can work together, and expose errors in Darwin’s theory. The first thing I will show is how macroevolution is different from microevolution. Macroevolution is a theory and not a law, according to the basic scientific theory.
Microevolution is a theory where organisms can change or become a new species through natural selection over a period of time. Macroevolution on the other hand is a theory that states that organisms can change into completely different organisms. While these two theories are both forms of evolution, they are entirely different. To see if they are accurate, you can look to the Bible for answers. In Genesis chapter 1, in verses 11, 21, and 24, the Bible clearly states that the living plants and creatures could only reproduce after their own kind. “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Therefore, the theory of macroevolution is false, because creatures can only reproduce with their own kind. However, microevolution is different, and does not involve organisms turning into other organisms, but merely a different of new species. For example, I place one hundred dogs in an environment where the only food source is elephants. The dogs that would survive are the ones with stronger jaws, allowing them to chew the tough meat from the elephants. This new breed of dogs would be the only ones to survive. This is microevolution, the reason why a Pug looks different from a Saint Bernard, or a Guppy from an Arapaima. According to the Bible, specifically Genesis 1, macroevolution is a theory that has error. …show more content…
Organisms can only reproduce after their own kind. Therefore, macroevolution is a theory and will remain one. Nevertheless, it is observed as a fact in public schools, and universities. Macroevolution as a theory because we have never observed it actually happening. We have, however seen new species being formed, to an extent. According to the National Academy of Sciences, many theories cannot be proven for lack of information, for example, the heliocentric system. This theory could not be made into a fact because no one was yet able to look at the solar system, so it remained a theory until the telescope was made. To have a scientific law, you first need a theory that has been tested with generations of data. That data must stay consistent with the theory, or else it will go back to being a hypothesis, and a hypothesis is made up of observations. Suppose I see a glass of vinegar, but think that it is water. I have made an observation, even though I am wrong. So I go and drink that vinegar, thinking it is water, and soon realize that it is not. I have now corrected by observation. Then my mom walks in and starts looking around for that glass of vinegar which I drank, and I see a mop. I can make a hypothesis that she was going to clean the floor. But then she gets out flour, oil, and other ingredients from the pantry, and heats the oven. I now assume the vinegar I drank was for making lunch. Then she asks me if I had seen a glass of vinegar, and tells me she needed it for lunch. I now know that the vinegar I drank was not water, was not for cleaning the floor, and was going to be used for making lunch. I now have made observations, formed a hypothesis, used observations to prove it, creating a theory, and then when my mom told me the vinegar was for dinner, I had a “law”. This is how the scientific method works, you must be able to observe and record something for it to become a law. Evolution is a theory developed by Charles Darwin in the 1850’s,
In this essay I will show how science and creation can work together, and expose errors in Darwin’s theory. The first thing I will show is how macroevolution is different from microevolution. Macroevolution is a theory and not a law, according to the basic scientific theory.
Microevolution is a theory where organisms can change or become a new species through natural selection over a period of time. Macroevolution on the other hand is a theory that states that organisms can change into completely different organisms. While these two theories are both forms of evolution, they are entirely different. To see if they are accurate, you can look to the Bible for answers. In Genesis chapter 1, in verses 11, 21, and 24, the Bible clearly states that the living plants and creatures could only reproduce after their own kind. “And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.” Therefore, the theory of macroevolution is false, because creatures can only reproduce with their own kind. However, microevolution is different, and does not involve organisms turning into other organisms, but merely a different of new species. For example, I place one hundred dogs in an environment where the only food source is elephants. The dogs that would survive are the ones with stronger jaws, allowing them to chew the tough meat from the elephants. This new breed of dogs would be the only ones to survive. This is microevolution, the reason why a Pug looks different from a Saint Bernard, or a Guppy from an Arapaima. According to the Bible, specifically Genesis 1, macroevolution is a theory that has error. …show more content…
Organisms can only reproduce after their own kind. Therefore, macroevolution is a theory and will remain one. Nevertheless, it is observed as a fact in public schools, and universities. Macroevolution as a theory because we have never observed it actually happening. We have, however seen new species being formed, to an extent. According to the National Academy of Sciences, many theories cannot be proven for lack of information, for example, the heliocentric system. This theory could not be made into a fact because no one was yet able to look at the solar system, so it remained a theory until the telescope was made. To have a scientific law, you first need a theory that has been tested with generations of data. That data must stay consistent with the theory, or else it will go back to being a hypothesis, and a hypothesis is made up of observations. Suppose I see a glass of vinegar, but think that it is water. I have made an observation, even though I am wrong. So I go and drink that vinegar, thinking it is water, and soon realize that it is not. I have now corrected by observation. Then my mom walks in and starts looking around for that glass of vinegar which I drank, and I see a mop. I can make a hypothesis that she was going to clean the floor. But then she gets out flour, oil, and other ingredients from the pantry, and heats the oven. I now assume the vinegar I drank was for making lunch. Then she asks me if I had seen a glass of vinegar, and tells me she needed it for lunch. I now know that the vinegar I drank was not water, was not for cleaning the floor, and was going to be used for making lunch. I now have made observations, formed a hypothesis, used observations to prove it, creating a theory, and then when my mom told me the vinegar was for dinner, I had a “law”. This is how the scientific method works, you must be able to observe and record something for it to become a law. Evolution is a theory developed by Charles Darwin in the 1850’s,