Creation vs Evolution FAQ

Site: Rock Creation/Evolution Astronomy (Mobile) - Full Site

Field: AstronomyArchaeologyChemistryBiologyPhilosophyTheologyConclusion

Why does it matter? (Why should I care?)
Here is a small list of reasons, in ascending importance...
  • The most important thing in the universe is what we believe (Romans 10:9-10). What you believe dictates how you behave.
  • If we have no Creator then we have no accountability.
  • 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 example in the 20th century and James Watson is another more recent example.
  • 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 hypocrisy of putting your salvation on John but reinterpreting Genesis and they will tune you and God out.
  • 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. The verses listed are not the proof for supernatural creation. The science is proof the universe is young and if it's young, then it's fascinating that the Bible supports this and the scriptures listed below reinforce the observations. The origin and nature of the universe is one of the most fundamental beliefs we have and it is highly unlikely that simply reading a webpage would cause someone to change that belief. So this page isn't expected to convince anyone, but rather just to be a summary apologetic resource to edify fellow believers so that when we engage with non-believers we have material to discuss to get them pointed more toward our Creator. For more information see the bracketed links below each question or the bulleted links at the bottom of the page. Let me know if you have feedback.


Why does the Earth seem so old?
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, from absolute nothing. (Psalm 33:6-9, John 1:1-3) If Adam had the tools to carbon date a rock on day 10, what do you really think would be the result? (1 Corinthians 3:19, Jeremiah 10:11-12, Jeremiah 33:2-3)
Could the Earth have formed "naturally" 4½ billion years ago?
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. The universe is the ultimate closed system. Even astrophysics (the study of the behavior of celestial bodies) must obey this law so planets and stars could never form on their own (Isaiah 40:26).
» PhysLink: What is a simple definition of the laws of thermodynamics?
If God made the entire universe and only put intelligent creatures on Earth, isn't that an awfully big waste of space?
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). What's more, our universe declares that everything is in relationship with each other in the physical, just as we are also in the spiritual (Matthew 22:37-40).
Distant starlight: how could light travel billions of light years in only 6,000 years?
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 withhold the rains if He wants, we mean He can do literally anything. As with Adam, God made the universe mature, which includes when he made a star 10 billion light years away he also made all the light in all directions at the same time, even the light that was billions of light years away (Job 9:8-9, Isaiah 46:9-10). As with rock layers (below), we can't always correlate size and age.

That said, observable explosions over 6,000 light years away beg a better explanation. Remember Einstein's theory of relativity? It's important to admit we've never traveled at the speed of light and therefore have no observational evidence of what it's like, therefore no proof, therefore only assumptions. See the AiG article below for a well thought out explanation, including a problem evolutionists have in explaining something very similar.
» AiG: Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old?
Does the Sun tell us anything?
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. (Psalm 74:16-17, Colossians 1:16-17)
Why is Mercury significant?
Astronomers build models of how the Solar System formed, how each planet formed, chart the planet locations, etc. It is common practice for astronomers to make observations and develop models, then organizations like NASA send satellites to observe closer and confirm or refine the model. NASA sent one such satellite (Mariner) to Mercury in 1974 and got very basic information. Since then evolutionists and creationists have published models of how it must have originated. The superior model would do a better job at describing the real current state of Mercury, should we ever return. NASA sent a second satellite (Messenger) to Mercury which arrived in 2011. Read the article "New Discoveries Delight Creationists" to see how starting with the correct paradigm (assumptions) led creationists to make accurate predictions that embarrassed evolutionists, proving the ability to observe doesn't translate into authority to invent origins.
» Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists
What about our closest celestial neighbor?
The moon is an easily overlooked proof of special (supernatural) creation. Consider that it is moving away from the Earth very slowly, about 1.5 inches per year. This does not pose a problem for creationist time lines 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 year? Creationists have a perfectly sound scientific answer involving the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. (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
Why is the color blue relevant?
Blue stars burn bright and fast, so they do not last very long (relatively speaking). Yet there are a plethora of them in all observed spiral galaxies, including our own. The trick is they are mixed in with other yellow, white, and red stars which have a much longer estimated life span. Since no stars have ever been observed to form, simple mathematical logic (even a grade schooler could deduce) says this is evidence that all the stars came into existence at the same time and recently. (Psalm 147:4-5, 1 Corinthians 15:41, James 1:17-18)
Where do celestial objects come from?
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, nicknamed 'the pillars of creation') but that is just a cloud floating in space with a density measured in molecules per cubic centimeter. The sun supposedly has a density of about 1.4 grams per cubic centimeter. In context of the Avogadro Constant, the difference in density of a nebula and our Sun is somewhere around 60 with 20 zeros after it. Just because nebula and stars are made of the same elements does not mean the two are stuck forever in a "circle of life". Common elements in stars, nebula, and even on earth and in people can also be explained as evidence of a common designer and creator.

Evolutionists think the universe is approximately 13 to 14 billion years old and our Sun is approximately 4.5 billion years old. Clearly then not all stars are as old as the Big Bang (there's even a scientific name of "Population 1") so they must have come from some repeatable process. Evolutionists look at stars and are forced to say "they must have come from somewhere, how about nebula?" They have to put all their eggs in this basket. Instead, Creationists can know they were created directly by God (Jeremiah 10:11-12,33:2-3, Colossians 1:16-17) just like our planet.

Science is based on observation, but no stars have ever been observed to form. In 2016 I heard the founder of provide some basic math to help determine if this fact is strange. The European Space Agency estimates that there are somewhere around 1023 (that's 10 with 23 zeros after it) stars in the known universe. This means in 13 billion years (9 zeros), 1023 stars have formed (more really, since stars have been observed to die in our short lifetimes). Divide this out and on average, hypothetically, we would expect more than 70 trillion (12 zeros) stars to be born per year. Divide that by the number of seconds in a year and we can estimate to expect there be over 2 million (6 zeros) stars forming every second. The first telescope was invented about 4 centuries ago. The Hubble Space Telescope has been in operation for over 25 years. We would expect to have seen at least some of the averaged 1 quadrillion stars that should have formed during this time, but zero star births have ever been observed. Creationists believe all stars were formed on day 4 (Genesis 1:16-19) and none have been born since. Which model fits observable reality better?

Also note that we have observed stars die, as more than one nova or supernova have been observed even without telescopes. The fact that stars have been observed to die but have never been observed to form is consistent with a supernatural creation and is non-helpful to the evolutionary theory.
» 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"!
» Wikipedia: Chemical Mole
» NASA: How old is the sun?
» ESA: How many stars are there in the universe?
Why is the color red relevant?
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 in 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 accurately 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 divine-less 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
What if life evolved elsewhere and was then just "seeded" on Earth?
Nice try, but this doesn't answer anything. We can't explain life by saying it came from somewhere else, because then where did that life come from? Granted it can make for interesting speculation and science fiction, but it's still just fantasy. This is just a cop-out in case all the evidence on Earth fails to prove the evolutionist agenda (which it does, but evolutionists don't want to admit it) (Deuteronomy 4:19). By the way, keep in mind there is no such thing as proof for creation in the eyes/​mind of an evolutionist. But this is to be expected because there is no such thing as proof for evolution in the eyes of a creationist. (Isaiah 45:12)
Does a creationist have to believe in a flat Earth?
Certainly not. The belief in a flat Earth is an excellent example of a worldview that has noble intentions of honoring God but is intentionally interpreting observable science differently (by only accounting for a subset of the evidence) to support their own presuppositions. Whether the Earth is flat or spherical is not a question of origins but observation, and so can be answered in the present without any concern for the past.

Click to unhide more comments on this topic...

Last Modified: Thursday, October 26, 2017