If we had to make a quick choice between evolution and creationism, we would choose creationism.
Evolution is science, not truth; therefore, it cannot disprove man’s creation on a single 24-hour day. See Truth And Science Are Two Different Things
There are only a few questions about evolution that matter. We have answered them. The other one million questions are just for fun and can be ignored. You don’t need our massive scientific knowledge to put evolution in its place. Evolution Nexus is located at //evolutionnexus.com with a mirror (duplicate website) at //eon.lfnexus.com. Also, //evolution.lfnexus.com will take you to //evolutionnexus.com.
Here is a simple proof that evolution is not a fact:
If you consult all of the writings of Charles Darwin, all of the writings of evolutionists since Charles Darwin, the writings of evolutionary biochemists, the writings of evolutionary chemists, the writings of evolutionary biophysicists, the writings of evolutionary physicists, the writings of evolutionary biologists, the writings of evolutionary geologists, the writings of evolutionary paleontologists, and the writings of other scientists in a thousand scientific specialties, they all say that their conclusions are based on:
Footnote: Multiple studies universally agree that evolutionary science is based on well over 11,000 assumptions.
First, we must give the Devil his due; that is, some of the theistic evolution websites are very persuasive. However, they are very persuasive only to those with little or no knowledge on the subject of evolution.
Theistic evolutionists believe that God used evolution in the process of creating man. Their failure is that they engage in an uncritical acceptance of certain scientific postulates and principles. In other words, they either haven’t done their homework or they haven’t done enough homework. For example, they accept the transitional forms (ape-men, not man-apes) as fact when, in reality, there is not perfect agreement in the scientific community as to the principles supporting the conclusions regarding these so-called transitional forms.
If they existed, extreme man-apes would simply have been man-apes that could be mistaken for human beings.
There is disagreement in the evolutionary scientific community as to the validity of methods used to analyze and evaluate fossils. However, let us assume, for the moment, that the methods are valid. What would this mean?
What it would mean is that there were extinct “man-apes.” What would these man-apes have been. There are two views – evolutionary and data.
The evolutionary view is that the man-apes were transitional forms; that is, life-forms between more ancient apes and man.
The man-apes would have been ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes.
Analysis of Views
The evolutionary view is based on a mixture of data and fantasy. The fantasy is that the man-apes gave birth to human beings. However, no birth fossils (fossils of mothers giving birth to babies) have ever been found.
The data view is always correct because it simply reports the facts.
If fossil analysis/evaluation methodologies are valid, there were ancient apes with higher intelligence and more human-looking appearance than modern apes. There are no birth fossils to prove that they gave birth to human beings.
We have proven that similarity is not proof of evolution (see Evolution’s Great Fallacy). So, what do we have below? Evolutionists would say, “See how the skull evolved over time.” But what we really have is nothing more than a set of skulls of different apes and of a human being lined up by similarity.
Lined Up By Similarity
To make our point clearer, here are the same skulls lined up by age.
Lined Up By Age
The great fallacy of evolution is:
Similarity proves parentage.
In other words because two animals resemble each other one must give birth to the other . Well, let’s see. A zebra resembles a horse. That must mean zebras give birth to horses or horses give birth to zebras. An alligator is similar to a crocodile; therefore, one of them must give birth to the other. And then there’s the turtles and tortoises and the frogs and toads and the dolphins and porpoises and the donkeys and mules. We could go on.
So, sorry evolutionists but:
Similarity does not prove parentage.
Are the days of Genesis 24-hour days? Well, first, we must define the context of the question. There are two contexts. They are science and truth. Now, remember:
Science isn’t necessarily truth.
See our discussion elsewhere on the subject of the difference between science and truth.
In terms of science and not truth, the days of Genesis:
Might not be 24-hour days.
In terms of truth and not science
The days of Genesis are 24-hour days.
The most important thing to remember on the “day length” question is that:
Science does not disprove the Bible.
Science does disprove the Koran.
Science does disprove every other so-called holy book on the planet.