Here is a small list of reasons, in ascending importance...

• Evolution is the ultimate justification for racism, which quickly spawns eugenics, genetic engineering/discrimination, abortion, genocide, etc.
• If we teach kids in schools that they evolved from apes which in turn eventually evolved from single celled organisms which in turn came from inanimate sludge, then on what ground can you stand and tell them they may not murder nor have sex with whoever and whatever they choose?
• If we tell people to ignore the first few chapters of God's word how can we tell them when He says "do not murder" that He really means it? (John 3:12)
• The most important thing in the universe is what we believe (Romans 10:9-13).
• The meaning of everything comes from its origin. So the meaning of life is wrapped up in this question. (Only the originator, his superior, successor or equal may change the meaning of a thing after it has been created but God has none of these.)
• The Bible says that death entered the world through Adam & Eve's sin (Genesis 2:16-17,3:6) and that redemption/salvation only comes from Jesus' sacrifice (Romans 5:17 & 1 Corinthians 15:21-22). Denial of half of this principle is denial of the whole. Or put another way, how can you take God at his word when he describes the plan of salvation if you can not trust his description of creation? Charles Templeton may be the most famous forgotten example in recent history.
• While creation is not a matter of salvation, it's about the perception/trust of the next generation in the word of God. People (not just children) see the hypocracy of putting your salvation on John but reinterpretting Genesis and tune you (God) out.
• If we have no Creator then we have no accountability.
• The underlying question here is not where we came from, but can we take God at his word, period? (By definition of being God, our answer should be "yes".)

The following questions and answers are listed in little particular order, other than to make them flow smooth. I have tried to pick topics that are commonly cited and/or are of great importance to me. This page is only intended to be a summary of these issues, for more information see the bracketed links below each question or the bulleted links at the bottom of the page. My perspective is surely already blatantly clear but I do intend to represent both sides of the debate since both sides deserve an equal opportunity to be heard. Let me know if you have feedback.

No, the laws of physics can not contradict each other. The second law of thermodynamics (the study of energy) says the natural state of any closed system is chaos. Even astrophysics (the study of the behavior of celestial bodies) must obey this law so planets and stars could never form on their own.

As with biological evolution there is no "missing link" in stellar evolution. In other words, no one has ever observed anything turn into a star, planet, moon, etc. There is not even any target in space we can point our telescopes to that looks like a star birth in process. Sure there are nebula (the most popular is arguably the Eagle Nebula) but that is just a cloud floating in space with a density measured in molecules per cubic centemeter (compare to the sun which has a density of about 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter). Just because nebula and stars are made of the same elements does not mean the two are stuck forever in a "circle of life". Instead we can know they were created by God (Jeremiah 10:11-12,33:2-3, Colossians 1:16-17).

[ PhysLink: What is a simple defintion of the laws of thermodynamics? ]
[ Hubble: Gas Pillars in the Eagle Nebula (M16): Pillars of Creation in a Star-Forming Region ]
[ AIG: The Stars of Heaven Confirm Biblical Creation ]
[ AIG: Taking back astronomy: the heavens declare "creation"! ]

God made everything "mature". Adam and Eve, the stars and the trees were all created mature on creation week. God is powerful enough to just speak and the world formed correctly. (Psalm 33:6-9, John 1:1-3)

The moon is an easily overlooked proof of special (supernatural) creation. Consider that it is moving away from the Earth verly slowly, about 1.5 inches per year. This does not pose a problem for creationist timelines but this is a serious problem for evolutionists because it would have been touching the earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. Not only would this require the moon to very slowly pass through the Roche Limit on its way to its current position (causing it to be destroyed) but why would it only be moving away at 1.5 inches per day? Creationists have a perfectly sound scientific answer involving the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. Face it, God made the moon (Psalm 8:3-4, Psalm 136:3-9, Jeremiah 31:35-37).

[ AIG: The moon: the light that rules the night ]
[ Wikipedia: Roche Limit ]
[ HyperPhysics: Conservation of Angular Momentum ]

Evolutionists believe it formed a few billion years ago as a result of dust and gas condensing. This dust and gas also somehow began rotating, which is important to avoid it all just collapsing into a singularity (black hole). The trick is when rotating objects get smaller, they spin faster. Ice skaters are good examples of this. Based on long-age-models our Sun should be rotating every couple hours, but in reality it only rotates once a month (every 25 days). This is great for special creationists but a major downer for long age believers.

Blue stars burn bright and fast, so they do not last very long (relatively speaking). Yet there are a plethora of them in all obvserved spiral galaxies, including our own. If you use simple logic this means they can not be very old. The trick is they are mixed in with other yellow, white and red stars which have a much longer estimated life span. Again simple mathematical logic that a grade schooler could deduce says this is evidence that they all came into existance at the same time and recently. (Psalm 147:4-5, 1 Corinthians 15:41, James 1:17-18)

Light has a very small doppler affect causing it to favor the red end of the spectrum (called a red shift) when it is moving away from us. Astronomers have detected this red shift in all directions from our galaxy. There seem to be two main ways to interpret the evidence.

• The Milky Way is around 2 million light years from the center of the universe (a trivial distance in universal measurements) and the universe is expanding in all directions away from that center.
• The universe is really comparable to a balloon and the Milky Way is a non-unique location on that balloon. As the balloon expands everything only seems to be moving away from us in all directions. (By the way, this would be a 4 dimensional balloon so that the things on the opposite side of the balloon are not visible except by light that has traveled around the surface of the balloon.)

How we prove which one it is without divine intervention is beyond me, but it sure prompts interesting science to be thrown out by both sides. Remember God created science so it cannot acurately be used against Him. Whatever the arch-structure of the universe is is fairly trivial, the real heart of the issue is "is humanity and the earth at the forefront of deliberate divine focus or is it just a needle in an infinite haystack of divineless random chance?" (Psalm 104:2, Job 26:7, Isaiah 40:22, Zechariah 12:1)

[ Creation Ministries International: Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, 'quantized' redshifts show ]
[ Creation Worldview Ministries: The Decay in the Speed of Light and the truth about Red Shift ]
[ Wikipedia: Modern Geocentrism ]
[ The Theory of Big Bang - a mistake build on wrong precondition ]

You are underestimating the power of an infinite God. When we say that God is omnipotent, we do not simply mean he can spread oceans or withold the rains if he wants, we mean he can do literally anything. As I said above, he made the universe mature, which includes when he made a star 10 billion light years away he also did the math (or you could say "did his homework") and made the light at the same time, even the light that was 10 billion light years away (Psalm 74:16-17, Isaiah 46:9-10).

No. The universe, just like each of us, exists only to glorify the Creator: God. (Mark 12:28-34, Psalm 19:1-4, Psalm 103:19-22, Psalm 148:1-6, Isaiah 44:22-23, Isaiah 49:13.) This also has a hint of confusion of a correlation of size and age.

In the case of the rock layers you are incorrectly comparing rock layer formation with tree rings. Trees have been observed to grow a ring for every year they are alive. Rocks are not alive so the analogy is not appropriate. When Mount Saint Helens erupted on May 18, 1980 it unleashed the equivalent of 33,000 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs (minus the radiation). This caused ash to be deposited, and after being compressed into solid rock was 25 feet thick in some places. In only a few hours a canyon was formed which revealed sedimentary layers resembling those found in thousands of other places around the world, except these were obviously layed down in an extremely short amount of time, not thousands or millions of years as was once assumed. Thousands of trees were uprooted and tossed into the surrounding ash and lakes, immeidately petrifying and still observable in this state today, destroying the previous "given" that long ages are mandatory to form rock layers (1 Corinthians 1:19-20,27-29).

[ MSH Creation Information Center ]
[ AIG: 'I got excited at Mount St Helens!' ]
[ AIG: Creation Road Trip ]

No. Answers in Gensis has an article every few years about another man dug mine that is only a few decades old but is filled with these (2 Peter 3:8).

[ AIG: Caving in to reality, the shrinking 'age' of stalactites and stalagmites ]

These were obviously deposited as the result of a catastrophe, otherwise the bodies would have decomposed or been devoured or otherwise dispersed. If the flood were real, we would expect to find billions of dead things buried in rock layers all over the earth. Dino's are just some of those billions of things that we do find. Many evolutionists believe a giant meteor hit the Earth millions of years ago resulting in a radical climate change across the planet. However the evidence fits subtly better if you consider the possibility of the global flood in Genesis being our catastrophe (Genesis 6:5-9:16, Psalm 104:5-7,9). By the way, the only thing we can surely conclude from the fact that human and dinosaur bones have never been discovered together is that they were not burried together.

Easy, God did not send fully grown dinosaurs to Noah. There would be no reason to bring fully grown dino's, kids or teenagers would work better for repopulating the planet anyway. (Genesis 7:2-3, 7:8-9 & 8:17)

Another easy one. How did many creatures go extinct? We killed them off. A few must have survived the flood because something like them is referenced twice in Job (Behemoth, Leviathan) and the word "dragon" can be found in historical non-fiction. The term "dinosaur" was only coined in the mid 1800's. If you read the King James Version of the Bible you may notice that Isaiah was a contemporary of a dragon (Isaiah 27:1) and a "fiery flying serpent" (Isaiah 30:6) as was Jeremiah (Jeremiah 51:34) and a Psalmist (Psalm 91:13). Why am I referencing KJV (published in 611 AD) instead of something a little more modern? Perhaps the more modern translators thought using such language would be too hard to accept for their modern readers. (Compare to how NIV translates a word into "living creatures" in Revelation but into "animals" most everywhere else in the New Testament. See Heaven by Randy Alchorn, page 379.)

[ Amazon: Randy Alcorn's Heaven ]

Water is one of those things that is required for life as we know it. Without it life does not exist, period. Have you ever noticed that water is one of the few compounds found in nature that expands when it freezes? This is not just random trivia. Consider what would happen to our ecosystem if lakes and ponds froze from the bottom up instead of from the top down? As it is, the ice forms insulation and the life in that body of water is not completely destroyed (compare to the "frost line" in the ground where everything dies after a frost). Coincidence, dumb luck? I think not. The word "water" is found 436 times in the NIV translation, most notably its association with baptism (mentioned 26 times) including Noah's flood (Genesis 6-9). God invented water, and everything else (Proverbs 3:19-20).

There are two significant points:

• Salt: Each year approximately 450 million tons of sodium enters our oceans, but only about a quarter of that makes its way back out. At most it would take 40-50,000 (four zeros) years to accumulate this much salt, yet evolutionists think the oceans are a couple billion (nine zeros) years old?
• Mud: Plate techtonics add an estimated 1 billion tons of sediment to the ocean floor per year, but 19 billion more are added by erosion from dry land. At most it would take only around 10,000 years to accumulate this much mud.

In both cases, when I say "at most", we must remember that God created everything mature (Genesis 1) and the world wide flood (Genesis 7:11-12) would have significantly upset the ecosystem, so believing those maximum numbers are overstated by 10-50% is much easier for creationists than the 99.9983% understatement evolutions must believe in. (Psalm 24:1-2, Psalm 146:5-6)

[ AIG: Evidence for a Young World ]
[ AIG/ICR: Reiterating: ok to use sea sodium as evidence for a young world ]

Yes. Just because crystals form complex, mathematically explained patterns naturally does not mean natural life-useable information for functionality ever increases on its own. Just because the cloud immediately after a nuclear explosion looks like a musroom does not mean anything resulting from the explosion is more useful than what was there previously. There is a difference between beauty and information inventing itself. The proliferation of beauty, of symetry, of harmony, all around us is actually perfectly good evidence of a divine Creator who wanted his creation to make sense and wanted it to be enjoyed (Jeremiah 29:11). Have you ever witnessed productivity improve in nature? I don't mean reproduction, I mean efficiency, capacity, capabilities, etc. Nothing except that which is motivated by intelligence ever becomes more productive. You might witness a random event where something good happened by accident, but productivity never increases on it's own. Any true productivity increase requires intelligence. Evolution is an example of countless productivity increases (Psalm 102:25, Isaiah 40:28).

Granted, humans and monkeys share many common characteristics, but that can just as easily mean they have a common creator instead of a common ansestor. So no, there is nothing that definitively points to evolution. Consider the platypus, which has a bill and webbed feet like a duck, a tail like a beaver, soft velvety fur, milk glands, a large brain, a complete diaphragm, their blood temperature is influenced to some extent by their surroundings, and it is one of only two mammals in the world that lay eggs. Evolutionists do not even have a clue what this evolved from but this is not surprising if it is another product of an infinitely creative God (1 Corinthians 12:18).

[ AIG: The echidna enigma and the platypus puzzle ]
[ AIG: Still more questions than answers for evolutionists ]

Actually there is no proof at all. There is nothing even close. Evolution dictates that in general more complex life forms come from simpler life forms. Specifically this means that the DNA of living things must gain information over time. The second law of thermodynamics defies this (see above). What people are actually referring to when they cite proof for evolution is either "mutation" or "natural selection". Both of these phenomenon have been observed, evolution has not. Creation, by the way, was observed. See Job 38:1-38.

• Mutation is random destabilization of DNA often caused by external factors such as radiation. Destabilization by definition is destructive, not constructive. Even if a mutation ends up being beneficial it is still caused by a loss of genetic information, so this is the opposite of evolution.
• Natural selection involves certain characteristics of a particular species breeding more than others which results in a formerly rare characteristic becoming common. However in this situation no new information has developed, only rare info became common.

All the complexities of a biological system must exist together because the components are useless separate and must all be functional at once for the system to work at all. Examples of this include: flight, sight, sexuality and hearing. DNA is another example because you need the encoded information, a system to decode (read) the information, a system to write the information (reproduce it) and a system to utilize it all appearing at the exact same time because each of these systems alone or even all but one of them is utterly a waste (Psalm 94:9, Psalm 139:14, Proverbs 20:12).

Up until the mid 1600's people thought that life could form spontaneously. One "proof" for this was the situation where magots would form on dead animals. Mold was probably another. In the mid 1800's Louis Pasteur made the final proving experiment that killed this philosophy. I do not know that evolutionists had too many hopes in this philosophy, but either way now all their eggs are in one basket. They have to believe that the first cells came from sludge and the next ones evolved from simple to complex. But just because they are single, even single celled organisms are not simple. To get by this evolutionists place a distinction between "protocells" and the first cells. Protocells being truly simple and full cells being comparable to teeny cities or factories, with all their specialized functions of energy production, waste disposal, repair, reproduction, etc. Except the development of protocells into full cells is no easier to believe (or prove) than the development of single celled organisms into multicell organisms.

Not only do observable living things only come from other living things, as proven by Mr Pasteur, but God (who is alive) gave the first creatures their life about 6,000 years ago. On day 5 he created sea dwellers and the birds (Genesis 1:20-28) and on day 6 he created land dwellers, most notably including man (Genesis 2:7) and woman (Genesis 2:21-22). Further, this was not an isolated incident but God continues to be the source, sustainer and enabler of all life (Deuteronomy 30:20, Nehemiah 9:6, Ezekiel 37:4-10).

[ AIG: Life from life... or not? ]
[ AIG: God & Natural Law ]
[ Catholic Encyclopedia: Biogenesis and Abiogenesis ]
[ Wikipedia: Biogenesis ]

[ The Molecular Impasse of Evolution ]
[ How Single-Cell Organisms Evolve into Multicellular Ones ]
[ Bacteria and single celled organisms (forum) ]
[ Wikipedia: Microorganism ]

Since the probability of all components of irreducibly complex systems evolving or otherwise developing independently at the same time are so huge, especially considering the second law of thermodynamics, it takes at least as much "faith" in evolution as a religious person has in God to believe evolution has ever happened. So it is not a matter of leaving faith out, but instead a matter of choosing what to have faith in. God did not try to trick us when he created the world, it is our own expectations, presuppositions and prideful desire to disprove God that get in the way of seeing the truth. By the way, completely blind faith in God is not faith at all, but ignorance. The God of the Bible wants us to be educated (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) about things he has & continues to demonstrate to us and then to trust him (have faith) on things that we are not able to understand (Hebrews 11:1,3). Observable scientific "evidence" alone should not be cited because by reading the links at the bottom of this page you will see that the same evidence is consistently and seemingly convincingly used to prove the points people make from both sides of the argument! This causes us to ask the proof quesiton above, and reinforces the point that the real question at hand is not "where did we come from" but instead "can we take God at his word, period?" (Isaiah 66:1-2)

[ AIG: A look at some myths about scientists ]
[ TalkOrigins, an anti-creationist index to creationist claims ]

While it would be irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in evolution, it would be just as irrational for me to say that nothing good has come from a belief in creation. My wife saw someone wearing a tee-shirt claiming to list some scientific inventions made by Evolutionists and by Creationists, and of course the Evolutionist list was long and the Creationist list was completely empty. Being ignorant is dumb but lying is evil. Let us be clear on the facts, here are a few scientists who might be read about in secular history books (minus their relgious convictions) who believed in special creation by the God of the Bible (Acts 17:24-25).

Scientist	Lived	Remembered For
Johannes Kepler	1571-1630	Formulated the three laws of planetary motion (wikipedia)
Isaac Newton	1643-1727	Formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope, co-discovered calculus, etc. (wikipedia)
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz	1646-1716	Co-discovered calculus (wikipedia)
John Dalton	1766-1844	Father of modern atomic theory, cataloged first periodic chart of the elements (wikipedia)
Michael Faraday	1791-1867	Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, invented the electric motor (creation safaris, wikipedia)
Charles Babbage	1792-1871	The first speedometer and first true automatic computer (creation safaris, wikipedia)
Joseph Henry	1797-1878	Co-discovered electromagnetic fields, one of the original pilars of the Smithsonian Institution & National Academy of Sciences, insights into electromagnetic relay lead to the electrical telegraph (creation safaris, wikipedia)
James Prescott Joule	1818-1889	Developed what became first law of thermodynamics, got a unit of energy named after him (creation safaris, wikipedia)
Louis Pasteur	1822-1895	Proved biogenesis, formulator of the germ theory of disease (wikipedia)
William Thomson	1824-1907	First to clearly state the second law of thermodynamics (disbelieved in evolution but not exactly a creationist, creation safaris, wikipedia)
James Clerk Maxwell	1831-1879	Formulated the unified equations of electromagnetic fields (light, magnetism & electricity), made first color photograph (wikipedia, ASA3)
Raymond Vahan Damadian	1936-?	Invented the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner (wikipedia)

These people were not religious zealots, they were rational people who used the Scientific Method to learn about the universe and then asked themselves what they could do with that knowledge. A persons presupositions about creation are not a qualifier or disqualifier for whether or not a person can be considered a true scientist. (Psalm 115:15, Psalm 124:8)

[ AIG: Can Creationists Be Scientists ]
[ Wikipedia: the Scientific Method ]
[ Amazon: Fred Heeren's Show Me God (see especially bonus section 1: fifty believers who lead the way in science) ]
[ Wikipedia: Thomas Kuhn's the Structure of Scientific Revolutions ]

In general this asserts that all things being equal, the simplest solution is the best. It also includes a minimization of assumptions. None of us are informed enough to know that evolution nor creation are truely "simpler". However, that being said, there is nothing that even comes close to explaining why the universe is orderly if the Big Bang was real. There is no reason the laws of physics should exist, there is no reason the universe should be consistent. Yet they do and it is. There was nothing to cause the laws of physics to form, and even if there was (which there was not) then how did they form with such simple equations? (Is the universe "simple minded"? If so then why has it obviously matured but not obviously gotten smarter?) Creation is not a concept by itself, it is a package deal with the Bible, which is why it is so hard for some to stomach. On the flip side, let us consider a summary of what Evolutionists think is too "complicated" to be possible.

1. God made the entire universe and everything in it. (Genesis 1:1) If you want to play the causality game and now ask "who or what caused God" then see one of the links at the bottom of this answer. More to the point now is that God created the universe. We know because he told us but he did not tell us he had a begining. (Isaiah 26:4, Jeremiah 10:10, Romans 1:20)
2. God made Satan but then Satan decided he was better than his creator, deserved to take God's place and attempted a coop. (Isaiah 14:12-15, Revelation 12:7-9)
3. Satan and his followers fail and are put in their place. (2 Peter 2:4, Jude 1:6)
4. Satan is furious with God and resolves to do anything he can to attempt to hurt God (Revelation 13:6). Since humanity is God's favorite creation, Satan realizes the best way to try to hurt God is to trick us into turning against God too. God allows Satan to do this (Job 1:6-12, Job 2:1-7) in order to allow us to choose for ourselves between good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17, Proverbs 1:32-33)
5. Satan appeals to Eve's pride and lust, as well as Adam's pride and complacency, and convinces them to commit the first human sin. (Genesis 3:1-7)
6. All of mankind is cursed by God for our disobedience, and the universe with us. (Genesis 3:8-24, Romans 8:20-22)
7. Satan and his followers exploit their supernatural powers and continue to use our pride, lust and complacency against us in effort to keep us from the purpose God created us for (Acts 17:26-27, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 2 Corinthians 11:14-15, 1 Peter 5:8)
8. We play right into Satan's trap and choose not to believe the truth, condemning ourselves to confusion, doubt and conflict in life and damnation after that. (Mark 16:16, John 3:36, John 5:24, John 8:31-32)
9. Some of us realize what is going on and notice that what the Bible says seems to fit the facts. A subset of these believers go out into various places around the world and encourage strangers to believe in the God of the Bible. Amazing wonders and miracles happen to and around these believers, and even to and around those who do not go out into various places around the world but simply believe in the name and power and purpose of Jesus. These miracles, which in many (but not necessarily all or even most) cases defy the laws of physics, esentially proving that the God in whose name these miracles happen is real. (Acts 12:6-10, Acts 28:1-10, Hebrews 2:4)

This may be "deep" but it is not more "complicated" than evolution.

[ Wikipedia: Occam's Razor ]
[ ICR: Everything has a cause ]
[ AIG: If God created the universe, then who created God? ]
[ Jesus Freaks (DC Talk) ]
[ End of the Spear ]

Because we must realize there is literally a spiritual war going on (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) and this would send a mixed message to the world. Any attempt at this is missing the point. The strongest proponents of molecules to man evolution don't want to believe in God. They love it when creationists use their terminology because then they can truthfully read your quotes word for word, out of context, to people who are undecided and easily convince them of the lie. Can you imagine moving to Israel and setting up a new humanitarian aid group, honestly hoping to help Jews and others alike, but naming it a concentration camp and having a corporate identity (symbol) of the swastika rather than the red cross? That would be rediculous, you would never redefine those things for the Jews because it would dishonor the people who suffered from those ideas. The idea of redefining evolution would not only fail for similar reasons, but it would also simply be legalistic and have no impact on truly reaching the lost with the Truth of God. This would be yet another needless compromise to make both sides happy but only end up appeasing the evolutionists. Because they know that good people tire and all people rebel, and eventually our efforts to redefine the word will grow weak and we will be in such a habbit of using their terminology that we will adopt their theology, too. The only thing (as far as evolution goes) for a believer in Jesus Christ (or even a Jew) to do is to lovingly, educatedly, encourage people that the Bible is the word of God and that it should be taken as serious Truth. If you do not take my word for it then read what God says in the Old Testament in Exodus 23:13,33, Deuteronomy 7:25 and Deuteronomy 12:4,29-32, or in the new with Colossians 2:8 and 2 Timothy 2:23-26.

This was a compromise invented by men who wanted to make both sides of the evolutionary debate happy but ended up making neither side happy. (This is more generically referred to outside the Catholic Church as "theistic evolution" or "progressive creation".) This recently invented concept is comparable to patronizing Jesus as simply a "good man". But good men do not claim to be God unless they really are, otherwise they are liars and hence not good. So there is no middle ground on whether Jesus was God or an idiot, nor is there middle ground on this issue. Mitigated evolution was invented to make the Bible "fit" our modern society's evolution-based paradigm of the world and is not based on scripture. Jesus warns us of taking seemingly neutral, or appeasing, attitudes towards lies and falsehood (Revelation 3:15-16).

This is again just another compromise. Let's count the reasons.

• Notice that at the end of days 1-6 (chapter 1 verses 5, 8, 13, 19, 23 and 31) it says "there was evening, and there was morning" (NIV). How much clearer does it need to be for you to accept it? No other length of time is seperated by an "evening" and a "morning". Why would it say this six times in a row if it was not trying to be painfully clear that the days are referring to literal 24 hour days as we know them now?
• If you want to attempt the stance that the people of Moses's day were "simpletons" and could not understand evolutionary timescales, then consider these verses that describe astronomical numbers without cryptically and inconveniently reusing another word (like "day"): Genesis 16:9-10, 22:15-18 and 41:47-49.
• If the six days of creation were just philosophical representations of larger time period(s), then why is it never explained later (consider the harmony of the Bible) yet consider how rediculously strongly God ties the modern seven day week to the literal week of creation in Exodus 31:12-17.
• Four of the authors of scripture took Genesis 2:7 (which says God formed man directly from the dust of the earth) literally: Job 10:9, 34:15, Psalms 90:3, 103:14, 104:29, Ecclesiastes 3:20 and 1 Corinthians 15:47. Zero even hint at any other origin of man, especially not biological evolution of proteins to people.
• If the six days of creation were just made up hypothetical references, why would God keep referring back to them as literal days and never once clarifying them as nebulous, astronomically long "time periods"?

As usual the question is really just "can we take God at his word", or to rephase "can we take God seriously"? Because then there is the opposite problem that in chapter 5 the Bible does a 180 and describes how six of the nine people in the lineage from Adam to Noah lived over 900 years and the rest lived over 300! Either the record is right or it is not. The Jews are not a people group who accepted such blatant inaccuracy, if that is what it was. At the very least someone in the thousands of years between Moses and the orthodox church would have fudged the numbers to make them more reasonable if anyone did not believe them to be literal and accurate.

[ AIG: If evolution over millions of years was the way God created, He could easily have said so in simple words. ]

There is alegation that the first two chapters of the Bible contradict each other in their orders of creation. The straightforward answer is Genesis 1:1-2:4 is an account of the creation of the universe, the Earth and evertyhing on the Earth, which happened in seven days (including a day of rest). Genesis 2:4-25 expounds on what happened on day 6 and more importantly begins the critical account of the origins of Adam and Eve and the fall of mankind. The key is Genesis 2 is specifically describing the dawn of time from Adam's perspective (even though it is written in the third person) and Genesis 1 was written more broadly.

As usual, this is just another attack on the authority of scripture (Psalm 11:3) for the pupose of removing God's perecived ability to speak into our lives (John 3:12) so that we can think we can do whatever we want without accountability (Judges 17:6 and Judges 21:25).

[ Are there two creation accounts? ]
[ Genesis contradictions? ]
[ Two Contradictory Creation Accounts ]

You need to understand how naive it is to blend flat-out contradictory religions. One definition of religion is "a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by." The origin of the universe, the earth, and human life was not observed by any human alive today nor has anything comparable been observed so any belief about how it really happened requires faith. People who do not want to believe in any God usually find comfort in the concepts of the big bang succeeded by biological evolution. This has become those people's religion, an anti-god religion where God is simply not necessary and not wanted (Judges 17:6, 21:25). Most people who call themselves Christian believe the Bible when it claims to be the inspired word of God. (It does this explicitly in 2 Timothy 3:16.) But this is not a blind faith because we believe that the God of the Bible is a living God (Daniel 6:26) and that He is actively involved in our lives. At some point (especially if you are a follower of Christ) we must stop asking ourselves what God could have done (used millions of years/evolution) and we must ask what God says He did. Let's take a close look at what God says in Genesis 1:1-2:23

• God says He made light three days before He made the Sun, moon & stars (v 1:3). Big bang proponents do not believe in any universal light sources other than from stars.
• God says the Earth was at first all water. Then He added the sky and lastly He formed dry ground (v 1:6-10). Big bang proponents say the earth formed from stellar dust/gas, condensed to become all molten rock, and only after it cooled for a long time did water appear.
• God says He made vegetation capable of producing seeds and fruit the day before He made the Sun (v 1:11-16). Old Earth, or "long ages" proponents say the Sun had to come way before any plants.
• God says He created sea dwelling animals and flying animals on the same day (v 1:20-21). Evolutionists believe life originated in the ocean and took a long time to evolve into birds.
• God says He created land animals the day after He created birds (v 1:24). This totally contradicts biological evolutionary chronology.
• God says He formed the first man directly from the dust (v 2:7). Biological Evolutionists want us to believe man evolved from apes, who evolved from smaller animals, who evolved from less complex life forms, who evolved from single celled organisms, who evolved from inanimate/non-living proteins.
• God says He formed the first woman directly from the first man (v 2:22). This contradicts all secularly recorded human history, as no man has ever given birth. The closest thing is human cloning and clearly that requires a lot of intelligence to pull off!

So why did God create things out of order? God is all knowing (Psalm 139:1-4, Hebrews 4:13) and never changing (Numbers 23:19, 1 Samuel 15:29, James 1:17) therefore He must have done it on purpose. I think He did it this way to discourage us from making up dumb stories like "everything came to be on its own" and so we would not even think about blending those ideas with His word. (Romans 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 1:19-21)

[ ICR: Evolution Is Religion--Not Science ]
[ AIG: Evolution & creation, science & religion, facts & bias ]
[ AIG: Religion and Evolution ]

There is no scriptural basis what-so-ever for a local flood. There is no way to read scripture and come to the conclusion that it was anything but a global flood. If you think it was local, that belief was 'fed' to you. Read it yourself in Genesis 7:19-24. The concepts of 'highest on earth' and 'every living thing on earth' are found six times in those five verses. This would be gross negligence if the author didn't mean what he wrote. The apostle Peter believed it was accurate, as stated in 2 Peter 3:3-7. For external confirmation consider the biblically sound explanations for the origin of the grand canyon, the ice age, fish fossils in the middle of deserts, etc.

[ Canyon Ministries ]
[ Grand Canyon—what is the message? ]
[ Where Does the Ice Age Fit? ]

Nope. It is only implied (read in) by compromisers.

Yes! Consider these references, besides the dozens mentioned above.

• In the Old Testament a six day creation is explicitly cited and is the only explanation for the 4th of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:11) which were given to Moses written in stone by God himself. If you do not think he was being literal, read his elaboration in Exodus 31:12-17.
• In a gospel account, Jesus himself clearly confirmed that creation was recent when he said Adam and Eve existed in the beginning, not billions of years after the universe and Earth had come into existence (Mark 10:6). If the universe were billions of years old then the entire span of human existence has all occurred in the last 1% of universal time (or "at the end", not the beginning).
• Make note that Jesus warned the Jews of his day to believe what Moses wrote (John 5:45-47). Moses is widely recognized as writing the first five books of the Bible, including Genesis and Exodus, which is where the literal account of creation and the Ten Commandments referenced above are found. If he had to warn the Jews of his day to believe in special creation then it is no surprise we have to remind people today.
• Paul, who wrote most of New Testament, confirms Adam was formed directly from dust, not apes (1 Corinthians 15:47).
• Peter says the flood was absolute (1 Peter 3:19-20).
• Peter warns his friends that in the last days people will deliberately forget that "in the beginning God created" and that He "brought the earth out from the water" (2 Peter 3:3-7).
• The author of Hebrews was unanimously considered an expert in Jewish theology and history and he refers to the literal day seven, not a vague 'end of creation'. (Hebrews 4:3-4).

[ AIG: Jesus Christ on the infallibility of Scripture ]

• All About Creation: an effort to apply the scientific method to discover how God created the Heavens and the Earth.
• Answers in Genesis: upholding the authority of the Bible from the very first verse
  • Get Answers (an FAQ like this, only much more detailed)
  • Responding to protestors’ propaganda (including a response to an "old age" top 10 reasons list)
• Catholic official teaching on Creation and Evolution
• Creation Evidence Museum
• Institute for Creation Research: revealing the truth of creation (Christian)
• Intelligent Design Network: seeking objectivity in origins science (secular)
• My Biblical Worldview page
• Science Against Evolution: making the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.
• True.Origin: exposing the myth of evolution (secular)
• Yahoo's "category" of Creation vs Evolution

• Charles Darwin Research Institute: for the generation, systematization, and transmission of Darwinian knowledge.
• Creation Science: believes in an inerrant Word of God, a literal interpretation of Genesis, and a billions of years old earth.
• Evolution, by PBS: a journey into where we're from and where we're going
• National Center for Science Education: defending the teaching of evolution in the public schools
• The Darwin Awards: a chronicle of enterprising demises, we salute the improvement of the species (humor)
• Yahoo's "category" on Biological Evolution