SloppyNoodle.com
nav_line
home
nav_line
issues
nav_line
emerse
nav_line
Care
nav_line
about
nav_line

 

SloppyNoodle.com Updates

From my heart to yours Devotion

Darlene Zschech Inspiration



  “Why I am Not an Evolutionist …”

              The Science Lecture Class Handout

 By Andy Carmichael © 2003

Creation School Online with Andy Carmichael is hosted

at the website www.SloppyNoodle.com/ev.html

                 Andy_Ally@hotmail.com

1.     Introduction

“The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve … The general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

(Sir Fred Hoyle, evolutionist, atheist, astronomer, cosmologist, mathematician and Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University [1] )

“One of the reasons evolution continues to survive is that paleontologists believe geneticists have the real evidence [for evolution], and geneticists believe that paleontologists have the evidence, and so on around the various specialties within biology, each man passing the buck for evidence to the next man. Since professionals in different disciplines rarely talk with one another about such matters, the myth of overwhelming support for evolution continues. …

Sometimes people ask me how virtually all the evolutionists in the world could be so wrong about such an important issue as human origins. Answer : it wouldn’t be the first time.”

(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation, Creation Facts of Life, 1997 [2] )

“Regardless of how robustly dogmatic assertions to the contrary may be, even if they are made by the American Association for the Advancement of Science and endorsed by fifty thousand scientists, human evolution is simply not proven.”

(William Fix, evolutionist, 1984 [3] )

“I really do think that people have been so brainwashed into believing that evolution is a proven fact rather than one possible interpretation of the facts (which is a very different matter), that they are extremely surprised to find a practising scientist who at least appears to be intelligent espousing the cause of the Biblical account. … It is possible to be wholly scientific and at the same time to accept the opening chapters of Genesis as sober history. I think that what’s required is that we recognise that science has its limitations.”

(Professor E.H. Andrews, PhD, creationist scientist and Professor of Material Science at Queen Mary College, London University [4] )

“A person may choose any group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience he will be able to find a qualified author who says that the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.”

(Dr Bolton Davidheiser, zoologist and creationist scientist, 1969 [5] )

“Science does not claim a 10 billion year history of the world. Such a claim is beyond its scope. It only claims that, if we assume that the present laws of nature were always in force, then the world is that old. But, according to the simple meaning of the Torah’s narrative, the world – and the laws of nature with it – were created 5,740 years ago. This denies the non-scientific assumption of the scientists and does not quarrel with their scientific reasoning. In other words, the Torah does not at all contradict the claims of science, but only the hypothesis of scientists, which is not science at all.”

(Leo Levi, Jewish scholar, 1983 [6] )

“I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen.”

(Dr Clifford Wilson, former Director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology [7] )

“There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5-5 x 109 [i.e. 4.5 to 5 billion] years old. I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun [i.e. 6,000 years old]. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.”

(Dr John Eddy, PhD in Astrogeophysics, Solar Astronomer at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, Colorado, Geotimes, 1978 [8] )

2.        What is evolution ?

Evolution theory is a religious belief that fundamentally requires adherence to the religion of atheism and/or the religion of pantheism. “Evolution” is a hypothetical, unobserved process (without any known scientific mechanism) by which all things in the universe are said to have created themselves from nothing without needing the existence of a Creator. Evolution is a hypothetical process of onwards-and-upwards self-improvement where all things somehow create themselves and somehow increase their complexity of their own accord :

“Once in a while an evolutionist will say that any farmer who practices selective breeding is practising evolution. But as one farmer put it, ‘Mister, when I cross pigs, I get pigs. I don’t get dogs and cats and horses.’ ”

(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation, Creation Facts of Life, 1997 [9] )

“When someone asks if I believe in evolution, I’ll often say, ‘Why, yes, no, no, yes, no.’ The answer really depends on what the person means by evolution. In one sense, evolution means ‘change’. Do I believe in change ? Yes, indeed – I’ve got some in my pocket ! But change isn’t the real question, of course. Change is just as much a part of the creation model as the evolution model. The question is, what kind of change do we see : change only within kind (creation), or change also from one kind to others (evolution) ?”

(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation, Creation Facts of Life, 1997 [10] )

By one of the foundational laws of logic (the “law of excluded middle”) we know that either things were made or they were not made. Logically, there is no third alternative. If they were made, they were made by someone or something – this is the concept of creation. If they were not made by someone or something, they must have made themselves – this is the concept of evolution :

“Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or not. … If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.”

(Douglas Futuyma, evolutionist and biologist, Science on Trial, 1983 [11] )

3.     The Seven C’s of history

Evolutionists claim that the history of the universe can be summarised by four B’s :

1.      Big Bang

2.      Big Chance

3.      Big Struggle

4.      Big Death

In reality, these four B’s never occurred. Instead there are seven C’s of history :

1.      Creation

2.      Corruption (the Fall)

3.      Catastrophe (the global Flood of Noah)

4.      Confusion (the Tower of Babel)

5.      Christ (God born as a human being)

6.      Cross (death and resurrection of Christ)

7.      Consummation (future wrapping up)

4.     Timeline and overview of world history

Here is a summary of the history of the universe :

·         4,004 BC                  Biblical creation of the world, solar system, entire universe and time

·         2,348 BC                  Start of the year-long global Genesis Flood in Noah’s life

·         c. 2,165 - 1,990 BC    The lifetime of Abraham. Job also lived around this time.

·         c. 1,914 - 1,804 BC   The lifetime of Joseph

·         1,445 BC                  Exodus from Egypt; God gives Moses the 10 Commandments

·         c. 1,350 BC               King Tutankhamen reigns in Egypt

·         c. 1,320 BC               Rameses I reigns in Egypt

·         c. 971 BC                 King David dies and King Solomon starts to reign in Israel

·         c. 6 BC to 30 AD      Jesus walks the Earth as a human

·         1,066 AD                  William the Conqueror becomes king of England

·         2,003 AD                  The present.

·         God creates the universe, time, the galaxies, the stars, the solar system, the earth, dinosaurs, all other animal kinds, all plants, one man and one woman in week one of the creation 6,000 years ago in approximately 4,004 BC.

·         Exactly 1,656 years later, the global catastrophic Flood of Noah occurs, in 2,348 BC. It lasts just over one year and kills all people and all land-dwelling, air-breathing animals that were outside the Ark. Breeding pairs of dinosaurs were on the Ark with all other kinds of living and now extinct animal breeding pairs. It was not a local flood.

·         The occurrence of a global flood is equivalent to earth being young because the evolutionist’s main philosophical assumption in all their “dates” is that the earth has never experienced a global catastrophe and particularly not a global flood …

·         The Flood waters were primarily subterranean waters –  “the fountains of the great deep” and not rain. The Flood waters and associated tectonic upheaval totally reshape the surface of the Earth, form the present mountain ranges including the Himalayas, and form the Grand Canyon, and the continents rapidly split apart from what is now the base of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The global Flood forms the one-mile thick sedimentary layer all over the Earth. This rapidly hardens into rock because of cementing agents in the highly permineralised, highly pressurised and hot subterranean waters of the Flood (hydrothermal water), having killed and entombed the dead animals, plants and people that are trapped in it, and who rapidly become fossilised or turn to oil and coal. The northern mammoths are frozen and killed by suffocation and crushing by the fall-out from the now super-chilled, muddy “fountains of the great deep” that had jetted high above the stratosphere at the start of the global Flood. Coal and oil start to form worldwide from the dead remains, salt domes start forming and the process of liquefaction vertically sorts the sediments and the contents of the newly-formed global fossil record. Every time you fill up your car with petrol, you are filling up with the dead remains of people, plants and animals killed in the global Flood of Noah …

·         “Cute Ark” versus the Biblical Ark : The capacity of the Biblical Ark was vast : it was 450 feet long, 45 feet high and 75 feet wide. In terms of its cargo capacity, how many people, each weighing 100 kg, could Noah’s Ark have carried ? Would the answer be 150 people, 1,500 people, 15,000 people or 150,000 people ? The cargo capacity of Noah’s Ark was 15,000 tons. This means Noah’s Ark could have carried 150,000 people each weighing 100 kilograms …

·         The Ark needed at most only 16,000 individual animals, namely a breeding pair of the approximately 8,000 required air-breathing, land-dwelling animal kinds (i.e. mammals, birds, some reptiles and some amphibians) plus their food for one year. Whales were not required on Noah’s Ark as they could survive in the waters of the global Flood without drowning ! Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark ? Yes. What is the average size of a dinosaur found in the fossil record ? About the size of a sheep or a small cow. And there were only 20 to 30 kinds (or genera) of dinosaur despite the overly-many “species” names that are given to dinosaur remains.

·         The median size of the animals on the Ark has been calculated by biologists as being smaller than a sheep so the Ark would probably have been 2/3rd empty ... There are no logistical problems for 8 people to care for, feed and maintain these 16,000 animals for one year in the emergency floating shelter of Noah’s Ark.

·         Noah, his family and the animal breeding families disembark from the Ark in the 17,000 feet tall Ararat mountain range in Armenia, eastern Turkey. They spread out across the planet and rapidly repopulate the world in the 4,350 years since the global Flood. Many kinds, genera and species of animal and plant have since become extinct, including most or all of the large dinosaurs (diplodocus, T-rex, stegosaurs, etc.) as well as the dodo, the carrier pigeon, mammoths and many species of ape.

5.        The Biblical age of the earth and the universe

Bible Verse                 Event                                                              Age of the Earth in years

Genesis 1:1-31               Creation of universe, world, Adam and Eve, etc.             0

Genesis 5:3                   Seth born when Adam aged 130                                     130

Genesis 5:6                   Enosh born when Seth aged 105                                     235

Genesis 5:9                   Kenan born when Enosh aged 90                                   325

Genesis 5:12                  Mahalalel born when Kenan aged 70                              395

Genesis 5:15                  Jared born when Mahalalel aged 65                                460

Genesis 5:18                  Enoch born when Jared aged 162                                   622

Genesis 5:21                  Methusaleh born when Enoch aged 65                         687

Genesis 5:25                  Lamech born when Methusaleh aged 187                       874                  

Genesis 5:28                  Noah born when Lamech aged 182                                1056

Genesis 11:10                Shem was born 98 years before the Flood ended                        1559

Genesis 7:6,11               The worldwide Flood hit when Noah was aged 600         1656

Genesis 7:11, 8:13          The worldwide Flood ended after one year                      1657

Genesis 11:10                Arphaxad born to Shem two years after the Flood           1659

Genesis 11:12                Shelah born when Arpachshad aged 35                           1694

Genesis 11:14                Eber born when Shelah aged 30                                     1724

Genesis 11:16                Peleg born when Eber aged 34                                       1758

Genesis 11:18                Reu born when Peleg aged 30                                        1788

Genesis 11:20                Serug born when Reu aged 32                                        1820

Genesis 11:22                Nahor born when Serug aged 30                                                1850

Genesis 11:24                Terah born when Nahor aged 29                                                1879

Genesis 9:28                  Noah lives for further 350 years after the Flood ends       2007

Genesis 11:26                Abraham born when Terah aged 130 (not 70)                2009

Genesis 11:10-11           Shem lives for further 402 years after the Flood ends       2059

Genesis 11:32                Terah dies in Haran aged 205                                         2084

Genesis 12:4                  Abraham leaves Haran for Canaan aged 75                    2084

Genesis 21:5                  Isaac born when Abraham aged 100                               2109

Gen.12:10, Exodus         Exactly 430 years between Abraham leaving Haran       

12:40-41, Gal.3:17            for Canaan until the Exodus                                         2514

1 Kings 6:1                    480 years from the Exodus to the start of the Temple      2994

1 Kings 11:42                Solomon reigned 40 years, started the Temple in his 4th   

  year, start of Temple to division of Kingdom 37 years    3031

Ezekiel 4:4-6                 Division of the Kingdom to destruction of Jerusalem       

                                      was 388 whole years plus two part years                      3419

History and Jer. 25:1      Jerusalem destroyed in 586 BC (to 588 BC)                               

                                    Hence 586 BC was 3,419 years after creation

                                    Hence creation was 586 + 3419 - 1 = 4,004 BC

So Adam speaks of the creation to Methuselah who tells Shem (Noah’s son) who tells Abraham. Shem had 50 years to speak with Abraham and tell him every detail of creation and the global flood.

6.      Dating methods

The only supposed indicators of vast age in the universe are :

1.       Starlight from very distant galaxies and quasars. Evolutionists claim these galaxies and quasars are up to 10 billion light years distance away from us, so they claim that 10 billion years of time must have passed for the starlight to be reaching us today.

2.       Some radioactive dating “ages” of rocks from the earth and the moon. Evolutionists claim these radioactive dating methods give them ages of up to 10 billion years.

6.1  Distant starlight in a young universe :

The evolutionist’s first supposed indicator of vast age is this : if the solar system and the universe are around 6,000 years old, how can we see stars in galaxies and quasars that are said to be at a distance of more than 6,000 light years from the earth ? If the universe is 6,000 years old as the Bible clearly states, then the starlight that we see today has had no more than 6,000 years to cross the universe to reach the earth. Evolutionists claim that stars visible to us today are supposedly so far away from us it would have taken their starlight 10 billion years to cross the universe to reach the earth. So the universe, they claim, must be at least 10 billion years old or we would not be able to see these stars. A combination of the following five scientific explanations is most likely the answer to how we can see very distant starlight in a very young universe :

(a)    How are star distances estimated and how far away actually are the furthest stars ? :

On what scientific or mathematical basis do evolutionists claim that certain galaxies and quasars are distances of up to “10 billion light years away” from the earth ? It is a proven fact of astronomy that distances in space beyond 300 current light years cannot be scientifically measured, estimated or even known. The idea that quasars and some galaxies are distances of up to 10 billion light years away from us is only an evolutionist assumption based on the flawed evolutionist interpretation of the redshift of starlight and not a fact of astronomy or science. But redshift of starlight is not an indicator of distance, speed or recessional velocity (see astronomer Halton Arp’s book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies).

Further, since light currently travels a distance of 9.46 trillion kilometres through space in one year, this would still give an immensely vast diameter of the universe of 114 million billion kilometres (i.e. 2 x 9.46 trillion km x 6,000 years) even if the other four scientific explanations are ignored. The universe is probably smaller in diameter than is popularly believed. It is unknown (and scientifically unknowable) whether stars, galaxies and quasars are all located within a distance of 6,000 current light years from the earth.

(b)   Riemannian or curved space :

Space could be curved allowing distant starlight to reach us quickly by taking a “short-cut” through space on a curved path. In other words, space may be curved or Riemannian instead of being straight-line or Euclidean. Evolutionist Albert Einstein used this theoretical mathematical concept of Riemannian or curved space in his relativity theories.

(c)    An instantly mature creation :

The entire universe was certainly and very logically created as partly or fully mature and therefore was created with some appearance of age. However, this fact does not by itself explain how we can see supernova explosions that are at a supposed distance of more than 6,000 current light-years from the earth. The question to be asked is how does an evolutionist scientifically know a supernova’s distance from the earth ? As metioned above, it is scientifically impossible to estimate the distance of any object in space that is more than 300 light years away from the earth.

(d)   The speed of light has decreased enormously over the past 6,000 years :

Observations in astronomy over the past 325 years have shown a definite measured statistical decrease in the speed of light. Contrary to popular false belief, there is no scientific law that requires the speed of light to be constant. Even Einstein did not claim that the speed of light itself is constant but that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, or that the speed of light is constant with regard to all observers. And evolutionists themselves are now claiming that the speed of light was billions of times faster at their “time zero” to try to resuscitate their big bang theory. The observed historic decrease in the speed of light has been graphed mathematically and forms a logarithmic curve. Extrapolating this mathematical logarithmic curve back 6,000 years results in an almost infinite speed of light during the creation week 6,000 years ago. An initial almost infinite speed of light would easily allow all starlight, even in an almost infinitely large universe, to reach us within 6,000 years. If the speed of light has decreased substantially, this would make all radiometric dating methods produce artificially old billion-year “dates” for objects that are in reality only no more than a few thousand years old.

(e)   A rapid initial stretching out of space itself :

The Bible indicates at least twelve different times that God rapidly stretched out or spread out the heavens, which probably refers to the very fabric of space itself, most likely during the creation week of 6,000 years ago. This would also account for the observed redshift of most starlight. The question is therefore not how far away are the very distant stars, but how close to us were they when their starlight that we currently see first started out on its journey to us.

6.2    Radiometric dating methods :

No radioactive dating method has ever scientifically proved that the earth or the moon are more than 6,000 years old. Radiometric years are not the same as calendar years and all radiometric “dates” are entirely dependent on the assumptions used. If, despite the existence of the global fossil record that could have been produced only by a global flood, you merely assume that no global flood happened, you will get billion-year radiometric “dates” as a result. If you conclude from the scientific evidence that a global flood did happen, you will get only thousand-year radiometric “dates” as a result. Radiometric “dates” are only as good as your assumptions. They do not constitute scientific evidence for the universe being supposedly billions of years old.

(a)   Carbon dating

Carbon-dating is not an absolute dating method. It can only “date” living or once-living things (plant, animal and people remains) and cannot date rocks. Evolutionists never use method to date fossils or “dinosaurs”. But a C-14 “date” is only an inference obtained by comparing the ratio of two types of carbon atom left in organic remains. The “dates” depend entirely on the assumptions used (for example, the evolutionist assumption that there never was a global Flood). This dating method is usable only to an absolute maximum of 50,000 hypothetical past years and is also usable only back to the last global catastrophe (i.e. the global Genesis Flood of 2,348 BC). The method is accurate only to about 100 BC.

The method’s long-age “dates” rely critically on unknown and unknowable assumptions. “Garbage In, Garbage Out” – evolutionist assumptions will obviously give very old (evolutionist) “dates”. Biblical assumptions will give very young “dates” for the same object being dated. And carbon-dating “years” are not the same as real years. All evolutionist carbon-dating “ages” unscientifically assume that : no global Flood (or any other worldwide catastrophe); speed of light always remained constant; intensity of Earth’s magnetic field not changed for past 20,000 years; only small variations in ocean depths for time span being dated; were only small ocean temperature variations during time span; and C-14 decay rate has not varied much during time span.

Evolutionists wrongly carbon-dated fresh-water snails living in Artesian springs in Nevada as being “27,000 years old”; and they “carbon-dated” seals clubbed in the Antarctic a few weeks before as having died “1,300 years ago” :

“The Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snail of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years.”

(Dr. Alan C. Riggs, formerly of the US Geological Survey, 1984 [12] )

“… when the blood of a seal freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by Carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago.”

(Wakefield Dort Jr, Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1971 [13] )

“Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct.”

(Wakefield Dort Jr, Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1971 [14] )

(b) Other radiometric dating methods : uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium dating

Radiometric dating methods don’t actually “date” anything and so they cannot give absolute dates of millions of years. A radiometric “date” is only an inference obtained by comparing the ratio of two types of atom left in a sample (parent and daughter isotopes). Evolutionists use unscientific assumptions of constant decay rates and no global catastrophes. However, leaching of parent and/or daughter elements into and out of a rock sample is very easy and is very common, especially if there was ever ground water flowing in that region.

All of these methods are accurate only back to the last global catastrophe (i.e. the global Flood of 2,348 BC) as global catastrophes reset all the radiometric / atomic “clocks” by invalidating the evolutionist’s main dating assumption that there have never been any global catastrophes. The assumptions are similar to the assumptions used in carbon dating.

These radiometric dating methods also have many anomalies : volcanic lava flows in the 1800s from Hawaii were “dated” by the Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) method as having flowed 3 billion years ago. Lava flows in 1954 from Mt Ngauruahoe in New Zealand were “dated” by the K-Ar method as having flowed 250,000 to 3 million years ago. Radiometric dating methods are not used to date fossils or “dinosaurs” :

“[Radiometric dating] is an exceedingly crude instrument with which to measure our strata and I can think of no occasion where it has been put to an immediate practical use. Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”

(Dr Derek Ager, evolutionist, geologist, Head of the Geology Department of the University College of Swansea and former president of the British Geological Association, 1983 [15] )

“As yet there is no radiometric method (that is, one based on radioactivity) for the direct absolute dating of dinosaurs.”

(Dr Alan Charig, evolutionist, palaeontologist and Head of the Palaeontological Laboratory at the British Natural History Museum, 1979 [16] )

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists …”

(Dr. William Stansfield, Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University, 1977 [17] )

“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.”

(Frederic Jeuneman, “Secular Catastrophism”, 1982 [18] )

·         Radiometric dating methods are not used to assign dates to rocks in rock strata – they are used only to try to “verify” the unscientific 19th century evolutionist “index fossil dates” :

“Index fossils” are types of fossil (such as ammonites and coelacanths) that 19th century European evolutionists of the Victorian era claimed lived and died out many millions of years ago. The supposed age of “index fossils” is based on how long these 19th century evolutionists believed one kind of animal would take (somehow) to “evolve” into a different kind of animal. For example, if they believed it would take 200 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the “index fossil”) would be given an “age” 200 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs :

“… the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating … There are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates.”

(Dr Henry Morris, creationist scientist and hydraulicist, PhD in hydrology, geology and mathematics, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society of Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1974 [19] )

And when it comes to dating any individual rock today, the resulting “date” is forced to conform to predetermined evolutionist “dates” based on these imaginary 19th century index-fossil “dates”. Any radiometric dates that show a supposedly “old” rock to be young are rejected for no other reason :

“Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time. … In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.”

(Michael Oard, meteorologist and creationist scientist, 1984 [20] )

7.    So how do you tell the age of a fossil, rocks, dinosaurs and the Earth ?

You can’t. There is no scientific method that can give absolute dates for a fossil, a rock, a dinosaur or the Earth :

·         Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by their appearance (supposedly old rocks do not necessarily look old, neither do supposedly young rocks look young)

·         Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by their petrological character

·         Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by their mineral contents

·         Rocks are not necessarily dated by their structural features

·         Rocks are not dated by their adjacent rocks

·         Rocks are not dated by vertical superposition

·         Rocks are not dated radiometrically (many people mistakenly believe evolutionists determine the age of rocks from the study of the radioactive elements in the rocks)

·         Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by any physical characteristics at all (there is nothing at all in the physical appearance or content of a rock that can be used to determine its age)

·         Rocks are not dated by their total fossil contents (many fossils are the remains of animals and plants kinds that are still alive today. This makes the fossils useless as indicators of a rock’s age)

So how do evolutionists actually know the age of fossils, rocks, dinosaurs and the Earth …? They don’t.

8.      How do you become a fossil ?

Get buried rapidly in thick, wet sediment that contains a chemical cementing agent … The global fossil record could have been formed only by a global Flood of the hydrothermal, hot, highly pressurized, highly permineralised subterranean waters – the Biblical “fountains of the great deep”. This is simply subterranean water at high pressure and high temperature, containing a vast amount of dissolved salts and minerals in solution.

·         How long does it take for an animal, plant or person to become fossilised after dying … ?

How long does it take for an animal, plant or person to become fossilized ? Let’s ask an evolutionist :

“The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.”

(Philip J. Currie, evolutionist, Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Alberta, Canada, 1996 [21] )

“Bones do not have to be ‘turned into stone’ to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.”

(Philip J. Currie, evolutionist, Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Alberta, Canada, 1996 [22] )

“A relatively common fossil found on many parts of the coast of northern Australia, Thalassina is a crustacean, a kind of lobster, that lives in burrows on tidal mudflats. Like all other crustaceans, it has to cast off its shell in order to grow. Throughout its life, a single Thalassina may produce a dozen or more shells. Each time it molts, the shell is buried at the bottom of the burrow and a new living chamber is excavated. Buried in mud, the cast-off shell can be fossilized in a very short time, perhaps less than a year. Some of these fossils are so young that the animals that shed them may still be alive.

(Rocks and Fossils – The Ultimate Guide to the Earth, Collins, 1996 [23] ) (emphasis added)

“Although professionals understand how fast fossils begin to form under flood conditions, the general public often does not. … That same process, mineral in-fill, can turn wood, bones, and shells into fossils in a short period of time. Indeed, fossils can be made in the laboratory !

… In short, floods form fossils fast ! …

Like most Americans, I was mis-taught in grade school that it takes millions of years and tremendous heat and pressure to turn sediments (like sand, lime, or clay) into rock (like sandstone, limestone, or shale). We all know better. Concrete is just artificial rock. Cement companies crush rock, separate the cementing minerals and large stones, then sell it to you. You add water to produce the chemical reaction (curing, not drying), and rock forms again – easily, naturally, and quickly, right before your very eyes. … Time, heat, and pressure can and do alter the properties of rock (including ‘Flood rock’), but the initial formation of most rocks, like the setting of concrete, is quite rapid. …

Once a plant or animal is buried deeply enough in the right kind of sediment, there’s no special trick involved in turning it into fossil, and no huge amount of time is required. Minerals simply accumulate in the specimen itself or in the cavity left by the specimen after it rots away.”

(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation, Creation Facts of Life, 1997 [24] )

9.     Other dating methods

·         Coral growth – fossil coral “islands” (e.g. Eniwetok, Bikini atoll and the Bahamas) did not grow in place over hundreds of thousands of years. They are not fossil coral islands or coral reefs but are primarily limestone rock containing embedded fossil corals that were washed into position probably by the global Flood.

·         Tree-ring dating (“dendrochronology”) : this is a subjective (not objective, hence not technically scientific) dating method. Results depend on who does the dating. Also, multiple tree-rings can grow in one year or none can grow at all. Fossil trees often have no growth rings.

·         Coal, oil and gas do not need a long time to form, just special conditions, such as the global Flood : the buried portions of US wooden border posts, when dug up, were found to have turned to pure rock and coal in less than 200 years. With heat and pressure, organic matter (e.g. the dead remains of people, plants and animals killed by the global Flood) can turn to oil in 20 minutes and plant matter in the laboratory can turn to coal in only a few hours. Vast time is not needed to form coal, oil or gas.

·         The Grand Canyon : many scientists believe that the entire Grand Canyon was formed in less than one year. It was not formed by a little water over a long time but by a lot of water (i.e. the receding waters of the global Flood) over a very short time. The Mount St Helens volcanic eruption in the USA in 1980 formed a 1/40th scale model of the Grand Canyon in just one day with stratified sedimentary layers that turned to solid rock within nine months.

·         The earth’s small human population : The world’s human population growth rate over the centuries is said to be about 2% a year. Even assuming a much smaller rate of only 0.5% per year, it would take only 4,000 years for one man and one woman to produce the world’s present population of 6 billion people. This matches perfectly the Biblical account of Noah’s global Flood 4,350 years ago with four human breeding-pair survivors.

If the Earth’s human population increased at only 0.5% a year, then after the evolutionist’s supposed one to two million years since man first somehow “appeared” on the planet, the entire universe would not have enough space for them. To be precise, there would be 102100 people on Earth, an immense figure that is even larger than the number of atoms in the universe (there are only an estimated 1080 atoms in the known universe)

Even if the Earth’s human population is assumed to have grown at such a drastically slow annual rate of almost zero so that it would have taken one million years to reach today’s population of 6 billion people, there would still have been at least 3,000 billion people who must have lived and died on Earth. Where are the remains of all these people ?? Where is the archaeological, cultural, fossil and historic evidence for such vast numbers of people ? The scientific and archaeological evidence tells us that people have only been living on Earth for the past 6,000 years and underwent a population bottleneck because of the global Flood 4,350 years ago.

·         Fast fossils : there are many full-colour photographs in the Creation magazine of, for example, a fossilised Australian hat, a fossilised side of ham, fossilized car keys from a 1960s American car, 100 year old fossilised sacks of flour, a fossilised role of copper wire, fossilized teddy bears from England, fossilised ships bells from an 1850’s shipwreck (the Isabella Watson), fossilised Australian farm water-wheels, large long stalagmites and stalactites formed within only a few decades, and a 70-year old Australian tree trunk with axe-marks in it but which is now completely petrified. (To order the excellent Creation magazine, visit the website www.AnswersInGenesis.org).

·         Remember : A global Flood forms fossils fast … :

“At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists …”

(Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose, evolutionist, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of London, 1982 [25] )

10.    Was there a global Flood as the Bible states ?

“I am convinced there is far more evidence for a recent, six-day creation and a global Flood than there is for an old earth and evolution.”

(Dr Keith Wanser, creationist scientist, Professor of Physics at California State University, 1999 [26] )

“Fossils of marine life … are found above 8,000 metres in this area. They bear out the theory that the Himalayas were once submerged … The layers of limestone that now cover all of Mt Everest above 8,000 metres were once under water.”

(Kyuya Fukada, Japanese author, Himalayas, 1986 [27] )

“Marine fossils are found high up in mountains in the Alps, often deposited with great violence (as suggested by the Jurassic marine fossils at lower altitude on the North East coast of Yorkshire near Whitby). The burial of large dinosaurs, by their thousands in Alberta and Montana, South Dakota, Kansas and Colorado with vast continental sedimentation (in some places thousands of feet thick) would not be possible without causing gigantic upheaval in other parts of the earth. … The scale, depth and the sheer number of fossils argues strongly that these must be part of the [global Biblical] Flood.”

(Dr Andy McIntosh, Tom Edmondson and Dr Steven Taylor, creationist scientists, 2000 [28] )

“It is ironic that no geologist denies that the oceans once covered the land, since rocks containing marine fossils may be found at elevations above sea level anywhere from 1 to 5 miles (1.6 to 8 kilometres). That the ocean waters should have covered the land is exactly what one would expect to happen during a global Flood, while earth movements concurrent with the retreating Flood waters would be expected to leave strata with marine fossils now perched high and dry at considerable elevations, just as we observe.”

(Dr Andrew Snelling, geologist and creationist scientist, 1996 [29] )

11.    The many theories of evolution

Evolution theory is about origins – where did everything come from ? Evolution theory is thousands of years old and predates Christ.

“Change over time” is entropy, not evolution. “Survival”, “survival of the fittest” and “survival of the luckiest” are not evolution – you may survive to your 70th birthday but does this mean you have evolved ? Clearly not. Death is not evolution. Extinction is not evolution. Variation within a kind or species is not evolution – such as in the 200 very different types of dog that have been bred by intelligent human beings for their different looks. Or the varieties of Galapagos Island finches and tortoises that Charles Darwin saw on his travels. Or the “industrial melanism” example of the peppered moth. Peppered moths breeding peppered moths is not evolution. Galapagos Island finches breeding more finches is not evolution. Dogs breeding dogs is not evolution. No breeder has ever bred two dogs and got a litter of kittens, yet this is what the theories of evolution predict : that one kind of animal or plant will gradually (or rapidly) turn into a different kind of animal or plant. In other words, that an amoeba will turn into a man and that a frog will gradually (or rapidly) turn into a prince ...

Evolutionism is the belief in a hypothetical process that all living things and all matter somehow increase in complexity of their own accord.

The theories of evolution, in contrast to the theory of Biblical scientific creation, claim that the universe, the solar system, the earth and every living creature appeared as the result of a theorised cosmic explosion, nick-named the “big bang”, around (an assumed) 17 to 20 billion years ago. Hydrogen – a colourless, odourless gas – is believed to have resulted from the theorised explosion, somehow condensed into the stars, the solar system, the earth and the other eight known planets in the universe, and (by an unknown mechanism) other chemicals (somehow) formed on earth and became a theorised, hypothetical “primeval soup” – literally a toxic sea of chemicals – and is thought to have gradually (somehow) produced a cell with 100% operative DNA.

This theorised first cell (somehow) came to life, gradually improved itself and (somehow) over an assumed 2 billion years turned itself into every living and extinct type of plant, animal and human being, including you. Hence, the evolutionist believes that “nothing exploded and became everything all on its own”. Or “nobody x nothing = everything”. Or “if compacted enough, nothing will explode and become everything.” The theories of evolution are thus unscientific and can be summarised as follows :

“Hydrogen is a colourless, odourless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.”

·         The 15 theories of evolution

There is no such thing as “the theory of evolution”. There are many theories of evolution (about 15) and as a result, evolutionists are always attacking one another which makes for very interesting reading :

1.       Pre-Darwinian theories of evolution

The early Greek philosophers (Thales of Miletus in 620 BC) were the first recorded as thinking of evolution theory. Aristotle had ideas similar to Charles Darwin. Many of the ancient Greeks believed in vast ages of history – Plato claimed there were 20 million years between the global Flood and his day.

Evolutionist ideas can be traced through the philosophies of many nations, including the Chinese, Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian. The Egyptians long believed in the spontaneous generation of frogs after the Nile had flooded and the Chinese thought that insects appeared from nothing on the leaves of plants.

2.      Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution

Time + random natural selection by survival of the fittest = everything in the universe

Evolution theory is medieval superstition, not science. Contrary to the title of his book, Darwin never actually discussed or showed the evolutionary origin of any species in his book or anywhere else in his works :

“Darwin did not invent, or discover, evolution; it was in the air at the time … He caught the mood, made it popular and gave it credibility. The problem was that he had no real evidence to support the change of one kind into another.”

(Graham Fisher, creationist scientist, geology and geography teacher, 1998 [30] )

“Darwin never really did discuss the origin of the species in his Origin of Species.”

(Dr Niles Eldredge, evolutionist, paleontologist and Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, 1985 [31] )

“The only trouble was that, as Darwin himself was at least partly aware, it [Darwin’s theory] was full of colossal holes ... A book which has become famous for explaining the origin of species in fact does nothing of the kind.”

(Christopher Booker, The Times, 19 April 1982)

“Darwin’s book – On the Origin of Species – I find quite unsatisfactory : it says nothing about the origin of species; it is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on ‘Difficulties on theory’; and it includes a great deal of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does not exist in the fossil record … As a scientist, I am not happy with these ideas.”

(Professor H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics at University of Manchester, 1981 [32] )

Charles Darwin thought that natural selection by survival of the fittest would cause a slow, irresistible “evolution” of life onwards and upwards from one kind of plant or animal to another, culminating in apes becoming people. But as a supposed mechanism for evolution, natural selection (also known as random destruction) is simply an illogical tautology and is therefore not a scientific mechanism for any kind of onward and upward improvement. (As will be shown, natural selection simply means random destruction or differential survival.)

Charles Darwin himself was the first doubting Darwinist. He admitted that his own theory was “grievously hypothetical” [33] and he wrote, “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder” [34] . He said that even trying to account for something as comparatively simple as a peacock’s feather “makes me sick” [35] :

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

(Charles Darwin, evolutionist, Origin of Species [36] )

“Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed.”

(Charles Darwin, evolutionist, My Life and Letters)

3.      Neo-Darwinian (or synthetic theory) of evolution

Time + random natural selection by survival of the fittest + random genetic mutations = everything in the universe.

In the 1940s, neo-Darwinian evolutionists simply added the words “plus random genetic mutations” to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory of evolution was dying a rapid death for lack of supporting scientific evidence and for lack of a scientific mechanism of self-creation and universal onward-and-upward self-improvement. However, natural selection and genetic mutations are both mechanisms of destruction only and not mechanisms of creating new things or improving them :

“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selection – quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.”

(Arthur Koestler, 1978 [37] )

“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it. … The essential biological difference between a human and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All other biological differences follow from that. The human genome has much more information than does the bacterial genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.”

(Dr Lee Spetner, scientist in information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University, Not By Chance [38] )

4.      Richard Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monsters” theory of evolution

In the 1940s, evolutionist and world-famous geneticist, Professor Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley, became so disenchanted with Darwinism’s explanation for the origins of new structures that he was driven to propose his “hopeful monsters” theory. He thought that, occasionally, large changes might somehow occur just by “chance” – perhaps a reptile laid an egg once, say, and a bird or a “brown furry thing” hatched out of it.

He proposed that every once in a while an offspring was produced that was a monster grossly different from its parents. For example, perhaps two rabbits produced a male bear cub and, by coincidence, just over the hill two other rabbits produced a female bear cub. Both baby bears were able to get enough milk from their mother rabbits so that they grew to maturity and reproduced and gave rise to all the bears in the world. That would be how bears got their start in life according to “hopeful monsters” evolution theory. According to Professor Goldschmidt, that is pretty much how every kind of living and extinct plant, animal and person came into existence :

“He [Goldschmidt] noted that paleontologists had searched for a hundred years since the time of Darwin for transitional forms in the fossil record without finding any. Obviously, none were ever going to be found, and if evolutionists were going to keep the faith, they needed a new theory. So he proposed the ‘hopeful monster theory’.

… Needless to say, Goldschmidt’s hopeful monster theory was met with much derision. Critics said that there was not a shred of evidence to support his theory. He responded that this was unfair criticism because neither was there a shred of evidence for slow and gradual evolution.”

(Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, 1998)

All that the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionists could do was to ridicule Goldschmidt and wish he would disappear. His hopeful monsters theory did not catch on then, but it re-emerged several decades later in the form of the “punctuated equilibria” theory of evolution.

5.   The Eldredge / Gould punctuated equilibria (“punk eek”) (or saltation) theory of evolution

This is just a minor variation of neo-Darwinian and “hopeful monsters” evolutionist theories also with no fossil evidence. This theory of evolution postulates two things : that for long periods most species undergo little observable change; and that when it does occur, change is rapid and concentrated in small, isolated populations hence fossil intermediates (i.e. missing links) are hard to find. They claim that evolution took place in short bursts, with long periods of rest in between. For 50,000 years or so, there will be no change (an “equilibrium” without any evolution) and then suddenly (in a rare “punctuation”) two totally different life forms will (somehow) “appear”. By sheerest chance, one will be male and the other a female and coincidentally, they will always appear at the same time in history and less than a few miles apart so they can breed and continue the new species … Evolutionists can give no scientific explanation for how or why this could happen. They also claim that this “punctuated equilibria evolution” process is (conveniently) not happening today so we can’t observe or test it.

Richard Goldschmidt called them “hopeful monsters”, Stephen Jay Gould renamed the idea “punctuated equilibria” and Steven Stanley renamed it “quantum speciation” evolution :

“The theory of punctuated equilibria is causing much turmoil among evolutionists. They know that there is no actual mechanism that would explain large rapid jumps from one species to another [i.e. hopeful monsters], and yet they also know the fossil record does not support gradualism [i.e. neo-Darwinism]. They are left on the horns of a dilemma.”

(Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, 1998 [39] )

What do other evolutionists think about replacing the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theories of gradual evolution with Gould’s theory of instant (“punctuated equilibria”) evolution ? Harvard evolutionist, Dr Ernst Mayr, calls such hypothetical evolutionary entities not “hopeful” but “hopeless” and says that the “hopeful monsters” theory “is equivalent to believing in miracles” [40] .

6.     Lynn Margulis’ bacterial theory of evolution

7.     Stuart Kauffman’s “complexity theory” of evolution

8.     The theories of “panspermia” and “directed panspermia” evolution (life from outer space)

9.     Cairns-Smith’s clay-based mineral origin of life theory of evolution

10.   Corliss’ hydrothermal-vents-on-the-sea-floor theory of evolution

11.     Wachterhauser’s “metabolism first” theory of evolution

12.     De Duve’s “metabolism first” theory of evolution

13.     Prigogine’s “self-organisation-in-nature” theory of evolution

14.     Eigen’s “hypercycle” theory of evolution

 

15.     The theory of theistic evolution (“theistic atheism”)

The theory of theistic evolution is sloppy, lazy thinking and is unbiblical and unscientific. The theory of theistic evolution (or “theistic atheism”) is nothing more than a combination of one or more of the above theories of evolution with the words “plus God” tacked on to the end. “Theistic evolution” theory includes the unbiblical ideas that perhaps God somehow used a big bang plus evolution and that the Earth and the universe are millions or billions of years old. Beware of evolution-contaminated theology and evolution-contaminated thinking, especially in churches today …

The theory of theistic evolution has no Biblical or scientific support. The theory of theistic evolution also contradicts every book in the Bible and not just the book of Genesis.

“Theistic evolution may be defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain while atheism removes his religion.”

(William Jennings Bryan, US statesman and creationist, 1922 [41] )

12.     There is no scientific mechanism for any evolution ever to occur

·         “Natural selection by survival of the fittest” is no mechanism for evolution

“Natural selection by survival of the fittest” is the central (but still hypothetical) mechanism of creative change for the theories of evolution. The term “natural selection” is a misnomer – a deliberately misleading term – as “nature” is not a person (and cannot be personified) and so “nature” cannot “select” supposedly good or useful characteristics in an individual. Natural selection by survival of the fittest is more accurately termed “random destruction”, because it is the random elimination or destruction of individuals (and thus their genetic information) from a population. Natural selection can only whittle away what was created. Natural selection thus cannot create any new kind of animal, person or plant. Natural selection takes away more and more, and can of itself create or add nothing :

“But natural selection per se does not work to create new species.”

(Dr Niles Eldredge, evolutionist, paleontologist and Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, 1980 [42] )

“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it …”

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist, senior palaeontologist at the British Natural History Museum, 1982 [43] )

The phrase “survival of the fittest” (the assumed “struggle for life”) is also a meaningless tautology as a supposed evolutionist mechanism. Evolutionists define it as follows : those individuals that survive are fit, and those that are fit survive. This says nothing at all. It is a circular definition that simply restates itself, saying merely that “the survivors survive and that is how everything came into existence !” Survival of the fittest simply means that some creatures die sooner than others and so may leave fewer offspring than those of their kind that die slightly later. So it is entirely irrelevant as to how animals, plants and people originate and then self-improve themselves :

“Someone asked how we determine who are the fittest. The answer came back that we determine this by the test of survival; there is no other criterion. But this means that a species survives because it is the fittest and is the fittest because it survives, which is circular reasoning and equivalent to saying that whatever is, is fit. The gist is that some survive and some die, but we knew this at the onset. Nothing has been explained.”

(Dr Norman Macbeth, evolutionist, lawyer from Harvard Law School, Darwin Retried, 1971 [44] )

“I argued that it [natural selection] was a tautology in my book because it seemed to go round in a circle. It was, in effect, defining survival as due to fitness and fitness as due to survival. … I think the phrase [natural selection] is utterly empty. It doesn’t describe anything.”

(Dr. Norman Macbeth, evolutionist and retired lawyer from Harvard Law School, 1982 [45] )

“Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ … means nothing more than ‘the survivors survive’.”

(E.W. MacBride, Nature, 1929 [46] )

“There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement : Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.

The whole real guts of evolution – which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things – is outside the mathematical theory.”

(Dr C.H. Waddington, evolutionist, 1967 [47] )

·         “Genetic mutations” are no mechanism for evolution

Evolutionists claim that every kind of living and extinct animal, plant and person (somehow) came into existence by genetic mutations of their DNA :

“Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.”

(Dr Ernst Mayr, evolutionist and Professor of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, 1966 [48] )

A genetic mutation is a copying error that causes a harmful loss of complex, coded information. All mutations are faulty copies of the original correct genetic instructions. No living or extinct person, plant or animal can reprogram their own DNA to change themselves into a different and improved kind of person, plant or animal. In terms of genetics, a mutation is a mistake in transmission of highly complex hereditary information. Mutations are mutilations. A mutated animal or person is in fact a mutilated animal or person, and not an improved species.

Mutations in genetic material cannot be a mechanism of evolution. All known mutations are lethal, harmful, neutral or reversible. If mutations survive at all, they build up a “genetic load” in the population, reducing its overall viability. Yet evolutionists continue to believe in the existence of positive, beneficial mutations that somehow create brand new, complex genetic information (although they have never seen any). Genetic mutations do not and cannot add anything that was not already in existence and hence cannot cause any kind of evolution.

None of natural selection, survival of the fittest or genetic mutations can even in principle account for the existence of living things as they are all mechanisms of destruction and they all also require pre-existing, fully-formed, reproducing, living people, plants and animals with 100% operative DNA on which to work. Hence they cannot account for the origin, or any improvement, of people, plants and animals. Natural selection, survival of the fittest and genetic mutations delete, destroy, corrupt and eliminate what already exists. As mechanisms only of destruction, they cannot create or bring anything new into existence nor can they improve living (or dead) organisms, as destruction is the opposite of bringing something into existence and is the opposite of improving something.

Natural selection, survival of the fittest and genetic mutations can only destroy what already exists, a conclusion that follows perfectly from the laws of thermodynamics. So evolutionists have not and cannot scientifically answer the issue of origins, namely : How did everything come into existence and where did it all come from ?

“Viewing mutations as degradations is in line with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter goes from order to disorder.”

(Randall Hedtke, 1984 [49] )

“Apparently most mutations are harmful – that’s an old story – because they foul up in the development process. They are mistakes in copying, that’s what they are.”

(Dr. Niles Eldredge, evolutionist, 1979 [50] )

“A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species.”

(Professor Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, 1980 [51] )

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [genetic mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.”

(Professor W.R. Thompson, Fellow of the Royal Society, evolutionist and entomologist,  in his Introduction to the Centenary Edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, 1956 [52] )

“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution … No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

(Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist and zoologist, Director of the Laboratory of the Evolution of Living Beings at the University of Paris, Head of the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years, former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, 1977 [53] )

Scientists have never found a mutation that has advanced life. But what about sickle-cell anaemia, you may say ? That is a mutation – doesn’t that help the sufferer to be immune to malaria ? Yes, it does, but only by accident and the patient with the sickle cell disease is still anaemic, disadvantaged and not an “improved species”. Mutations retard life rather than improve life. And if the sickle-cell anaemia is inherited from both parents, it is fatal. The mutation responsible for sickle-cell anaemia results in its carrier being immune to malaria only because the life-span of the defective blood cell is shorter than the incubation period of the malaria. This is not due to any improvement in the blood cell. When the defective gene is inherited from both parents, the sufferer usually dies before reaching adulthood. The gene for sickle-cell anemia has built up to high levels in certain African populations, not because it is “beneficial”, but simply because the death rate from sickle-cell anaemia in those areas is slightly less than the death rate from malaria ... To individuals and to the overall population, sickle-cell anaemia is a highly destructive disease and kills about 25% of the people who carry it :

“The resulting disease kills about 25 percent of the population of black humans who are affected. (Evolutionists often like to cite this highly deleterious mutation as a good example of a beneficial mutation because those afflicted with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to die with malaria. To the overall population, however, it is highly destructive.)”

(Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, 1998 [54] )

You can mutate all you like, but you will never “evolve” :

            “Mutation is a pathological process which has had little or nothing to do with evolution.”

(Professor C.P. Martin, evolutionist, McGill University, Montreal, 1953 [55] )

“If the genetic blueprint for an organism is initially optimal – like, say, the design for a new TV set – then mutations appear as damage incurred by wear and tear or misuse. Kicking a damaged TV set might improve its performance but the treatment is not generally recommended. In no way could random – or even well-directed – kicking have been responsible for the origin of the TV set in the first place. But the neo-Darwinian, who asserts that mutations are the raw material of evolution, and the only source of novelty for natural selection to work on, is both denying the existence of an optimal genetic blueprint (or archetype) for a life-form, and accepting ‘kicking’ as a rational means of improving it out of recognition.”

(Michael Pitman, evolutionist, 1984 [56] )

·         “Genetic recombination of chromosomes” is no mechanism for evolution

Genetic recombination is not mutation. It is a well-designed, created part of reproduction and is simply the reshuffling of inherited genetic information to ensure some variation within the offspring. Recombination is so that you can tell your children apart – God does not want everyone looking like clones. Recombination is analogous to playing keys on a (genetic) piano : the same 88 keys or notes of a piano can be played, but different music is heard each time. Merely playing a different combination of keys (i.e. merely playing a different song) on the (genetic) piano cannot account for the origin of the piano in the first place. Or another analogy is that genetic recombination is like shuffling a pack of (genetic) cards. Each hand dealt has a different combination of cards, but no amount of shuffling (i.e. genetic recombinations) can create a thirteen of spades nor can shuffling tell us where the pack of cards came from in the first place.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”

(Professor Nils Heribert-Nilsson, botanist, geneticist and evolutionist, Lund University, Sweden, 1953 [57] )

Some species are classified as new species simply because they have lost genetic material : the flightless rails (marsh hens), the flightless cormorants of the Galapagos Islands and blind cave fish. This is not evolution, it’s entropy.

13.    The laws of science prove that there is a God and they reveal His character

Laws of science : a law of science is a basic, unchanging principle of the natural physical world; a scientifically observed phenomenon that has been, and still can be, subjected to very extensive measurements and experimentation and has repeatedly proved to be invariable throughout the known universe, no matter who is conducting the experiment. Examples of scientific laws are the law of gravity, the laws of motion and the laws of thermodynamics. The theories of evolution are not laws of science but are unproven, philosophical theories of the religion of atheism promulgated by many (but not all) scientists and philosophers. The laws of science prove that there is a God who is exactly as the Bible reveals.

·         The scientific law of biogenesis

The scientific law of biogenesis was discovered and proved by the great French creationist scientist, Louis Pasteur. This law of science states that life can come only from life and so life cannot spontaneously “arise”. Life can come only from pre-existing life. So the first life on earth must have been created by a living (and therefore personal), intelligent, supernatural Being. No one has ever made new life from scratch in a laboratory (and if they did it would prove intelligent creation by people in a laboratory, not evolution !) Chemicals and dirt can never come to life of their own accord, no matter how much energy is added to them nor how much time is available.

Time and energy work against the theories of evolution. The more time there is, the worse it is for evolutionists; and the more energy, the worse it is for evolutionists because of the scientific laws of thermodynamics.

·         The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (“the law of conservation of mass / energy”) (“E = mc2 ”)

“The sum total of energy plus matter in a closed system is constant. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed but can only change form. There is no overall gain or loss in the sum total of ‘energy plus matter’.”

This law of science means of course that there is nothing in the universe (a closed system) capable of bringing the universe into being because energy and matter cannot be created by anything in the universe ... Therefore the universe must have been created by Someone outside the universe.

Apart from information, everything that exists in the universe is some form of energy (even matter is a form of energy) and everything that happens in the universe is some form of energy transfer. The three laws of thermodynamics are the scientific laws that govern the relationship between heat and work – they govern all transfers of energy and so govern everything that has ever happened in the physical universe :

“The process of evolution requires energy in various forms, and thermodynamics is the study of energy movement and transformation. The two fields are clearly related. Scientific laws that govern thermodynamics must also govern evolution.”

(Dr Emmett L. Williams, PhD in metallurgical engineering, former Professor of Physics at Bob Jones University, 1981 [58] )

·         The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (“the law of entropy”)

“In a closed or open system, spontaneous processes lead to a decrease in order. Energy moves to a lower potential, becoming less available to do work. Things move in a direction from order to chaos.”

In other words, things fall apart ! This law of science means that if the universe (a closed system) were infinitely old (i.e. without beginning), the universe would now be in a state of complete disorder and would have died the heat death that astronomers predict. Since the universe is not currently in a state of complete disorder, the universe must have had a beginning a finite time ago – and this beginning cannot have been very long ago as everything we see in the universe is still in a state of high order and available energy :

“Another way of stating the second law then is, ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly !’ Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order : how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself – and that is what the second law is all about.”

(Isaac Asimov, evolutionist, 1970)

The second law of thermodynamics is just as valid for open systems as it is for closed systems :

“… there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems.”

(John Ross, scientist from Harvard University, 1980 [59] )

The implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics have caused many evolutionists to forsake the theories of evolution for scientific creation. Even death is a manifestation of this law of science.

·         The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics

“Order is at a maximum at absolute zero temperature. Adding energy (e.g. raising the temperature) results in disorder.”

This law of science is the reason you put your food in the fridge or freezer rather than leaving it out in the warmer air. The 3rd law of thermodynamics means that adding energy from the sun (or any other energy source) cannot bring chemicals to life in a hypothetical primeval soup – it can only increase the disorder of these chemicals. Just as a bull in a china shop adds a lot of energy to the contents of the china shop, that increased energy results in increased disorder – and the china figurines do not somehow come to life. A bull in a china shop adds undirected energy. What is needed to create life is directed energy with information. As the hypothetical “primeval soup” contains no information, “primeval soup” is thus scientifically ruled out as the precursor of life ...

No experimental or scientific evidence has ever disproved any of the Laws of Thermodynamics, which therefore remain some of the best science that exists :

“There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the second law or its corollaries …”

            (G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos, physicists, 1970 [60] )

“It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. … In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted.”

(Dr Emmett L. Williams, PhD in metallurgical engineering, former Professor of Physics at Bob Jones University, 1981 [61] )

·         The Law of Cause and Effect

The law of cause and effect follows directly from the laws of thermodynamics and states that :

“Every effect must have a cause. The effect cannot be greater, in size or in kind, than the cause.”

This means firstly that every effect we see in the physical space-time universe must have had a cause, and we can therefore trace all effects back to a First Cause. There must exist somewhere outside of the physical space-time universe a First Cause that brought the universe into being. Secondly, this First Cause must be greater in size and in kind than time, therefore the First Cause must be eternal and must itself have had no origin or beginning in time.

Third, since space stretches beyond the limits of human detection, the First Cause of space must be greater than this, and hence probably infinite. Fourth, the universe contains a lot of energy – in the sun, the stars, gravitational attraction, etc. The First Cause of all the energy in the universe cannot be less than the sum total of all the energy in the universe. So the First Cause must be omnipotent.

Fifth, there is a vast information content in the universe – the intrinsic properties of matter and the genetic information in all the varied animal and plant life we see, living and extinct. The First Cause of all this information in the universe must be greater in size and in kind than all the information in the universe, therefore the First Cause must be all-knowing or omniscient. Sixth, we human beings have a personality and volitional will. In order to create the effect of personality in people, the First Cause must have personality. The effect (human personality) cannot be greater in size or in kind than the cause. Therefore human personality cannot have come from some impersonal “cosmic Force” of pantheism. Seventh, we (as human personalities) are interested in other personalities and so it is not unreasonable to suppose that the First Cause created us so that He (a personal Creator) could have fellowship with us and us with Him …

This is how far science will take us. From here we must look into the Bible to find out more about our Creator God. Yet this is exactly what we see revealed in the Bible – the eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, caring, relational God – Jesus Christ Himself – who is revealed in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3 as creating all time, space, matter and information by personally speaking it into existence 6,000 years ago :

If you just give scientists enough time, they will finally catch up with the Bible ...

14.    The eleven most frequently asked creation questions

  1. Where did Cain find his wife ?

Cain married one of his sisters or nieces. Today you cannot marry anyone but your relative if you’re going to marry a human being ! We are all related to one another through Noah and back to Adam and Eve. God’s prohibition against marrying a genetically very close relative was not given until 1,445 BC during the time of Moses (The Ten Commandments), about 2,500 years after Cain’s birth. So Cain was allowed to marry his close female relative.

  1. Can’t Christians believe in evolution ?

No, because evolution is not a true account of reality and history. Evolution is scientifically and logically impossible. Evolution is contradicted by every realm of knowledge (the Bible, science, biology, archaeology, philosophy, history, etc.). The idea of evolution requires self-creation which is a logically impossibility. And contrary to the claims of evolutionists :

·         The six creation days of Genesis are literal, normal, 24-hour days.

·         The days of creation are not figurative or poetic.

·         The book of Genesis is not poetry or allegory or figurative or “religious” or mythical but is history.

·         There is no time gap before Genesis 1. The Hebrew text does not allow it.

·         There is no time gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. The Hebrew text does not allow it.

·         There were no “pre-Adamic” men or ape-men.

·         There are no missing genealogies at all. There is no way to insert years or generations nor thousands or millions or billions of years into Genesis or elsewhere in the Biblical time-scale.

·         Could God have used evolution ? No, as evolution is logically impossible and even God cannot do what is logically impossible.

·         The entire Bible, including the salvation message, depends absolutely the creation of 6,000 years ago being real, true history.

  1. Couldn’t God have used evolution ?

No, because evolution is logically impossible since evolution is the theory of self-creation. An all-powerful God can do what is physically or naturally impossible but even He cannot do what is logically impossible (for example, even God cannot draw square circles as they are a logically impossible concept). Nonsense (such as square circles or evolution) spoken about God remains nonsense. Evolution is entirely contrary to God’s nature, the Bible and the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. Evolution did not create anything in the universe, because evolution does not exist and never happened. Since evolution does not exist and did not happen, God could not have used it.

  1. Doesn’t carbon-dating prove that the Earth is very old ?

No, because carbon-dating is inherently usable firstly only back to a maximum of 50,000 years and secondly only back to the last global catastrophe. It is reliable only back to around 100 BC and is reasonably accurate only for organic objects of the past 2,000 years. The global Flood of 2,348 BC would reset all radiometric-dating clocks. All radiometric dating methods are only as good as their assumptions. The concept of a global flood is equivalent to a young earth. If the global Flood occurred (as is evidenced by the entire fossil record and the massive, vast sedimentary rock layers all around the world as well as by the entire Bible), then the earth is young because the evolutionist’s “evidence” for an old earth is critically dependent on their unscientific assumption that the earth has never experienced a global flood (or any other global catastrophe).

  1. Haven’t scientists proved that the Earth is billions of years old ?

No. There is no scientific way to know the actual age of a rock, a fossil or the Earth other than

by an eye-witness’ account. No dating method has ever proved that the Earth or the solar system or the universe itself is more than several thousand years old. The concept of a global flood is equivalent to a young earth. If the global Flood occurred (as is evidenced by the entire fossil record and the massive, vast sedimentary rock layers all around the world as well as by the entire Bible), then the earth is young because the evolutionist’s “evidence” for an old earth is critically dependent on their unscientific assumption that the earth has never experienced a global flood (or any other global catastrophe).

  1. How do dinosaurs fit with the Bible ?

Very well ! Firstly, what is a “dinosaur” ? Technically, everything can be called a “dinosaur” since everything living today is found in fossil form. Secondly, T-rex, stegosaurs and other large saurischian land animals (i.e. “dinosaurs”) all lived with people before and after the global Flood, as is documented in Anglo-Saxon and other ancient historic records, including the Bible (the final chapters of Job). God created “dinosaurs” (the large, medium and small saurischian animals) 6,000 years ago during the creation but they were not like Hollywood’s Jurassic Park ! The average size of a dinosaur in the fossil record is only between the size of a sheep and a small cow. Breeding pairs of these land-dwelling “dinosaur” kinds were on the Ark. The large land-dwelling dinosaurs appear to have died out, like many other animals (the dodo, carrier pigeon, mammoths, etc.), in the 4,350 years since the global Flood.

  1. How did Noah fit all the animals in the Ark ?

God sent the animals to Noah – Noah did not have to collect them or round them up. Only 16,000 individual land-dwelling animals (i.e. a breeding pair of 8,000 animal “kinds”) would have needed to be on Noah’s Ark to repopulate and restock the animal world as we see it today. Only land-dwelling, air-breathing animals were on the Ark, hence not all the animals kinds or species in the world had to be on the Ark to survive the year-long global Flood (e.g. insects do not breathe air through their nostrils and whales and fish are not land-dwelling animals.) Noah’s Ark was vast, with three internal decks and animal compartments or cages, and had a cargo capacity of 15,000 tons – it could carry the equivalent mass of 150,000 people each weighing 100 kilograms ...

  1. Wasn’t there a vast time gap in the first two verses of Genesis 1 ?

No. The Hebrew text of Genesis 1 does not allow for any time gap at all.

  1. According to 2 Peter 3:8 isn’t a day like a thousand years so the “days” of creation could each be vast ages of time ?

God is outside of time so to him a day is like a thousand years. The Bible in 2 Peter 3:8 does not say that a day is a thousand years, but that a day is only like a thousand years to God and, in context, this Bible verse is not talking of the creation week but is talking of God’s patience in the context of justice and human rebellion. And, besides, Psalm 90:4 says, “For a thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night.” A watch in the night was a period of only three or four hours (depending on whether you were a Roman or a Jew).

  1. Where did all the different “races” of people come from ?

Every human being on Earth is directly descended from Adam and Eve, through Noah and his wife and their three sons and their three wives. Biblically and genetically, there is no such thing as “races” as all people are related. There is just one human race and we are all members of the human race. Human groups became geographically, culturally and linguistically isolated after the global Flood. As a result, there has been very little cross-breeding of the geographically isolated human gene pools, so over the centuries similar physical features will occur in any geographically isolated breeding group of people. These differing features are simply variation within the “species” (which has nothing to do with evolution).

  1. How do you explain the “ape-men” ?

There were no “ape-men”. There were men and there were apes. There still are. Usually, the men killed and ate the apes, leaving the bones and skulls. Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon people were 100% people with larger brain capacities than ours and who were simply living in a harsher, more hostile environment.

15.   The idea of evolution is totally incompatible with God’s character and the Christian gospel

Is origins – Biblical creation versus evolution – essential to the Christian gospel or is it just a side-issue for the scientific specialists ? Biblical creation is an essential doctrine of Christianity because if you do not believe the book of Genesis you do not believe the Bible :

“If evolution happened, then death was widespread long before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was therefore not a result of Adam’s sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we have no need for a Saviour.”

(Dr Walt Brown, PhD in Mechanical Engineering from M.I.T., National Science Foundation Fellow, Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the US Air War College, Associate Professor at the US Air Force Academy, creationist scientist, In the Beginning, 2001 [62] )

People (such as theistic evolutionists) who try to remove the Bible’s claim to authority and truth in the realm of science and history remove the Bible from all relevance to the real world. This is what the theory of “theistic evolution” has done to the thinking of Christians and non-Christians. Surveys among both students and the general population of a country show that the major reason people reject Christianity is they think science has proved the Bible to be wrong, especially on this critically important topic of origins :

“… with what we know about science, anyone who thinks at all probably doesn’t believe in fire and brimstone anymore. So organized religion has lost that voice to hold up their moral hand.”

(Bruce Willis, Hollywood actor and evolutionist, USA Weekend, February 2000 [63] )

“… the ‘ordinary’ practical atheist … doesn’t see merely a conflict between science and Christian belief, but rather the total invalidation of Christian belief by science. They simply believe that the theory of evolution … has eliminated recourse to the supernatural for explanations of our origin and therefore our purpose and destiny.”

(David Green, creationist scientist, 1998 [64] )

“At first sight it may seem that the creation versus evolution argument is a side issue. It is a matter for the scientific specialists. It has no apparent bearing on our eternal salvation, and it is possible to believe in evolution theory and still be a good Christian.

Surveys among students and the general population have shown that the major reason why people reject Christianity is that they think science has proved the Bible to be unreliable, especially with regard to origins.”

(Dr David Rosevear, creationist scientist, chemist, senior lecturer at Portsmouth University and Chairman of the Creation Science Movement, Creation Science, 1991 [65] )

“During my years as a teacher [in Australia], and many times since then as I have spoken around the world, I’ve had people use evolution as their excuse as to why the Bible couldn’t be trusted. In fact, I’ve found that evolution is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, stumbling block to people being receptive to the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

(Ken Ham, teacher, author and international creationist speaker, Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium, 1999 [66] )

Does evolution versus creation matter ? Is Biblical creation versus evolution just a “side issue” as most (theistic evolutionist) Christian leaders maintain ? Or is it one of the most fundamental and important issues for all of society and all of life ? Either everything created itself or everything was created. Either creation is a false, unreal account of history or evolution is a false and unreal account of history. One of them must be true and the other must be false, as creation and evolution are exhaustive, diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive theories of origins and there is no third alternative. Is there a Creator God to whom we are morally accountable for our thoughts, actions and lives ? If so, how then should we live … ? :

“… the average young Australian, who believes what he is taught, believes the evolutionary dogma that he is only an animal who arrived by chance, lives by his wits, survives to breed and will die ... without hope of personal immortality. Of course many intelligent young people examine the evidence and reject the theory of godless evolution, but the majority of ordinary folk … accept this theory and live like animals. Many come to see the utter futility and stupidity of struggling to survive, so after they have tasted sex and every other thrill of a purely animal existence, they decide to opt out of life into the oblivion of drugs or suicide. Others go on living like animals. They satisfy every animal desire that wells up within them. If they want sex they have it immediately. If they feel aggressive they show it. The crunch comes if they rape, harm or kill. They then fall foul of the law, and are jailed and punished for being the animals they were taught to be.”

(J.G.L. Wedge, What Do You Think of the Bible ?, 1991 [67] )

“If you believe what you like in the Bible, and reject what you like, it is not the Bible you believe but yourself.”

(Augustine)

“If God is not limited in power and could have created the world [recently], if He has given man a record of what He did, and if the scientific evidence does not contradict it, then what prevents you from believing that it actually happened ?” (Malcolm Bowden, creationist scientist, engineer, The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, 1982 [68] )

For further information :

Read Creation School Online with Andy Carmichael : www.SloppyNoodle.com/ev.html. Other highly recommended websites are : www.CreationScience.com, www.AnswersInGenesis.org and www.ICR.org. For an outstanding 12-tape series Dr John MacArthur covering the full Biblical textual evidence for a recent six-day creation, contact Grace To You Ministries at www.gty.org and order Dr John MacArthur’s 12-tape series and book titled Battle For the Beginning. Dr John MacArthur is pastor-teacher of Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, president of The Master’s College and Seminary, and featured radio teacher on Grace to You.

Or contact Andy Carmichael by email at : Andy_Ally@hotmail.com




[1] Sir Fred Hoyle (evolutionist, atheist, astronomer, cosmologist, mathematician and Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University) : source of quotation currently unknown.

[2] Dr Gary Parker (PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation), Creation Facts of Life, Master Books, Arizona, 1997, pp. 144-145, 159

[3] William Fix (evolutionist), The Bone Peddlers, New York, MacMillan, 1984, p. 151

[4] Professor E.H. Andrews (PhD, creationist scientist and Professor of Material Science at Queen Mary College, London University) : source of quotation currently unknown.

[5] Bolton Davidheiser, Evolution and Christian Faith, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1969, p. 302

[6] Leo Levi (Jewish scholar) in Torah and Science, Feldheim Publish., New York, 1983

[7] Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly Director if the Australian Institute of Archaeology, in an interview for radio by the Institute for Creation Research, Australia, transcript no. 0279-1004

[8] Dr John Eddy (PhD in Astrogeophysics), as reported by Raphael G. Kazmann, “It’s about time : 4.5 billion years”, Geotimes, September 1978, p. 18

[9] Dr Gary Parker (PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation), Creation Facts of Life, Master Books, Arizona, 1997, p. 104

[10] Dr Gary Parker (PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation), Creation Facts of Life, Master Books, Arizona, 1997, pp. 74-75

[11] Douglas Futuyma (evolutionist), Science on Trial, 1983, p. 197; as cited in Vance Ferrell (editor), The Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, online version at website www.pathlights.com

[12] Dr. Alan C. Riggs (formerly of the US Geological Survey, staff of the University of Washington, Seattle), “Major carbon-14 deficiency in modern snail shells from southern Nevada springs”, Science, Vol. 224, 6 April 1984, pp. 58-61

[13] Wakefield Dort, Jr. (Department of Geology, University of Kansas), “Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land”, Antarctic Journal of the United States (Washington), vol. 6, September-October 1971, pp. 210-211

[14] Wakefield Dort, Jr. (Department of Geology, University of Kansas), “Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land”, Antarctic Journal of the United States (Washington), vol. 6, September-October 1971, p. 211

[15] Dr Derek Ager (geologist, evolutionist and former President of the British Geological Association), “Fossil Frustrations”, New Scientist, Vol. 100, No. 1383, 10 November 1983, p. 425

[16] Alan Charig (paleontologist, evolutionist and Head of the British Museum’s Paleontological Laboratory), A New Look at the Dinosaurs, Mayflower Books, New York, 1979, p. 36

[17] William D. Stansfield (evolutionist, PhD in Animal Breeding, Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University), in The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, pp. 82 and 84

[18] Frederic B. Jeuneman, FAIC, “Secular catastrophism”, Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21

[19] Dr Henry Morris (PhD in Hydrology, Geology and Mathematics, creationist scientist, hydraulicist, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society of Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute), Scientific Creationism, Creation Life Publishers, 1974, p. 133

[20] Michael Oard (meteorologist and creationist scientist) 1984 : full source of quotation currently unknown.

[21] Philip J. Currie (evolutionist and Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada) and Eva B. Koppelhus (visiting researcher at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada), 101 Questions about Dinosaurs, Dover Publications, 1996

[22] Philip J. Currie (evolutionist and Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada) and Eva B. Koppelhus (visiting researcher at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada), 101 Questions about Dinosaurs, Dover Publications, 1996, p. 11

[23] Rocks and Fossils, Arthur R. Busby III, Robert R. Coenraads, David Roots and Paul Willis (evolutionists), The Nature Company Guides, HarperCollins, London, 1996 , p. 96

[24] Dr Gary Parker (PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation), Creation Facts of Life, Master Books, Arizona, 1997, pp. 175-177

[25] Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose (evolutionist and Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the University of London), The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1982, p. 164

[26] Dr Keith Wanser (creationist scientist and Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton), Creation ex Nihilo, Vol. 21, No 4, September – November 1999, p. 39 (website = www.AnswersInGenesis.org)

[27] Kyuya Fukada (Japanese author), Himalayas, edited by Y. Shirakawa and H.N. Abradale, Abrams, New York, 1986, chapter one of essay

[28] Dr Andy McIntosh, DSc (University of Leeds), Tom Edmondson and Dr Steven Taylor (Liverpool University), (creationist scientists), “Flood models : the need for an integrated approach”, CEN Technical Journal, vol. 14, No 1, 2000, p. 57, (website = www.AnswersInGenesis.org)

[29] Dr Andrew Snelling (geologist and creationist scientist), Creation ex Nihilo, Vol. 18, No 3, June – August 1996, p. 22  (website = www.AnswersInGenesis.org)

[30] Graham Fisher (creationist scientist, geology and geography teacher), Creation ex Nihilo, Vol. 20, No 3, June – August 1998, p. 49 (Website = www.AnswersInGenesis.org)

[31] Dr Niles Eldredge (evolutionist, paleontologist and Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History), Time Frames : The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, 1985, p. 33; as cited in Vance Ferrell (editor), The Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, online version at website www.pathlights.com

[32] Professor H. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester), “Origin of Species”, in “Letters”, New Scientist, 14 May 1981, p. 452

[33] Charles Darwin (evolutionist), 1858, in a letter to a colleague regarding the concluding chapters of his Origin of Species. As quoted in “John Lofton’s Journal”, The Washington Times, 8 February 1984

[34] Quoted in W.R. Bird, Origin of Species Revisited, Vol. 1, 2nd edition, Philosophical Library, New York, 1993, p. 73

[35] From Francis Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Appleton, New York, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 296

[36] Charles Darwin (evolutionist), Origin of Species, chapter entitled “Difficulties”, Penguin, Baltimore, 1974, p. 217

[37] Arthur Koestler in Janus : A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, p. 185

[38] Dr Lee Spetner (creationist scientist, lecturer in information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins University), Not By Chance, The Judaica Press Inc, Brooklyn, New York, pp. 143, 131-132, 138

[39] Luther D. Sunderland (engineer and creationist scientist), Darwin’s Enigma : Ebbing the Tide of Naturalism, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1998, p. 119

[40] Dr Ernst Mayr (evolutionist and Professor of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University), “Populations”, Species and Evolution, 1970, p. 253; as cited in Vance Ferrell (editor), The Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, online version at website www.pathlights.com

[41] William Jennings Bryan (creationist and US Statesman), In His Image, Fleming H. Revell & Co, New York, 1922, p. 127

[42] Dr Niles Eldredge (evolutionist and Curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York), “An Extravagance of Species (The Diversity of Fossil Trilobites Poses a Challenge to Traditional Evolutionary Theory)”, Natural History, Vol. 89, No. 7, July 1980, p. 46

[43] Dr. Colin Patterson (evolutionist and Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum (Natural History)), in an interview on the subject of cladistics on BBC television, 4 March 1982

[44] Dr Norman Macbeth (evolutionist and retired attorney from Harvard Law School), Darwin Retried : An Appeal to Reason, 1971, p. 47; as cited in Vance Ferrell (editor), The Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, online version at website www.pathlights.com

[45] Norman Macbeth (evolutionist and retired attorney from Harvard Law School), “What’s Wrong With Darwinism ?”, personal interview with Luther D. Sunderland, 29 May 1982; cited in Luther D. Sunderland (engineer and creationist scientist), Darwin’s Enigma : Ebbing the Tide of Naturalism, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1998, pp. 39-40

[46] E.W. MacBride, Nature, 11 May 1929, p. 713; as cited in Vance Ferrell (editor), The Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, online version at website www.pathlights.com

[47] Dr C.H. Waddington (evolutionist), in P.S. Moorehead and M.M. Kaplan, editors, “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution”, The Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph No. 5, Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, USA, 1967, pp. 13-14

[48] Ernst Mayr (evolutionist and Professor of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University), “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution”, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Paul Moorhead and Martin Kaplan (editors), proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25 and 26 April 1966, The Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, 1967, p. 50 

[49] Randall Hedtke, “The Divine Essence in Evolutionary Theorizing – An Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Evolutionary Natural Selection, Mutation and Punctuated Equilibria as Mechanism of Megaevolution”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1, June 1984, p. 44

[50] Dr. Niles Eldredge (evolutionist and Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum), 1979; as cited in Luther D. Sunderland (engineer and creationist scientist), Darwin’s Enigma : Ebbing the Tide of Naturalism, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1998, p. 160

[51] Professor Stephen Jay Gould (evolutionist and Professor of Paleontology and Geology at Harvard University), “Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging ?”, a lecture given at Hobart and William Smith College, 4 February 1980

[52] Professor W.R. Thompson (evolutionist), in his Introduction to The Origin of Species, Everyman Library No. 811, E.P. Dutton & Sons, New York, 1956, (reprint edition, J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd, Sussex, England, 1967), p. 10

[53] Pierre-Paul Grasse (evolutionist, former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences and Head of the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years) in Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88

[54] Luther D. Sunderland (engineer and creationist scientist), Darwin’s Enigma : Ebbing the Tide of Naturalism, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 1998, pp. 153-154

[55] Professor C.P. Martin (evolutionist, McGill University, Montreal), American Scientist, January 1953, p. 100

[56] Michael Pitman (evolutionist), Adam and Evolution, Rider, London, 1984, pp. 66-67

[57] Professor Nils Heribert-Nilsson (botanist, geneticist and evolutionist, Lund University, Sweden), Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, p. 1186

[58] Dr Emmett L. Williams (PhD in Metallurgical Engineering, former Professor of Physics at Bob Jones University), (editor), Thermodynamics and the Development of Order, Creation Research Society Books, 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092, USA, 1981, p. 10

[59] John Ross (scientist from Harvard University), Letter to the Editor, in Chemical and Engineering News, Vol. 58, 7 July 1980, p. 40

[60] G.N. Hatspoulous and E.P. Gyftopoulos (physicists), in E.B. Stuart, B. Gal-Or and A.J. Brainard (editors) Deductive Quantum Thermodynamics in a Critical Review of Thermodynamics, Mono Book Corporation, Baltimore, 1970, p. 78

[61] Emmett L. Williams (PhD in Metallurgical Engineering, former Professor of Physics at Bob Jones University), (editor), Thermodynamics and the Development of Order, Creation Research Society Books, 5093 Williamsport Drive, Norcross, Georgia 30092, USA, 1981, pp. 7-8

[62] Dr Walt Brown (PhD in Mechanical Engineering from M.I.T., National Science Foundation Fellow, US paratrooper and retired full US Air Force colonel, Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the US Air War College, associate professor at the US Air Force Academy, and creationist scientist), In The Beginning : Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 North 20th Place, Phoenix, Arizona 85016, USA, 7th edition, 2001 (website : www.creationscience.com)

[63] Bruce Willis (Hollywood actor from the Die Hard series and evolutionist), USA Weekend, 11-13 February 2000, p. 7. As cited in “Slippery Slide to Unbelief”, Creation ex Nihilo, Vol. 22, No 3, June – August 2000, p. 12 (website = www.AnswersInGenesis.org)

[64] David Green (creationist scientist), CEN Technical Journal, 12 (3), Answers in Genesis, PO Box 6302, Acacia Ridge, DC, Qld, 4110, Australia, 1998, p. 273 (www.AnswersInGenesis.org)

[65] Dr David Rosevear (creationist scientist, chemist, senior lecturer at Portsmouth University and Chairman of the Creation Science Movement), Creation Science : Confirming that the Bible is Right, New Wine Press, Chichester, England, 1991, p. 9

[66] Ken Ham (teacher, author and international creationist speaker), Creation Evangelism for the New Millennium, Master Books, Green Forest, Arizona, 1999, p. 73

[67] J.G.L. Wedge, What Do You Think of the Bible ?, Lindstrom Wedge, Chatswood, New South Wales, Australia, 1991, p. 2

[68] Malcolm Bowden (creationist scientist and engineer), The Rise of the Evolution Fraud, Creation-Life Publishers, San Diego, 1982, p. 167

Advertisment Header




Mercy Ministries

Mercy Ministries Mercy Ministries Australia Mercy Ministries USA Mercy Ministries UK Mercy Ministries Canada

PluggedIn

 

 

copyright