One of the things I love about evolution is how so many people claim it to be fact and proven by all of the evidence around us.

First of all, the evidence doesn’t prove evolution or creation, it’s just evidence.  It’s the interpretation of the evidence that leads one to believe in evolution or creation.  Secondly, the so-called facts of evolution are often overturned for new facts which are then overturned for new facts and so on and so on.

Then you also have different interpretations of the same evidence within the evolutionary world.  I so love to ask an evolutionist which set of facts or interpretation of the facts, are true and which aren’t because they all can’t be true.

Take for instance the origin of the earth.  There are more than one set of interpretations of the evidence they find.  One of the most prevalent stories of origins goes something like this:

Once upon a time about 5 billion years ago, there existed a disk consisting of grains of dust that were left over from the formation of a sun.  Over the next 500 million years, the dust particles began to attract each other through the forces of gravity, forming larger and larger particles.  From tiny particles they formed pebbles, then boulders and eventually what some refer to as planetary embryos.  By the end of the half a billion years, these planetary embryos coalesced into planet Earth.

Although this very scenario goes against the known laws of physics and chemistry, this fairytale is believed to be true fact by a great many people around the world.  It is taught in many schools and universities around this coalesced globe.

But wait, there’s a new interpretation being presented that may cause some to abandon these so-called facts for a new set of facts.

Based on measurements conducted at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology of Zurich in Switzerland, a pair of geochemists from the Ecole Normale Supérieure de Lyon in France are suggesting a different interpretation as to how the earth was formed.  Caroline Fitoussi and Bernard Bourdon compared the silicone isotopes in various samples of rocks from the earth’s mantle, the moon (collected by NASA) and meteorites known as enstatite chondrites.  Then they took their findings and plugged them in computer models of the earth’s formation to determine the right mix of three key meteorite ingredients that would have created the necessary blend of oxygen, chromium and nickel isotopes that were found in the various sample of rocks found here on earth.  They also found that the moon and earth shared similar silicon isotope compositions, which adds to the theory that the moon was formed by a massive collision with earth shortly after the earth formed.

Fitousse and Bourdon are now suggesting that the particles that formed the earth were more electric (isotope charged) than previously thought.  Additionally they believe the earth did not form by the buildup of dust particles, but by the collisions of a number of different types of meteorites.

There are a couple of problems with this new formation story that I want you to consider.  First is the fact that heavenly bodies such as meteorites tend to break apart when they collide.  But these two French scientists want us to believe that as the meteorites collided they joined together to form larger and larger meteorites until finally they are big enough to become planet earth.

Secondly, their computer model was biased to begin with.  The model was programmed to simulate what they believed happened.  Then they entered enough data to get the results they wanted.  That doesn’t mean their computer model was right to begin with.

For instance, I could come up with a theory that says that humans evolved from dogs and not apes.  I could then design a computer model to simulate that evolution based upon my belief.  I could program the model with evidences I choose that would lead to a positive conclusion.  Then I would run my computer model and keep adjusting the data until I get the results I want.  That doesn’t mean it’s true, it just means that I know how to create and adjust a computer model to the results I want.

Instead of spending so much time and money on ‘once upon a time’ stories on the formation of the earth, why not just turn to the only eyewitness account of what really happened?  That eyewitness account says:

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Gen 1:1


Moskowitz, Clara, Ed. Earth Formed From Diverse Meteorite Mix, Study Suggests, Live Science, March 2, 2012.

Creation Astronomy (DVD)

Genesis teaches that God created the entire universe supernaturally, only thousands of years ago. Yet, most people are convinced that the universe started in a big bang billions of years in the past. In this illustrated lecture, astronomer Dr. Jason Lisle shows viewers that when the evidence of nature is understood properly, it lines up perfectly with the clear teachings of Scripture. The heavens declare the glory of God!

Continue Reading on