Skip to main content

Scientific Proof Against Evolution

Scientific Evidence Again
 
Evolution vs. Creation or Creation vs. Evolution?


First of all, I would like to remind Christians to arm themselves & be
able to defend our belief in the Bible. Evolution is an excuse to NOT
believe in God, an excuse for atheism. In fact, my own Dad is an
atheist, a scientist & a retired aerospace engineer that tries to
defend his atheism with the theory of evolution. He thinks that the
Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales, myths or old wives tales, that
were thought up by the primitive men of that time. To him science &
evolution are facts that have disproved the Bible. Therefore I’ve
decided to create this website in defense of God’s Word. I kind of
see it as my job to dismantle the whole theory of evolution,
scientifically, piece-by-piece. I feel like God commissioned me to do
this, because it’s necessary for Christianity to progress & maintain
credibility. It’s time the world is informed about the TRUTH.

Secondly, this is NOT intended to be some monumental resource for
professional scholars. It’s purpose is more modest. It is meant to
answer some questions for the defense of our Christian beliefs.

I try to make this in the most simplest & in layman’s terms, so that
it is understandable to the general population. I purposely leave out
complicated info. & technical data, & hope to bring an
easy-to-understand version of the scientific facts. When possible, I
try to explain how science works in the simplest form, in order for
the average guy to understand. But I will admit that at times, it
does get a little technical in order to explain certain viewpoints.
But, hopefully, it’s for your own good.

I remember back in the early 1980s I found a book at a Christian
bookstore that just tore the theory of evolution to shreds. In fact I
bought two or three of them, but one stood out above the others. I
don’t remember the name of the book or who the author was, but I do
remember many of his arguments, which I will attempt to explain here…

This book gave credit to Darwin for being a very intelligent man, & it
said that if Darwin had known some of what has been discovered since
the publishing of his theory, that he probably wouldn’t have believed
in his own theory of evolution. He brought up the fact that in the
late 1800s Louis Pasteur won a prize offered by the French Academy for
proving that life doesn’t just generate itself. Because back in the
days when Darwin was putting his theory together, it was commonly
believed at that time that stagnant water created mosquitoes, rancid
food created maggots & bacteria, that germs just grew from nothing
whenever materials began decomposition, etc. Darwin had based part of
his theory on life just spontaneously generating itself.


This book went on to discredit all of the various dating techniques, &
then offered several different dating techniques that proved that the
earth cannot be even close to the age that they purport it to be.
After that, the book went on to bring up geology, & how rock strata 500
feet thick, 50 miles wide & hundreds of miles long would have had to
have been turned upside-down, & in many places, in order for the
fossil record to work.

He mentioned that one of their biggest examples that is used in most
textbooks is the horse. You know how they show you a picture of a
little tiny animal, then a little bigger one, etc., etc., then finally
they show a picture of a horse today. These animals were NOT found in
this order. In fact, they weren’t even found on the same continent.
They were all found in different time periods & in different places.
He goes on to explain that there is a small variety of horse (I
believe that it was from Britain) that grows only 18 inches tall. So,
we could take that, the Shetland pony & other variously sized horses
all the way up to the big Clydesdale, & make the same picture show of
horses that are living today, but then what would that prove?


Part of the theory of evolution relies on a principal that living
things get more complex as time goes on. So, why would a 3-toed
ancestor of the modern horse lose it’s toes to become a more simple
hoof (or single toe)?

Then he goes to all of the fossils that are supposed to prove that man
came from ape, the Cro-Magnon, the Neanderthal, etc. He has a full
discussion about each one, as he discredits every find. Many of these
are based on only one or two bones, although the textbooks draw
elaborate pictures of each one. And he sums it up by saying that you
can take all the bones that prove evolution, & fit them into one coffin.
That’s how much proof that they have of evolution.


In my search to try to re-find this book I ordered several other books
about science & religion and evolution versus creation, in the hopes
that I can find some of the specific details of that first book that
really gave them evolutionists hell, & also use any other arguments
that they may present. I didn’t find that particular book, but I did
find one that is just about as good, called "Scientific Creationism".
For that book I made a separate section & got permission from it’s
publisher.

Most of the Christian writings that I’ve studied think that man was
created within the last 10,000 years. Some believe that the earth is
anywhere from 8,000 years old to 40,000 years old, & which I pretty
much agree. Why would God waste billions of years, just to prepare
for humanity? I used to think that it was open-minded to believe that
the earth could be 4.5 billion years old, as the evolutionist claim.
After all, (2 Peter 3:8) “But do not forget this one thing, dear
friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand
years are like a day.” (New International Version). The Good Lord
can do it any way that he wants to. But after studying this subject I
have come to the definite conclusion that Genesis needs to be taken
literally.

God created Adam with the appearance of age (a grown man NOT a baby)?
Maybe that’s God’s style; to create things with the appearance of age.
It’s even possible that there never even were any dinosaurs. Maybe
he created the earth with the fossilized bones already in it, just to
throw the scientists off & test our faith. With God all things are
possible (as it says in Matthew 19:26). He may even have a sense of
humor.

I believe that God started this mechanism, created all the laws of
nature, & then let it run itself, somehow, like put it on auto-pilot.

Some of the books on science/religion & evolution versus creation are:
“When Science Meets Religion, Enemies, Strangers, or Partners?” by
Ian G. Barbour (He was a professor of physics, professor of religion,
& Bean Professor of Science, Technology & Society at Carleton
College), “Religion & Science, Historical & Contemporary Issues”, by
Ian G. Barbour, “Science & Religion, Are They Compatible?”, by Paul
Kurtz (This is an atheistic viewpoint, with a compilation of various
articles, books & lectures from those very opposed to our belief that
there is a God), “How Life Began, creation versus evolution,” by Roy
A. Gallant (another evolutionary point of view, where he starts off
bringing up a bunch of Creation “myths” from various cultures, & myths
about various Gods), “Creation versus Evolution? NOT REALLY!” by
William A. Schmeling, “Scientific Creationism,” by Dr. Henry Morris, &
“The LIE: Evolution” by Ken Ham.
You can think of this website as a book review of these books.

Atheistic scientists think that religion is old-fashioned &
superstitious. Although they call it blind faith when Christians
believe in a God, scientists accept the theory of evolution as a
matter of their faith. Here is an atheistic quote from Paul Kurtz in
“Religion & Science, Are They Compatible?”’, “From a purely scientific
standpoint, there was no need for the creationists theory & it was
replaced by evolutionary hypotheses. This heated controversy
continues today.” And they feel that modern technology unsettles
traditional beliefs. I have to agree, that it is incompatible.
Darwin studied nature & noticed that there was a survival of the
fittest, which is true. It is also true that through selective
breeding we have been able to domesticate animals & plants. The
natives of North & South America, alone, domesticated 55 plants
including corn, chili peppers, cotton, beans, squash & potatoes. It
is true that God, in his creation made it possible for things to
evolve.


Another argument that evolutionists have is that they claim that
Christians believed that the sun revolved around the earth. But
nowhere in the Bible does it say that the sun revolves around the
earth. They’re trying to put words in our mouths. I don’t know where
they’re getting this stuff. That was the beliefs of the majority of
the people on the planet, back a long time ago, NOT just a Christian
belief.

In "Religion & Science, Historical & Contemporary Issues," Ian G. Barbour
says, “Evolution is God’s way of creating free creatures & thereby
opening up further creative possibilities.” As part of his theory,
Darwin believed that God designed a system of law & chance. As Kurtz
puts it, “Are there two truths of two cultures: scientific inquiry
versus religious faith?” And I wish to add another comment from
Barbour, “A patient God could have endowed matter with diverse
potentialities & let it create more complex forms on its own. In this
interpretation God respects the integrity of the world & lets it be
itself, just as God respects human freedom & lets us be ourselves.”
Although his intentions are good, I believe that Barbour compromises
too much if he tries to mix evolution with the Biblical account of
creation.

Another point that this book brought out was that with all of our
sophisticated technology, we are still not able to create life, even
in it’s most simple forms. Many elaborate experiments have been
performed using ingredients that were here when the earth was in it’s
forming stage, with absolutely no success. Life or consciousness
cannot be explained by the laws of physics. However, they do not
violate any physical laws.


Is mere matter supposed to be capable of living & thinking? From
Kurtz’s "Science & Religion", there’s a statement, “For matter to
exhibit life & mental abilities, something must be added from outside
the material world. A soul is supposed to fill this need, making it
possible for the human body to be alive & to think. Just how the soul
does this is held to be a mystery.”

The closest thing we’ve done to creating life is the AI (Artificial
Intelligence) that we’ve created in computers. But can a computer
feel love? No matter what we do, we can’t make a computer feel
emotions. The human brain is capable of processing information, but
it can do things that no computer can. Technology has given us
tremendous powers over nature & the world around us. It also gives us
responsibility for the rest of the creatures on this planet.

Then there’s the theory of the Big Bang, which raises many questions
related to spatial, temporal, & conceptual boundaries. Scientists
believe that this Big Bang started at a small point 15 billion years
ago, & seems to be expanding. Then after a billion years galaxies &
stars began forming. Finally after 10 billion years, planets started
to form. Then after another 2 billion years, microscopic life started
here on Earth.

Before the twentieth century, it was commonly believed that livings
things were evidence of an Intelligent Creator. After Darwin brought
forth his theory of evolution, the scientific community decided to
reformulate the laws of nature. Now they believed that God didn’t
create things in their present form, but that all living things were
formed through an evolutionary process. Now both law/order & chance
became part of the design process. But Darwin’s principle of natural
selection cannot explain human intelligence or consciousness. I’m not
going to go into detail about all of them, but there were many
unsolved problems with Darwinism. Since Darwin’s time his evolution
theory has been modified & expanded. In "Science & Religion", Kurtz
mentions that Franklin Harold, in his book, "Way of the Cell", published
by Oxford University Press, says, “There are presently no detailed
Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular
system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

The “struggle” for life, & “survival of the fittest”, makes one think
of nothing but tooth & nail fighting. But what about cooperative
aspects of nature like the symbiosis of two species depending on each
other for survival, or ants, termites & bees laying down their life
for the good of the colony. In fact, soldier termites have such big &
powerful jaws that they cannot even feed themselves. They have to be
fed by other termites working in a cooperative society. What about
the harmony & balance found in various ecosystems, like coral reefs &
rain forests? Instead of a competitive struggle for life, it’s more
of a “web of life.” If evolution is all about survival of the
fittest, then how do we explain the nature of insects & animals who
lay down their life for the benefit of the group? Isn’t that
jeopardizing its own survival?


Evolution begins with the desired answer & works backwards to the
evidence. Evolution is outright scientific fraud. Honest scientists
who believe in creation are made fun of & mistreated by the scientific
publishers. I’ve been reading various science magazines since the
mid-1970s, including "Scientific American", "Discover", "Polular Science",
M.I.T.‘s "High Technology", "Science Digest", "Omni", "Science 80", "Science
81", etc., & almost all science magazines & school text books have an
atheistic/evolutionary slant. In fact, scientists used to predict
that by the 19th century that religion would disappear & be replaced
by science.

According to Ian G. Barbour, “…Darwin himself maintained that the
process of evolution (but not the details of particular species) was
designed by God.” Barbour also mentioned a letter written by Darwin 3
years before his death. In it he says, “In my most extreme
fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the
existence of God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow
older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct
description.”

There are many scientists & religious leaders who believe in both God
& in evolution. There are many astronomers & scientists who believe
that the universe is finely tuned by intelligent design. Some
scientists believe, according to Barbour (in “When Science Meets
Religion”), “If the expansion rate had been even slightly smaller, the
universe would have collapsed before the chemical elements needed for
life could have formed; if the expansion rate had been even slightly
higher, the evolution of life could not have occurred.” In another
part of his book, Barbour says, “Darwin himself believed that God
designed the whole evolutionary process but not the detailed
structures of particular organisms.” Even Galileo was always a
believer in his Church.

In "Science & Religion," Kurtz states that surveys show that 65% of
mathematicians are religious, as well as 22% of physicists &
astronomers. 40% of Scientists, overall, have religious beliefs.
According to Kurtz, “A strong core of scientists are believers,” &
that “Many scientists don’t see religion & science as inherently
incompatible.”

In "Religion & Science", Barbour says that Stephen Hawking writes, “If
the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller
by even one part in a hundred thousand million million it would have
eclipsed before it reached its present size. On the other hand if it
had been greater by a part in a million, the universe would have
expanded too rapidly for stars & planets to form. The expansion rate
itself depends on many factors, such as the initial forces. The
cosmos seems to be balanced on a knife edge. If the strong nuclear
force were even slightly weaker we would have only hydrogen in the
universe. If the force were even slightly stronger, all the hydrogen
would have been converted to helium. In either case, stable stars &
compounds such as water could not have been formed. Again, the
nuclear force is only barley sufficient for carbon to form; yet if it
had been slightly stronger, the carbon would all have been converted
into oxygen. Particular elements, such as carbon, have many other
special properties that are crucial to the later development of
organic life as we know it. For every billion antiprotons in the
early universe, there were one billion and one protons. The billion
pairs annihilated each other to produce radiation, with just one
proton left over. A greater or smaller number of survivors--or no
survivors at all if they had been evenly matched--would have made our
kind of material world impossible. The laws of physics seem to be
symmetrical between particles and anti-particles; why was there a tiny
asymmetry?” Again Hawking says, “The odds against a universe like
ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I
think there are clearly religious implications.”


Another author, Freeman Dyson “gives a number of examples of
‘numerical accidents’ that seem to conspire to make the universe
habitable” & “The more I examine the universe & the details of its
architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense
must have known we were coming.”

In "Science & Religion", Kurtz explains how a professor of physics,
Freeman Dyson, received a $1 million annual religion award from the
John Templeton Foundation, when he was only writing for science. Here
are Dyson’s thoughts, “The universe has a mind of its own. We know
mind plays a big role in our own lives. It’s likely, in fact, that
mind has a big role in the way the whole universe functions. If you
like, you call it God. It all makes sense.”

Another cosmologist, George Ellis, said, “The symmetries & delicate
balances we observe require an extraordinary coherence of conditions &
cooperation of laws & effects, suggesting that in some sense they have
been purposefully designed”.

In the 1930s Goldschmidt & other scientists began challenging the
theory of evolution, arguing against the assumption about the gradual
accumulation of minor changes making changes between major types
(classes or phyla). They showed that laboratory studies proved
changes only among the same species. And that there was little fossil
evidence showing transitions between species. More lately, Stephen
Gould & Niles Eldredge have brought to attention that the fossil
record shows long periods, millions of years, where there was hardly
any change, along with short periods where there was rapid development
of species.

The negative atheism of scientists cannot be totally blamed on Darwin.
Sigmund Freud was a strong contributor against religious beliefs, &
calling it “wishful thinking.” But his contribution wasn’t based on
any scientific evidence, only philosophical assumptions. I’d also
like to note that "Freud did enough cocaine to kill a small horse"
(according to a TV documentary). How scientific is that?

One of the problems is that many scientists & authors believe that the
scientific method is the only reliable source of knowledge. After
all, how can you prove or disprove that there is a God? The evolution
theory is basically atheistic. Although, not all scientists are
atheistic.

While science is based on observation, experiments & reason, religious
faith is based on spirituality, experiences of our inner life,
requires personal involvement, faith, forgiveness, love, divine
initiative, peace, unity, enlightenment, worship, a need for
salvation, etc., & the final authority of religion is God. Religion
is a way of life. It’s not just like comparing apples to oranges, but
more like comparing apples to barrels of monkeys. The aim of religion
is the transformation of the person, while the aim of science is the
study of the laws of nature. Barbours says “…that religion has its
own distinctive ways of knowing, quite different from those of
science. Yet even they are asked to show how religious understanding
can be reliable if it differs from scientific knowledge. Science as a
method constitutes the first challenge to religion in a scientific
age.” He also says, “that science does not deal with divine purpose;
it is not a fruitful concept in the development of scientific
theories.” How can we conduct a scientific investigation of the spirit
& soul? There are some aspects of human nature that cannot be
measured in scientific terms, such as social & ethical behavior, love,
hate, politics, morals, psychology, beauty, sexuality & human
emotions. These are all vital to civilization.

Einstein once said, “Religion without science is crippled, while
science without religion is lame.” According to Kurtz, “In science,
nothing is taken on faith, while in religion, faith is at the heart of
belief.” With religion we are dealing with a reality that cannot be
observed. While there are great differences, it is possible for there
to be harmony. Kurtz also said, “We’re all human, & science &
religion, despite their vast differences, are both very human
enterprises.”


Science & religion as opposing forces like armies on the battlefield.
For years they have tried to keep theological ideas excluded from the
study of the world. The famous & influential Carl Sagan used to have
a book & a TV series, both called "Cosmos." In all of his work there is
an atheist overtone. As he would reveal these mysteries to us, he
would also tell us how to live & what we should believe.

One of the problems of science is that much of it is based on mere
theories, which are regarded as intellectual, practical calculating
devices for making observations & predictions. In fact, scientific
data are theory-laden, not theory-free. Once a theory is proven
wrong, it is thrown out of the picture & new ones are added. In
science, especially physics there are thousands of theories, yet to be
proven. Science, itself, had opposing laws between the realm of the
extremely large, like our universe, & totally different laws of nature
for the extremely small, or quantum physics. In the world of
subatomic particles there is an uncertainty of predictions. Science
is constantly changing, when new data is discovered the old data is
seen in new ways & reinterpreted, then new & different kinds of data
are sought. Speculative theories are likely to be abandoned in the
future. Science raises fundamental questions that it cannot answer.
Even the atheist, Kurtz admits, “Scientific hypotheses & theories are
fallible, & in principle they are open to question in the light of
future discoveries and/or the introduction of more comprehensive
theories”. He also says that scientific method allows for pursuits
down intellectual dead-ends. The facts of the matter is that we know
very little about the limitless science that the Almighty God has
created.

The universe seems to be made of nothing, yet it does exist. There’s
more recently been a new theory, actually a mind-boggling concept of a
“multiverse” or multiple universes, maybe even an infinity of
universes & in an idiotic attempt to explain why we just happen to
live in the one with the right conditions for life to exist, because
they are afraid to admit that there might just be a God.


Much of the revolution of science itself, that was developed in
England, was developed by Puritans who believed that God revealed
himself through the workings of nature. They felt that science gave a
firm reason for their faith. And they valued reason very much because
only God & man had it. Nature was identified with God. The
regularity & orderliness confirmed their Biblical view that God was
the Lawgiver. They believed that only Humans had an immortal soul.
According to Barbour, even Socrates said that every specific element
of the cosmos flows by necessity from God’s nature.

What about our artistic & musical talents, our imagination, our
ethical capacities, our love. What do these contribute to our
survival? How can they be explained by science?

Consider all the laws of nature, physics, chemistry, time, space,
mathematics & all the other sciences that have unexpected forms of
rational order, as if intelligently designed. There’s a sense of
religious awe in an intelligent universe that even Einstein insisted
was the mainspring of science. Do atheistic evolutionists really
believe that all of the laws of nature just fell perfectly together by
accident? There are many authors that feel that intelligent design
fits better than purposeless chance & natural selection. According to
Kurtz, many Gallup polls show that 90% of the American population
believe that there’s some sort of intelligent design of the world.
The evolution theory is based more on naturalistic assumptions than
clear scientific facts. Especially the idea of man being a descendant
of apes, is mere speculation based on philosophical preconceptions rather
than factual evidence.
Just because 99 percent of our DNA is the same as a gorillas, doesn’t prove much. Just look at the enormous
difference that the 1 percent makes! Look at the difference that that
1 percent makes in ability, behavior, self-consciousness, culture,
intellect, language, skills, personal relationships, awareness of
sensations, emotions, conscious thoughts, beliefs, perceptions,
expectations, mental images, artistic creativity, & the many other
facets that set us apart from all the rest of nature. It’s a very
vital & critical difference. Alfred Wallace, a biologist, realized
that the 1% gap of intelligence between humans & apes was much greater
than Darwin had realized. We even share some of the same DNA with
insects, plants & even amoebas, but what does that prove? There is a
sacredness to human life that not all people can see or agree to.
 
In the Nov., 2011 issue of "Discover Magazine" there's an article called,
"His troubles are your troubles".  On the cover it's titled, "MAD MICE,
How neurotic rodents rule the $30 billion mental health industry." 
The article is about lab mice.  The one thing of importance is that it
states that the mouse shares 99% of our DNA.  So, then, we must be related 
to the mouse as much as we are to the apes.
In "When Science Meets Religion", the author mentions a biochemist,
Michael Behe, who brings up an argument that biochemical systems like
the long chains or cascades of molecular reactions that occur in the
eye & immune system cannot come from gradual evolution. These complex
interlocking systems couldn’t have came from such simpler functions,
because if just one simple step or component was missing the whole
system wouldn’t work. He calls it an “all-or-nothing system” that was
designed not in stages but all at the same time. Further claiming,
“Since natural selection can only choose systems that are already
working, then if a biological system cannot be produced gradually it
would have to arise as an integrated unit, in one fell swoop, for
natural selection to have anything to act on.”

Barbour brings up arguments which re-enforce these claims by other
experts, Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe. They say that any
particular protein chain that originated by chance is “inconceivably
improbable.” They give an example of trying to assemble amino acids
to form a hundred-link chain. Each time you choose a link you would
have to pick from 20 possible amino acids. They say that, “If you
assembled chains at random a billion times a second, it would take
many times the history of the universe to run through all the possible
combinations,” & “that to hope for a particular set of interacting
proteins to be produced by chance would be like hoping to make a
complete airplane by stirring up a heap of metal parts in a junkyard.”

Barbour mentions a contemporary philosopher named Richard Swinburne
who suggests the existence of God because it provides a simple
explanation of the world. He also believed that something outside the
web of physical laws is needed to explain the rise of consciousness.
He concludes that theism is more probable than not. Hawking was
also quoted as saying, “The odds against a universe like ours emerging
out of something like the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are
clearly religious implications.” Barbour also quotes the physicist
Freeman Dyson, “I conclude from the existence of these accidents of
physics & astronomy that the universe is an unexpectedly hospitable
place for living creatures to make their home in. Being a scientist,
trained in the habits of thought & language of the twentieth century
rather than the eighteenth, I do not claim that architecture of the
universe proves the existence of God. I claim only that the
architecture of the universe is consistent with the hypothesis that
mind plays an essential role in its functioning.” Barbour also quotes
an astrophysicist named Robert Jastrow as saying, “the astronomical
evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world.” Even a
very small change in the physical constants would’ve caused an
uninhabitable universe.


Nature is a dynamic web of interconnected events that are
characterized by an intelligent order. Over the years I’ve read many
different science magazines. I recall a more recent theory/article
from a science magazine, which claims that there seems to be evidence
that the entire universe is one giant computer. That wouldn’t
surprise me, because with God anything is possible. Besides that,
have you ever wondered what was here before God created
everything…There was only one thing going forever in all
directions…God, himself. So, God had to make everything out of
himself. And the whole thing is one big super-computer program.

And now there is a new theory & a book, evaluated by June 2009
"Discover" magazine, entitled “Wetware”, by neurobiologist Dennis Bray.
It seems that biologists & engineers have gotten together concerning
the workings of the human brain. The new theory & book are about the
fact that they’ve discovered that human cells don’t just live, but
they also compute, store messages, send messages & perform feats of
logic. It seems every cell is a molecular circuit, handling input &
output just like a computer.

One of the more recent & popular theories, that I find a little too
far-out, is that there are an infinity of many different universes or
dimensions, each with it’s owns set of laws of nature, & that we just
happen to be in the one that has the laws of nature that allows for
life to exist. We should not tie our religious beliefs with any
specific theory created by man.

Einstein contributed to the quantum theory, though he realized that it
had it’s uncertainties. Here’s what he wrote about it, “The great
initial success of quantum theory cannot convert me to believe in that
fundamental game of dice… I am absolutely convinced that one will
eventually arrive at a theory in which the objects connected by laws
are not probabilities, but conceived facts.” He believed that there
was order & predictability in the universe. He also said, “God does
not play dice.”

Even Isaac Newton believed that God kept the stars from collapsing
under their own gravitational weight, & that he intervened in our
solar system to keep calamities from happening. But mostly he could
see the hand of God’s harmonious design working in the universe. He
saw the universe as an intricate machine, following laws with precise
detail, made by the wisdom of an intelligent creator. I, personally,
envision the universe more as a living organism than a machine.
Robert Boyle thought that science was a religious task, & said, “the
disclosure of the admirable workmanship which God displayed in the
universe.”


Here’s a quote from Newton’s publication, "Optics": “Whence is it that
nature doth nothing in vain; & whence arises all that order & beauty
which we see in the world? How came the bodies of animals to be
contrived with so much art, & for what ends were their several parts?
Was the eye contrived without skill in optics?…Does it not appear from
phenomena that there is a being incorporeal, living, intelligent?”

Even the ancient Greeks realized that there were mathematical
relationships underlying just about everything in reality & nature.
In the seventeenth century, Johannes Kepler came to the conclusion
that geometrical perfection was the reason that the planets followed
elliptical orbits, because, “God ever geometrizes.”

How do scientists account for intelligent consciousness, or that
high-level stream of experience that we call mind? They can’t seem to
explain that one without believing in a God. How could mind or
thought have evolved from matter? Or how about: what is the purpose
of life? Only God & the Bible give real meaning & purpose for
intelligent life. What would science by itself gain from it?
The universe itself doesn’t suggest any particular point. Maybe we should
ask: Why is there anything at all? The only intelligent answer is
that creation has a religious meaning & has a purpose intended by the
creator, God. Is there a universe with life because of a detailed
blueprint in the mind of God?

Here is Barbour’s view of science, “Science does not lead to
certainty. Its conclusions are always incomplete, tentative, &
subject to revision. Theories change in time, & we should expect
current theories to be modified or overthrown, as previous ones have
been.” & “more often than not the proposed model must be amended or
discarded.”

In explaining the significance of humanity & the immensity of time &
space, Barbour says, “There are trillions of neurons in a human brain;
the number of possible ways of connecting them is greater than the
number of atoms in the universe. A higher level of organization & a
greater richness of experience occur in a human being than in a
thousand lifeless galaxies.”

On one hand we could look at things as if God controls everything that
appears to be chance. Yet on the other hand God allows for chance,
accidents, uncertainty, & human choices. God respects the integrity
of the world & allows it to be itself. He respects our freedom &
allows us to be ourselves. Without our freedom & personal
responsibilities there would be no real humanity. I don’t believe
that God determines the outcome of every event or interferes with the
lives of each person. Although, in some cases God may intervene & reconfigure
the possibilities. I personally believe that God allows for chance &
for people to make decisions, but ultimately he knows exactly how it
will turn out. Life wasn’t just an accident. It came about from
intelligent design with a purpose, but without an exact predetermined
plan. Both law & chance are part of God’s design.

God knows about everything that goes on in the entire universe, from
every little atom to the ends of the universe. He perceives
everything from every point of view, not merely from one limited point
of view, as you & I have.
 

The scientist Arthur Peacocke believes that God’s purposes are
communicated by the pattern of events in the world. He believes that
through Christ, God’s purposes are more clearly revealed than in
nature, or elsewhere in history.

There are truths revealed by nature & science, & there are truths that
are revealed by God through Christ & the prophets, that are
communicated by scripture & practiced by the church. Since all truth
comes from God, the two sources should work in cooperation. The
divine plan of salvation is made known to those that the good Lord
chose.

I believe that there have been times where miracles have happened,
where God intervened supernaturally from outside of the laws of
nature.

Although the Catholic Church acknowledges evolution, most Christians,
in my belief, believe that God created Adam & Eve, not from apes, but
from the dust of the Earth. In 1996 Pope John Paul II made an
announcement to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, defending the idea
of evolution. This was front-page news to most newspapers. One
foreign newspaper headlined “Pope Says We May Descend From Monkeys.”
I realize that each Catholic believer has their own personal ideas.
They all don’t necessarily believe that we came from apes. But I do
not agree with the policy of the Catholic Church. Evolution has not
yet been proven, it’s ONLY a theory. Although the Catholic Church
does have it’s good beliefs, such as the virgin birth, miracles, the
Resurrection of Jesus, life after death, angels, etc., it can’t have
it both ways. There was either an evolution of people from apes or a
Divine Creation from God.

What if God does exist? Without the salvation of Jesus, where are all
these “smart” scientists going to go, after denying his existence,
come Judgment Day? The eternity of Heaven or Hell is a pretty BIG
gamble. I know that I’m not taking any chances.

As for "How Life Began, creation versus evolution", by Roy A. Gallant, I
got very little out of it because of it’s evolutionary slant, but I
did get a little. For example, the author did admit….“the finest
argument in the world, & one that may go unchallenged for a century,
can be brought toppling down in an instant in the light of a new
discovery.” And that includes evolution!

Then, when he brings up the steady-state of the universe theory, he
questions what happens to the old “dead” galaxies. He verifies that
no one has yet found one. Then he questions where the endless supply
of hydrogen comes from in which to build new galaxies. Obviously he’s
a Big-Bang theorist. He calls to attention that most astronomers
don’t accept the steady-state theory. He brings up the fact that the
steady-state theory goes against the laws of physics, that is the
conservation of mass & energy.

There was a section of "How Life Began", where Gallant brings up the
Creationist’s viewpoint. He mentions the Creation Research Society
(CRS), a group of about 400 Christian scientists (with another 1,200
student members) with advanced degrees, who were researching &
defending the Biblical view of creation. This group was led by Dr.
Duane Gish & Dr. Henry Morris. He quotes Gish as saying, “Evolution
theory is indeed no less religious nor more scientific than creation,”
& also, “the fossil record is much more in accord with the predictions
based on creation rather than those based on the theory of evolution.”
It is also maintained that the fossil record powerfully contradicts
evolution.

Other arguments for the creationist viewpoint are also brought up.
The creationists say that the older rock strata that hold the early
life forms should be succeeded by thousands of transitional life forms
in many major groups that are found. Instead, new major groups
appear, which shouldn’t. Which is a very good point.


Another good point that "How Life Began", provided from the creationist
view is, “The changes that are actually observable in nature or
testable in the laboratory are of a trivial nature in relation to the
grand scheme of particles-to-people evolution. Finally, as an
increasing number of evolutionists are complaining, modern evolution
theory is so plastic it is non-falsifiable. It can be used to explain
anything and everything.”

Additionally, the creationist complains that we are supposed to
believe that humans & the myriad of life-forms are just the result of
a ball of electrons, neutrons, & protons that exploded billions of
years ago. A belief such as this does require a great deal of faith.

Another example that "How Life Began" mentioned was a comparison. Take
an example of finding a watch. We can tell by it’s design &
complexity that it was made for a specific purpose by a creator.
Compare that to the order, design, purpose & complexity of a living
cell. Wouldn’t this show proof of a creator?

It is pointed out that there is a mountain of undisputable scientific
evidence & the solid laws of biology always show that life can come
only from pre-existing life, & that like begets like. Compare all of
that with the untestable hypotheses of the evolution theory.

One of the best parts of "How Life Began" is where it mentions a group
of evolutionary mathematicians concluded that the theory of evolution
cannot sufficiently explain anything more than insignificant changes.
The book then quotes one of them, Dr. Murray Eden, a professor at
M.I.T.: “….an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the
discovery & elucidation of new natural laws - physical,
physico-chemical, & biological.”

"How Life Began" then tells how life appeared in the fossil record all
of a sudden with a lot of diversity & complexity, & without any
predecessors. It states that there was a lack of transitional
life-forms (which evolution is supposed to be based on). It tells
about the systematic gaps between the higher life-forms of animals &
plants. If there was any truth to evolution, then the museums should
be loaded with these transitional life-forms. This book points out
that there has been no attempt to publicly show any of the scientific
evidence that proves the idea of a special creation. It finalizes the
subject with this statement: “The majority in the scientific
community & educational circles are using the cloak of ‘science’ to
force the teaching of their particular world view upon our students &
the public in general. The dogma of rationalistic materialism is
smothering full & free inquiry in science & violating the
constitutional guarantee against a state-supported religion or
philosophic system. It is time for a change.”

In “Creation versus Evolution? NOT REALLY!” by William A. Schmeling,
again, they try to make a compromising & peaceful answer between
evolution & creation. It says that the Bible & science are both true
& they shouldn’t treat each other as bitter enemies. This concept is
nice & dandy, but the fact is that evolution & creation both
contradict each other. This book tries to marry the concepts of
evolution & the Bible. I didn’t get a whole lot from this book, just
a few tid-bits. Here was one of their statements that I agree with:
“The Biblical accounts are answering questions that science is not
asking.” (It’s talking about spiritual things.)


What I don’t like about "Creation versus Evolution? NOT REALLY!” is
that it implies that the account of Genesis is only symbolic, just a
general guideline that means that God made everything as a Special
Creation, but it’s not necessary to take it literally. That’s where
we part views.

Schmeling does offer some alternative viewpoints that he points out,
but doesn’t necessarily agree with. Here’s one of the best ones: “If
each day is stretched into an eon, & if you leave the textual
succession of darkness & daylight intact, you have a most unlikely
epic. First, an unpleasant, eons-long night would freeze the earth
into solid ice caps, then an equally unpleasant, eons-long day would
fry it to a crisp. That this should happen seven times in succession
would not be much of a program for the development & sustaining of
life as we know it.” (He is referring to the 7 days & nights of
Creation in Genesis, where some believe that the days could be much
longer than our 24 hour day). This is a very good point.


Here’s another good statement that Schmeling made in his alternative
section (a sarcastic meaning from the Creationist viewpoint): “In the same way, 
dinosaur bones are real; it’s just that dinosaurs themselves didn’t really live! 
Their apparent remains were simply created where & as we find them in the fossil beds. 
The petroleum pools all over the world appear to be the results of eons of
matter decayed. Really they were created that way, a few thousand
years back. Name any ‘problem’ from Kenya man to cave paintings. No
case. They were created that way. As a reconciliation of Bible &
science, the Mature Creation alternative is beyond reproach.” This
may seem a little far-fetched. But with God anything is possible.


In this same alternative section, when Schmeling writes about the
flood he says: (concerning dinosaurs) “Too big for the ark, they were
a case of planned obsolescence from the start.”, “The flood wiped out
every trace of Eden, raised mountains, lowered valleys, rerouted
rivers, filled the seas, etc.”, & “It carried those clam shells right
up the mountain sides, then left them high & dry. It swirled that
tropical vegetation around to all sorts of new locations.” Very
probable.

The book "Scientific Creationism" by Dr. Henry Morris deserves it’s own
section. So, this part will discuss the ideas of this book.




Dr. Morris attacks the theory of evolution from many sides. Of course
all of it cannot be discussed here, many of it’s main points will be
discussed or quoted. If you wish to know more, I recommend that you
order the book.

"Scientific Creationism" makes a major point about educating our youth
with the theory of evolution & leaving out Creation concepts. If
children are brought up to believe that we came from beasts, that when
they grow up they’ll start acting like beasts, aggressively fighting
for superiority, or being blindly led by aggressive leaders. Children
are curious by nature, but almost all textbooks are based on
evolution.

The basics of science are founded upon cause-and-effect logic.
Therefore, people relate effects to the initial causes, & what caused
that, etc., etc., & finally concluding, what was the First Cause?

Everybody needs a sense of identity. We need to know where we came
from & where we’re going.

The question of where we came from is impossible to prove,
scientifically. Scientists cannot repeat or observe our origin. We
can only put our faith in evolution or our faith in creation.
Scientists cannot see invisible atoms, but they have faith that
they’re there. "Scientific Creationism" talks about “reasoned faith”, &
then goes on to give reasoning in creation, in a scientific way.

In the theory of evolution, it is believed that one type of organism
transformed into a higher kind of organism, & that organism into an
even more complex organism. But for all of these transformations to
happen it would take millions, or maybe billions of years. But there
is no scientific experiment that can prove that it’s even possible for
any of this to have taken place. If it takes millions of years for
these transformations to take place, who could be around long enough
to observe such an event to take place?

Even an evolutionary scientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky had to admit:
“The applicability of the experimental methods to the study of such
unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by
the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any
human experimenter. And yet, it is just such impossibility that is
demanded by anti-evolutionists when they ask for ‘proofs’ of evolution
which they would magnanimously accept as satisfactory”. (“On Methods
of Evolutionary Biology & Anthropology,” Dec. 1957 American Scientist)

Evolutionists assume that the giraffe got it’s long neck & the
hippopotamus it’s short neck by natural selection. This theory
includes everything, but explains absolutely nothing. Those that
lived through the struggle of life are the fittest, because it was the
fittest that survived. They’re not really telling us anything here.

Even though it is impossible to scientifically prove that everything
was started by either evolution or by creation. Yet, all that is
allowed to be taught in our education system is evolution, as if it
were a scientific fact, while it is really fraudulent teaching. There
are thousand of scientists & intelligent, educated people who do not
believe in the theory of evolution.

Here is a quote from a former Director of the Botanical Institute at
Lund University, Dr. N. Heribert-Nilsson: “My attempt to demonstrate
evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years has
completely failed…The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief.”
("Synthetische Artbildung", 1953)

Evolution is just a form of brain-washing, not brain-using.


From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing
1996; page 13. Used with permission from the publisher - Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: Some of the
differences in the two opposing theories are: with the Evolution
model concerning the appearance of life, it is thought that life
evolved from non-life, with the Creation model it is believed that
only life can bring about life, with the Evolution model it is thought
that everything occurred naturally, while the Creation model believes
that everything was made from supernatural forces (God), concerning
the galactic universe, the Evolution model says that galaxies are
changing, while the Creation model says that galaxies are constant,
concerning the structure of stars, the Evolution model says that stars
change into other types, while the Creation model says that stars
remain unchanged, concerning other heavenly bodies, the Evolution
model says that they are building up, while the Creation model says
that they are breaking down, concerning types of rock formations, the
Evolution model says that they are different in different ages, while
the Creation model says that they are similar in all ages, concerning
the array of organisms, the Evolution model says that there is a
continuum of organisms, while the Creation model says that there are
no new kinds appearing, concerning mutations in organisms, the
Evolution model says that they are beneficial, while the Creation
model says that they are harmful, concerning natural selection, the
Evolution model says that it is a creative process, while the Creation
model says that it is a conservative process, concerning the age of
the earth, the Evolution model says that it is extremely old, while
the Creation model says that it is probably young, concerning the
fossil record, the Evolution model says that there were innumerable
transitions, while the Creation model says there are systematic gaps,
concerning the appearance of man, the Evolution model says that there
were ape/human intermediates, while the Creation model says there were
no apes in the human line. These are a few of the differences.
Scientific Creationism points out how the Creation model fit’s the
facts as observed in nature better than those hypothesized by the
Evolution model.


When Calif.’s State Board of Education considered putting the Creation
theory in it’s textbooks, it received a lot of pressure from various
groups, such as the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, the
Nat’l. Academy of Sciences, & the American Assn. of Biology Teachers,
to NOT allow for the Creation Theory. "Scientific Creationism" argued
that showing both theories would help stimulate students’ thinking,
decision-making, & would contribute to responsible behavior. It would
even be possible for a student to discover a Personal Creator, & be
led to salvation. After all, there are taxpayers on both sides of the
fence. If Evolutionists want their children to only be taught the
evolution theory, they should establish private schools for that
purpose. I know that I’d prefer that my kids had the chance to learn
about Creation, as well as evolution.

Real scientific data supports the concept of creation with evidence
contrary to the fallacy of evolution. However, there is somewhat of a
conspiracy among evolutionary scientists to present evolution as real
science & creationism as just “religion”. The real facts, when
rightly interpreted, support the testimony of scripture & the Biblical
account, as will be shown.

Creation & evolution both hold entirely different views of the whole
earth’s systems. We will compare them. First we will look at the
matter & energy that are in the universe & the laws of nature.
Evolution supposes that everything in the universe happened by natural
processes. So, then, that means that the laws of nature developed by
itself, naturally. It is supposed that matter & energy must have
evolved by itself from randomness & chaos, into the complex structures
that we see today. And not just matter & energy, but the very laws
that control them.

Evolutionists find these concepts rational, but see the idea of
creation too incredible, even impossible to believe. They prefer to
deny the existence of a creative God.

 



Going then by evolutionary thinking, wouldn’t it be correct in
assuming that these “laws of nature” are still evolving, since they
evolved in the past & there is nothing to keep them from evolving?

On the other hand, Creationists see the laws of nature, matter &
energy as already completed, & are currently being conserved. The
laws of motion, gravity, thermodynamics, etc., have always functioned
the same way that they do today.

W. H. McCrea made a statement in an article for "Science" (June 2, 1968), entitled,
“Cosmology after Half a Century,” that I’d like to share: “The naïve
view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence & found a
complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed…. Actually it
seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe & the laws of
physics are inter-dependent. This leads us to expect that, if the
universe changes in the large, then its laws might also change in a
way that could not be predicted;…”

From the Creationist viewpoint, all the laws of nature are constant &
do not change. The same constant applies to matter & energy. There
has never been any observation that would indicate otherwise.

Two of the most important laws of physics are the “law of mass
conservation” & the “law of energy conservation”. That is, that
matter can change its state but cannot be destroyed or created.
Matter can change into energy & energy can change into matter, but
they are still subject to the conservation principle. According to
science, there is always a conservation of electrical charges,
momentum & all the physical principles. The laws of nature are always
conservative & stable, just like the Creation model showed us.

The only objection that evolutionists have is that this implies that
there was a supernatural creator. If they don’t want to believe in
God, then they still have to believe in an uncaused First Cause. They
believe that matter just came into existence out of absolutely
nothing, or that it always existed but in a primitive state. How can
matter become it’s own cause? Who, then, made matter?

The law of “cause-and-effect” relates to every phenomenon as an effect
to a cause. No effects are greater than its cause. An effect can be
lower but not higher.

From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing
1996; page 20. Used with permission from the publisher - Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: "The Creationists
reason that The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite, The
First Cause of endless time must be eternal, The First Cause of
boundless energy must be omnipotent, The First Cause of human
integrity must be truthful, The First Cause of human love must be
loving, The First Cause of life must be living..."

The Creationists conclusion to the First Cause of everything, is that
everything is infinite, eternal, omnipotent, truthful, spiritual,
loving & living. If we say that matter & all of its properties is the
ultimate explanation for the universe & all living things, then we are
saying that the law of “cause-and-effect” only works today, but did
NOT work in the past.

A Creator works for an adequate First Cause in the law of
“cause-and-effect”, as can be observed. But evolution is NOT an
adequate First Cause.

Concerning motion, it is everywhere in the universe. Even matter is
made of particles in motion. There is an omnipresent energy
generating motion. This argues for an omnipotent Cause, & that
everything has already been completed in the past. One type of
movement or dynamic law does NOT evolve into another.

With the “law of energy conservation (matter can change its state but
not be destroyed or created), energy can be converted into other forms
or even matter & vice-versa. This is one of the most important laws
of physics.

In “In the Game of Energy & Thermodynamics You Can’t Even Break Even”
written by Isaac Asimov & published in the "Journal of Smithsonian
Institute" (June 1970), it is stated: “This law is considered the most
powerful & most fundamental generalization about the universe that
scientists have ever been able to make.”

The law of “mass-energy equivalence” was a great discovery of the 20th
century. It was found that energy & matter could be converted & that
matter could now be considered energy. The conservation can be seen
in nuclear reactions.

Throughout the universe there are various processes of matter & energy
interacting. All of these seem to be orderly processes with some sort
of genuine purpose. They are not randomly floundering around. If
they were, there would be no point in scientific observation.

The three main forces or fields are electromagnetic, gravity, &
nuclear. The evidence points to these forces remaining the same, or
constant from the very beginning. There is no evidence that these
forces ever evolved into what we have today. Gravitational & magnetic
waves move at the same rate as the speed of light. The strange thing
is that they move through the nothingness of a vacuum. It doesn’t
seem possible that they could evolve in the void of a vacuum in space.

Concerning “energy decay,” all processes de-grade. The further the
energy is converted, the more decrease in availability. The First Law
of Thermodynamics (the “law of energy conservation") tells us that
energy cannot be destroyed. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the
“law of energy decay”) says that energy continues to flow in a
downward direction to lower levels. The Evolution model has
difficulty trying to explain this, while the Creation model predicts
it. God’s original creation was perfect. There was no death,
everything was good….that is until Adam sinned. Then death became a
reality & everything began to gradually decay.


One physicist’s viewpoint (P. A. M. Dirac), in an article entitled
“The Evolution of the Physicist’s Picture of Nature” published in
"Scientific American" (May 1963), is: “It seems to be one of the
fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are
described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty & power,
needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it.
You may wonder: why is nature constructed along these lines? One
can only answer that our present knowledge seems to show that nature
is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could perhaps
describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very
high order, & He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the
universe. Our feeble attempts at mathematics enable us to understand
a bit of the universe, & as we proceed to develop higher & higher
mathematics we can hope to understand the universe better.”

Let’s talk about “environmental interdependence”. In every area of
the planet there are ecosystems where life forms depend upon one
another. Life forms integrate into their environment. This would
seem natural for the creation model. Creationists see natural
selection as a method of conservation. When the environment does
change there is usually enough variation in a species for a part of it
to adapt. This is what keeps nature balanced, & what the Creation
model predicts.

Let’s discuss the universe, with its limitless stars & galaxies.
There’s quite a diversity of stars & various phenomenon out there.
Scientists have arranged them in an evolutionary order. However, it
is impossible to observe the evolution of even one star. None of
their theories can even be tested. How convenient. They assume that
stars evolve into other types of stars, & that particles collect &
form stars, but nobody has ever observed any of this happening (with
the exception of a couple of star explosions). As long as man has
watched the skies, everything has stayed the same.
 
With the Creation model, everything, including the stars, has already
been created, & with a purpose too big for us to comprehend.

The “law of energy conservation” (First Law of Thermodynamics) says
that nothing new is created or destroyed. That means that the
universe did NOT create itself. Nor is there any law of nature that
can account for its own origin.

The “law of energy decay” (the Second Law of Thermodynamics) says that
all systems left on their own will eventually fall apart, ending in
unavailability & disorder. Eventually, all the energy in the universe
will become expended heat. They call this “heat death.”

Well, the universe is still alive & strong, indicating that it is not
infinitely old. If everything continues going the way that it is, it
will eventually die-out. That means that time does not go on
infinitely. Since our universe consists of space, mass & time, they
must have had a beginning, & they must have started at the same time.

According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the universe had to
have had a beginning. But the First Law of Thermodynamics makes it
impossible to have started itself. The only possible explanation for
the universe is that it began as a First Cause. A Creator makes the
only sense. In the whole space-mass-time system there is nothing
observable that could be a First Cause. If there is a cause that is
beyond observable space/time, then the range of science is restricted.
Or do we prefer to believe (the “steady-state theory”) that new
matter is constantly evolving & being created out of nothing,
somewhere out in space?


There is nothing observable that would suggest either a “steady-state
theory” or the “big-bang theory.” Both of these theories contradict
the Laws of Thermodynamics. They are only philosophical assumptions
used to avoid the proofs of the Creation model.

If we go by these two most powerful laws of science, the Laws of
Thermodynamics, then the only logical conclusion would be the Creation
model.

Neither the “big-bang theory” or the “steady-state theory” are
satisfactory. Even many top-notch evolutionary-thinking scientists
have their doubts. Here are some of their comments:

Herbert Dingle stated in his article, “Science & Modern Cosmology”,
for "Science" (Oct. 1, 1954), “So far as I can judge, the authors of
this new cosmology are primarily concerned about the great difficulty
that must face all systems that contemplate a changing universe - -
namely, how can we conceive it to have begun?… Nor, for some reason,
are they content to suppose that at some period in the distant past
something happened that does not continually happen now. It seems to
them better to suppose that there was no beginning & will be no ending
to the material universe, & therefore, tacitly assuming that the
universe must conform to their tastes, they declare that this must
have been the case.”

Dingle also stated: “Is it not possible, indeed probable, that our
present cosmological ideas on the structure & evolution of the
universe as a whole (whatever that may mean) will appear hopelessly
premature & primitive to astronomers of the 21st century? Less than
50 years after the birth of what we are pleased to call ‘modern
cosmology,’ when so few empirical facts are passably well established,
when so many different over-simplified models of the universe are
still competing for attention, is it, we ask, really credible to
claim, or even reasonable to hope, that we are presently close to a
definitive solution of the cosmological problem?”

In the article “The Case for a Hierarchical Cosmology” in "Science"
(Feb. 27, 1970), G. de Vacoleurs said, “In 1875, J. C. Maxwell wrote,
‘In the heavens we discover by their light…. Stars so distant that no
material thing can ever have passed from one to another; & yet this
light…tells us also that each of them is built up of molecules of the
same kinds that we find on earth…! No theory of evolution can be
found to account for the similarity of the molecules… On the other
hand, the exact equality of each molecule to all others of the same
kind gives it… the essential character of a manufactured article &
precludes the idea of its being eternal & self-existent’… So far as we
know, the result is still the same, all protons are the same, & so on.
We should expect a sufficiently sophisticated theory to tell us why
this is so.”


The Creator created the whole universe, NOT a multi-verse. He created
things with similar structure for similar purposes, & things with
different structures for different purposes.

While the Evolution model begs for the answer of origin, the Creation
model answers the question of origin. The Big-Bang theory cannot
explain the initial super-dense state. The Steady-State theory cannot
account for the hydrogen that constantly appears out of nothingness.
Evolutionists answer the question by denying that there can be an
answer.

Here’s a quote from Isaac Asimov, in an article, “What is Beyond the
Universe?” in "Science Digest" (April 1971): “Where did the substance
of the universe come from? …If 0 = +1 + (-1), then something which is
0 might just as well become 1 and -1. Perhaps in an infinite sea of
nothingness, globs of positive & negative energy in equal-sized pairs
are constantly forming, & after passing through evolutionary changes,
combining once more & vanishing. We are in one of these globs in the
period of time between nothing & nothing, & wondering about it.”

The Creation model predicts the Laws of Thermodynamics & natural laws
that are constant. It predicts the intelligence & personality in men.
But all of these things create problems for the Evolution model.

School textbooks speculate even more about the origin of our solar
system & how the earth was formed, than it does the origin of the
universe. They theorize about dust clouds accumulating, nebulas
rotate acquiring planets, etc. However, there is absolutely no
scientific evidence for these speculations. Rival theories constantly
change (the facts?). Not only is there no evidence of life evolving
in other parts of the universe, but many theories about the evolution
of the solar system have been discarded for new & better ideas.

From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing
1996; pages 30-31. Used with permission from the publisher - Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: “Nowhere in the solar
system is found any evidence at all of a building process, either of
the planetary bodies themselves or of the complexity of the chemical &
physical systems that are found on them.”

In addition, samples & analysis of materials from both the moon & mars
show that these bodies compositions are entirely different.
Therefore, they couldn’t have “evolved” from the same system, or have
the same evolutionary ancestor.


"Science Digest" published an article entitled “New Theories of
Creation” (Oct. 1972), by Jerry Bishop. In it Bishop says, “To the
surprise of scientists, the chemical makeup of the moon rocks is
distinctly different from that of rocks on earth. This difference
implies that the moon formed under different conditions, …and means
that any theory on the origin of the planets now will have to create
the earth & the moon in different ways.”

Just this fact alone make every theory of the Evolution model,
concerning the origin of our solar system, completely obsolete.

But there are a number of other problems with the Evolution model concerning
the origins of our solar system. One of the problems is that 98% of
the angular momentum in our solar system is in the planets, but 98.8%
of the solar systems mass is concentrated in the sun. Another problem
is the strong incline in the orbits of Mercury, Pluto, comets &
asteroids, from the sun’s elliptical plane. The backwards rotations
of Venus & Uranus. The Evolution model shows no reasonable
explanation for these anomalies.

It is now known that every planet has it’s own unique chemical
composition. How could this be if they all came from the same
original cloud that evolutionists claim is how the planets formed?
And how can they explain the discovery of the planets that orbit
backwards?

Everything in our solar system causes no problems for the Creation
model. Everything created can be explained by process of decay, and
for the Earth, catastrophe. The uniqueness of the Earth with it’s
atmosphere, hydrosphere & lithosphere, is the only place that we know
of that can sustain man. The Earth was made to be man’s home,
according to the Creation model. There is no scientific reason to
reject the Creation model. The only objections are philosophical, NOT
scientific.

Which model of the observed facts makes the “best fit?” The Creation
model shows “purpose,” while the Evolution model tries to devise
hypothetical evolutionary ancestries.

The great scientist Johannes Kepler once said, “I was merely thinking
God’s thoughts after him…”

We don’t know the purposes of Quasars, Nebulas, black holes, germs,
dinosaurs, or cockroaches, we can only make guesses. The Creationists
guesses are no less scientific than the Evolutionists.


In the article, “In the Game of Energy & Thermodynamics You Can’t Even
Break Even”, in "Smithsonian Institute Journal" (June 1970), Isaac
Asimov said, “In man is a three-pound brain which, as far as we know,
is the most complex & orderly arrangement of matter in the universe.”

Creationists believe that a Creator is capable of designing & making
man’s brain. He can’t prove it scientifically, but it’s a smarter bet
than a bunch of random particles accidentally organizing into a human
brain.

The Creation explanation is more in harmony with the law of causality,
the laws of thermodynamics, & the laws of probability.

If random matter really evolves into elements, stars, living cells,
fish, reptile, mammals & finally man, then there must be another law
of nature the makes things develop into higher stages, organizing,
increasing complexity, where systems develop into higher systems.

Based on evolutionary assumptions, nobody would ever predict any laws
like the First & Second Laws of Thermodynamics. But the Creation
model requires these laws, because the original creation was perfect,
complete & purposeful. There would need to be a law of conservation
to insure the accomplishment of its purpose. Conservation instead of
innovation, & disintegration instead of integration.

The scientific view is that the laws of thermodynamics are the two
laws that govern all natural processes. These laws are conservation &
disintegration. Innovation & integration are only evolutionary
philosophies. With the second law, the change in nature goes
downhill.

Isaac Asimov confirms this fact in the article, “In the Game of Energy
& Thermodynamics, You Can’t Even Break Even”, in "Journal of the
Smithsonian" (June 1970), where he says: “In any physical change that
takes place by itself the entropy always increases”, & to explain
entropy he says that it is, “a measure of the quantity of energy not
capable of conversion into work.”

This point is also affirmed by Freeman Dyson in the article, “Energy
in the Universe,” published in "Scientific American" (Sept. 1971), where
he states: “The equivalence of entropy in the classical & statistical
contexts is implied in the following: ‘Each quantity of energy has a
characteristic quality called entropy associated with it. The entropy
measures the degree of disorder associated with the energy. Energy
must always flow in such a direction that the entropy increases’.” &
in “Can Decreasing Entropy Exist in the Universe,” published in
"Science Digest" (May 1973),he says, “As far as we know, all changes are in the
direction of increasing entropy, of increasing disorder, of increasing
randomness, of running down.”

The same mathematical principles apply to the branch of science known
as “information theory”, where in communication the transfer of
information through TV, computers, etc., there is a degree of “noise”,
or entropy of this system, & information gets distorted.

Myron Tribus & Edward McIrvine agree with this, as is stated in the
article, “Energy and Information“, published in "Scientific American"
(Sept. 1971). “It is certain that the conceptual connection between
information & the second law of thermodynamics is now firmly
established.”

How then can evolution operate if an organism is to progress, energy
must be acquired, order must get greater, & information must be
contributed?

Here’s what Dr. Harold Blum says about it in his book, "Time’s Arrow
and Evolution": “It is one of this law’s consequences that all real
processes go irreversibly….Any given process in this universe is
accompanied by a change in magnitude of a quantity called the
entropy….All real processes go with an increase of entropy. The
entropy also measures the randomness or lack of orderliness of the
system, the greater the randomness the greater the entropy.”


It appears that the Second Law of Thermodynamics gives the Evolution
model serious problems. Creationists wonder why more attention is not
given to these problems. Any printed information slanted towards
evolution never bring up these problems. Something of this magnitude
cannot be merely dismissed.

If they say that, “The second law of thermodynamics cannot apply to
living things,” as is pointed out in J. H. Rush’s book, "The Dawn of
Life": “In the complex course of its evolution, life exhibit’s a
remarkable contrast to the tendency expressed in the Second Law of
Thermodynamics. Where the Second Law expresses an irreversible
progression toward increased entropy & disorder, life evolves (in)
continually higher levels of order. The still more remarkable fact is
that this evolutionary drive to greater & greater order also is
irreversible. Evolution does not go backwards.”

It should be pointed out that merely stating that evolution
contradicts the second law of thermodynamics, doesn’t make everything
O.K. That’s just an assumption that evolution is true. Life is very
complex, with chemical & electrical processes involved in it. But
these processes ARE subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

Even though Dr. Harold Blum is an evolutionist, he had to admit, “No
matter how carefully we examine the energetics of living systems we
find no evidence of defeat of thermodynamic principles, but we do
encounter a degree of complexity not witnessed in the non-living
world.”

Stanley Angrist tried to argue in the article, “Perpetual Motion
Machines” in "Scientific American" (Jan. 1968): “The Second Law is only
a statistical statement, & exceptions are possible”. But then he also
admitted, “It is only that the odds against such an event are
extraordinarily large….The chemist, Harry A. Bent, has calculated the
odds against a local reversal of entropy, specifically the possibility
that one calorie of thermal energy could be converted completely into
work. His result can be expressed in terms of a familiar statistical
example, the probability that a group of monkeys hitting typewriter
keys at random could produce the works of Shakespeare. According to
Bent’s calculation, the likelihood of such a calorie conversion is
about the same as the probability that the monkeys could produce
Shakespeare’s works 15 quadrillion times in succession without error.”


But the most frequent argument from evolutionists is that the Second
Law of Thermodynamics doesn’t pertain to open systems. They try to
point out that the sun’s energy reaches us even after the energy loss
of entropy. As if that solves their problem. But that response is
beside the point. They are trying to confuse the amount of energy
with energy conversion. We aren’t concerned about the amount of
energy that the earth gets from the sun in order to have an
evolutionary system. The real question should be: How does the sun’s
energy make evolution happen?

The second law of thermodynamics prevails. Every living thing
eventually dies, eventually old buildings fall apart. Life is a
miracle of Creation. Living things overcome the second law only
temporarily.

Let’s talk about the growth process. In the Evolution model living
cells randomly gather together. How could this lead to an orderly
structure? Wouldn’t it just be a living blob? This is where the DNA
molecule comes in. DNA acts like a computer program, or blueprints
for an engineer.


There also needs to be a method to convert energy into growth.
Otherwise, energy received from the environment would probably cause a
further breaking down. A description of this is made by George
Simpson & W. S. Beck, in their book, "Life: An Introduction to
Biology": “We have seen that organization requires work for its
maintenance & that the universal quest for food is in part to provide
the energy needed for the work. But the simple expenditure of energy
is not sufficient to develop & maintain order. A bull in a china shop
performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains organization. The
work needed is particular work; it must follow specifications; it
requires information on how to proceed.”

In plant-life there’s a process called photosynthesis that converts
sunlight into growth energy, although it is only partially understood
scientifically. In animals there are various processes including
digestion, respiration, blood circulation, etc. If there really is an
evolution process, it would be far greater & complex than just growth
& conversion processes. It would have to control the growth &
energy-conversion processes. So far, this missing code has not been
detected. How could it organize various specific people from random
particles? What a fantastic thing it would have to be in order to be
a global power converter from the sun into the complex ecosystems on
Earth, & make a civilization of intelligent people out of a group of
amoebas & worms, over eons of time.

It would take much more than random mutations & natural selection.
Mutation cannot direct energy into a more highly organized structure.
Natural selection is not a code which produces anything. It just acts
as a strainer that keeps out imperfect mutations. Mutation or natural
selection cannot produce growth or convert energy, which evolution
requires. The Evolution model cannot be adjusted enough to escape the
Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Maybe someday they’ll figure out a way to tweak their model enough to
allow for evolution & the second law of thermodynamics, or try to
explain the second law in a different way. Even if they do, it’s
still just evolution rationalization.

What about the origins of life? This is one of the Evolution model’s
biggest problems. For almost a century they’ve tried to duplicate or
create life in test tubes & with elaborative machinery using various
chemical soups. If evolution is true, then this must have occurred.
Life had to have come about by a natural process that they’re not able
to duplicate to this day. The same laws of nature exist today. If
that is true, then life should be developing out of nothing,
everywhere today. Constant observation has proven just the opposite.


That brings in their next excuse: that there were different conditions
than there are today. The simplicity of the Creation model is
superior in every way. It predicts exactly the way that everything
is. It doesn’t have to try to explain how life came from non-life.
Life was a unique work during the Creation process.

There is no proof or geologic evidence that points to conditions being
different. Scientists have tried to duplicate the imagined conditions
in which they assume that life started from non-life. But they
haven’t had any luck, so far. There are even many scientists that
believe that the solution will never be achieved. And the reason is
very simple. Even the most simple life form is astonishingly complex.
There are many blockages just to analyze & synthesize a life form
naturally.

The more complex life-forms are made up of an unimaginable number of
specialized cells, which are made of specific protein molecules. Each
one specialized for its job. These proteins are made up of 20 amino
acids, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen & carbon (& a couple also contain
sulfur).

Each cell is a very sophisticated system & programmed by the DNA
within the molecular system. I’m not going to get too technical & try
to explain how the DNA works. But I will explain that the DNA
contains all of the information needed to duplicate itself, and all
the information that the cell needs to operate & perform its various
functions. Each cell may have a different function. Therefore
reproduction & inheritance rely totally on the DNA. The DNA acts as a
blueprint or computer program. With all of the complication that’s in
just a one-celled plant or one-celled animal, where would a scientist
begin, to try to create life from non-life? In order to function the
DNA needs certain proteins & enzymes. The first thing they would need
to do is to create a working DNA, complete with everything it needs to
operate. The Creation model predicts that that will never be
possible, this is reserved for the Creator, alone.
 
Homer Jacobson made an interesting statement in the article, “Information,
Reproduction & the Origin of Life,” in "American Scientist"
(Jan. 1955): “Directions for the reproduction of plans, for energy &
the extraction of parts from the current environment, for the growth
sequence, & for the effector mechanism translating instructions into
growth - all had to be simultaneously present at that moment. This
combination of events has seemed an incredibly unlikely happenstance,
& has often been ascribed to divine intervention.”

Although this may have been written quite a while ago, the solution to
this problem is still as big of a mystery as it was then. Sixteen
years later, Caryl Haskings, in the article “Advances & Challenges in
Science in 1970” for "American Scientist" (May/June 1971), wrote: “But
the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical
genetics are still unanswered….The fact that in all organisms living
today the processes both of replication of the DNA & of the effective
translation of its code require highly precise enzymes & that, at the
same time, the molecular structures of those same enzymes are
precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary
mystery.” & “Did the code & the means of translating it appear
simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such
coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities
of both sides & the requirement that they be coordinated accurately
for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or skeptic of evolution after
Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most
powerful sort of evidence for special creation.”

Even if DNA accidentally formed by chance, it wouldn’t be able to
reproduce itself. In order for it to duplicate, it would have to
operate in the company of complicated proteins & enzymes that it had
previously arranged & specialized. This puts up a solid wall to the
Evolution model.


They’ve never been able to create life from non-life. But even if
some day they do, this won’t prove that the same thing happened by
chance 3 billion years ago. All this would prove is that it took a
Herculean effort of evolutionist planning, efforts, experiments & a
lot of very high-tech & precision laboratory equipment.

A guy by the name of Stanley Miller did manage to create an amino
acid, using some very sophisticated equipment. Although amino acids
are not living things. But then he had to devise a specialized way to
trap them, or they would have been quickly broken down by the same
environment that made them. That kind of protection wouldn’t have
been available in primordial conditions. So, it didn’t really prove
anything.

From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing
1996; page 51. Used with permission from the publisher - Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: “The scientific law of
cause & effect requires the First Cause of life to be living.”

After Darwin published his theory of origin of species from natural
selection, he explained that there are slight variations between
individual creatures, each with varying degrees of advantages/
disadvantages, & the ones that were best equipped for survival would
be selected for mating. The weak would die-off, & eventually the
selected creatures would evolve with better traits into a creature of
higher order. He also called this “survival of the fittest.”

The variations between organisms are just normal inheritance (called
Mendelian laws). The variations observed are allowed & controlled by
the DNA. Nothing unquestionably is novel. The variation goes only
horizontally, NOT vertically. Natural selection is a form of
conservation used to keep organisms from becoming extinct after change
has been made to the environment. This was just the Creator providing
his creatures a way to survive for His purposes. He is only allowing
his creatures to adjust to their changing environments.

Then there’s a question about wings evolving. Why would they evolve separately
in four distinctly different types of creature: birds, insects, bats,
& flying reptiles? And what about the eye developing separately in
almost every type of organism on the planet? Here’s what Frank
Salisbury thought about it in the article, “Doubts about the Modern
Synthetic Theory of Evolution,” published in "American Biology Teacher"
(Sept. 1971): “My last doubt concerns so-called parallel
evolution….Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several
times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, & the arthropods.
It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the
thought of producing them several times according to the modern
synthetic theory makes my head swim.”

Even Darwin said that the thought of the eye being originated by
natural selection made him sick.


Now, regarding mutations, this is one of the worst components of the
Evolution model. It seems that the only excuse that they could come
up with for organisms to evolve into another creature of higher order,
was mutation. When a mutation occurs there is a change in the real
structure of the gene, & something novel or different is produced. A
whole segment of the DNA changes. And this change is carried over in
the DNA’s replication. The only problem is that almost all mutations
are changes for the worse, like a 2-headed cow or a 3-legged monkey.

In his book "Populations, Species and Evolution", Ernst Mayr says: “It
must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all
genetic variation found in natural populations & the only new material
available for natural selection to work on.”

So then, this shows how greatly the Evolution model relies on
mutation. It is therefore believed that mutations are helpful & make
changes that go in an upward direction in the chain of evolution, &
all such changes help evolution to progress.

But the Creation model sticks to the real facts: All mutations are
harmful & NOT advantageous.

Mutations are not only random, but they are extremely rare. Mutations
cannot be regulated to produce good results or characteristics that
are necessary.

As pointed out by Francisco Ayala in the article, “Teleological
Explanations in Evolutionary Biology,” in "Philosophy of Science" (Mar.
1970): “It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority
of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand & one in
a million per gene per generation.”


One of the foremost experts on mutations, H. J. Muller, stated, in the
article, “Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material,” in "American
Scientist" (Jan. 1950): “But mutations are found to be of a random
nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great
majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some
way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences.”
Even the man most responsible for the promotion of neo-Darwinism,
Julian Huxley, had doubts about the benefits of mutations. Here is
what he said in his book "Evolution in Action": “A proportion of
favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is
probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the
organism living at all, & the great majority of the rest throw the
machinery slightly out of gear.”

The fact is there isn’t any known mutation that possessed any
benefits. The only changes for the better are characteristics which
were already in the gene, but were only latent or dormant. Not one
benefit has ever been documented, yet they expect us to believe that
millions of changes for the better have come about from mutations?
Give me a break!

In his article, “A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution,” in "American
Scientist" (Jan. 1953), C. P. Martin agrees: “Accordingly, mutations
are more than just sudden changes in heredity, they also affect
viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it
adversely. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults
on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living
thing?”

Christopher Wills in the article, “Genetic Load,” in "Scientific
American" (Mar. 1970), also agrees: “The large majority of mutations,
however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are
expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’ or
genetic burden, into the pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was first used
by the late H. J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is
increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment,
notably ionizing radiation & mutagenic chemicals.”


Why have evolutionary scientists been trying for years to get
mutation-making radiations taken out of the environment? If they
really thought that mutations caused good benefits, then why don’t we
all just take a nice long bath in radiation? Just think how much we
could further evolution. But rather, most scientists have been
objecting to nuclear testing, in order to stop mutation from
occurring.

Let’s move on to the complexity in living organisms. The Evolution
model gives credit to all systems & structures as being operated by
the laws of nature & the characteristics of matter. There’s no
blueprint, plans, or operators. The universe & everything in it
evolves randomly, by itself, with no particular direction. The
Creation model maintains that the complexity & order found throughout
the universe & within all the laws of nature, could never have started
by accident.

If we took a whole ocean full of elements, of which each were capable
of performing a specific task, what would be the chance that two or
more of them would accidentally merge into a unified living organism?
The possibility would be almost infinitesimal. Mathematically
speaking, if the organism had only 100 parts (or cells), the
possibility would be one in ten to the 158th power (which means
followed by 158 zeros). That’s pretty far-out odds.
Since the universe in supposed to be 30 billion years old, if we
calculate that amount of time in seconds, that would be 10 to the 18th
power (or followed by 18 zeros). So then, just compare the random
chances of life happening with how many seconds the universe is old.
The chance of life accidentally happening is ridiculous.

According to NASA, the simplest life form that could be found on
another planet would have a chain of at least 400 amino acids & linked
together in a certain order, each being made up of 4 or 5 specific
chemical components in an unique arrangement of electrons, neutrons &
protons. It would be almost impossible for this to happen randomly by
chance. The only other way for it to happen, is for there to have
been a creator of the first life forms.

However it happened, the first life form had to have been created with the
first DNA within itself, because the DNA holds all of the information
for an organism to live & replicate. The DNA molecule is found in
every living thing.

In the article, “Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of
Evolution,” of "American Biology Teacher" (Sept., 1971), author &
evolutionary biologists, Frank Salisbury says: “Now we know that the
cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes
thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine
itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a
gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (its
complexity) must be as great as that of the enzyme it controls.” & “A
medium protein might include about 300 amino acids. The DNA gene
controlling this would have about 1,000 nucleotides in its chain.
Since there are four kinds of nucleotides in a DNA chain, one
consisting of 1,000 links could exist in 4 to the thousandth power
different forms. Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that
4 to the thousandth power = 10 to the 600th power. Ten multiplied by
itself 600 times gives the figure 1 followed by 600 zeros! This
number is completely beyond our comprehension.”
 

Evolutionist solve the problem of life’s origin by just ignoring it.
Here is a remark by George Wald, in the chapter, “The Origin of Life”,
in his book "The Physics and Chemistry of Life": “The important point
is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of
at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we
regard this event,….given enough time it will almost certainly happen
at least once….Time is in fact the hero of the plot….Given so much
time, the ‘impossible’ becomes possible, the possible probable, and
the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself
performs miracles.”
But I, for one, am not swallowing this hog-wash!
But evolutionist have gigantic faith in their theory. Here’s what
Julian Huxley says in his book "Evolution in Action": “A proportion of
favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is
probably generous….And a total of a million mutational steps sound a
great deal but is probably an understatement….However, let us take
these figures as being reasonable estimates. With this proportion,
but without any selection, we should clearly have to breed a million
strains (a thousand squared) to get one containing two favorable
mutations; and so on, up to a thousand to the millionth power to get
one containing a million. Of course this could not really happen, but
it is a useful way of visualizing the fantastic odds against getting a
number of favorable mutations in one strain through pure chance alone.
A thousand to the millionth power, when written out, becomes the
figure 1 with three million noughts after it; and that would take
three large volumes of about 500 pages each, just to print!….No one
would bet on anything so improbable happening. And yet it has
happened! It has happened, thanks to the working of natural selection
& the properties of living substance which make natural selection
inevitable!”

Natural selection must be a marvelous thing for it to change
impossibility into inevitability. Or is this just their play on
words? The Creation model says that all observed natural selection
involves conservative changes of environmental adaptation, not a
mechanism for mutating upward to a higher order.

Even if there was a “good” mutation, for it to spread throughout a
population, it would have to cause a great deal of inbreeding within a
sub-group, in order to affect the main population, & eventually
dominating the whole population, for the population to elevate to a
higher level.

If we give the Evolution model the benefit of a doubt, & suppose that
this may be possible in a simple life form, what happens when we get
into organisms of higher order, like vertebrates, for instance, where
the degree of complexity becomes gigantic? Now we are talking about
affecting trillions of cells, each one with an entirely different job.
In the higher life-forms each cell is highly complex & organized.
When we talk about one animal changing into an entirely different
animal, as Huxley put it, a “million mutational steps”, would have to
be made, for an animal such as a horse to develop. From the
creationist point of view, it would’ve taken much more than just a
million mutations. From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris,
Twentieth printing 1996; page 69. Used with permission from the
publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: says
that, "the chance of success in this case becomes one out of 10 to the
300,000th power."
 

Because some plants & animals have similarities, some evolutionist
point this out as evidence of a common ancestor. Creationists see it
as common creative design & planning, structures with similar
purposes. But then there are differences. Dogs & cats may have a
similar structure, but are entirely different creatures. There seem
to be problems with the Evolution model. If dogs & cats developed
from the same ancestor & in the same environment, how did they get to
be so different? Within the families & phyla, how would we tell where
dogs begin & cats end?

The evolution theory tells us that everything came from common
ancestors & in continued environments, & continues to develop by the
same natural processes. But it doesn’t explain the development of
distinctly different kinds. The theory has thousands of gaps between
the different kinds. The Creation model predicts that there are a
variety of kinds which have similarities & differences.
Similarities are considered to be evidence of evolution. So they came
up with what they call a “Linnaean classification” gimmick, where they
could put organisms into categories & various levels. But there are
no observational evidence of ancestral relationships, these are all
just evolutionary assumptions. The fact is, they have no evidence
that one kind of DNA can evolve into DNA for another type of organism.

How do they explain whales? That they went back-and-forth. They
evolved from fish into land creatures, then went back to the sea to
continue evolving back into a creature that looks like a fish. How
much sense does that make? And this is just one example of
“convergence.” There are many more. There are countless examples of
the Evolution model having to “explain” & concoct unacceptable
hypothesis to try to make their theory work. But it still doesn’t
fly!

The same types of “gaps” that are between observable types & species
today, are the same types of gaps that are in the fossil evidence for
most all animals & plants. They attempt to explain these gaps with a
succession of secondary assumptions, speculating on special conditions
& selections. Then even more speculations are required. They cannot
explain the lack of transitional fossils in the supposed vertical
sequence, as if we are to believe that something prevented those
fossils from forming or being found.

The Creation model predicts the systematic gaps.

In his book, "Principles of Embryology", Professor C. H. Waddington, of
the Univ. of Edinburgh, says: “The type of analogical thinking that
leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of
ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even
very interesting to biologists.”

From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing
1996; page 79. Used with permission from the publisher - Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: “The fossil record can
no more be a random collection of chance products of random processes
than can the living world. Even animals which have become extinct
(and extinction is an example of decay, not development) must have
been a part of the original created categories.”

If evolution is really happening, why isn’t the method of
classification evolving? Since the plants & animals are supposed to
be changing, shouldn’t categories of classification also be changing?
Every order, phyla, families, kingdoms, types, classes, species &
genera, all unexpectedly showed up in the fossil record, without any
record of transition from a previous version.

Here’s a quote from George G. Simpson’s book, "The Major Features of
Evolution": “In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every
paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera & families, & that
nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the
record suddenly & are not led up to by known, gradual, completely
continuous transitional sequences.”

Paul A. Moody, in "Introduction to Evolution", said: “So far as we can
judge from the geologic record, large changes seem usually to have
arisen rather suddenly, in terms of geologic time….fossil forms
intermediate between large subdivisions of classification, such as
orders & classes, are seldom found.”

After studying paleontology & botany for 40 years, N.
Heribert-Nilsson, of Lund Univ., finally admitted (in "Synthetische
Artbildung"): “It is not even possible to make a caricature of an
evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so
complete that….the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as
due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real: they
will never be filled.”

Marshall Kay & Edwin H. Colbert, in "Stratigraphy and Life History",
stated: “The introduction of a variety of organisms in the early
Cambrian, including such complex forms of the arthropods as the
trilobites, is surprising….The introduction of abundant organisms in
the record would not be so surprising if they were simple.  Why should 
such complex organic forms be in rocks about six hundred
million years old & be absent or unrecognized in the records of the
preceding two billion years?….If there has been evolution of life, the
absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian
is puzzling.”
 

According to T. Neville George, in the article “Fossils in
Evolutionary Perspective” in "Science Progress" (Jan. 1960): “Granted an
evolutionary origin of the main groups of animals, & not an act of
special creation, the absence of any record whatsoever of a single
member of any of the phyla in Precambrian rocks remains as
inexplicable on orthodox grounds as it was to Darwin.”

And another guy who agrees is Daniel I. Axelrod, in the article “Early
Cambrian Marine Fauna” in "Science" (Vol. 128, 1958), he states: “One
of the major unsolved problems of geology & evolution is the
occurrence of diversified multicultural marine invertebrates in Lower
Cambrian rocks & their absence in rocks of greater age. These early
Cambrian fossils included porifera, coelenterates, brachiopods,
mollusca, echinoids, & arthropods. Their high degree of organization
clearly indicates that a long period of evolution preceded their
appearance in the record. However, when we turn to examine the
pre-Cambrian rocks for the forerunners of these Early Cambrian
fossils, they are nowhere to be found.”

I’d say that it’s a pretty well established fact of the missing gaps
of the fossil record, from the simple one-celled plants & animals to
the variety of invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Doesn’t it seem
impossible that there is absolutely no evidence of all of the
transitional creatures that would be necessary for the Evolution
model. The best explanation is that these are stable gaps that the
Creator put between various kinds.


Just the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates had to have
included billions of creatures. And yet, nobody has discovered any of
them. Invertebrates have exoskeletons (or shells) & vertebrates have
bones. What kind of transition could have converted one into the
other? It seems more than likely that they have remained separate
creatures.

What about the hypothetical assumption that amphibians came from fish?
Where is the fossil evidence of fins turning into limbs (arms & legs,
hands & feet), & gills into lungs, etc., etc.? The truth is that no
evidence of any transitional creatures have turned up.

They used to think that the evidence for this could be found in the
fossils of a coelacanth, which is a fish with limb-like apertures.
Then in 1938 they found these creatures still alive & well, around the
area of Madagascar. These fish were still unchanged, NOT transitional
creatures. This distressed & humiliated evolutionists.


If these fish remained the same for a hundred million years, how do
they contribute anything to the evolution theory? It seems to me that
this would be evidence against the evolution theory. And this was
supposed to be their best example, their only real prospect.

In 1955 "Scientific American" published an article, entitled, “The
Coelacanth”, by Jacques Millot. In it is stated: “Throughout the
hundreds of millions of years the coelacanths have kept the same form
& structure. Here is one of the great mysteries of evolution.”

It is also assumed that amphibians turned into reptiles & that
reptiles changed into mammals. Where are the transitional fossils?
In each case (amphibians, reptiles & mammals) the fossil record shows
that each type showed up abruptly. All assumed transitional creatures
are absent.

The author of "Tempo and Mode in Evolution", George Gaylord Simpson,
makes a point about the 32 classes of mammals, all fossils found with
the original traits. He then states: “This regular absence of
transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost
universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.”

In "Vertebrate Paleontology", the author & paleontologist Alfred S.
Romer brings up this point regarding rodents: “The origin of the
rodents is obscure….Presumably, of course, they had arisen from some
basal, insectivorous, placental stock, but no transitional forms are
known.”

And what about the bat? A mammal with wings. Shouldn’t there have
been all sorts of transitional forms? Yet none exist.

It is also assumed that reptiles came from birds. But there is no
evidence suggesting such a preposterous idea. In "Biology and
Comparative Physiology of Birds", author W. E. Swinton says: “The
origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil
evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from
reptile to bird was achieved.” In his book, "Historical Geology", Carl
O. Dunbar concurs: “It would be difficult to find a more perfect
‘connecting link’ between two great groups of animals, or more cogent
proof of the reptilian ancestry of the birds.”

Some evolutionist tried to use the famous Archaeopteryx as the missing
link. But it is totally a bird. There is no reptile in it. In the
same book as mentioned above, Dunbar says this about the creature:
“….because of its feathers distinctly to be classed as a bird.” The
only thing that this bird had that differed was that it had teeth.
That’s not so unusual, the Creator gave all kinds of creatures teeth.
There are amphibians, fish & even mammals, in which some have teeth &
others do not.



And what about the insects? They have no clue where these evolved
from. There are more kinds of insects than any other creature. Look
at the great diversity of kinds. There is no proof that one insect
evolved from another. What was insects evolutionary ancestor? It is
interesting to note that a great number of insect fossils have been
found in amber, volcanic ash, coal, etc. The same ones that were
found were the same ones that are living today. The only difference
is that some of them were larger. But they were the same types,
cockroaches, dragonflies, mosquitoes, ants, etc. There is no evidence
of transition between types.

In "Insects in Amber", C. T. Brues says: “Some of the specific types
have persisted throughout the 70-million years since then with little
or no change.”


In the plant world, the evidence for evolution has yielded even less
than expected. In "An Introduction to Paleobotany", author C. A. Arnold
said: “It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately
reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed
during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted
that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even
though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one
hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic
history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the
present.”

Concerning the persistence of kinds, from "Scientific Creationism", by
Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing 1996; page 87. Used with
permission from the publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR;
copyright 1974: “We have already noted that all the kingdoms, phyla &
classes in the organic world have been essentially unchanged since
life began, & that even the orders & most of the families, genera, &
even species appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no incipient
forms leading up to them.”

So, basically, except for the life forms that went extinct, almost all
have remained virtually unchanged, or very slightly changed (as in
size or color).

Some fossils have been found & even thought to have been extinct for
over 100 million years. But in some cases, however, the organism has
been re-discovered to be alive & unchanged in our modern times. Some
of these were even considered “index” fossils, where rock strata has
been dated by the age that these creatures were presumed to have
lived. That threw some big chunks of mud in their gears, because once
it was found living, it could no longer function as the “index” to
date the strata.


Some of these organisms have remained so unchanged that it throws some
doubt about the whole idea of evolution. Why did they stop evolving?
And to top it off, some of these are the very same simple one-celled
life forms that were supposed to be the first forms that started
evolution.

Here’s a quote from the article, “Living Fossils”, by Evelyn
Hutchinson, in "American Scientist" (Sept. 1970): “Among single-celled
organisms, the discovery, during the past decade, of survivors from a
very remote past has been equally remarkable, though here it is a
matter of finding essentially modern forms as Precambrian fossils.
The most remarkable of these & also one extra-ordinary form first
known as a fossil & then discovered living today, came from the
Gunflint Iron Formation of Southern Ontario, which is about 1.9
billion years old.”

Almost all of the “index fossils” are small aquatic organisms. And
since most of the ocean floor has not been explored, then many of
these “index fossils” may be alive today, & may someday be discovered
(like trilobites for example). Among the “index fossils” that were
found to be living today include fish, shellfish, reptiles, trees, &
mollusks. Doesn’t finding these creatures alive today make the theory
of evolution seem a little stale? How many flaws are we to allow for
in this theory of evolution? How many gaps in the fossil record? But
the Creation model predicts these gaps.

In an article entitled, “Fossil Changes: ‘Normal Evolution’”, in "Science
News" (Sept. 2, 1972) said: “The boundaries between eras, periods &
epochs on the geological time scale generally denote sudden &
significant changes in the character of fossil remains….Researchers
have sometimes come up with drastic explanations for these changes
such as an increase in mutation rates due to cosmic rays.”

Throughout the fossil record there are some major changes in fossil
remains. Experts disagree on what evolved into what. Evolutionists
have come up with a vast array of secondary assumptions, like the
atmosphere was saturated with carbon dioxide, cosmic rays or sulfuric
acid rains, to try to account for the sudden & severe changes & the
increased mutation rates. Their theories are untestable & highly
unlikely.

Let’s consider how the vast sedimentary fossil beds formed. Did they
happen slowly over eons of time, through thousands of various
processes. Or is this just the baloney that evolutionists are trying
to feed us? And did they form by the same natural processes that are
going on today? It is more likely that they formed in a quicker
method involving some sort of catastrophic events.


The geology in which we observe was created quickly by catastrophic
events or they formed very sluggishly in an almost endless amount of
time, by what is known as uniformitarianism. The uniformitarian point
of view is used almost exclusively in most textbooks, in describing
the earth & how it formed. The uniformitarian/evolutionary point of
view demands an enormity of time, an almost ridiculous amount.

Fortunately, all scientists cannot agree with the uniformitarian
viewpoint. Here is what James W. Valentine said in the article “The
Present is the Key to the Present” in "Journal of Geological Education"
(April 1966): “….It seems unfortunate that uniformitarianism, a
doctrine which has so important a place in the history of geology,
should continue to be misrepresented in introductory texts & courses
by ‘the present is the key to the past,’ a maxim without much credit.”

Here is what Stephen Jay Gould said in the article, “Is
Uniformitarianism Useful?” in the "Journal of Geological Education"
(Oct. 1967): “Often, I am afraid, the subject is taught
superficially, with Geikie’s maxim ‘the present is the key to the
past’ used as a catechism & the imposing term ‘uniformitarianism’ as a
smokescreen to hide confusion both of student and teacher.” And
here’s what Edgar B. Heylmun said in the article “Should We Teach
Uniformitarianism?” in "Journal of Geological Education" (Jan. 1971):
“There are many other reasons why we should not blindly accept the
doctrine of uniformitarianism, without at least qualifying the
concept….We find certain rock types in the geologic column that are
not being seen to form, at least in quantity, anywhere on earth
today.”

There are a great many scientific opinions which differ from that of
uniformitarianism/evolution. Therefore the catastrophic theory should
be included as another option in education, since it obviously makes
more sense. The fact of the matter is that there are no geologic
features which cannot be explained as something which occurred rapidly
& more recently, & some of them being the only sensible solution.

The whole geologic column can be explained in a sequence that
continues uninterruptedly, but without requiring unimaginably long
periods of time. All that is required is to look at the fossil
evidence. First of all, they’re wrongly guessing at the age of
fossils. In some strata they cannot determine one “geologic age” from
another. And then they’ll use one “index fossil” to date other
fossils.

Here is what O. H. Schindewolf said in the article, “Comments on Some
Stratigraphic Terms” in "American Journal of Science" (June 1957): “The
only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the
stratigraphic classification of rocks & for dating geologic events is
furnished by the fossils.”

To explain how it works, here’s what J. E. Ransom said in his book,
"Fossils in America": “In each sedimentary stratum certain fossils seem
to be characteristically abundant: these fossils are known as index
fossils. If in a strange formation an index fossil is found, it is
easy to date that particular layer of rock & to correlate it with
other exposures in distant regions containing the same species.”


So then, evolution is based on the fossils, which they use to date the
rock strata. The fossil records are the basis for the whole theory of
evolution. This idea is confirmed by C. O. Dunbar in his book
"Historical Geology": “Although the comparative study of living plants
& animals may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils
provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has
evolved from simpler to more & more complex forms.”

From Scientific Creationism, by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing 1996; page 96.
Used with permission from the publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: 
“Thus, although the fossil record has been interpreted to teach evolution, the record itself
has been based on the assumption of evolution….Furthermore, the universal prevalence of gaps, 
instead of transitional forms, in the fossil record shows that even this message is only 
a skeleton outline, with no substance.”  
 
Even the time sequences that are used to try to prove evolution are
just evolutionary assumptions. So then, there are no objective time
sequences. Therefore, why should we accept the exceptional lengths of
time involved, & reconsider that the rock strata formed quickly &
extensively.

Here’s what authors F. H. T. Rhodes, H. S. Zim, & P. R. Shaffer say in
their book "Fossils": “To become fossilized a plant or animal must
usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell or wood. It must be
buried quickly to prevent decay & must be undisturbed throughout the
long process.”

There are various ways in which fossils may form, which include being
compressed in earth, freezing, carbonizing (like coal), molded or
cast, petrification, etc. If they aren’t formed quickly erosion &
decay will set in & ruin them before the process is finished. We know
that all fossilization necessitates quick burial. This implies a
catastrophe.

In the article, “Ecology, Paleontology and Stratigraphy” in "Science"
(Jan. 9, 1959), Harry S. Ladd says: “The numbers of fossils may be so
great as to suggest abnormal conditions, possibly a catastrophe of
some sort. Such an example was described by D. S. Jordan from the
Miocene of California. Enormous numbers of the herring Xyne grex were
found crowded on a bedding plane in the ‘Monterey shale.’ Jordan
estimated that more than a billion fish, averaging 6 to 8 inches in
length, died on 4 square miles of bay bottom. Catastrophic death in
the sea on a comparable scale occurs today, due in many instances, to
the development of ‘red water’.” (A type of red algae). However,
Ladd should’ve mentioned that the fish that die today from the ‘red
water’, don’t turn into fossils. They either rot away or are eaten by
something else.


One of the main experts on dinosaurs, Dr. Edwin Colbert, wrote in his
book "Men and Dinosaurs", in regards to fossils in Wyoming: “As the
layer was exposed (the workers cut a large scallop into the hillside)
it revealed a most remarkable dinosaurian graveyard in which there
were literally scores of skeletons one on top of another & interlaced
with one another. It would appear that some local catastrophe had
overtaken these dinosaurs, so that they all died together & were
buried together.” Dr. Colbert also made this statement, about fossils
found in Belgium: “Thus it could be seen that the fossil bone yard
was evidently one of gigantic proportions, especially notable because
of its vertical extension through more than a hundred feet of rock.”
And in "The Age of Reptiles", he said, speaking about Alberta, Canada:
“Innumerable bones & many fine skeletons of dinosaurs & other
associated reptiles have been quarried from these badlands,
particularly in the 15-mile stretch of river to the east of
Steveville, a stretch that is a veritable dinosaurian graveyard.”

Dinosaur fossil-beds are found throughout the world. Yet this forming
of fossils is not occurring anywhere in the world today, or the
uniformitarians would be sure to point it out. Not only are there
dinosaur fossil-beds, but also beds of mammals, amphibians, plants, &
just about everything else. Most of the creatures that are living
today have been identified in the fossil records, & many of them in
great numbers.

Most of the “index fossils” are marine invertebrates. But there is no
evidence indicating that the process is happening today, as most of
the ocean bottoms are made of soft sediments, & shells & other
invertebrates on land just deteriorate.

The fact that most fossils are found in great beds, sometimes making
up the entire geologic column, & in large numbers, suggests some sort
of catastrophe.


The geologic forces observed today, if measured at the same rate as
today, couldn’t have possibly made the geologic events of the past.
Let’s examine how various rocks are formed. For example metamorphic
rocks are sedimentary rock that supposedly turn into a more solid
form, like limestone turning into marble. Although this process
cannot be observed since it takes so long to achieve. The real fact
is that very little is known about the process, it is mainly assumed.
It is also assumed that great heat & pressure was involved. But there
are no conditions like this that we know of today that are forming
these rocks. The sedimentary rocks are probably the most important
because these are the rocks that encase the fossils, & they cover most
of the world.

There are various types of sedimentary rock. One of them is
sandstone, which is made up of sand & some other material which
cemented the sand together. The main question about this is what was
the cementing material & where did it come from. There had to have
been unusual conditions. It is assumed by evolutionary geologists
that it took millions of years for these rocks to compress. This
would probably be a rapid process. We can quickly make a sidewalk
with sand, Portland cement & water.


There’s also the fact that there are some areas of sandstone that
cover several states, almost whole continents even. We don’t observe
anything like this happening anywhere today.

Shale is another sedimentary rock. These are formed with very fine
particles like silt, dust or clay. Great amounts of this stone is
found throughout the geologic column, as well as many fossils within
it. Like sandstone, this type of stone also requires some type of
cement, & it covers vast areas, as well. It is commonly found above
sandstone deposits, which makes sense that in a catastrophic event
large amounts of material could’ve been washed down in a turbulent
huge volume of water. The larger & heavier materials would’ve settled
first, then the finer sand, & then the minute particles, & lastly
chemical matter, which may have been the solidifying agent.


Another type of sedimentary rocks are called conglomerates. These are
rocks that have been cemented together & contain various gravels,
sands & rocks. Only a powerful current would transport & deposit
these various materials together. Areas with this type of rock have
been found encompassing more than 125,000 square miles. The only
explanation would be catastrophic flooding. There is no evidence that
these types of rocks are forming anywhere in the world today.


Here’s what R. H. Dott & R. L. Batten said in their book "Evolution of
the Earth": “It has long been assumed that preserved sedimentary rocks
record primarily normal or average conditions for past epochs but this
uniformitarian assumption must be challenged.”

Limestone & dolostones are chemical sediments. Limestones are mostly
made of calcium carbonate & dolostones are mostly dolomite. They are
very similar, except that dolomite contains some magnesium. Marine
organisms, like the creatures that make up coral reefs, give off
calcium carbonate. The calcite is a cementing material. The problem
of how these rocks formed is the fact that there are some areas of the
geologic column that are of such monolithic proportions that the only
way to account for them would be a gigantic cataclysm. The amounts of
this material is so extensive that it challenges an explanation.


Here’s what C. O. Dunbar & John Rodgers say about dolostones in their
book "Principles of Stratigraphy": “Although dolostone is by no means
uncommon among the sedimentary rocks of the geologic record, its
origin is still uncertain. Probably the chief reason for this
uncertainty is that, unlike the other major types of sediments, it is
nowhere known to be forming today, & therefore the present fails us as
a key to the past.”

Another sedimentary rock is chert, which is made up mostly of the
chemical silica. This is another rock that cannot be observed forming
today. Here’s what F. G. Pettijohn says about it in his book
Sedimentary Rocks: “The origin of the bedded cherts is a very
controversial subject….Most students of bedded chert….regard them as
primary precipitates of silica gel.”


Then there are the evaporites, like salt & gypsum. Uniformitarians
consider these to be proof of lengthy time of formation. These were
believed to be formed by the evaporation of lakes or inland seas. But
there is nothing like this happening today. These beds are too thick
& pure to have been formed by any sea evaporating. More likely they
were formed by precipitation or by a shifting of the tectonic plates.
Lab experiments point to the possibility of precipitation.


In the article “Brine Mixing: An Additional Mechanism for Formation of
Basin Evaporites” in "Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists" (Dec. 1970), author Omer B. Roup points out: “The following
conclusions are based on the results of three brine experiments &
their relations to a geologic model.
1. Salt precipitation can occur in a marine evaporite basin by mixing
brines of different composition & specific gravity.
2. Precipitation occurs without further loss by evaporation.
3. Precipitation can occur from brines that were under-saturated before mixing.”

If there was such a catastrophe as rain pouring for 40 days & nights,
this would provide the necessary conditions for formation by
precipitation.

A Russian geophysicist, E. I. Sozansky, believed that tectonic plate
movement was the cause of these deposits. In his article, “Origin of
Salt Deposits in Deep-Water Basins of Atlantic Ocean” in "Bulletin,
American Association of Petroleum Geologists" (Mar. 1973), he makes
these statements: “The absence of remains of marine organisms in
ancient salts indicates that the formation of the salt-bearing
sections was not related to the evaporation of marine water in
epicontinental seas.”, “Other geologic data, such as the great
thickness of salt deposits, the rapid rate of formation of
salt-bearing sections, the presence of ore minerals in salts & in the
caprocks of salt domes do not conform with the bar hypothesis.”, &
“The analysis of recent geologic data, including data on the diapirs
found in ocean deeps, permit’s the conclusion that these salts are of
a juvenile origin - that they emerged from great depths along faults
during tectonic movements. This process is often accompanied by the
discharge of basin magmas.”

Concerning the lack of organic matter, where salts are found pure,
there are no evidence of marine life. If salt beds were formed by an
inland sea evaporating, there would be a large amount of plankton &
possibly brine shrimp, which aren’t there. Don’t you think that these
so-called “evaporites” would be full of organic matter?

There is no observable evidence that evaporites are forming anywhere
today. In fact, they stand as evidence against the theory of
evolution, since there is no known process that can produce them. Any
fossils found within evaporites would have had to have formed quickly.

As for coal & the various metals, it is believed that it took an
immense amount of time for them to have formed. It is agreed that
coal was formed by the carbonization of plant material. But then,
various other rock strata are found within the coal seams, like
sandstone, shale & limestone. Often these strata are exceptionally
thick & often the layers of coal & other strata are repeated numerous
times. There are no known processes that can explain this. There has
been found fossils, such as petrified trees, which extend through
several layers of coal seams & other rock strata. The evidence points
to a catastrophe & rapid formation.


According to the article, “Some Aspects of the Paleoecology of
Non-Marine Faunas & Rates of Sedimentation in the Lancashire Coal
Measures,” by F. M. Broadhurst, in "American Journal of Science" (summer
1964), “In 1959 Broadhurst & Magraw described a fossilized tree, in
position of growth, from the Coal Measures at Blackrod near Wigan in
Lancashire. This tree was preserved as a cast, & the evidence
available suggested that the cast was at least 38 feet in height. The
original tree must have been surrounded & buried by sediment which was
compacted before the bulk of the tree decomposed so that the cavity
vacated by the trunk could be occupied by new sediment which formed
the cast. This implies a rapid rate of sedimentation around the
original tree.”

This wasn’t a unique find, in fact it is fairly common, as reported by
N. A. Rupke of Princeton, in an article entitled, “Prolegomena to a
Study of Cataclysmal Sedimentation” in "Quarterly of the Creation
Research Society" (May 1966): “It is clear that trees in position of
growth are far from being rare in Lancashire (Teichmuller, 1956,
reaches the same conclusion for similar trees in the Rhein-Westfalen
Coal Measures), & presumably in all cases there must have been a rapid
rate of sedimentation.”

There is more proof that coal formed in a fast process. A cataclysm
would deposit vast amounts of the plant material, while other layers
of other materials laid over this, coming from another direction, &
the process repeating a number of times would have eventually covered
trees. Sometimes these trees are found at angles or even upside-down.
Coal seams sometimes contain marine fossils, like shells, corals &
sponges. Sometimes large boulders are found within coal seams. The
Evolution model cannot account for these anomalies, while the flood in
the Creation model is much more realistic. A slow vertical
accumulation does NOT make any sense.

The evolution/uniformitarian view is that oil is an accumulation of
millions of marine organisms, such as fish, which through geologic
pressure, heat & immense time, turned into oil. But they cannot
explain how or why this happened. There is no process or evidence
that oil is being formed today. Or, was there a cataclysm that buried
these organisms?

On May 1, 2003, "Discover" Magazine published an article entitled
“Anything into Oil”, by Brad Lemley. In it they describe a process
that can turn anything into oil, by grinding it up & adding heat &
pressure, depending on what the material they are using. For example
they would cook ground up tires at a certain temperature & add water,
using a certain amount of pressure & a certain amount of heat, for a
certain amount of time. For wood they would apply different amounts
of time, pressure, & heat. The whole thing works very similar to a
refinery. Follow-up articles in Discover were published in the July
2004 issue & in the Nov. 25, 2008 issue. Almost any type of trash or
garbage can be turned into oil. There’s even a plant that’s
processing turkey guts, turning them into oil almost instantly.

As far back as 1973, "Science Digest" published an article entitled,
“Oil Made from Garbage”, by Larry L. Anderson (July 1973). In this
article it says, “There is great promise in a system being developed
by government scientists that converts organic material to oil & gas
by treating it with carbon monoxide & water at high temperatures &
pressure….”

Then there’s igneous rocks, which includes granites & basalts. These
are believed to form quickly from volcanic lava. Once lava cools it
turns to rock. Some may have formed above the surface & some may have
formed below the surface. Although some scientist believe that
granite may be a metamorphic rock. There is still much conjecture
involved in the knowledge of rock formations.


The development of metal ores cannot be explained by any
uniformitarian process, & in fact is pretty much unknown. Their only
clue is being somehow linked to magma flow. Although there is no
evidence of this process happening today. These arguments are
therefore insufficient. They’ve studied magma flows for many years,
without any findings of metallic ores. The only sensible explanation
would be the Creation model. Although it has no explicit explanation,
the Creator formed it when he created everything. All-in-all, the
cataclysmic theory has less problems than the uniformitarian theory.

Here’s a comment from Edgar B. Heylmun, in his article, “Should We
Teach Uniformitarianism?”, in "Journal of Geological Education" (Jan.
1971): “We find certain rock types in the geologic column that are
not being seen to form, at least in quantity, anywhere on earth today.
Where can granite be observed forming? Where can dolomite or
siliceous iron formations be seen to form in quantity? Yet we have
thousands of cubic miles of these rock types in the crust of the
earth. The Paleozoic Era was marked by carbonate rock deposition, yet
carbonate types are quite subordinate in modern sequences of
sediments. Herz (1969) attributes the formation of anorthosite to the
‘anorthosite event,’ which was possibly a great cataclysm in the
Precambrian history of the earth. It is possible that other rock
types were created during & following catastrophic events on earth.”

Since each particular deposit was formed quickly, is it possible that
they all formed at the same time? The evolutionist could not allow
for this, because that would ruin his whole theory.

The fossil world wasn’t much different than the world that we see now.
There are still one-celled animals & plants, fish, reptiles, birds,
mammals & people, most of which have been found in the fossil record.
There may even have been men living at the same time as dinosaurs.

There is some evidence that fossils from different ages were living at
the same times. The burial of many types of life-forms makes sense
only with the cataclysmic Creation model. When we look at the
mechanics of strata formation, a great deal of sediment would’ve had
to have been transported & deposited. Many factors would’ve been
involved; flow-rate, chemical reactions, volumes, directions, wave
propagation rates, temperatures, & many other variations & factors.
These factors point to some sort of cataclysmic event or a series of
these cataclysmic events.

In the geologic column various “ages” merge with other “ages,” to
where a person cannot tell where one age ends & another age begins.
Everything is continuous. Each layer of strata has indications that
it formed quickly. It is therefore only common sense to presume that
the whole geologic column formed rapidly, & at once. Most of the
plants & animals in the fossil record are living today. And, of
course, there are some variations which are explained by the various
environmental conditions.

And what about the strata believed to be older on top of strata
believed to be younger? What about fossils of organisms found in
strata of different ages?

The Creation model maintains that all living creatures were created at
the same time, & therefore all lived together. That doesn’t mean that
men lived with dinosaurs, just as men don’t live with sharks.
Everything keeps to it’s own ecological domain.

From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing
1996; page 117. Used with permission from the publisher - Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: “Visualize, then, a
great hydraulic cataclysm bursting upon the present world, with
currents of waters pouring perpetually from the skies & erupting
continuously from the earth’s crust, all over the world, for weeks on
end, until the entire globe was submerged, accompanied by outpourings
of magma from the mantle, gigantic earth movements, landslides,
tsunamis, & explosions….”

In this scenario the land creatures would all die (unless they were in
an air-tight, waterproof boat), massive amounts of soil would be
transported to other locations, mountains would be washed away, plants
& trees pulled up & moved, even some rocks would be crushed or ground
up.


All of this turbulence would cause masses of sediment to be moved or
piled up, along with masses of sea and or land creatures to be trapped
or covered up, along with masses of plant life. Various chemicals
would get dissolved in the waters, in various places. In many places
the sediments would be cemented into rock.

This whole process would be very complicated, causing many variations
in different places. This would explain the diversity that we find.

As floods rose a wide variety of creatures would flee to higher
ground, causing them to be trapped together in great “beds”. Hilly or
mountainous areas are known to have mudslides during great
precipitation. This would explain how these various kinds of animals
were found together. Animals living at lower elevations would be
found together. Animals in higher habitats would be found together.

Man is considered the most recent product of evolution. How is it
then that fossils of men have been found with fossils of more ancient
creatures? Here’s a remark from B. F. Ryan, author of the article
“Mountain-Building in the Mediterranean” in "Science News" (Oct. 17,
1970): “An ancient Mayan relief sculpture of a peculiar bird with
reptilian characteristics has been discovered in Totonacapan, in the
northeastern section of Veracruz, Mexico. Jose Diaz-Bolio, a Mexican
archaeologist-journalist responsible for the discovery, says there is
evidence that the serpent-bird sculpture located in the ruins of
Tajin, is not merely the product of Mayan flights of fancy, but a
realistic representation of an animal that lived during the period of
the ancient Mayan - 1,000 to 5,000 years ago.” On the same subject,
from the article “Serpent-bird of the Mayans” in "Science Digest" (Nov.
1968): “If indeed such serpent-birds were contemporary with the
ancient Mayan culture, the relief sculpture represents a startling
evolutionary oddity. Animals with such characteristics are believed
to have disappeared 130 million years ago. The archeries & the
archaeopteryx, to which the sculpture bears a vague resemblance, were
flying reptiles that became extinct during the Mesozoic age of
dinosaurs.” Could it be that these creatures just became extinct a
few thousand years ago?

These aren’t the only examples of oddities that have been found &
ignored by the media & evolutionary scientists. Human skeletons &
tools have been found deep down in coal mines. In Paluxy, Texas human
footprints were found in the mud (now limestone rock), next to the
footprints of a 3-toed theropod, & in a couple places even overlapped
each other. Pictures of dinosaurs were painted on stone-age cave
walls. Human footprints found in fossilized trilobite beds. These
are just a few in the long list of anomalies.


Fossils of sub-tropical plants & animals have been found near the
poles. Evolutionary scientists attribute this to continental drift,
although some scientists have a different opinion. In their book
"Evolution of the Earth", R. H. Dott & R. L. Batten say, “For example,
there is little evidence that climatic belts existed in the earlier
history of the earth, yet climatic zonation, both latitudinal &
vertical, is clearly apparent in all parts of the earth today. This
anomalous situation is difficult to explain. It is impossible to
reconstruct a super-continent which could lie entirely within one
climatic regime. Any rotating planet, orbiting the sun on an inclined
axis of rotation, must have climatic zonation. It is obvious,
therefore, that climatic conditions in the past were significantly
different from those in evidence today.”

The Earth’s atmosphere, temperature & conditions were very different
before the great flood. Most of the water was contained in a great &
very thick cloud cover, which shielded the earth of harmful cosmic
rays & kept the earth in a humid, warm, & even temperature. This is
where most of the water for the great flood was stored.

Although a secondary water source would’ve been stored in huge
underground reservoirs, which would’ve came blasting out by great
pressures of the earth & volcanic activity, as well as seismic
activity. The ultimate cataclysm of the great flood.

The environment would have shielded the earth from radiation, winds &
storms. Things would remain still but damp. Water would evaporate &
condense. Plants & animals would’ve thrived well & grew larger than
they are today.


Once the cataclysm was set off by the first event, it would’ve started
a chain-reaction similar to the domino-effect. These
multiple-cataclysms would provide an explanation for the diverse
geologic features that are unexplained by any other method. There
must have been a release of huge volumes of volcanic material, because
today there is lots of igneous rock & volcanic strata found in the
geologic column.

The only evolutionary/uniformitarian theory of building mountains is
that plate tectonics push the earth’s crust upwards as one plate
pushes over another plate. Although, this theory is unsatisfactory.
The largest mountain chain of all, the Himalayas, was elevated only
after the appearance of man. R. F. Flint in his book "Glacial Geology
and the Pleistocene Epoch" says: “Most of the vast uplift of the
Himalayas is ascribed to the latest Tertiary & Pleistocene.”

They cannot even explain the giant glaciers & continental ice sheets
of the Pleistocene Epoch. In the book "Principles of Geology", authors
J. Gilluly, A. C. Waters & A. O. Woodford concur, “Geologists &
climatologists have tried for more than a century to explain the
recurrence of glaciation on a continental scale. Theory after theory
has been suggested, but all explain too little or too much. None can
be considered satisfactory, at least in its present form.”

Before about 1960 most geologists made fun of the idea of plate
tectonics & continental drift. Today it’s almost universally
accepted. Once this new theory was accepted all the older theories
were thrown out. But there are still some who disagree with plate
tectonics. Whether it is true or not, it doesn’t affect the Creation
model. But there is an unanswered question about plate tectonics -
where is all this tremendous energy coming from? With the Creation
model, most of the subterranean energy was released in the cataclysmic
flood, the energy left is volcanic in nature.

The thing about the creation theory that evolutionists object to most
is the very short span of time that everything would be in. Therefore
processes that suggest a short period of time, must be explained away
into something which requires a longer time scale, before it is
accepted into the geologic picture.

The problem with this thinking is that things can only be verified by
observations within the written record. How long have we had written
records, maybe several thousand years? Anything before that nobody
can possibly know. It would be pure speculation. As far as we know,
nobody has written down when rocks were formed or anything that has to
do with explaining the geologic column.

They have a way of determining “old rocks” from “new rocks”. But old
rocks don’t look old & new rocks don’t look new. Could they be wrong
in their determinations? After all, every rock type is found in every
“age”. The mineral composition is not used in the determination.
Even oil can be found in rocks of all ages. A rock’s age is not
determined by it’s structural features. Here’s a comment made by J.
A. Jeletzsky, in the article “Paleontology, Basis of Practical
Geochronology” in the "Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists" (April 1956): “It is, indeed, a well-established fact that
the (physical-stratigraphical) rock units & their boundaries often
transgress geologic time planes in most irregular fashion even within
the shortest distances.”


Rocks are not dated by other rocks that are near them. There’s no
order at all. Older rocks could be sitting on top of younger rocks.
All rocks ages, no matter where they’re found are in a hodge-podge
mixture. Here’s what E. M. Spieker says in the article
“Mountain-Building Chronology & the Nature of the Geologic Time-Scale”
in "Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum Geologists" (Aug. 1956):
“Further, how many geologists have pondered the fact that lying on
the crystalline basement are found from place to place not merely
Cambrian, but rocks of all ages?”

Rocks are not dated by their vertical position in the geologic column.
Finding rocks in a reverse order is more common than finding them in
a chronologic order. It seems that the determination of a rock’s age
is unlikely & unreliable. There are so many possibilities of error,
that if a radiometric reading of a rock doesn’t fit the predetermined
date that is agreed upon, then the reading is rejected. What kind of
system is that?

Physical appearance has nothing to do with determining the age of
rocks. Again, J. A. Jeletzsky makes a comment in his article
“Paleontology, Basis of Practical Geochronology” in "Bulletin, American
Association of Petroleum Geologists" (April 1956): “The more than
amply proved & almost unanimously recognized impossibility of
establishing any practically useful broadly regional or worldwide
geologic time scale based on the physical-stratigraphical criteria
alone for the vast expanse of pre-Cambrian time supplies conclusive
proof that these phenomena are devoid of any generally recognizable
geologic time significance.”

In many cases fossils contained in the rocks cannot be used to date
the rocks, because many of them can be found living today. For
example, sponges could be found throughout all ages. In many cases a
rocks age is decided by the “index fossils” that it contains.


From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing 1996;
page 134-135. Used with permission from the publisher - Master Books, Inc., 
Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: “But just how do geologists know which 
index fossils date which age?  The answer to this question is evolution! 
That is, since evolution has taken place in the same direction all over the world, 
the stage of evolution attained by the organisms living in a given age should be 
an infallible criterion to identify sediments deposited in that age.  Thus, rocks 
are dated by their fossil contents, especially their index fossils.” H.D. Hedberg, 
president of the Geoloigical Society of America, at the time, (in the article, 
"The Stratigraphic Panorama," of Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 
Vol. 72, April, 1961) goes on to show how the sequence of the strata is
decided: “...fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution 
of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning 
of strata in widely separated regions & from continent to continent."  He then explains 
how fossils do this: “Through their record of the evolution of life.”


So, in other words, the theory of evolution determines everything!
And this was coming from a guy in authority, back in a critical period
of time when the pieces of the geologic (evolution) puzzle was being
put together. Today evolution is considered by most to be fact.
Everything else is rejected.

Confirming this way of thinking are J. F. Evernden, D. E. Savage, G.
H. Curtis & G. T. James, authors of the article “K/A Dates & the
Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America” in "American Journal of
Science" (Feb. 1964): “The only chronometric scale applicable in
geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks & for
dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to
the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time scale
for relative age determinations & for worldwide correlations of
rocks.”

President of the Geological Society of America, at the time of
writing, H. D. Hedberg confirms this statement in the article “The
Stratigraphic Panorama” in "Bulletin of the Geological Society of
America" (April 1961): “That our present-day knowledge of the sequence
of strata in the earth’s crust is in major part due to the evidence
supplied by fossils is a truism. Merely in their role as distinctive
rock constituents, fossils have furnished, through their record of the
evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the
relative positioning of strata in widely separated regions & from
continent to continent.”


Adding to the reliance on the fossil record is Carl O. Dunbar’s
statement in his book "Historical Geology": “Fossils provide the only
historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to
more & more complex forms.”

From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing
1996; page 136. Used with permission from the publisher - Master
Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: “Here is
obviously a powerful system of circular reasoning. Fossils are used
as the only key for placing rocks in chronological order. The
criterion for assigning fossils to specific places in that chronology
is the assumed evolutionary progression of life; the assumed
evolutionary progression is based on the fossil record so constructed.
The main evidence for evolution is the assumption of evolution!”

Therefore fossils don’t provide a reliable dating method for rocks.
That means that the gigantic assumed time-scale is also unreliable.
The Creation model doesn’t necessitate a short time-span. It just
makes more sense & fit’s the facts better. But the Evolution model
needs a huge time-scale, in order for it to work. Anything that
favors a short time-scale, the Evolution model is forced to reject.

If there really was a Creator, why would he waste vast eons of time
for irrelevant events to get ready for life to be achieved?

Most of us have been taught from early in life that evolution is
science. There are a lot of things that we have not been shown. We
were only taught those things that favor a gigantic time-scale, & that
fit into the theory of evolution.

We haven’t been taught about the unreliability of most dating methods.
For almost ¾ of a century we’ve been taught that radioactive dating
“proved” that the earth is billions of years old. It is assumed that
it takes millions of years for uranium to decay, but there's no way to test
it. Recorded history is only several thousand years old. Anything
beyond that is guesswork. There is no way to truly know the age of
any geologic formation. But only the sciences that purport great age,
are accepted by evolutionists.

The most common dating method is uranium dating. It was the first
method discovered & the one that corresponds to all other methods.
Using this method of dating rocks, they have it figured that the earth
is 4 ½ to 5 billion years old. But this method has its problems, as
noted by Henry Faul in his book "Ages of Rocks, Planets & Stars":
“Uranium & lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, & detailed
analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them.
Similar difficulties prevail in attempts to date pitchblende veins.
Here again much chemical activity is known to take place & widely
diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot.”


They had problems trying to date lunar rocks. In the article, “Dating
of Moon Samples: Pitfalls & Paradoxes” in "Science News" (Jan. 1, 1972),
author Evelyn Driscoll said, “If all the age-dating methods
(rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead & potassium-argon) had yielded the
same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven’t The lead
ages, for example, have been consistently older. This led Leon T.
Silver, of the Calif. Institute of Technology, to study the
temperatures at which lead volatilizes (vaporizes) & moves out of the
lunar sample. Theoretically, this could happen on the moon & this
volatized lead would become ‘parentless’-separated from its uranium
parent. More lead (parent-less lead added to the material) would
yield older ages.”

The understanding of uranium dating methods can get very complicated &
technical. So, this subject will not be thoroughly explored in this
space. Although there are some scientific proofs against it. The
main problem with this method is that decay rates may vary, & may have
been affected by other variables such as cosmic radiation from
supernova explosions, reversal of the earth’s poles, etc. This was
pointed out by Frederick Jueneman in the article, “Scientific
Speculation” in "Industrial Research" (Sept. 1972): “Being so close,
the anisotropic neutrino flux of the super-explosion must have had the
peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks. This
would knock our Carbon-14, Potassium-Argon, & Uranium-Lead dating
measurements into a cocked hat! The age of the universe would be
thrown into doubt.”

Another study was done by British engineer Sidney P. Clementson.
Among his observations was the fact that some known modern-age
volcanic rocks showed an age measured to be more than a billion years
old. Here’s what he wrote in "Creation Research Society Quarterly"
(Dec. 1970): “Calculated ages give no indication whatever of the age
of the host rocks.”

The age is mainly interpreted by the evolutionary fossil record. In
the article, “Mountain-Building Chronology & the Nature of the
Geologic Time-Scale” in "Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum
Geologists" (Aug. 1956), author E. M. Spieker says, “And what
essentially is this actual time-scale? On what criteria does it rest?
When all is winnowed out & the grain reclaimed from the chaff, it is
certain that the grain in the product is mainly the paleontologic
record & highly likely that the physical evidence is the chaff.”

Concerning potassium-argon dating, in the article, “K/A Dates & the
Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America,” in the "American 
Journal of Science" (Feb. 1964) the authors, J. F.
Evernden, D. E. Savage, G. H. Curtis & G. T. James agree that:
“Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for
potassium-argon dating….We have analyzed several devitrified glasses
of known age, & all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave
virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that
diversification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit.”
And in the article, “Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites” in
"Planetary Science Abstracts" (Annual Meeting of the American
Geophysical Union, 1967), authors L. A. Raneitelli & D. E. Fisher say,
“As much as 80% of the potassium in a small sample of an iron
meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours.” That
sounds pretty unreliable to me.
 

Another unreliable dating was reported by authors C. S. Noble & J. J.
Naughton in the article, “Deep-Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content &
Uncertainties in Age Dating” of "Science" (Oct. 11, 1968): “The
radiogenic argon & helium contents of three basalts erupted into the
deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages
calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22
million years for lavas deduced to be recent. Caution is urged in
applying dates from deep-ocean basalts in studies on ocean-floor
spreading.” These “false” age-datings are known to occur often.

Author Joan C. Engels, in the article, “Effects of Sample Purity on
Discordant Mineral Ages Found in K-Ar Dating,” of "Journal of Geology"
(Sept. 1971), has this to say about this type of dating technique:
“It is now well known that K-Ar ages obtained from different minerals
in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.”

The other main method of dating is the Rubidium-Strontium method.
This method is tied to or calibrated with the uranium method.
Therefore, it, too, is unreliable. In the article, “Do Radiological
Clocks Need Repair?”, in Creation Research Society Quarterly (Oct.
1968), author Melvin A. Cook says, “Therefore, even if one were to
agree for the sake of argument that the earth is five billion years
old, radiogenic Sr-87 would be only about 5 percent of all Sr-87
present in the rocks.”

These methods do not prove that the earth is very old. In fact, the
evidence points to a world far younger. For example, it is a known
scientific fact that cosmic dust particles enter our atmosphere
constantly. These particles eventually settle down to the earth. The
amount of this material was calculated to be 14 million tons per year,
by author Hans Pettersson, in the article, “Cosmic Spherules &
Meteoritic Dust,” in "Scientific American" (Feb. 1960). At this rate,
if the Earth were 5 billion years old, this cosmic dust would be about
182 feet thick, covering the entire planet. Even if the world was
only 5 million years old there would be a 2 inch layer. They may
argue a point about mixing, but this cosmic dust has a specific
composition. It contains a lot of nickel & iron. Nickel is kind of a
rare element. Why isn’t there a noticeable amount on our surface, if
this planet is so old?
 

Considering the physical processes that go on in the world, & the
dating methods that are used, From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M.
Morris, Twentieth printing 1996; page 159. Used with permission from
the publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: “The
obvious way by which the evolution model can be accommodated to all
these processes is to modify the uniformitarian assumption adequately
for each case. It should be remembered, however, that this is done in
order to accommodate the evolution model, not because any scientific
evidence requires it!”

The dating of archaeological sites involves processes that are
uncertain & leads to assumptions that are unlikely & unreliable.
The only evidence of the earth to be billions of years old is the fact
that the theory of evolution requires it to be, & most scientists
believe in evolution because that’s what they’ve always been taught.

We are taught that man & ape came from the same ancestors from 30 to
70 million years ago, & that modern man has been around for a million
years or more. They use fossils that are dated using the unreliable
dating methods already discussed, to try to further their theory of
evolution. They use the radio-carbon method to go back as far as
50,000 years. I prefer not to give the complicated explanation of how
this works. I wish to keep this simple. If you want a good detailed
explanation, then I suggest to read "Scientific Creationism".

Let me just say that there’s a lot of evidence against the accuracy of
radio-carbon dating. And I will quote some scientists who believe
radio-carbon dating to be unreliable. Radiocarbon dating was
developed by Dr. W. F. Libby, who admitted in his book "Radiocarbon
Dating": “If one were to imagine that the cosmic radiation had been
turned off until a short while ago, the enormous amount of radiocarbon
necessary to the equilibrium state would not have been manufactured &
the specific radioactivity of living matter would be much less than
the rate of production calculated from neutron intensity.”

In the article, “Production of C-14 by Cosmic 8 Ray Neutrons” in
"Reviews of Geophysics" (Feb. 1963), author Richard E. Ligenfelter said,
“There is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the
present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as
much as 25%….It appears that equilibrium in the production & decay of
Carbon-14 may not be maintained in detail.”

In the article, “Secular Variations in the Cosmic-Ray Produced
Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere & Their Interpretations” in "Journal of
Geophysical Research" (Dec. 1, 1965), author Hans E. Suess said, “It
seems probable that the present-day inventory of natural C-14 does not
correspond to the equilibrium value, but is increasing.”

In the article, “Radioactive Dating & Low-Level Counting” in "Science"
(Aug. 1, 1967), author V. R. Switzer said, “These results….indicate
that the concentration increases at least during the past 10,000
years.”

So, there does seem to be an imbalance in the data. From "Scientific Creationism",
by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing 1996; page 165. Used with permission from the
publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: 
“The most reasonable conclusion from this fact is that the C-14/C-12 ratio 
is still building up in the world environment, for the reason that the required 
30,000 years have not yet passed.” 

Another interesting observation is a population explosion, which is
just now happening. If people have been around for over a million
years, doesn’t it seem pretty far-out that this problem didn’t occur a
long, long time ago? If we just do the math, we can figure this out
easily. If we assume that the current population started with just
one couple (2 people), & that if they just produce 2.5 children every 40
years, we would have about 3½ billion people in about 4,000 years.
In a million years (that would be about 25,000 generations), how come
there’s only less than 7 billion people on the planet?
 

The evolutionists claim that man came from apes, & have collected
fossil “evidence,” to prove it, right? Wrong! The fossil evidence
that they have are either man or ape, not an intermediate species.
There is no common ancestor of both man & ape (missing link).
Some of the fossils in which they use for example as possible
ancestors of man include: Ramapithecus, Oreopithecus, Dryopithecus,
Limnopithecus, Kenyapithecus, etc. The “pithecus” stands for “ape”.
Therefore, these fossils are of the ape family. These creatures lived
about 14 million years ago (according to evolution). The most
important of these is Ramapithecus. The total evidence of this
creature consists of only several teeth & jaw fragments.

Probably the most important & famous fossils are the ones found by the
Leakey family. Three generations of fossil hunters have found what
are purported to be the oldest human fossils. These include
Australopithecus, found in E. Africa by Louis Leakey, & his son
Jonathon Leakey found Homo habilis. Richard Leakey, also a son of
Louis, went on to find more complete bone sets of Australopithecus.
Australopithecus was supposed to have lived 2-3 million years ago.
It’s brain was small, like a present-day apes’. It walked upright &
used simple tools. Chimpanzees do the same thing today. These
fossils are just an extinct ape.
 
The article, “Australopithecus a Long-Armed, Short-Legged
Knuckle-Walker” in "Science" (Nov. 27, 1971), had this to say about it:
“Australopithecus limb bone fossils have been rare finds, but Leakey
now has a large sample. They portray Australopithecus as long-armed &
short-legged. He was probably a knuckle-walker, not an erect walker,
as many archaeologists presently believe.”

Then we have “Homo Erectus,” which includes, Peking Man, Java Man,
Heidelberg Man, Meganthropus, etc. These are believed to have lived
about a half a million years ago, & had a brain about twice the size
as Australopithecus. These are more uncertain examples used to
mislead & confuse us. These possibly could’ve been men. Here’s what
"Scientific American" (Oct. 1972) said about them in their article,
“Last Adam”: “Skulls that were buried a scant 10,000 years ago now
suggest that, at a time, when elsewhere in the Old World the successor
species Homo sapiens was turning from hunting & gathering to
agriculture, some Homo erectus genes lingered in Australia.” This
sort of rules out the possibility of it being our ancestor, & more
likely a cousin. Some may argue that the brain was too little to be
human, but there are humans with the same brain size today.

Brain size doesn’t determine intelligence, anyway. Here’s what D. R.
Pilbeam said about it in the article, “Review of The Brain in Hominid
Evolution” in "Science" (Mar. 10, 1972): “In fact, increasing brain
volume of itself tells us little, since it merely reflects changes in
internal brain organization at a variety of levels.”

Next we come to the well known Neanderthal man. This is the guy that
is pictured hunched over with a slumped-forehead & carrying a club on
his shoulder. This is the one fossil find where they’ve collected
quite a few bones. That’s because this guy was a man. Haven’t you
ever seen anybody with that Neanderthal-look, today? There are some
scientists that believe that the original Neanderthal fossils found,
were of a being that was either crippled or had arthritis. We see
people stooped over & even hunch-backs today.

Here’s what Theodosius Dobzhansky said in the article, “Changing Man”
in "Science" (Jan. 27, 1967): “The cranial capacity of the Neanderthal
race of Homo sapiens was, on the average, equal to or even greater
than that in modern man. Cranial capacity & brain size are, however,
not reliable criteria of ‘intelligence’ or intellectual abilities of
any kind.” In the article, “Neanderthals Had Rickets” of "Science
Digest" (Feb. 1971) it is stated: “Neanderthal man may have looked
like he did, not because he was closely related to the great apes, but
because he had rickets, an article in the British publication NATURE
suggests. The diet of Neanderthal man was definitely lacking in
Vitamin D during the 35,000 years he spent on earth.”

Neanderthal was a man. He had tools, he painted on cave walls, & even
buried their dead. In the article, “Use of Symbols Antedates
Neanderthal Man” in "Science Digest" (Mar. 1973), it is stated:
“Communication with inscribed symbols may go back as far as 135,000
years in man’s history, antedating the 50,000-year-old Neanderthal
man. Alexander Marshack of Harvard’s Peabody Museum made this
pronouncement recently after extensive microscopic analysis of a
135,000-year-old ox rib covered with symbolic engravings. The results
of his findings are that it is a sample of ‘pre-writing,’ that there
is a distinct similarity in cognitive style between it and those
75,000 years later, and….it establishes a tradition of carving that
stretches over thousands of years.”

There is proof that modern man lived side-by-side with his ape-like
ancestors, or maybe even before them. Here are some quotes from the
article, “Leakey’s New Skull Changes our Pedigree & Lengthens our
Past” in "Science News" (Nov. 18, 1972): “Last year Leakey & his
co-workers found three jaw bones, leg bones & more than 400 man-made
stone tools. The specimens were attributed to the genus Homo & were
dated at 2.6 million years.”, “Leakey further described the whole
shape of the brain case as remarkable reminiscent of modern man,
lacking the heavy & protruding eyebrow ridges & thick bones
characteristic of Homo erectus.” & “In addition to the as yet unnamed
skull, the expedition turned up parts of the leg bones of two other
individuals. These fossils surprisingly show that man’s unique
bipedal locomotion was developed at least 2.5 million years ago.”
Wouldn’t this go against the imaginary evolution? Or does it just add
more confusion to their tangled mess of explanations?

Here’s what author Ronald Schiller says in the article, “New Findings
on the Origin of Man” in "Reader’s Digest" (Aug. 1973): “The descent of
man is no longer regarded as a chain with some links missing, but
rather as a tangled vine whose tendrils loop back & forth as species
interbred to create new varieties, most of which died out….It may be
that we did not evolve from any of the previously known human types,
but descended in a direct line of our own.” Referring to a discovery
of modern-man type fossils in a cave in S. Africa, believed to be up
to 100,000 years old, Schiller also commented, “….The Border Cave
dwellers had already learned the art of mining. They manufactured a
variety of sophisticated tools, including agate knives with edges
still sharp enough to slice paper. They could count & kept primitive
records on fragments of bone. They also held religious convictions &
believed in the after life.”

Between 1860 & 1886 at least 3 modern-type human skulls were found in
strata within the Pliocene era. These finds are now forgotten about.
Others have been found & ignored or explained away. There seems to be
indications that man is much older than they want to believe. Or
their dating methods may be questionable. Either way, something isn’t
right. In the Creation model, all humans would have been within about
the last 10,000 years, & there are NO apes in the mix.

There is no definite proof that man came from ape. Men are men & apes
are apes. They’re just confused about which is which. Just like the
different animal types, there are NO transitional life forms.
 

How would an animal evolve human language? This could be the biggest
gap. In studying the noises made by monkeys & apes, J. B. Lancaster
said, in his book "The Origin of Man", “The more that is known about it,
the less these systems seem to help in the understanding of human
language.” In the book, "The Tree of Culture", author Ralph Linton
said, “The use of language is very closely associated with the
superior thinking ability of humans. In his ability to communicate
man differs even more from other animals than he does in his learning
or thinking….However, man is the only species which has developed
communication to the point where he can transmit abstract ideas….It is
a curious fact that there is no mammalian species other than man which
imitates sounds….In this respect, humans are truly unique. We know
absolutely nothing about the early stages in the development of
language….”

Referring to ancient languages, author George G. Simpson, in the
article “The biological Nature of Man” in "Science" (April 22, 1966),
said: “The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is
already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of
view.”

The fact that any man can learn any language suggests that all
languages are related, as are all men. The only way to explain the
various languages is that the Creator had his special purposes.
Men have capabilities that no animal can even come close to. We have
culture, music, humor, skills & imaginations that cannot be taught to
any animal, no matter how smart or developed it is. There is a BIG
difference between men & animals. And there is no ancestral linkage,
we are a special creation of a Creator.

Creationists do not deny that some men lived in caves, hunted &
gathered, had simple tools & drew simple pictures on walls, in a
“stone-age.” There was once a simpler culture where crude tools &
crude skills were used. There are still people living like this in
the jungles, today. These facts aren’t just evidence for evolution.
In the Creation model a simple life-style would be natural after the
Great Flood left only a few survivors.
 

These survivors first tasks would’ve been to domesticate plants &
animals for food, so that other skills could be developed. Naturally,
men would’ve progressed slowly, developing metals & communities along
the way. Some skills, such as metallurgy may have already been
developed before the flood. But then, it would have taken awhile to
find new sources for ores.

Dates were recorded by Sumerians & Egyptians using lists of kings.
These go back to about 3,000-3,500 B.C. But going by radiocarbon
dating methods (which we’ve already discussed to be wrong) the dates
are way-off, as early as 8,000-9,000 B.C. Colin Renfrew shows how
far-off they are with this dating method, in his article, “Archaeology
& the Prehistory of Europe” in "Scientific American" (Oct. 1971):
“Instead of yielding the expected dates of around 4000 or 4500 B.C.,
the earliest villages in the Near East proved to date back to as early
as 8000 B.C.” This dating method has also been proven to be far-off
when compared to counting the tree rings of the oldest living trees
(if each tree ring equals one year, which it is believed to be).
It seems that the Creation model seems to fit ALL the scientific
proofs, including linguistics, geology, biology, etc. much better than
the Evolution model. The Creation model has NO gaps. It doesn’t have
to make excuses.

Why do you think that men who supposedly lived 100,000 years ago would
have religious convictions & believed in an after-life? Can evolution
& even atheism be considered a religion? They certainly seem to be,
since religion requires a certain degree of faith. And this is why
creationists object to the teaching of ONLY evolution in the school
system. They may have faith in evolution, but we have faith in
creation. Creation science proves that evolution is just a farce,
just evolutionary propaganda!

According to the American Humanist Association, in their membership
brochure (What is Humanism?): “Humanism is the belief that man shapes
his own destiny. It is a constructive philosophy, a non-theistic
religion, a way of life….The American Humanist Association is a
non-profit, tax-exempt organization, incorporated in the early 1940’s
in Illinois for educational & religious purposes.” Isn’t this proof
enough that evolution is a religion? Many well-known evolutionist are
members of this Assn. One of it’s founders, John Dewey was the guy
most responsible for our public education. One of their promotional
brochures quotes Julian Huxley as saying: “I use the word ‘humanist’
to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural
phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind & soul were not
supernaturally created but are products of evolution, & that he is not
under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but
has to rely on himself & his own powers.” How is it that no one
questions guys like these, but excepts their every word as solid fact?
Just saying these things doesn’t make them fact. They can choose to
believe what they want, but don’t force it on us! Our children should
be given a choice. The Creation model should be taught equally
alongside the Evolution model.

According to Christian O. Weber, author of "Basic Philosophies of
Education": “Dewey was the first philosopher of education to make
systematic use of Darwin’s ideas.”


In true science, effects must have a satisfactory cause, or do they
just believe in magic? They’re calling fantasies “science,” & then
put their unwavering faith in it. If that isn’t religion, what is?

It has been shown that the Creation model, along with a cataclysm, fit
the facts much better, & more natural than the theories of the
Evolution model. The problems encountered with the Evolution model
are much more serious. The level of probability falls on the side of
the Creation model.

If Creation is a fact, then the universe is a creation of a Creator.
And man is his creation with a purpose. The book of Genesis explains
how the Creator made everything from the beginning. The makers of the
New Testament & even Jesus Christ acknowledged that Genesis was fact.
Genesis was a historical record of creation.

If there was a Creator, he made each creature with a specific purpose,
but the “big picture” is just too enormous for any one person to
grasp. But he didn’t use “trial-&-error,” as evolution suggests. His
creation was a continuous process, NOT full of gaps. He made his
creation with the appearance of age. Adam & Eve were full-grown
adults, as possibly was the earth & universe. Why would he do that,
you may wonder. Maybe God has a sense of humor.


When first created, the earth would’ve been different than it is today.
Instead of an ocean, “And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse between
the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the expanse and
separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it
was so.” (Gen. 1:6-7) [New International version]. In other words
there were waters above the firmament. This must have been a thick
cloud of vapor shielding the earth, making a greenhouse effect.
Temperatures would’ve been more uniform & most harmful radiation
shielded. This would have made ideal conditions for plant life to
flourish. Plant & animals may have gotten much larger, & men may have
lived much longer, as Genesis later says they did.

There must’ve been great reservoirs of water beneath the ground,
because, “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth
day of the second month - on that day all the springs of the great
deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.”
(Gen. 7:11). After the great cataclysmic flood there was a huge
ocean.

Before Adam and Eve gave into the Devil’s temptation of eating the
forbidden apple, there was no sin & no death. That brought a curse
upon man that became the beginning of decay & death. This is verified
in Romans 5:11, “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one
man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men,
because all sinned -”. This decay would’ve been the beginning of the
Second Law of Thermodynamics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics, the Law of Conservation of
Mass-Energy, would have began when: “Thus the heavens and the earth
were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had
finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested
from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy,
because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had
done.” (Gen. 2:1-3)[New International Version].

Scientists don’t know why these two laws always work, but they do know
that they do always work. Well, the Bible gives us the when but not
the why. The Creator made a great change in the laws of nature when
he cursed Adam. And again He made a great change in the earth when He
caused the Great Flood of Noah’s time.


Man has taken the evidence of the Great Flood & turned it into
evidence, using the fossil records, for the phony theory of evolution.
The Bible describes the Great Flood in detail. The flood is able to
explain all of the fossils. Therefore, there is no scientific
necessity for making up geologic ages.

In the first chapter of Genesis, where God created all living
creatures, He uses the term, “….according to its kind.”, each time He
created each type of creature. He didn’t make creatures to jump from
category to category. There were no in-between creatures, no
transformations or evolutions. Each creature was in a distinct
category.

Everything was created within the first seven days of creation.
Nothing evolved over eons of time. Evolution is inconsistent with
God’s plan. It’s full of gaps, misfits, flukes, extinctions & a lot
of imagination. It shows nothing but bad planning on God’s behalf.
In fact, it’s an insult to faithful Christians. Random mutation
doesn’t equal solid science. The theory of evolution is so unstable
that they have to constantly change it, tweak it to fit whatever the
latest discoveries prove.

There are no gaps in the Creation model. In Genesis the specific age
of each generation is given from Adam up until the flood. "Scientific
Creationism" has it calculated to be 1656 years, & from the flood until
Abraham went to Canaan it was another 368 years. And it is figured
that this happened around 4,000 years Before Christ.
From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing 1996; page 247.
Used with permission from the publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green
Forest, AR; copyright 1974: "Therefore, the world isn’t nearly as old
as they would like us to believe. These figures may be off a little,
but probably not by much. Also, it cannot be known how long Adam
lived before he ate the forbidden fruit & was cursed. Because death
had not yet been established, he may have lived quite some time before
sin & decay were introduced into the world."

There are various translations, one of which could add up to 1466
years to the figures above. There is no way to determine the exact
age of the earth because of these discrepancies. Even so, the world
is still very young.

"Scientific Creationism" puts it this way: “….the only real assurance
men have of the geological ages is the assumption of evolution. That
is, since evolution ‘must’ be true (the only alternative is
creation!), therefore it is ‘known’ that life, the earth & the
universe must be extremely old.” From "Scientific Creationism", by
Henry M. Morris, Twentieth printing 1996; page 229. Used with
permission from the publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR;
copyright 1974.

From "Scientific Creationism", by Henry M. Morris,
Twentieth printing 1996; page 255. Used with permission from the
publisher - Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 1974: 
“How is it that the usual slow, uniform processes of nature could
leave permanent records in the form of great sedimentary strata &
fossil graveyards all over the world & through all ages, while a
uniquely powerful worldwide hydrodynamic convulsion - which destroyed
all living land animals & the earth itself - would leave no
discernible records whatever, posses a unique geological conundrum.
The idea of a worldwide, year-long ‘tranquil’ flood is hydrological &
geophysically absurd.”

Anyone wishing to know more facts & details than what is provided
here, it would be recommended to read the book "Scientific Creationism".
Here is the book on the publishers’ website:
http://www.newleafpublishinggroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=172
This book is also highly recommended to be included in all church
libraries.

AND THIS IS THE END OF THE "SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM" SECTION.
The book “The LIE: Evolution” by Ken Ham is also recommended. It
doesn’t have near as much scientific proofs of creation versus
evolution, but it takes a more Biblical stand in defending creation.

It points out how society has been brain-washed into believing
evolution & because of that, how we have changed our morality into one
that tells us that we can think what we want to think & do what we
want to do if it feels good. If we dismiss the rules that God gave
us, then we can make up our own rules about what is right & wrong.
This takes away the restraints of sexual conduct, greed & everything
that goes against the 10 Commandments. If there’s no God or rules,
then we can do what we want. If we believe in evolution, then there’s
no need for principals, we are just drifting in a purposeless
universe. The belief in evolution is a main cause for the problems of
society. Where are the morals in a society of “survival of the
fittest?”

Evolution is directly opposed to the Biblical account of Genesis.
There are even many Christians who believe in evolution. If these
Christians see Genesis as NOT the literal truth, then how can they
trust any of the Bible? If ANY part of the Bible is not the truth,
then all of our faith is in big trouble.

Author Ken Ham is part of a group in Australia called the "Institute
for Creation Research". He has given lectures all over Australia &
also in the U.S. His lectures have helped many become more capable in
their witnessing for our Lord.

In "The LIE: Evolution", Ham mentions how society’s values used to be
based on Biblical doctrine & morals. Then came the theory of
evolution. If people don’t believe in the Bible & in God, then why
should they follow the 10 Commandments & Bible principals? Even among
Christians, many believe that Genesis is just symbolic & that science
has proven evolution to be true. Nothing can be further from the
truth. We are in a battle for men’s souls. We have been deceived
into believing that evolution is science. What evolution really is,
is a false belief system.


Who was really there to witness how everything was created? Only God.
There were no scientists to witness the big bang, how the earth was
formed, or the evolution of any species. Should we believe the true
Creator or the ideas of imperfect men? Evolutionary scientists are
not objective in seeking truth. With atheistic viewpoints, they look
in the fossil record for what they want to see & ignore all else (the
real truth). Now, almost every magazine article, book or TV
documentary shows us what the evolutionary scientists want us to
believe. According to author Ken Ham, “The controversy is not
religion versus science, as the evolutionist try to make out. It is
religion versus religion, the science of one religion versus the
science of the other.” The Bible says that only God knows everything.
If we can’t trust Genesis to be true, how can we trust any part of
the Bible to be true?

Through years of lecturing, Ken Ham has found out that many Christians
believe in evolution. They’ll give God the credit of creating, but
think that He did it through evolution. They call this “theistic
evolution.” This kind of thinking creates a lot of confusion for
believers. This confusion of evolution has been taught to us in
schools & is in almost everything that we read. It has become the
foundation of our thinking. This evolution foundation goes against
our Christian beliefs. As Christians we believe that the Bible is the
Word of God.

"The LIE: Evolution" says: “Darwinian evolution provided a
justification for people not to believe in God & therefore, to do
those things which Christians would deem as wrong. As one
non-Christian scientist said in a TV interview, ‘Darwinian evolution
helped make atheism respectable.’”

Ken Ham also brings up the matter of racism, how evolutionists think
that the Negroid race is much older than Caucasian or Mongolian races,
& that races such as the Aborigines of Australia are of inferior
intelligence. These views are part of the theory of evolution. The
Bible teaches us that all men are of the same race (that we all came
from Adam & Eve) & that all are equal. There are no sub-humans.

Ken Ham tells of a letter that he received from a man who used to
believe in evolution because that is what he was taught. He therefore
had no use for the Bible’s account of creation. He figured that the
Bible was unscientific, & therefore useless. He never would have
dreamed that evolution was just an assumption that someone made up,
until he heard Ham lecture. This is just one of many letters that he
received from people who were taught that evolution was scientific
fact. They never listened to Christianity because evolution had
proved Christianity to be wrong.

Even some ministers didn’t allow Ham to speak, because they said that
the Creation gospel would only confuse students. Ham says that there
is a war going on, & that we should arm ourselves as Christian
soldiers fighting for our King.

Ham has visited & lectured at many schools of theology & Bible
colleges. To my surprise he says that many future preachers are being
taught the theory of evolution as part of their beliefs. They are
told that they can believe in both the Bible & evolution. Evolution
goes against Christianity. We need to have faith that Genesis IS
God’s Word.

Ham says that we shouldn’t be against the humanists & evolutionists,
but the power that darkness has over them. He insists that, “We must
demonstrate grace toward humanists & evolutionists & let them see
clearly in us the fruits of the Spirit - in all we say, write, & do.”

Ham says that many churches have accepted evolution because it
maintains harmony. Nobody feels threatened, & everybody can work
together. As long as God gets the credit for creating, they don’t
think that it matters if God used evolution to get the job done. Here
is another quote from "The LIE: Evolution": “With people becoming so
intimately involved with the error of evolutionary philosophy, this
theory becomes generally accepted & taught through the churches,
Sunday schools, Christian schools, & religious educational programs,
as well as in the secular school classrooms. Consequently, the issue
doesn’t bother people any more.”

Ham maintains that the foundations of Christianity are built on our
faith in Creation. Evolution is trying to destroy the Church & we as
Christians need to be aware of this.


More recently "Discover Magazine" (April 2011) interviews Lynn Margulis,
a biologist who believes in evolution, although a very different type
of it. In 1967 her theory was first published by the "Journal of
Theoretical Biology." She believes that mitochondria & plastids, which
are basic components of plants & animals, were evolved from bacteria
millions of years ago. Whether her theory is correct or not is not as
important as her dismantling of much of the general “proofs” of normal
evolution. What her theory says is that colonies of these compound
cells called eukaryotes, were the beginnings of fungi, plants, animals
& people, & that live cells & the bacteria lived together in a sort of
symbiosis. This theory went on to becoming an accepted part of
science, to some scientists. However other biologists disagree &
stand by random mutation & natural selection.


Margulis doesn’t think that natural selection has much effect on
evolution. She also disagrees on an accumulation of random mutations
in the DNA, as the causation for evolution. She gives an example of
selection chickens that are laying the largest eggs. You may get
bigger eggs, but the chickens feathers become of inferior quality &
the chickens legs start shaking. She maintains that natural selection
doesn’t create.

When asked how she thought neo-Darwinism became so popular, she said
that it became popular in the first half of the 20th century after
Mendel’s rules of heredity became known (in the beginning of the 20th
century). She said that the problem lied with the rules of genetics,
which were stable, not changing. She said that Mendel proved that
grandparents & grandchildren could be identical, with no meaningful
change. But then Darwin says that everything keeps changing. She
accused the Darwinists of staying indoors & not going out to actually
observe nature, where she believes symbiosis is all over the place.

She went on to say that both Mendel & Darwin’s theories were
incomplete, with parts being trivial. She also don’t believe that new
species result from mutations. She said that she used to believe that
an accumulation of mutations led to new species, because this was
pounded in her over & over, until she started to look for it in
nature.

When asked by "Discover" interviewer Dick Teresi, “What kind of evidence
turned you against neo-Darwinism?”, Margulis replied, “What you’d like
to see is a good case for gradual change from one species to another
in the field, in the laboratory, or in the fossil record - and
preferably in all three. Darwin’s big mystery was why there was no
record at all before a specific point (dated to 542 million years ago
by modern researchers), and then all of a sudden in the fossil record
you get nearly all the major types of animals. The paleontologists
Niles Eldredge & Stephen Jay Gould studied lakes in East Africa & on
the Caribbean islands looking for Darwin’s gradual change from one
species of trilobite or snail to another. What they found was lots of
back-and-forth variation in the population & then - whoop - a whole
new species. There is no gradualism in the fossil record.”

She went on about the famous studies of the “beak of the finch” that
Darwin wrote about. She told about a couple of evolutionary
biologists, Peter & Rosemary Grant, who went to the Galapagos Islands
to study these finches. For years they measured eggs & beaks &
whatever. What they found was on one island where the birds had large
beaks, whenever it flooded & there were no large seeds. These birds
beaks didn’t adapt, instead they just died & became extinct. So much
for that argument.

She stated that Russian scientists believe that natural selection is
just a process of elimination & cannot account for all the diversity
that is observed. In fact they discarded Darwin’s theory.

When Teresi asked, “Gould used the term ‘punctuated equilibrium’ to
describe what he interpreted as actual leaps in evolutionary change.
Most biologists disagreed, suggesting a wealth of missing fossil
evidence yet to be found. Where do you stand in the debate?”,
Margulis said, “’Punctuated equilibrium’ was invented to describe the
discontinuity in the appearance of new species, & symbiogenesis
supports the idea that these discontinuities are real…”

Here is another mystery - Why do we have only about 3 billion base
pairs in our DNA, while a flowering plant in Japan, known as Paris
japonica has 150 billion base pairs?

Sir Fred Hoyle, author of "Life from Space", wrote an article for "Nature"
in 1981. Here‘s what he thought about evolution: "The likelihood of
the formation of life from inanimate mater is one to a number with
40,000 noughts after it.... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the
whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this
planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not
random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful
intelligence."
I have one more argument (it was noted in that first book that I mentioned).  
This is about the “Piltdown Man”.  The Piltdown man was concocted by one of 
the first evolutionists, Sir Arthur Smith.  The whole thing was a fraud to 
promote the theory of evolution. 
So, this Sir Arthur Smith gives this “fossil” to Charles Dawson, 
claiming that he found it in a gravel pit in Piltdown, England.  
Then Dawson, in turn, gives it over to the keeper of the British museum,  
Arthur Smith Woodward.  Together, they went  back to the gravel pit & 
found more bone fragments.  This whole thing took place back in 1912.
Within a year it was contested & published in “Nature” by David Waterston of King's 
College London, that it was an ape’s skull & human jawbone.  Then in 1915 the same 
conclusion was made by French paleontologist Marcellin Boule.  But that same year 
Dawson had discovered another specimen.
 
In 1923 the remains were examined by Franz Weidenreich, who proved that it was actually 
a human cranium & the jawbone of an orangutan with it’s teeth filed down.
By 1953 “Time” magazine announced that the Piltdown man forgery was composed of 
3 distinctly different species (orangutan, chimpanzee & human), & had been examined 
by 3 renown scientists.  Suspects in the hoax included:  Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de 
Chardin, Arthur Keith, Martin A. C. Hinton, Horace de Vere Cole and Arthur Conan Doyle.
The most important point of this story is that well over 20 years after the Piltdown 
Man was known to be a hoax, evolutionary scientists & publishers were still showing 
pictures of the Piltdown Man in school textbooks, as if he was a genuine part of evolution.  
That just goes to show you how far evolutionists will go to try to falsely prove their point! 
 
Latest Tidbit:  On page 72 of the April 2012 issue of "Discover" Magazine, is an article entitled: "20 Things You
Didn't Know About Science Fraud".  This is #9. - "Other legends who seem to have altered data: Freud, Darwin, 
& Pasteur. 
It all boils down to this: God’s existence cannot be proved or
disproved. If you have any doubts about God’s existence, it is safer
to reserve judgment about such an important matter. God affects the
world, but the world cannot affect the unchanging & eternal God. As
for all the suffering that’s gone on in this world, the Good Lord has
participated in it & stands with us if we let him. Most Christians in
times of suffering feel closest to the Lord, then. And the afterlife
will justify all of the injustices of this world.

Christians need to have intelligent reasoning for their faith. 1
Peter 3:15 says, “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always
be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the
reason for the hope that you have.”

Hope that this has been helpful & useful to you, renewing &
strengthening your faith.


* Any churches, organizations or websites who firmly share these
beliefs are encouraged to link to this website.

“At this time, no advertising is sold online. The creator maintains the site as a labor of love.”