Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

You are here

Prove Evolution Is False - Even Without the Bible

Login or Create an Account

With a account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up


Can we prove that evolution is false without using the Bible? Certainly we can! Evolution is a scientific theory that stands or falls on the physical evidence. In fact, one can be an atheist, a person who doesn't believe in God, and still not believe in evolution!

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, as taught at school, is a biological explanation of how creatures have supposedly "evolved" or developed progressively through natural selection and variation (now known as mutation) over eons of time from the tiny cell to the largest creatures on earth today. What is taught in classrooms is not mere microevolution—small changes within a species—but macroevolution, the change from one type of creature to another quite distinct life form.

What many evolutionists are trying to convince you of is that there is no need for a Creator since, as they say, evolution can substitute as the mechanism for creating and transforming life. They teach that life arose from non-life and evolved from simpler creatures to more complex life forms. In other words, the tiny cell eventually became an amoeba, then a lizard, then a monkey, and finally—you!

In order to remember key points that disprove Darwinian evolution—the "molecules to man" theory—we'll use the acronym FALSE. (A few of these points also disprove the compromise of theistic evolution—the notion that God employed macroevolution over eons in forming the creatures we see on earth today.)

F for Fossils

A fossil is the preserved remains of a living thing. The fossil record around the earth extends an average of one mile deep. Below this level we come up with a blank slate as far as living, complex creatures are concerned.

I collect fossils of what are deemed the earliest type of complex creatures with hard bodies—trilobites. No previous ancestors of these arthropods have been found. Similar to some marine "bugs" we see today on the seashore that disappear into the sand when the waves retreat, trilobites had hard shells, all the basic organs, and complex eyes like those of flies, with hundreds of sophisticated lenses connected to the optic nerve going to the brain. Trilobite fossils are found around the earth, and in all cases the level of rock beneath them does not reveal other creatures with similar features.

As one source states: "The dominant life form was the now-extinct sea creature known as a trilobite, up to a foot long, with a distinctive head and tail, a body made up of several parts, and a complex respiratory system. But although there are many places on earth where 5,000 feet of sedimentary rock stretch unbroken and uniformly beneath the Cambrian [layer], not a single indisputable multi-celled fossil has been found there. It is 'the enigma of paleontological [fossil studies] enigmas,' according to Stephen Gould. Darwin himself said he could give 'no satisfactory answer' to why no fossils had been discovered. Today's scientists are none the wiser" (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, pp. 26-27).

Question: If, after almost two centuries of digging beneath all the world's continents, no previous ancestor of this first hard-bodied creature has been found, how then did the ubiquitous trilobite evolve? There should be some previous ancestor if evolution were true.

It's like finding an exquisite watch on the seashore and yet never finding any previous primitive models of the watch on earth. If you reasoned as an evolutionist, you would deny there was a need for a watchmaker at all, maintaining that time, water, sand, minerals and actions of the elements are sufficient to producing a fully functional watch that runs. This is part of the reason it takes more faith to believe in evolution than in a Creator!

Further important evidence from the fossil record is the absence of transitional forms between species. Darwin was concerned that the thousands of intermediate stages between creatures needed to prove his theory were not in evidence, but he expected they would eventually be found. Yet those thousands of missing transitional forms are still missing!

Another reference explains: "If throughout past ages life was actually drifting over in one continual stream from one form to another, it is to be expected that as many samples of the intermediate stages between species should be discovered in fossil condition as of the species themselves … All should be in a state of flux. But these missing links are wanting. There are no fossils of creatures whose scales were changing into feathers or whose feet were changing into wings, no fossils of fish getting legs or of reptiles getting hair. The real task of the geological evolutionist is not to find 'the' missing link, as if there were only one. The task is to find those thousands upon thousands of missing links that connect the many fossil species with one another" (Byron Nelson, After Its Kind, 1970, pp. 60-62).

The absence of transitional forms is an insurmountable hurdle for theistic evolutionists as well. It also fits with our next point.

A for Assumption

When there is no real evidence, evolutionary scientists simply make assumptions.

If evolution were true, then where is the evidence of different types of animals now "evolving" into other types? Where is the evidence of cats, dogs and horses gradually turning into something else? We do see changes within species, but we do not see any changes into other species. And, as mentioned, we see no evidence of gradual change in the fossil record either. Yet evolutionists continue to assume that transitional forms must have existed.

In Darwin's landmark book On the Origin of Species there are some 800 subjective clauses, with uncertainty repeatedly admitted instead of proof. Words such as "could," "perhaps" and "possibly" plague the entire book.

Evolution is still called a theory—a possible explanation or assumption—because it is not testable according to the scientific method, as this would require thousands or millions of years. Evolutionists will counter that a theory is not a mere hypothesis but is a widely affirmed intellectual construct that generally appears to fit all the facts. Yet evolution in no way fits all the facts available. Evidence does not support it—and in many respects runs counter to it.

L for Life

The law of biogenesis as taught in biology class states that only life can produce life.

You've probably heard the famous question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? It's a real dilemma for an evolutionist to answer. An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?

To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.

Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history.

S for Symbiosis

When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.

A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants?

Again, atheistic scientists are stumped. Theistic evolutionists are perplexed as well. Yet if you believe in a Creator who specially created the various forms of life on earth, the answer is simple—both were created at about the same time.

E for Engineering

All living things are exquisitely engineered or designed. Qualitatively, a bacterium is as majestically built for its purpose as a human body is for its function. Yet evolution says it's only an illusion of design—that there is no real designer behind it. Reality is not an illusion! Living things are multi-functional, which means they do many complex things at the same time, something evolution with its step-by-step process has never been able to demonstrate.

One example of a living thing with exquisite engineering is the tree. It provides breathable oxygen for us while processing carbon dioxide, which would in high amounts in the air be toxic to us. It supplies wood, housing for birds, roots to limit erosion, fruit and seeds to eat, is biodegradable and gives shade. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "A healthy tree provides a cooling effect that is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day." How could something so complex arise from a random, undirected evolutionary process?

Again, you need more "faith" to believe in blind evolution than in an all-knowing Creator who designed the marvelous tree in the first place.

Now you have five proofs that evolution is F-A-L-S-E and that special creation is true—and we didn't even use the Bible. Remember the acronym FALSE when you read or hear about evolution—and do take time to read our Creator's great book of truth! It has much to say regarding origins.


  • Hwiese

    This is dumb. The lack of evidence doesn't "disprove". And if you actually believe it does, many of your points would disprove a creationist. The fact you think a book could be proof of anything is also concerning. You're not a scientist that's for sure. I agree there's not enough evidence to prove evolution, and there's not enough to prove the Christian God creates us

  • andyjr1965

    I'm sorry, but it isn't just a BOOK. It is the Bible, the living word of God. Read John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word (the bible) and the word was with God, and the Word WAS God" Also, read Romans 3:4, "God forbid: yea, LET GOD BE TRUE, BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when." Also, Genisis is enough evidence. EVEN MORE SO, read Romans 1:22, "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". Now, just because I know some verses, doesn't mean I'm calling myself wise, I have had people try to turn it around on me, but I am saying, Evolutionists are saying big words and calling themselves wise, THEY ARE FOOLS FOR CHALLENGING GOD. God is all-powerful, all-knowing. He created the WORLD! They say evolution is how people came to be and there was a big bang, HEY, if you have a bomb, and it makes a "Big Bang" It DESTROYS things, not CREATES it. That is how dumb they are, that they are trying to say you can defy SIMPLE PHYSICS. Also, the world is NOT Millions of years old, when God made the World, he made the trees, flowers, animals, and Adam GROWN UP ALREADY! So thank you, it isn't a book, it's the Bible.

  • bbybloom

    May God bless you for this! How can human beings comprehend such a false idea that life came from no life! Hear ye the Word of the Lord, God is the maker of Heaven of Earth! Genesis (The first book in the bible) explains detail by detail how it all began. Nothing is random or by mistake! How can you firmly believe that which contradicts itself (i.e. the theory of evolution) a countless number of times! God makes no mistakes! Look with your eyes: see how functional the body is, how ordered it is, how life is formed in the womb of a woman, how plants need sunlight, how bees need flowers, where did bees even get their names, till date scientists do not know all the mysteries of the ocean, all the organisms in the ocean, why is that? you may wonder. It is because they did not create these organisms, God did. How is it that the sun is PERFECTLY PLACED that science even says that if the sun was placed just the tiniest bit forward, all life would cease! Now tell me, how is that a mistake? How is that just random? A word is enough for the wise.
    The History of Creation is the first topic in the bible. Read it and ask God for understanding and wisdom. Evolution is a big lie!

  • Ethan

    The 5 points presented in the article are all well known flaws in a large theory that covers the evidence to the greatest extent. The F in FALSE stands for fossils, but it just talks about trilobites, an unimportant creature in a broad, ever-changing planet. Why are there no ancestors? Trilobites have calcified skeletons and many other features (like facial structures), making them much easier to identify, whereas there ancestors did not. The A is for assumption. Eyewitnesses of the past? Archaeologists? No one of the recent past has proof of Christ. But evolution, on the other hand. . . has. The L is for Life: The answer is metabolism: The process of carbon dioxide breaking down into organic molecules through a catalyst (a very complex process). This is backed up with evidence, unlike the this website. S: One organism survived both with and without the other, but evolved when the other benefited it, until it relied solely on that organism to survive. E: Duh! 4 billion years of time to change. Look online: All these explanations have evidence (which is something this argument lacks). Explain vestigiality, vertebrates, the fact that many transformation fossils have been found.

  • Mario Seiglie

    Thanks for your response. Trilobites have hard bodies, but many did not that preceded them that have soft bodies in the Edicaran age, and yet, none are found gradually evolving from one to another--a fact found throughout the 6,000 species of animals on Earth. It's not just the appearance of the trilobites that you have to explain. You mention about assumptions and I assume you mean paleontologists. Plenty of 1st century writers such as Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius mention Christ, so it is not fiction. Evolution still assumes creatures gradually evolve from others, what is missing are the transitions that show a gradual change from one kind to another, for instance, between cats and dogs. Life is far more than metabolism--you need something to kickstart metabolism and even that is not enough. You also need a self-replication mechanism or metabolism will occur only once. How did the organisms such as plants survive if they need an animal to cross-pollinate it? If it could do so without it, there would still be evidence for it, which is not the case. The case for information in the DNA that is a digital code which is stored, sent & translated defies Evolution--Mario Seiglie.

  • JKennedy76

    It is funny that you continuously reference trilobites to "disprove" transitional forms while blatanly ignoring: homo erectus, australopithecus species, icthyostega, pliohippus, and hundreds of thousands of others. If God truly created the Earth, then where did those come from? DNA is one of the most finite and accurate proofs for evolution. Please explain the presence of cyanobacteria and proteobacterium within eukaryotic cells (including your own mitochondria) and how that DNA is an exact match with ancestral proteobacterium and cyanobacteria. Please explain how the presence of ancestral modifications can be tracked back hundreds of thousands of years within our own genomes to ancestral species within other domains and yet, you are telling me that evolution didn't occur. Please explain how the presence of human evolution can be traced back spatially, genetically, and anthropologically hundreds to human origins in Africa and yet you are claiming that God snapped his fingers and everything suddenly appeared. You have clearly never taken a single biology, chemistry, anthropology course in your life and your attempt to falsify evolution only shows how little of it you understand.

  • Mario Seiglie

    Hello Joe,
    One thing I learned long ago is that every argument has two sides and we should be open to both of them. For instance, bringing out various lines of primates or hominids does not show the transitional forms that have been changing to another specie. Where are all the mid-steps in the fossil record if they have truly evolved? Why are they all in a completed form? Regarding cyanobacteria, they are still with us today! Show me where there are fossils of them evolving into something else and the same goes for proteobacterium. Besides, they all possess a very complex DNA--one proteobacterium like E. coli, has 4,000 genes, all intelligently and grammatically expressed, and although they have been reproduced in labs for decades, they are still E. coli. What you need to show is where all the gradually evolving forms are found in the fossil record -- Darwin admitted the "innumerable transition links" were not found in his day--nor in ours. As far as my background goes, I did take biology at the university and for forty years have read dozens of books on biology, geology and anthropology, writing many articles on these subjects. Besides, ad hominem arguments are quite weak.

  • reasoning

    Evolution is not a perfect theory. It is very much living and open to change with new information. How can we criticize a theory when there has yet to be irrefutable evidence of a man in the sky with purpose for man. If there is a god, why would he care for man? The fallacies which you base your argument on are from your human perception of a world filled with billions of perceptions. Of course you wouldn't see significant genetic progress in your life, it take millions of years and substantial environmental pressures to alter the gene pool. Also, when you worry about the existence of these "transition animals" what you're really worried about is labeling- a completely human concept. every genetic variation and recombination is a part of the "transition." Nature exists free of labels. If all of man died today the world would still exist and there would be none of these labels you worry about. And what will happen to god when all of man dies. Its proven that, by diffusion of energy, all entropy will cease- there will be no more change or subjects for change. Everything will be equalized. What will God do then? Sit around with Jesus and a coffee, mulling over his failed experiment?

  • SamMum

    Just ask God when you meet him Liz

  • lonewolf 47

    Hi, Liz, criticizing a theory It's the equivalent of environmental pressure to a species. if it can't adapt and evolve it will go extinct! You know, evolution and stuff? Pun and joke aside, such kind of answers give evolution that title of a secular religion. And as our Lord Jesus Christ said believe and don't, search. As for the second part of your message, attacking something you don't believe that exists, doesn't make any sense. However, you are correct that the world and humans will eventually come to an end but when that happens it will be God's plan and not entropy.

  • thomas.bartnik

    I would hardly call what Liz Cram said "attacking something". I could very well be wrong if I am missing something, please expand on how Liz is "attacking something she doesn't believe in". From how I understood her message, she was simply asking questions about religion. I don't think that any of what she said could truly be classified as "attacking".

  • ireagirl21

    you say if there was a God why would he care about humans. Thats the thing God loves us .As powerful as He is , He still loves us and cares for us . In fact He calls us his treasures and He knows our name and the number of hairs on our head . He loves you and is calling for a relationship with you.

  • IAmNotTheChrist

    Jesus is lord

  • 56

    Technically chickens weren't the first animals to lay eggs, so the egg came first

  • Mario Seiglie

    If this is correct, my question would be, so where did the specific genetic material come from? It has billions of chemical letters as a code for that precise creature, that produce the male and female chickens and not some other animal. If the egg contains the same genetic instructions to create a male and female chicken, then there would need to be two chickens to mix their genetic material into the egg or you would have a different creature (from Mario Seiglie).


    where was that different creature made from than @Mario Seiglie

  • IAmNotTheChrist

    Which theory seems more plausible: the one that says elegant, beautiful creatures such as us was the result of primordial ooze coming alive, or that we elegant, beautful, creatures were created slowly, perfectly by an elegant, beautiful God

  • reasoning


  • john_gabriel

    I am an atheist (meaning one without a personal god). The reasons you state are valid and it doesn't take a genius to realise the theory of evolution is absolute rot.

    But the same can be said about your teachings and your imagined "god-given" authority and delusions stemming from the bible, which is entirely a work of fiction.

  • ElRay

    "Entirely a work of fiction"? really? which part don't you like? I think your comment is a bit of hyperbole. The story is one mainly of history which is documented in the books by eyewitnesses and verified by archaeologists.
    Also, you don't have the correct definition of atheist. You sound more like agnostic.