The media and many of the scientists who don't want God to exist show science as being exact and precise to promote evolution and beat down creation. The reality is that there are opposing views on almost all theories which we are capable of testing and reproducing in the present. Therefore, it is impossible for these same scientists to be so exact about something from the past which cannot be reproduced and tested in the present. The best that evolution can be is speculation, not fact. A proof of this is the debate over global warming.
It is interesting that many of the scientists who claim that evolution is a scientific fact argue over global warming which can be tested and studied in the present. How could such scientists even think of claiming that something as speculative as evolution is a fact? Even the idea is absurd.
To show some of the errors in some of the logic used by some of these scientists and show how flawed and incomplete their thinking can be, we will briefly use science to evaluate some of the global warming ideas. The idea I wish to evaluate is that global warming will increase indefinitely and will cause the oceans to rise because of melting polar caps and glaciers. Is this a valid projection?
The threat posed by many of the scientists who are warning us about global warming is that the planet and its atmosphere will continue warming as long as we continue to increase the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. This increasing warming will melt both polar caps and all glaciers on the planet. This increase in liquid water will cause the ocean waters to rise enough to cover all coastal cities, destroy global economies, and force people to move to less fertile lands. They predict that much of today's continental and island surfaces will become covered by the rising oceans and seas.
This part of their analysis leaves out some of the basics of science and is too simplistic. The truth is that the Earth's atmosphere and waters will warm to a point and the polar caps and glaciers will melt. The difference is that it may actually cause the oceans to shrink in size and that the warming will only increase to a point. It is true that the storms will increase in frequency and intensity but only to a point.
The reason for this is very simple. Warmed air will hold more water than cooler air. We know this to be true because research has proved it. We also know that warmer waters evaporate faster and more easily. When you put these two together, you realize that the warmer bodies of water on our planet will be losing water into the atmosphere much more quickly and the atmosphere will hold more water before it releases it as rain, snow, and other forms of precipitation. The warmer atmosphere will become a repository for increasing amounts of water.
We also know that the water in the atmosphere reflects much of the sun's light back out into space decreasing the amount of light reaching the Earth's surface. This decreases the warming of the Earth.
Therefore, it is only common sense that increased water vapor in the warmer atmosphere will reflect more sun light out into space. I believe that the Earth will continue to warm to a point where the decrease in sun light reaches a balance in relation to the planet's retention of heat caused by the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. At this point, the planet will stop warming unless the sun increases its energy output.
How high will the oceans rise or sink? We don't know because no one has taken these basic factors into consideration. We would have to calculate how much water our warmer atmosphere will hold, at which point will the water vapor reflect enough sun light to stop the planet from heating more, and how much this will actually increase or decrease the surface water on our planet. This should also answer just how much warmer our planet will get before it stops warming and tell us approximately how much more violent our storms will become.
It also poses other questions. After the atmosphere has reached a saturation point which will begin to significantly decrease the amount of sun light reaching the Earth, will it begin to cool the atmosphere and slightly reverse the heating of the planet? We don't know. If the increased atmospheric water level does reverse planet heating, how much will it reverse it? We don't know.
If we can't answer questions about things which are going on around us, how could we possibly claim that something which happened in prehistory is a fact. The truth is that evolution can never be considered a fact. The best that evolutionists can ever validly claim is that evolution is most probable.
When you consider this in conjunction with the other evidence I have provided about the actual existence of this being, God and His testimony that evolution never happened, then the scientifically most probable occurrence must be creation. God's statements about Him having created life on this planet in conjunction with our inevitable creation of life ourselves make the probable creation of life by God to be very realistic and probable. Definitely more probable than the accidental and highly coincidental evolution.
Therefore, for it to be science, scientists must objectively consider creation as a scientific possibility of at least equal probability. Anything else simply cannot be considered science and must be considered religion. Since this is not the case, evolution cannot be considered a science and must be classified a religion until ALL scientists objectively consider creation in relation to the evidence.