Think about the universe. How many galaxies and solar systems and planets are there? Millions? Billions? Think about life. Out of the possibly millions or billions of planets in the universe, why is there life on this one small, blue planet? Think about our sun, immense, hot, full of energy, ever boiling and frothing, never still, never resting. Think about our orbit, our path around the sun. The average distance from the earth to the sun is about 93,000,000 miles (93 million). A little closer, and we'd be extra crispy; a little farther away, and we'd be popsicles. How did our little planet end up in such an optimal orbit for sustaining life? Think about it. The Creator of the universe is no dummy; He knows exactly what is necessary to sustain life. After all, He created it. Think about life. It's all around us, everywhere. The ground we walk on, the water we drink, the food we eat, even the air we breathe contains life. If there's one thing we can say for sure about life, it's that it's everywhere. Think about the diversity of life around you. Think of the birds, and the flowers, and the trees, and grass, and the fish, and the rodents, and even the invisible bacteria. There's so much variety, so many different kinds of living things.

But what is life? And where did it come from? Well, most humanistic biologists tell us that life is a complex chemical reaction, and it came from nowhere. It just exists by accident. A group of molecules just happened to arrange themselves in the right order and bingo - life started. Well, if that's the case, why can't our top scientists do the same thing and create life from non-life? They know all about the chemical composition of living beings, down to the molecular and atomic level, yet they can't create life. The fact is, life didn't come from non-life by accident. There is a creator, and He gave life to all of the living things on Earth. Life is not an accidental combination of chemicals - it is a gift from the Creator. The God of the Bible created the universe, the Earth, and all that lives and breathes and grows. But wait a minute. That's not what scientists say. That's not what the biology books in the schools say. They say that life came from nowhere several million years ago, and it's been slowly changing, getting better - evolving - since that time. We humans (and females in particular) are the epitome of biological evolution. Therefore, your life and mine is just an accident, and you have no purpose, no value. Many people, even Christians, believe that biological evolution has been proven. Well, let's take a look at a few of the so-called "proofs", or evidences, of biological evolution.

One false proof people often hear about is Carbon-14 (c14) dating, or radiocarbon dating, which supposedly gives reliable dates to ancient artifacts and fossil remains. The first rule of carbon dating is that it can only be used on organic material. That is, rocks, stone tools, metal objects, clay pots, and such cannot be dated using carbon dating. Living things contain an amount of c14 while they are alive, and due to its instability, c14 decays, breaks down into other molecular components, when a living organism dies. Because of the rate of decay of c14, anything older than 50,000 years should have no detectable levels of c14. Thus, any c14 date over 50,000 years is immediately known to be false. A second consideration regarding c14 dating, or any type of radioactive dating, is that environmental conditions on Earth have not been consistent for the past several thousand years. In a laboratory, in carefully controlled conditions, with a constant temperature and humidity level, we might expect to see a constant decay rate for c14. But out in the real world, conditions are not the same. Hot spells, cold spells, floods, droughts, air pollution, atomic weapons, an ice age, etc - all of these things affect the decay rate and the amount of c14 found in an object. Thus it is inherently not a reliable dating method. There is a case where a frozen musk ox in Alaska was given varying dates depending on which part of the musk ox was being dated.

Two more false proofs that people often hear about are the so-called horse series and the so-called line of human evolution. Basically, the horse series is a series of skeletal remains that supposedly show the development of the "modern" horse over millions of years. (One thing that really bothers me is when people call a plant or animal "modern" or "primitive".) The earliest supposed horse ancestor is commonly called eohippus. The eohippus was originally named hyracotherium because of its resemblance to the genus Hyrax (cony), a small rodent. We can see that this horse series has a false beginning. Further investigation shows us that the various creatures in this "series" have differing numbers of ribs and lumbar vertebrae, and many different family trees for the horse have been postulated, indicating that the entire series is guesswork. And this guesswork has been used as a proof of evolution. In the human series we have been presented with fossil skeletons that supposedly show human development, from monkeys to men. Some of these skeletons are based on nothing more than a single skull fragment, some were outright frauds, and some are merely variations of mankind, much like the variation we see in human form today. An example of a fraud is the so-called Piltdown Man. He was constructed from a skull found in a gravel pit near Piltdown, in England. In 1953, about 40 years after the initial discovery, it was revealed that the skull was a forgery - a human scull and an orangutan jaw were falsely aged and put together. This fooled the scientific community for nearly 40 years! And it was used as proof of evolution. Another one in the line is the famous "Lucy" skeleton. Originally thought of as an "apewoman", scientists now realize that it was just another ape. Homo Erectus (upright man) used fire and tools, had religion, and there is evidence that he was a sea-farer. Sounds like just another variation of "modern" man to me. Likewise, Neanderthal Man was fully human, and had a larger braincase, on average, than "modern" man. Some evolutionists concede that Neanderthal Man was just another variation of Homo Sapiens. Think of all of the variation in human form we see today. How many of these would be considered less than human if we only had a skeleton to go by? As a sidenote, one unfortunate result of the idea of human evolution is racism.

Now let's look at some definite evidence against evolution. Think about DNA, the very core of your being. DNA is a molecular code that sets your physical characteristics. It contains all of the information that makes you you. It also contains all of the information that makes you a human and not a fish. All living things have DNA, but it is not the same in all living things. Human DNA is comprised of 23 pairs of chromosomes - ½ from the mother and ½ from the father. Some other chromosome numbers are: Monkey - 21 pairs; Dog - 39 pairs; Cat - 19 pairs; Fruit fly - 4 pairs; Corn - 10 pairs; Potato - 24 pairs. A certain ant subspecies has only 1 pair of chromosomes, and a certain fern species has a whopping 630 pairs of chromosomes. So where did all of these different numbers of chromosomes come from? How did we humans get 23 pairs of chromosomes if we evolved from monkeys (with only 21 pairs)? Are dogs higher on the evolutionary ladder because they have more chromosomes than cats? If that's the case, then wouldn't ferns be the true epitome of evolution, with 630 chromosome pairs? The bigger question is, where did the extra genetic information come from? If we came from monkeys why do we have more chromosomes? Why do we have more information in our genetic code? Where did this extra information come from? One of the current evolutionary ideas of today is that land creatures came from fish, ocean-dwelling creatures. Well, where did the genetic information for walking come from? And where did hair and feathers come from? There are no feathered fish, or hairy fish. And fish don't have legs or arms. Where did that genetic information come from? Another of today's ideas is that birds came from dinosaurs. Indeed, so deeply entrenched is this dinosaur-bird idea that the recent movie, Jurassic Park III, showed some of the dinosaurs with bird-like features. The question this brings up is, where did the genetic information for flight come from? Dinosaur DNA, as far as we know, has no information about flight. And flight is a complex thing for an animal to do. Birds have very specialized structures - hollow bones, extra air bags in their lungs, special skeletal structure. This all comes from the genetic information in the bird's cells. Where did that information come from? Obviously it came from somewhere, and there's no known natural phenomenon that can increase genetic information. Indeed, real observation shows a tendency toward the opposite as time goes on - a loss of genetic information. The variations we see today in different species is merely the re-shuffling of existing genetic information. This is one thing that evolutionists cannot explain. Outside of a Creator who created living things "after their kind" there is no explanation of this. The discovery and study of DNA should have shut down all theories of biological evolution, but humans are so stubborn, and want so much to not believe in a Creator, that they will hold on to anything they can to try to support their carefully constructed beliefs.

What is life? Is life just a chemical reaction? Well, scientists are now able to construct the molecules of living things, but they cannot give life to their constructions. Is life an electrical charge? Well, our doctors can restart a stopped heart with electricity. But is this really giving life? If we just need electricity then why can't we extend life indefinitely? No, life is more than electricity or chemicals. Even if scientists can build a perfect human body they can't give it life. Life must come from life. Even the cloned plants and animals of today have to receive life from another living organism.

Of course the best evidence for God creating the universe, life, and the Earth is that the Bible tells us so. In the beginning chapters of Genesis we read that God created everything, including life, "after its kind". Some liberal Christians today try to argue that the Bible doesn't really say that, that the Bible is not a science book, that we don't really know what Genesis says about the beginning, that we "enlightened" individuals believe what the scientists tell us because they've studied it and proven it. Well, my friend, enlightened or not, the Bible is clear in what it says about the beginning, including the creation of life. It's only complicated when we make it complicated. Either you accept what God's Word says, or you don't.

There is a creator, my friend, and He is the God of the Bible. He did create the universe, the Earth, and life. Life comes from Him. Life has been one continuous, unbroken chain of life from the beginning of time. There has never been life from non-life. It can't happen. Life can only come from life. And the giver of all life is God. Not only did He give us life on this Earth, but He has made a way for us to live forever with Him in Heaven. The Creator of the universe, the Giver of life, sent His only Son, Jesus Christ, to Earth to die for us and rise again and make a way for us to have forgiveness of sin and eternal life with Him. Will you accept this free gift of salvation and forgiveness? The God who gave you physical life wants to give you eternal life. Think about it.