Why is Evolution so Popular?
Evolution today is pretty much accepted as fact by the majority of people, even though no transitional form has ever been found. Evolution (ape to man) has never been observed. There are different types of apes and there are different types of man but an ape is still an ape and a man is still a man. There is no transitional form of half ape and half man. Even though it is still statistically impossible for life to form from nothing, even in billions of years, Evolution is still accepted as fact. Maybe the following example will put it in perspective:
Let’s say that 100 years ago a mathematician came up with a theory that 2+2 = 5. In order for this to work he made an assumption that one of the 2’s was actually a 3 and 2+3 = 5, therefore 2 + 2 = 5. Even though the evidence pointed to 2 + 2 = 4, he still insisted that 2 + 2 = 5. Several other influential people got on board with this and it started being taught in the schools. Soon schools were teaching that 2 + 2 = 5 and 2 + 2 = 4. But after some law suits only 2 + 2 = 5 was allowed to be taught. If a teacher tried to teach that 2 + 2 = 4, they could get sued and lose their job. It became very popular in colleges also and if a student tried to say that they believed that 2 + 2 = 4 then they would be ridiculed. A hundred years later if you were to ask the average man on the street what 2 + 2 equals the answer would be 5. The old adage is true that if you tell a lie often enough it will soon be believed as truth.
Evolution absolutely requires billions of years of earth history to even be in the ball park of believability. So evolutionist must have an earth that is billions of years old. Unfortunately most people believe this lie also. You see no person was there when time began so there is no eye witness to the beginning, except for God the creator who tells us in His word when time began. But you see evolutionist do not believe in creation therefore they have no eye witness at all. All they have is circumstantial evidence and flawed test to “prove” their case. Evolutionists rely heavily on radiometric dating to “prove” the age of the earth. But just like in the example above, assumptions have to be made. The following example may put it in perspective.
Some people came upon a contraption in the middle of nowhere. It had a big huge vat of sand and above that vat was another big vat of sand with a rubber diaphragm in the bottom with a hole in it. There was sand running out of the top vat into the bottom vat. There was one guy in town that knew when the process was started (eye witness) but he couldn’t be found. So they brought in a scientist to tell them when the process started. He measured the sand in both vats and he measured the rate at which the sand was coming out of the top vat. He punched some numbers into his computer and he said the process was started 6 years ago. Well they started telling everyone in town that it was a scientific fact that the process was started 6 years ago. They had a scientist do scientific calculations therefore it had to be a scientific fact. The guy showed up that was there when it started (eye witness) and said they were wrong. He was there when it was started and that was just 6 days ago. You see there was sand already in the bottom container when the process was started. The scientist had assumed that the bottom vat was empty when the process was started. The eye witness said that the rubber diaphragm was stretched out (higher flow rate) for the first 3 days after the process was started. The scientist assumed that the rate it was flowing now has always been the rate. The eye witness said that on day 3 that they added some sand into the bottom vat. The scientist had assumed that there was no sand added to the system. So now is it a fact that the process was started 6 days ago or 6 years ago? Sadly, most the people in the town still believe the process was started 6 years ago because the scientist couldn’t be wrong. It had to be that the eye witness was just remembering it wrong. Which would you believe, a scientist making assumptions and basing their calculations on those assumptions or would you believe the eye witness that was there when the process started? Maybe we could just reinterpret what the eye witness said. He said it was started 6 days ago but his days are actually our years so therefore when he said 6 days ago he really meant 6 years ago. Since this aligns with the scientist it must be the truth. We have an eye witness on the beginning of the earth (the Bible) why would we believe fallible man instead?
The scientist, in the example above, had to make some assumptions in order to do their calculation just like they do with radiometric dating. If their assumptions are wrong then their whole calculation is wrong. In radiometric dating they use radioactive elements (parent elements) that decay into a stable element (child element). Tey assume that there is no child element in the sample (no sand in the bottom vat) and they assume that the rate of decay of the parent element has always been constant (the rate of flow from top vat to bottom vat). Plus they also assume there has been no contamination of the sample (extra sand added on day 3). So as you can see, if their assumptions are wrong then the whole test falls apart. But they have to make these assumptions because they weren’t there when the rock formed to take measurements at that time. The fallibility of this dating method has been proven by dating some rocks at millions of years old with known ages of <50 years (such as rocks from Mount St. Helen). As you can see, radiometric dating is not accurate so why do so many people believe it? For many years they have been taught that it is true, you tell a lie as the truth often enough people will begin to believe it.