Many believe in the theory of evolution. We say theory because, scientifically speaking, it remains simply a theory. Some may argue there is so much evidence pointing to evolution that it's ludicrous to believe in creation. The purpose of this page to reveal the facts regarding the creation/evolution debate. We will start with Creation first:

CREATION
In the first book of the bible, there is the basic account of how the universe came into existence. First, God created the heavens and Earth's foundation (Genesis 1:1-2). Next, He created light, and divided the light from the darkness. (Genesis 1:3-5). After that, God formed the atmosphere to divide the water on earth from the water in the sky (cloud canopy) (Genesis 1:6-8). Following that He created dry land (Genesis 1:9-10). Once land was established, He went on to create the vegetation covering the earth (Genesis 1:11-12). After that was ready, He created the moon, sun and stars to give us light and to help us keep time (Genesis 1:14-19). After all this was set, He was ready to create the various animals dwelling on the land, the sea, and the sky (Genesis 1:20-25). Last, God created humans (Genesis 1:26-27). Notice, when God created plants and animals He didn't create them as things gradually changing into other things. According to the bible's words, He created each thing according to its own kind. The roses were made as roses, elephants were made as elephants, and turtles were made as turtles. As for humans, we were also made as humans, is indicated at Genesis 1:27, and Genesis 2:7

EVOLUTION
On the other hand, there is evolution: The idea that modern life forms existing today resulted from millions of years of changes from one life form to another due to genetic changes over the millenia. Archaeological findings are thought to support this theory of evolution. Do these finds reveal gradual change over time? We invite you to think seriously about this: Millions of years. Gradual changes occurring over those millions of years. If this is true, then there should be thousands of transitional fossils worldwide. It cannot be any other way.

WEIGHING BOTH SIDES:
So, then, how many transitional fossils have they found?
According to the Science Digest of May 1982, volume 90 page 44, Dr. Lyall Watson states "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!" And now, decades later, there hasn't been much more evidence to add to this since he spoke those words. If something soft bodied, as a jellyfish, can fossilize in sandstone, surely the more solid bodies of transitional beings would be fossilized in greater numbers.

Jellyfish fossils are found in sandstone. Jellyfish have no cartilage or bones, causing them to be completely soft-bodied, meaning they should disintegrate before the slow process of fossilization can occur, if evolution were true. Fossilizing a jellyfish over a long period of time necessitates having them buried in fine grained rock, such as mudstone or shale, because the sandstone would cause too quick a breakdown to allow for the length of time needed for evolutionary fossilization. So, then, what does it mean when fossilized jellyfish are found in this sandstone instead?

It means that a sudden catastrophe happened. In order for jellyfish fossilization to occur in sandstone instead of mudstone, it must happen quickly -- a catastrophic event is required in order to fossilize a jellyfish in sandstone. Some people believe this to be evidence of the global flood in Noah's day mentioned in the Bible at Genesis chapters 6-9.

Of course, many people will point out the age of the rocks and strata that make up the surface of the earth and which holds the fossils. Some of these are counted to be millions of years old. If creationists believe the earth was created within the last 10,000 years, how does this make sense? Two things come into play here: First, of all the different dating methods used in archaeology, not one of them is 100% accurate. Upon research you can find this information for yourself. Some methods have been off by large numbers of years. Second, many creationists don't understand the rocks in the earth can be much much older than the living beings that dwell upon it. Therefore, in spite of the error in dating methods, rocks and dirt can be much older than human beings anyway.

The bible even speaks of the earth planet being formed before humans. Looking at the creation account in the book of Genesis, 1:1-9 it speaks of God starting the earth as a formless, watery planet in which he creates the land masses. It takes a few of God's days to get this far, and according to the bible, a thousand years is like a day, or even a just a few hours to Him (Psalms 90:4). Therefore, a "day" to God is much longer than a day to humans. The Bible doesn't specify exactly how long a day to God is in human terms, but this at least informs us that it is a very long time. Therefore, it is possible that the six creative days took millions of years in human terms.

There is another version of the theory of evolution called "Punctuated Equilibrium", which allows for a quicker evolutionary process. This is the theory that, instead of a gradual change through the years, organisms were produced by sudden changes in the genetic code every so often. Is this reasonable? Let's think about this: As an example, say reptiles became birds. How does a sudden, drastic change occur? Do you have a reptile hatchling with feathers? What use would these feathers be? Reptile bones are neither light enough nor structured correctly to allow flight. The feathers would be in the hatchling's way causing it difficulties with reptilian movement and it's bodily temperature control (lizards are cold blooded, birds are warm blooded), likely making it easy prey for other animals. Therefore, the feathered reptiles would not fit in with the "survival of the fittest". They'd die off before developing another sudden change in traits. Could punctuated equilibrium cause a fully formed bird to hatch from a reptile's egg? No, because reptile eggs and bird eggs "work" in completely different ways: For example, reptiles are cold blooded creatures, thus the eggs can lay on the ground or in the sand without the parent around and still hatch. Reptile eggs don't need body heat to incubate because the baby is cold blooded. It's actually preferable that they aren't incubated, because incubation damages the unhatched reptile. Birds, on the other hand, must be kept warm in order to hatch, therefore the parent must sit on the nest of eggs. If there weren't any warm-blooded birds around, who kept the eggs warm to hatch the first bird from a reptile egg? Reptiles aren't warm blooded enough to do this. Reptiles also don't usually stick around to keep their eggs warm...they don't need to, their eggs would be damaged if they did, if they could. Can you see the problems with this issue?

So, lets compare both versions (classic evolution vs. punctuated equilibrium evolution) and see how either one could make a fish become an amphibian:
For typical gradual-change evolution, a fish would need to gradually change into an amphibian, an animal which lives part of its life in water and part of its life on land (such as a frog or newt). One of the gradual changes involved would require the development of a pelvis. To connect the pelvis, there must be major constructive changes in the spine of the fish. The transitional animal would be unable to swim, run, walk, or crawl functionally. This would make it a prime target for predators, thus eliminating it from further transition.
What Punctuated Equilibrium happened instead? Then we have the problem of the sudden change: does it get a fully functional pelvis and spine all at once? Okay, fine, but then how can it swim functionally with half its skeletal system so drastically built different from the rest of the bones? This would change the workings of the fins and the connective muscles used for swimming. Again, the creature would be vulnerable to attack and not survive the transition. Does the fish egg hatch a fully formed amphibian instead? If that's the case, then why are amphibian eggs different from fish eggs in the first place? Again, this is not sensible.

There is also, again, the obvious lack of transitional fossils in the world. Although there have been claims to finding partially-human skeletons, no one has found a complete skeleton of such a thing. It's just as likely that they really found either an extinct species of ape or a severly deformed human. Why isn't there a vast amount of fossils with transitional bodies : Has anyone found a short-necked giraffe? A creature resembling a fish and a frog? How about a reptile/bird combination? AHA! The Archaeopteryx fossils! More than one has been found, and scientists seem to believe these are the links between reptile and bird. Is this so? Aside from this page's previous discussion regarding reptile eggs vs. bird eggs, let's see what science has to say:

Archaeopteryx was first discovered in the early 1860's in Germany. It has the major characteristics of a bird: Feathers and a wishbone, though it also possesses an opposable hallux, teeth and no beak - not usual features for birds. Does this make it a transitional reptile/bird? No, actually it makes it simply an unusual bird, just as penguins are unusual birds. Penguins have flippers instead of wings -- yet nobody considers them to be a bird/dolphin hybrid. Other species in the animal kingdom are equally unusual: The Platypus and the Echidnas are prime examples. They are warm blooded mammals which lay eggs. Yet these are not considered to be transitional species either. Along with all this, if reptiles gradually changed into birds, then there should be many transitional archaeopteryx fossils found. Fossils without complete features. But they don't exist. All that have been found came with complete feathers, not transitional ones, for example.

There are also arguments concerning the mutating "evolution" of different species in modern times. Viruses and Bacteria are especially notorious for mutating from one generation to another. Because influenza virus mutates rapidly from year to year, the medical community must reinvent a new influenza vaccine each year to give to the public. The flu you were immunized against last year won't be the same flu you'll be immunized against this year. Does this prove evolution exists? No it does not. Although each year's influenza is different from the year before, it continues to remain an influenza. It doesn't mutate into pnuemonia, or a cold, or tuberculosis or any other sort of respiratory disease - it stays within its own kind no matter how many mutations is sustains. The same thing for the antibiotic resistant bacteria that seem to crop up as time goes on. Staphylococcus bacteria can be particularly nasty when it infects our tissues. Some forms of Staph have grown to become resistant to certain kinds of antibiotics, but it remains Staph in the process . Is this evolution? Again, No. What causes the bacteria to become resistant is this : If you have an army full of good, strong men, and a terrorist sprays them with something deadly, such as smallpox, it will kill off a great number of them. However, a few of the more stronger men with better immune systems will manage to survive the attack. Generally, strong healthy bodies beget more strong, healthy bodies. Thus these surviving men will likely sire strong, immune children. If, eventually, all the average people are killed off by smallpox, that leaves the stronger ones left over to carry on their strength. Eventually, you'll have a population of people that are more resistant to smallpox than the generation before. The people haven't evolved, it's just all the weaker ones were killed off and the stronger ones carried on. This same principle can be applied to the occurance of antibiotic resistant bacteria. What about the various breeds of dogs, cats, birds and fish? Does not the cross breeding of certain animals to create new breeds denote evolution? No. Again, if you cross two breeds of dogs you still have a fully canine animal. If you cross two breeds of cats you still have a complete feline. However, crossing unlike species, such as a sheep and a monkey, will not result in a transitional species. And then there's the last argument: Why are people taller and bigger now than they were 200 years ago, doesn't that show a gradual change resulting from evolution? Answer : No. Our knowledge of nutrition and health is much better now than it was 200 years ago. We aren't taller and bigger due to evolution, we're taller and bigger due to better health. We are much more aware of our nutritional needs now than we were then. If the entire human population reverted to the culture and diet of 200 years ago, the succeeding generations would likewise revert back to the human physical standards of that time period.

As much as people would like to replace God with evolution, we have yet to come across any convincing evidence of evolution being fact.