Home Church Community | Statement of Beliefs | Contact Us | Bible Study Resource

Basic Worldview:
103 Science, the Bible, and Creation


Origins: List of Evidences
Introduction to the Table


Origins - Section One
Origins - Section Two
Origins - Section Three
Origins - Section Four
Origins - Section Five


In the center column is a list of evidences grouped into categories in the following order: 1) The Origin of the Universe, 2) The Laws, Parameters, Ratios, and Processes of the Universe, 3) Time for Evolution 1 - Age of the Universe: The Evidence from Astrophysics, 4) Mechanisms for the Formation of the Universe, 5) Time for Evolution 2 - Age of the Earth: The Historical Record and Other Evidences from Humankind, 6) Time for Evolution 3 - Age of the Earth: The Evidence from Geology, 7) Time for Evolution 4 - Biological Evidence, 8) The Evidence Concerning the Evolutionary Origin of Life, 9) The Mechanisms of Biological Evolution, and 10) The Evidence Concerning the Biological Evolution of Species.

Italicized, non-underlined phrases or sentences designate the start of one of these seven categories. Bold, underlined phrases, followed by a descriptive paragraph indicate individual pieces of evidence that are not sub-components of a larger, family of evidence. For example, "Redshift / The Distant Travel of Starlight." In contrast, underlined phrases that are NOT bolded but are followed by a descriptive paragraph indicate pieces of pieces of evidence that are subcomponents of a larger family of evidence. For example, "Carbon-14" is a sub-point under the family "Absolute Dating." In other words, all underlined phrases are pieces of evidence and whether or not individual pieces of evidences are bolded depends on whether or not they are being placed under a larger super-category or family of evidence.

The narrow column to the left of the center column is marked "CRE" for "Creation Theory." And the narrow column to the right of the center column is marked "EVO" for "Evolution Theory." These columns to the left and right of the center column are intended to keep a running tab for how each piece of evidence favors or disfavors either theory.

Throughout the chart "Y," "N," or "0" will be placed in these columns on the left and right. "Y" = "Yes," designating that a particular piece of evidence favors, helps, supports, affirms, or proves a theory. "N" = "No," designating that a particular piece of evidence disfavors, hurts, undermines, negates, or disproves a theory. The "0" indicates that a particular piece of evidence favors neither theory over the other, neither helping nor hurting either theory. Some lines describing larger families have general implications for the theories apart from the specific sub-points listed beneath them. Other lines describing larger families of evidence are left blank in either column because the only indications from the evidence stem from their sub-points, listed below them. When a blank space appears next to a piece of evidence, (such as "Absolute Dating") the designations, "Y," "N," or "0" will be placed individually next to each sub-point in that family of evidence.

From time to time, there will also be explanatory "NOTES" in the central column to provide context or references for the evidences that follow.



Introductory Notes

NOTE 1: Maximum Ages, Not Minimum Ages - The pieces of evidence listed below establish maximum limits on the age of the earth, not minimum limits. In other words, the limits state that the earth cannot be older than a certain age because of certain physical processes and the rates of those processes. Furthermore, this is uniquely applicable to uniformitarianism, because only uniformitarianism states as its foundational principle that these rates cannot change. Consequently, within uniformitarianism, it is not possible to slow down the rates in order to allow for more time. However, in catastrophism, the earth could be much lower than these maximum limits because catastrophism's central ideology is that the present condition of the earth occurred rapidly due to major geologic events, during which many processes that otherwise occur slowly, are rapidly sped up. In other words, the limitations are strictly the result of uniform rates in processes. Consequently, these limits do not state that the earth has to be at least the age identified in the limit, only that it can be no older than that age if the processes occur uniformly and at uniform rates.

In addition, this is the only way to reconcile different age limits. If, for example, one maximum limit dictates that the earth is no older than 100 million years, and another limit dictates that the earth is no older than 10 million years, both limits cannot represent the actual age of the earth. Moreover, the age at the higher limit violates the lower limit. But, if the earth is dated to the younger date and is, for illustration, assigned an age of 9 million years, then it conforms to both limits, being less than the maximum of 100 million years set by the higher limit and less than the maximum of 10 million years set by the lower limit. Consequently, it is the lowest of the maximum age limits that define the true age limit. Higher age limits simply rule out hundreds of millions or billions of years needed for evolution due to the fact that any age above any maximum age limit violates that limit. Conversely, if an age is under all the maximum age limits, it is acceptable, even if it is far below the lowest limit. Such an age is acceptable no matter how low it is, simply because it does not exceed any of the maximum limits for age.

The only criterion that would rule out a low age is if the processes had to occur at uniform rate. But the principle of uniform rates is itself disproved by the variety of maximum limits set by various processes, which in turn rule out the time needed by other processes to produce essential features of the earth at their current rates. (Footnote: 2)


NOTE 2: Simple Observation and Deduction is Inherently More Reliable - Throughout the examination of dating methods, it was repeatedly noted that relative dating is regarded as "inherently more precise" and reliable than absolute dating because relative dating relies solely on direct observation and simple, straightforward, logical deductions as opposed to absolute dating, which relies on computations that are so highly complicated and assumption-laden that it requires expensive, advanced computers to perform the calculations.

"Dating, General considerations, Determination of sequence - It is also important to note that relative ages are inherently more precise, since two or more units deposited minutes or years apart would have identical absolute ages but precisely defined relative ages. While absolute ages require expensive, complex analytical equipment, relative ages can be deduced from simple visual observations…The principles for relative age dating described above require no special equipment and can be applied by anyone on a local or regional scale. They are based on visual observations and simple logical deductions and rely on a correlation and integration of data that occurs in fragmentary form at many outcrop locations…Absolute dating, Principles of isotopic dating - Because of the expensive equipment necessary and the combination of geologic, chemical, and laboratory skills required, geochronology is usually carried out by teams of experts." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

By such standards any evidentiary process that is based on direct observation and simple, straightforward, logical deductions is likewise going to be more precise and reliable than absolute dating. Once again, this constitutes an obstacle that is particularly problematic for the evolutionary principle of uniformitarianism, because uniformitarianism is not going to be able to avoid the logical deductions, which contradict evolution theory, simply by altering the rates at which processes occur. Consequently, these processes require either the abandonment of evolutionary theory itself, because there is not enough time, or the abandonment of uniformitarianism, which is the very principle that provides the amount of time needed for evolution in the first place.



return to
Science,
the Bible,
and Creation


Related Images



Gene Pool
(Figures 1-6)




Defining the
Boundaries of Kinds



Gaps in the
Fossil Record




Britannica
Geologic Column



Misperceptions of
Dating Methods
(Figures 1-8)




Dating Facts



Dating Procedures
(Figures 1-13)




Isotope Dating Chart



Cosmology
Figure 1



Cosmology
Figure 2 (a-d)



Cosmology
Figure 3 (a-f)











TABLE OF EVIDENCES



CRE


Evidence


EVO



The Origin of the Universe

Did the universe have a beginning? There are only 2 answers to this question. Either, the universe had no beginning but is itself eternal and has always existed. Or, the universe had a beginning and is not itself eternal.



Y


The Second Law Of Thermodynamics: The second law of thermodynamics clearly disproves the notion of an eternal universe or the notion that matter and energy are eternal. The second law of thermodynamics describes the phenomenon of entropy. Entropy is the loss of available energy as disorder increases in a system.

"Food Web, III ENERGY FLOW - The process whereby energy loses its capacity to do work is called entropy." - "Food Web," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The second law of thermodynamics states that, in a closed (or isolated) system, entropy always increases.

"Hawking, Stephen William - For instance, the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy, or disorder, must increase with time." - "Hawking, Stephen William," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Entropy - The idea of entropy is the basis of the second law of thermodynamics. According to this law, the direction of spontaneous change in isolated systems is toward maximum disorder...Taken together, all processes occurring now will result in a universe of greater disorder. Because the entropy of the universe is always increasing, a state of greater entropy must be one that occurs later in time. For this reason, entropy has been called 'time's arrow.'" - Worldbook, Contributor: Melvyn C. Usselman, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of Western Ontario.

"Thermodynamics, IV SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - The second law of thermodynamics gives a precise definition of a property called entropy. Entropy can be thought of as a measure of how close a system is to equilibrium; it can also be thought of as a measure of the disorder in the system. The law states that the entropy-that is, the disorder-of an isolated system can never decrease. Thus, when an isolated system achieves a configuration of maximum entropy, it can no longer undergo change: It has reached equilibrium. Nature, then, seems to "prefer" disorder or chaos." - "Thermodynamics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

When a system reaches this state of maximum entropy, it is said to have reached equilibrium and the temperature becomes uniform. This state is called heat death. And at this time no work or change can occur.

"Heat, Heat/Learning about heat, Thermodynamics - According to the second law, all spontaneous (natural) events act to increase the entropy within a system. Until a system reaches its maximum entropy, it can do useful work. But as a system does work, its entropy increases until the system can no longer perform work." - Worldbook, Contributor: Ared Cezairliyan, Ph.D., Former Research Physicist, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

"Physics, IV NEWTON AND MECHANICS, E Thermodynamics, 3 The Second Law of Thermodynamics - From the second law, it follows that in an isolated system (one that has no interactions with the surroundings) internal portions at different temperatures will always adjust to a single uniform temperature and thus produce equilibrium...The entropy of an isolated system, and of the universe as a whole, can only increase, and when equilibrium is eventually reached, no more internal change of any form is possible. Applied to the universe as a whole, this principle suggests that eventually all temperature in space becomes uniform, resulting in the so-called heat death of the universe." - "Physics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Physics, The scope of physics, The study of heat, thermodynamics, and statistical mechanics, Second law - Another formulation of the second law is that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases with time...Statistical mechanics - From a microscopic point of view the laws of thermodynamics imply that, whereas the total quantity of energy of any isolated system is constant, what might be called the quality of this energy is degraded as the system moves inexorably, through the operation of the laws of chance, to states of increasing disorder until it finally reaches the state of maximum disorder (maximum entropy), in which all parts of the system are at the same temperature, and none of the state's energy may be usefully employed. When applied to the universe as a whole, considered as an isolated system, this ultimate chaotic condition has been called the 'heat death.'" - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

In modern scientific terms, the universe is a closed system. All that exists is a closed system. And consequently, given enough time, a state of maximum entropy will occur in which there is no available energy in the universe. If the universe were eternal, this state of maximum entropy, in which there was no available energy, no work being done, and no change occurring, would have been reached a long time ago. Since the universe still has available energy and work and change still take place, it cannot be eternally old. To suggest or believe that the universe, or that matter and energy, are eternally old is to contradict the known scientific laws of thermodynamics. And that is simply not an option for a rational or an empirical atheist.

This leaves only the option that the universe is not itself eternal but had a beginning.

Conclusions from the Second Law of Thermodynamics do not point in favor or against either the creationist or the evolutionist model, although the implied need for a cause for the universe will be an important factor in the considerations that follow.


N


Y


First Law of Thermodynamics: The first law of thermodynamics states that, as a matter of physical and natural law, energy and matter cannot be either created or destroyed.

"Thermodynamics, Classical thermodynamics, The first law of thermodynamics - The first law of thermodynamics is often called the law of the conservation of energy (actually mass-energy) because it says, in effect, that, when a system undergoes a process, the sum of all the energy transferred across the system boundary-either as heat or as work-is equal to the net change in the energy of the system." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Thermodynamics, III FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - The first law, then, is a law of energy conservation. It states that, because energy cannot be created or destroyed-setting aside the later ramifications of the equivalence of mass and energy (see Nuclear Energy)-the amount of heat transferred into a system plus the amount of work done on the system must result in a corresponding increase of internal energy in the system." - "Thermodynamics," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Heat, Heat/Learning about heat, Thermodynamics - The first law of thermodynamics is the law of conservation of energy. It states that energy is never created or destroyed." - Worldbook, Contributor: Ared Cezairliyan, Ph.D., Former Research Physicist, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Both the evolution Big Bang model and creation model assert that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning. Therefore, both theories contradict the First Law of Thermodynamics concerning the unique event that is the beginning of the universe. Evolutionists regard the beginning of the universe as a miraculous, momentary suspension of natural and physical laws.

" [The big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle." - The Edge of Infinity, Paul Davies, physicist and evolutionist (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Quantum theory…holds that a vacuum…is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly….Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into a existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicist call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles…are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly….The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973, an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way….The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, 'a free lunch.'" - Brad Lemley, "Guth's Grand Guess," Discover (April 2002), p. 100 (Cited in The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, p. 100)

Given that the origin of the universe constitutes a momentary suspension of natural and physical laws, the next question is what caused the universe and this suspension of natural and physical laws? The first answer to this question that is often advanced by the evolutionary model is that there is no preceding cause. There was nothing before the universe. The universe came into being out of nothing, not even space or time.

"17.6 The Origin of the Universe - If the universe is expanding, then it must have once been much smaller. If you could run the life of the universe in reverse, like a film, you would see the universe contracting until it disappeared in a flash of light, leaving nothing. In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago. This theory of the origin of the universe is called the Big Bang theory." - HBJ General Science, 1989, p. 362 (Cited on "Seminar Part 1: The Age of the Earth," Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video, 27 minutes, 15 seconds)

"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything." - Where Did Everything Come From? Discover, April 2002 (Cited on "Seminar Part 1: The Age of the Earth," Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video, 28 minutes, 05 seconds)

"…the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. It's then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing." - Alan Guth & R. Steinhorsh, Scientific American, May 1984, p. 128 (Cited on "Seminar Part 1: The Age of the Earth," Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video, 28 minutes, 30 seconds)

"…the most reasonable belief is that we came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing." - William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith, Theism, Atheism and the Big Bang Cosmology (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1993), 135 (Cited in The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, p. 99)

However, the idea that items could pop suddenly into existence from nothing and without a cause is regarded as philosophically and logically absurd, even by skeptics as famous as philosopher David Hume.

"I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause." - David Hume, The Letters of David Hume, Two Volumes, J.Y.T. Greig, editor (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932), 1:187, quoted in: William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 93 (Cited in The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, p. 101)

The idea of items popping into existence is not only philosophically invalid on logical grounds, but, the fact that items do not simply pop into existence out of nothing is attested to by an overwhelming amount of empirical experience as well. Dr. William Lane Craig explains this as well during his interview in Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator.

"Well, we certainly have empirical evidence for the truth of this premise. This is a principle that is constantly confirmed and never falsified. We never see things coming into being uncaused out of nothing. Nobody worries that while he's away at work, say, a horse might pop into being, uncaused, out of nothing, in his living room, and be there defiling the carpet. We don't worry about those kinds of things, because they never happen." - The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, p. 99

The empirical proof from everyday experience is only further substantiated when we consider the giant leap that exists between the universe popping into existence out of nothing and a horse popping into existence in a living room. The horse popping into existence out of nothing in the middle of an existing living room comprised of already existing particles of air, germs, furniture, etc. and which are governed by existing natural and physical laws such as gravity. At least the horse is a new addition to an existing reality. But the universe pops out of literally nothing. Unlike the horse, there is no existing environment or physical laws from which or into which it springs. Commenting along these lines, a few paragraphs earlier, Dr. Craig states the following.

"When I first began to defend the kalam argument…I anticipated that its first premise-that whatever begins to exist has a cause-would be accepted by virtually everyone…It seems metaphysically necessary that anything which begins to exist has to have a cause that brings it into being. Things don't just pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing…this first premise is intuitively obvious once you clearly grasp the concept of absolute nothingness. You see, the idea that things can come into being uncaused out of nothing is worse than magic. At least when a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, there's the magician and the hat!...But in atheism, the universe just pops into being out of nothing, with absolutely no explanation at all." - The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, p.98-99

And not only is the idea of an item popping into existence uncaused out of nothing logically impossible and contrary to all human experience and intuition, but it also violates the fundamental law of cause and effect that forms the basis of most modern scientific inquiry.

"Causality, III MODERN DIRECTIONS - Along with the method of empiricism as the source of all knowledge goes a definition of cause that is widely accepted today. The cause of any event is a preceding event without which the event in question would not have occurred. This is a mechanistic view of causality popular in scientific circles. All the previous events would constitute the complete cause." - "Causality," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

If the law of cause and effect is rejected from being the norm in the realm of science, then science would lose the ability to test by means of experiment, to confirm any theory by observation or experiment, and ultimately to "know" or establish anything at all. Given the logical, empirical, and even scientific necessity for the law of cause and effect, it is impossible to assert that the universe came into being out of nothing without a preceding cause while remaining reasonable and scientific at the same time. This leaves only the possibility that the universe did not pop into existence out of nothing, but rather, it resulted from a preceding cause. And this, in turn, leads to the question of what indications we have about that cause itself.

As stated and supported above, evolutionary theory regards the beginning of the universe as a miraculous, momentary suspension of natural and physical laws. However, because it rejects any supernatural entities and by definition must account for all events and phenomenon in terms of natural and physical laws, the evolution model is inherently incapable of explaining the momentary suspension of this preeminent natural and physical law. Since all events and phenomenon must be accounted for in terms of natural and physical laws, how can evolution account for the suspension of those very laws? Consequently, the momentary suspension of such a preeminent natural law demonstrates the flaw in any model that relies solely on natural and physical laws, such as the evolutionary model.

On the other hand, the very fact that the universe could only come into being by the suspension of such a preeminent natural and physical law as the First Law of Thermodynamics, demonstrates the existence of causes that transcend, supersede, and overcome or overturn even the most prominent and well-established natural and physical laws. Consequently, the momentary suspension of such the First Law of Thermodynamics points to a transcendent, supernatural entity or force of some kind. The necessity for a transcendent supernatural entity or force to exist, heavily points in the direction of a creationist conclusion. The only remaining step toward indicating a personal creator, as deduced in creationism, is the question of whether or not the transcendent, supernatural cause could be an impersonal force. On this question, there are 2 primary demonstrations pointing toward the conclusion that the supernatural cause is personal rather than an impersonal force.

The first is philosophical. It is essential to understand that in both the contemporary evolutionary model and creation model, time itself began. For the evolution model, time begins at the Big Bang. (For the creation model, time begins when the eternal First Cause, the Creator, begins to create.)

"Space-time - in physical science, single concept that recognizes the union of space and time, posited by Albert Einstein in the theories of relativity (1905, 1916)." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, Friedmann-Lemaître models - The geometry of space in Friedmann's closed models is similar to that of Einstein's original model; however, there is a curvature to time as well as one to space…there is a beginning and end to time in Friedmann's version of a closed universe when material expands from or is recompressed to infinite densities. These instants are called the instants of the "big bang" and the "big squeeze," respectively." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Cosmos, Relativistic cosmologies, The Einstein-de Sitter universe - In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter proposed…The spatial geometry of the Einstein-de Sitter universe is Euclidean (infinite total volume), but space-time is not globally flat (i.e., not exactly the space-time of special relativity). Time again commences with a big bang and the galaxies recede forever, but the recession rate (Hubble's "constant") asymptotically coasts to zero as time advances to infinity." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Hawking, Stephen William - During the late 1960s Hawking proved that if the general theory of relativity is correct, then a singularity must also have occurred at the big bang. The big bang is the explosion that marked the beginning of the universe and the birth of space-time itself." - "Hawking, Stephen William," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Given that even in the contemporary Big Bang model, time itself begins at the Big Bang, the question of why the supernatural cause caused the universe to occur a finite time ago becomes relevant to the question of whether or not that supernatural cause is personal. In his book, The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel poses these questions to Dr. William Lane Craig, who explains the logical necessity that the supernatural cause is personal.

"Finally, let me give you an analogy that will help explain a third reason for why the first cause is personal. Water freezes at zero degrees Centigrade. If the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity past. It would be impossible for water to just begin to freeze a finite time ago. In other words, once the sufficient conditions were met-that is, the temperature was low enough-then the consequence would be that water would automatically freeze. So if the universe were just a mechanical consequence that would occur whenever sufficient conditions were met, and the sufficient conditions were met eternally, then it would exist from eternity past. The effect would be co-eternal with the cause. How do you explain, then, the origin of a finite universe from a timeless cause? I can only think of one explanation: that the cause of the universe is a personal agent who has freedom of will. He can create a new effect without any antecedent determining conditions. He could decide to say, 'Let there be light,' and the universe would spring into existence. I've never seen a good response to this argument on the part of any atheist." - The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, p. 111

Lee Strobel goes on to cite British physicist Edmund Whittaker to further articulate this line of argument.

"Putting the issue a bit simpler, British physicist Edmund Whittaker made a similar observation in his book The Beginning and End of the World. He said, 'There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihillo-Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.'" - The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan, p. 111

In simple terms, there is simply no reason and no ability within an impersonal cause to not produce the universe for some duration of time and then to produce the universe at a certain point. The impersonal or mechanistic nature of the force would cause the universe to automatically come into existence any time when the force is present. And whatever the ultimate cause that brings about the universe might be, so long as it is impersonal, it must be mechanistic in this fashion. Consequently, if the universe was caused by an impersonal force, then the universe should be eternally old. It should be as old as the force that caused it, since the force would cause the universe at all times when the force itself exists.

The fact that this proof for the personal nature of the supernatural cause is a philosophical proof should not be taken to indicate that it is "weaker" or "biased" simply because it is philosophical. There is no way to test this scientifically because it cannot be observed or repeated experimentally. On this question, all that mankind has in terms of reasoning through this conclusion is the philosophical constraints, the sheer logic, of the dilemma of explaining the fact that the universe does exist.

Starting from sheer reasoning is not the only proof, however. In addition to this philosophical, or strictly logical, deduction that the supernatural cause must be personal, not an impersonal force, there is another kind of evidence. This second kind of evidence entails direct experience of that personal cause by certain persons, the proofs experienced by them, their eyewitness testimony to others, and any proofs they offer to those they inform, which could either be natural proofs from the world around them or special proofs in the form of miracles, which demonstrate the mandate of a supernatural, personal cause. This second form of proof combines not only the kind of empirically testable claims but also the kind of eye witness testimony that suffices in legal proceedings as well as everyday life.

Conclusions from the First Law of Thermodynamics point in favor of a personal, supernatural cause for the universe, and therefore to the creationist model.


N




The Laws, Parameters, Ratios, and Processes of the Universe



Y


The Anthropic Principle: The fact that the laws, parameters, ratios, and processes of the universe are balanced on settings that specifically function to allow for the existence of higher, intelligent forms of life strongly if not inherently implies not only purpose at work in the supernatural cause that caused the universe, but also the personal nature of the first cause due to the apparent particular regard for the intelligent beings that would populate the universe.

There are thousands of parameters and ratios of universal laws and processes (including physics, chemistry, etc.) that if adjusted even slightly would make life, particularly human life, impossible. A few examples regarding the earth itself include the following. If the earth were 5 percent closer to the sun, the oceans would boil off. If the earth were 1 percent farther away from the sun, the oceans would freeze. If the earth's surface gravity were slightly more, there would be too much atmosphere and if it were slightly less, there wouldn't be an atmosphere. Additional examples include the thickness of the crust, the earth's rotation period and speed, and the gravitational interaction with the moon. The fact that these parameters and ratios could have any value but instead, in all cases, contain a value that is favorable for human life, indicates that the universe is fine-tuned for humankind. (Footnote: 4)

Physicist and Nobel Laureate Arno Penzias stated in 1992, "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing. One with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life. And one that has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." Astronomist George Greenstein stated in his book The Symbiotic Universe, "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency must be involved…Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?..." [George Greenstein, The Symbiotic Universe (New York: William Morrow, 1988) pg. 27.] (Footnote: 4)

Way back in the late 1950's, Hoyle talked about the precise process by which carbon and oxygen are produced in a certain ratio inside stars. If you tinker with the resonance states of carbon, you won't get the materials you need for building life. Incidentally, recent studies in by the physicist Heinze Oberhummer and his colleagues show that just a one-percent change in the strong nuclear force would have a thirty- to a thousand-fold impact on the production of oxygen and carbon in stars. Since stars provide the carbon and oxygen needed for life on planets, if you throw off that balance, conditions in the universe would be much less optimal for the existence of life. p. 131 (Footnote: 5)

There are more than thirty separate physical or cosmological parameters that require precise calibration in order to produce a life-sustaining universe. p. 132 (Stephen C. Meyer, "Evidence for Design in Physics and Biology" in Michael J. Behe, William A Dembski, and Stephen C. Meyers, editors, Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe (San Francisco: Ignatius, 200), 60. (Footnote: 5)

Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an avowed atheist, has expressed amazement at the way the cosmological constant-the energy density of empty space-is "remarkably well adjusted in our favor." The constant, which is part of Einstein's equation for General Relativity, could have had any value, positive or negative, "but from first principles on would guess that this constant should be very large," Wienberg said. Fortunately, he added, it isn't: "If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people. If large and negative, the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse." Either way, life loses-big time. But astonishingly, that's not what has happened. "In fact," Weinberg said, "astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles." p. 133 (Footnote: 5)

And Collins wasn't through. "There are other examples of fine-tuning," he said. "For instance, there's the difference in mass between neutrons and protons. Increase the mass of the neutron by about one part in seven hundred and nuclear fusion in stars would stop. There would be no energy source for life. And if the electromagnetic force were slightly stronger or weaker, life in the universe would be impossible. Or consider the strong nuclear force. Imagine decreasing it by fifty percent, which is tiny-one part in ten thousand billion billion billion billion, compared to the total range of force strengths…Since like charges repel, the strong nuclear force would be too weak to prevent the repulsive force between the positively charges protons in atoms nuclei from tearing apart all atoms except hydrogen," he said." And regardless of what they may show on Star Trek, you can't have intelligent forms built from hydrogen. It simply doesn't have enough stable complexity." p. 134-135 (Footnote: 5)

Few concepts stretch the mind as much as the fine-tuning of the universe. For example, Oxford physicist Roger Penrose said one parameter, the "original phase-space volume," required fine-tuning to an accuracy of one part in ten billion multiplied by itself one hundred and twenty three times. Penrose remarked that it would be impossible to even write down that number in full, since it would require more zeroes than the number of elementary particles in the entire universe! This shows, he said, "the precision needed to set the universe on its course." p. 135 (Footnote: 5)

"Earth's location, its size, its composition, its structure, its atmosphere, its temperature, its internal dynamics, and its many intricate cycles that are essential to life-the carbon cycle, the oxygen cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, the calcium cycle, and so on-testify to the degree to which our planet is exquisitely and precariously balanced." p. 157 (Footnote: 5)

"We've found that our location in the universe, in our galaxy, in our solar system, as well as such things as the size and rotation of the Earth, the mass of the moon and sun and so forth-a whole range of factors-conspire together in an amazing way to make Earth a habitable planet," Gonzalez said. p. 164 (Footnote: 5)


N




Time for Evolution 1 - Age of the Universe: The Evidence from Astrophysics



Y


Redshift / The Distant Travel of Starlight: The age of the universe is calculated by the expansion of the universe, which in turn is calculated by the observation of the shifting of light wavelengths toward the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, the redshifts are strictly quantized, occurring in concentric circles regularly-spaced around the Milky Way Galaxy. This inherently indicates that the Milky Way Galaxy and the earth are near the center of the Universe (with expansion occurring outward from this central region), and thereby the earth and the Milky Way Galaxy are in a gravity well. When the universe was at earlier stages of expansion, the effect of this gravity well upon time itself would have caused time to pass slowly on the earth and quickly at the distant stars, providing time for light from those stars to reach the earth even while only 6 days passed on earth.


N


Y


The Winding-Up Dilemma: The farther out from the center, the slower that spiral galaxies rotate, and conversely, the nearer to the center, the faster the galaxy rotates. These different rotation speeds would rip apart the distinct spiral arms of the spiral galaxies, causing it to wind-up like a watch spring. Within a few hundred million years maximum, there would be no more spiral arm galaxies, only blurred discs. (Footnote: 1)

"Galaxy, Evolution of spiral galaxies - Astronomers do not understand clearly how galactic spirals evolved and why they still exist. The mystery arises when one considers how a spiral galaxy rotates. The galaxy spins much like the cream on the surface of a cup of coffee. The inner part of the galaxy rotates somewhat like a solid wheel, and the arms trail behind. Suppose a spiral arm rotated around the center of its galaxy in about 250 million years-as in the Milky Way. After a few rotations, taking perhaps 2 billion years, the arms would "wind up," producing a fairly continuous mass of stars. But almost all spiral galaxies are much older than 2 billion years." - Worldbook, Contributor: Kenneth Brecher, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Boston University.

"Galaxies wind themselves up too fast - The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape. Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this 'the winding-up dilemma', which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same 'winding-up' dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the dilemma has been a complex theory called 'density waves'. The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the 'Whirlpool' galaxy, M51." (Footnote: 2)


N




Supernovas / Supernova Remnants (SNR's): Supernovas are exploding stars, which produce an expanding cloud of of gas and debris as a result of their explosion.




Y


SNR Size: By observing the average rate of expansion and assuming a uniformitarian rate, it can be determined how long it would take for the gas to expand to any particular diameter. After 300 years, the expansion cloud would be 23 light years in diameter. After 120,000 years, the expansion cloud would be 350 light years in diameter. With current technology, it is possible to detect SNR's that have been expanding for up to 6 million years, which would reach an expansion of 1,500 light years in diameter. After that, they've expanded too much and are too diluted for our current technology to detect them. In the parts of our galaxy that can be seen, there are no large supernova remnants. None are bigger than about 7,000 years worth of expansion. (Footnote: 1)



N

Y


SNR Quantity: On average, there are about 4 supernovas per century. In just the part of the galaxy that is visible from earth, assuming a uniformitarian rate, there should be 7,291 in just 1 million years, let alone the billions of years that the evolutionary theory asserts for the age of the universe. In 7,000 years, there should be 125 visible. The actual number visible today is 200, which is much closer to a universe that is only thousands of years old. (Footnote: 1)

Stars explode once in a while. This is called a nova or a supernova. It happens about once every 30 years as a rough average. When they look at the sky, they find less than 300 supernova rings. There should be several hundred million if the universe were billions of years old. Assuming a uniformitarian rate of 1 every 30 years, the universe would be less than 9,000 years old (1 per 30 years, 300 x 30 years = 9,000). (ICR, September 1998) (Footnote: 3)


N


Y


Cooling Off of Planets: Some of the planets are cooling off. If they were billions of years old, they would have finished cooling off a long time ago. The fact that they are still cooling off indicates that they were formed recently enough to still being in the cooling off stage. (Footnote: 3)


N


Y


Saturn's Rings: Saturn's rings are slowly moving away from the planet. If Saturn and its rings were billions of years old, the rings would not be in their current position or condition.


N


Y


Ganymede's Magnetic Field: Jupiter's moon Ganymede has a strong magnetic field, indicating a hot, liquid core. If Ganymede was billions of years old, it should have cooled to the point of being solid a long time ago. (Footnote: 3)


N


Y


The Earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast: The total energy stored in the Earth's magnetic field has steadily decreased by a factor of 2.7 over the past 1000 years. Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the Earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years, are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then. This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data. The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 10,000 years old. (Footnote: 2)

The earth is like a big magnet…In the last 150 years, the earth has lost 6 percent of its magnetic strength. In the past, the earth's magnetic field used to be stronger. Assuming a uniformitarian rate, if the earth were more than 25,000 years old, the heat from the stronger magnetic field would have destroyed life on earth. (Footnote: 3)


N


Y


Earth's Spin: The earth spins at about 1,000 miles per hour at the equator but this spin is slowing down. The earth's spin slows down enough that every once in a while the clocks have to be adjusted to fit. This happened on New Year's Eve of 1991. "But regular clocks use days as a measure, which are growing longer by a thousandth of a second or more daily as Earth's rotation slows." ("Giving 1990 one last tick before ushering in 1991," Pensacola News Journal, 12/6/1990). It happened again in 1992. "Earth's Rotation is slowing down. To compensate for this lagging motion, June will be one second longer than normal. This 'Leap Second' announced by the International Earth Rotation Service in February, will keep calendar time in close alignment with international time" ("Time to Kill," Astronomy Magazine, June 1992, p. 24). In fact, this happened from 1973-1983, in 1986, in 1988, from 1990-94, and in 1996. In the past, the earth was spinning faster. At this current rate of slowdown and assuming a uniformitarian rate, the difference in speed would be minimal 6,000 years ago. But at this rate, the earth could not be billions of years old. At these rates, just a few billion years ago and the change from day to night would have been extremely rapid. Centripetal force would have been enormous at these speeds. Furthermore, it is the spin of the earth that causes the Coriolis effect, and at this rate of spin, the Coriolis effect would have caused the winds to be 5,000 miles per hour. (Footnote: 3)


N


Y


The Recession of the Moon: The earth and the moon are masses that are exerting gravitational forces on each other. This causes the moon to accelerate in its orbit so that slowly spirals away from the earth. Consequently, the moon is receding from the earth at a rate of 4 centimeters or just under 2 inches per year. [1 centimeter = 0.3937 inches x 4 centimeters = 1.5748 inches.] The moon is currently 250,000 miles from the earth. But at this rate [assuming a uniformitarian rate], 1,000 years ago, the moon was 125 feet closer to the earth. [At a rate of 1.5 inches per year x 1,000 years = 1,500 inches / 12 inches = 125 feet, or 1.5748 inches x 1,000 / 12 = 131 feet.] 1 million years ago, the moon was about 28.4 miles closer. [1.5 inches per year x 1,000,000 = 1,500,000 inches / 12 inches = 125,000 feet / 5,280 feet = 23.67 miles, or 1.5748 x 1,000,000 / 12 / 5,280 = 24.85 miles.] At 10 million years, the moon is 284 miles closer [248.5 miles]. At 100 million years, the moon is 2,840 miles closer [2,485 miles]. At 1 billion years ago, the moon was 28,400 miles closer [24,850 miles]. At this distance, there would be a major disrupting impact on the tides, increasing their height dramatically, which would affect all life on earth detrimentally. However, because of the increase of gravity as distance decreases, the recession is not linear. Instead, the closer the moon gets, the more gravitational pull there is between the earth and the moon, and the faster is closes the distance. Consequently, with the increasing gravity factored in, at 1.4 billion years ago, the moon would actually be in contact with the earth. (Footnote: 7)

The tidal and gravitational interaction of the earth and the moon causes the earth's rotation on its axis to slow down. According to Newton's Inverse Square Law of Gravitation, this effect would increase the closer that the earth and the moon get to one another. This provides a maximum of 1.7 billion years for the moon to reach its current distance, and that is starting with the moon touching the surface of the earth. However, the Roche Limit dictates that the moon could not start out any closer than 8,000 miles from earth without being destroyed by the earth's gravity. Furthermore, if the moon were 4.6 billion years old, as evolution teaches, it should be much farther out. (Footnote: 1)

The moon orbits the earth. As it goes around the earth, it slowly moves away from the earth by a few inches a year. In the past, it was closer. Since the moon causes the tides, the closer that it gets, the higher the tides get. The Inverse Square Law states that the force of attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, which means that if the moon were 1/3 its current distance from the earth, it would have 9 times its current gravitational pull on the earth. At this rate and assuming a uniformitarian rate of recession, about 1.2 billion years ago the moon would have been orbiting just above the surface of the earth, which means that the earth and the moon cannot be 4.6 billion years old. (Footnote: 3)


N


Y


The Age of the Sun: The sun produces energy as it undergoes thermonuclear fusion. As this process occurs, the core of the sun, as is the case for stars in general, should grow brighter with age. And the brighter stars get, the hotter they get as well. According to star-aging models, the sun, at its current brightness and being about 4.6 billion years old, is about halfway through its 10 billion year life. Consequently, this means that over the first 4.6 billion years of its existence, the sun has brightened about 40 percent. In other words, its current brightness is 40 percent greater than its original brightness. The average temperature on earth is (15 degrees Celsius) 59 degrees Fahrenheit. According to evolutionary theory, life on earth originated about 3.5 billion years ago. At 3.5 billion years ago, the sun would be about 25 percent less bright than it is today. The 25 percent increase in brightness from then to now results in a 32 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature on earth. This means that assuming a uniformitarian rate for star brightness and temperature, the average temperature on earth was 32 degrees cooler 3.5 billion years ago, which puts it at 27 degrees Fahrenheit. Consequently, 3.5 billion years ago, the average temperature on earth would have been 5 degrees below freezing at the time that life was originating, a process which required heat according to the evolutionary model. (Footnote: 7)

"The Primeval Biosphere - A picture of the young Earth near the end of the bombardment period would show a cloudy atmosphere, dozens of times thicker than our own (Figure 11). Such an atmosphere would protect the ground and prevent it from cooling rapidly in an era when the young Sun was about 30 percent less bright than it is now." - "An Argument for the Cometary Origin of the Biosphere," Armand H. Delsemme, American Scientist, Volume 89, 2004


N


Y


The Life Expectancy of Short-Period Comets: Short-periods comets have a life expectancy of less than 10,000 years. This is caused because they lose mass every time they get close to the sun. To last 4.6 billion years, [assuming a uniformitarian rate] their initial mass would have to be larger than the sun itself. Consequently, the presence of such comets today requires either that the earth is less than 10,000 years old or that there is a "source of replenishment" for these comets. This replenishment source is called the Oort Cloud, which is a spherical region that is said to reside beyond Pluto about 1 light year from the sun and contain billions of comets, but which has not been detected by any observable or empirical means. Furthermore, the presence of this quantity of comets would cause them to bump into each other and annihilate each other so that they could not have lasted billions of years until this time to replenish comets today. Likewise, the related Kuiper Belt, which is a nearer and smaller relative of the Oort Cloud, is now known to have only about 7 percent of the material it was originally thought to have. Consequently, the sources for replenishment are undetected and, even if they did exist, would not work even on theoretical grounds. (Footnote: 1)

"Comets disintegrate too quickly - According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about 5 billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of 10,000 years. Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical 'Oort cloud' well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed. So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the 'Kuiper Belt', a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Even if some bodies of ice exist in that location, they would not really solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it." (Footnote: 2)

Comets are always losing material, which causes the tail as the material blows off. At the rate that they lose material, comets last only about 10,000 years each. The fact that there are still comets indicates that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. The solution proposed by evolution theorists concerning this point is that there is a spherical cloud, known as the Oort Cloud, at the far edge of the solar system, 50,000 astronomical units from the sun and this cloud is comprised of small bodies. Comet are said to be such bodies that have been gravitationally propelled into our solar system from this reservoir. An astronomical unit is the average distance between the sun and the earth, which is 93 million miles. Pluto is 39 astronomical units away and it is incredibly difficult to see without a very powerful telescope. Consequently, it is impossible to see any object, such as the Oort Cloud's comets, that are 50,000 astronomical units away. No one has ever seen the Oort cloud. It is hard to see a comet 1 astronomical unit from earth. Oort never saw the Oort cloud. "Oort proposed a cloud of comets surrounding the solar system based on mathematical errors." (Raymond Littleton, "The Non-existence of the Oort Cometary Shell," Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 31, December 1914, pp. 385-401. (Footnote: 3)

Comets: Comets are divided into 2 groups, long period comets and short period comets. Short period comets are those comets that circle around the sun every 200 years or less. Long period comets are those that circle around the sun every 200 years or more. Every time they circle the sun, they lose some of their mass. At their current rate of mass loss, they should have burned up and disintegrated a long time ago and none would exist today if the solar system were 4.6 billion years old. Evolutionary theory answers this by stating that the long period comets are replaced by material from the Oort Cloud, which is out a great distance past Pluto. The Kuiper belt, which is around Neptune, is supposed to supply the short term comets. However, the Oort cloud has never been observed. There is no evidence that it exists. And after the collisions that formed the bodies of the solar system there would not have been enough mass or material left to form the Oort cloud. Kuiper belt objects (KBO) have been observed. The comets that orbit the sun are about 10 kilometers in diameter at the largest size. The objects in the Kuiper belt are at a minimum of 100 kilometers in diameter and range all the way up to 500 kilometers. Consequently, the objects in the Kuiper belt are far too large to be identified with any of the comets that orbit the sun. Furthermore, there are simply not enough objects in the Kuiper belt to have supplied short period comets for the age of the solar system. It would require at least 100 times more objects in order to supply enough short period comets to last the age of the solar system. (Footnote: 7)

"The existence of the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud of comets has not been verified. Perhaps there is an alternative. The presence of comets may be evidence that the solar system is not as old as is often assumed." - Don De Young, Ph. D. Physics, Astronomy and the Bible, 2000, p. 49-50 (Footnote: 7)

"The region simply doesn't possess anywhere near enough material for them to accumulate over the age of the solar system." - S. Alan Stern, Sky and Telescope, "The 2nd Zone: Exploring the Kuiper Belt," pp. 30-26 (Footnote: 7)

"Though the Oort cloud has yet to be observed, the theory accounts so well for the distribution of comets' orbits that most astronomers today accept its existence." - Timothy Ferris, The Whole Shebang: A State-of-the-Universe Report, 1997, p. 123

"Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort Cloud, its properties, its origin, its evolution. Yet there is not a shred of direct observational evidence for its existence." - Carl Sagan, Comets, 1985, p. 207 (Footnote: 7)

"Since it cannot be detected, the Oort cloud is not a scientific concept. This is not bad science, but non-science masquerading as science. The existence of comets is good evidence that the solar system is only a few thousand years old…" - Danny Faulkner, Ph. D. Astronomy, Technical Journal, "More Problems for the Oort Comet Cloud," 2001, p. 25 (Footnote: 7)


N


Y


The Poynting-Robertson Effect: In our own solar system, there is an influence of solar radiation and solar radiation and solar wind affecting micro-meteoric material in the solar system that is believed to have been around since the formation of the universe 4.6 billion years ago. Solar radiation and solar wind push on the smaller particles, accelerating them, increasing their velocity, and effectively pushing them out of the solar system in a much smaller amount of time than the current evolutionary age of the universe. On the larger particles, solar radiation and solar wind exhibit a drag effect, slowing down their orbital speed so that they cannot maintain orbit and they spiral into the sun and burn up. These two factors are so efficient that [assuming a uniformitarian rate] they should have removed all the micro-meteoric material out up to a diameter of 2 inches within 2 billion years from inside of Jupiter's solar orbit. The presence of such material today indicates that these processes have not been going on for over or anywhere near 2 billion years. In fact, the fine material that still resides close to the sun today should have been blown away in just thousands of years. Furthermore, the Milky Way Galaxy and other observed galaxies have a lot of dust in them, and the solar wind of all the combined stars in the galaxy should have blown the dust out of those galaxies in a much shorter timescale than the 10-20 billion-year evolutionary age of the universe. (Footnote: 1)


N


Y


Micro-meteoric Material on the Moon's Surface: As the earth and the moon revolve around the sun, they pick up micro-meteoric material. It was expected that, after 4.6 billion years, it would cover the moon 60 feet deep if tightly compacted and about 180 feet deep if loosely compacted. However, the dust on the moon is deep enough for astronauts (such as Neil Armstrong) to scrape through to solid rock with their boots. The lack of accumulation of meteoric dust suggests that the moon has not been in existence collecting such dust for billions or even millions of years. (Footnote: 1)


N


Y


Erosion on the Moon: With no atmosphere and no ozone the moon is subject to the full strength of cosmic and solar radiation, which "break down even hard, basalt-type rocks" at a rate of about 4 ten- thousandths of an inch per year. In one million years [assuming a uniformitarian rate], there would be about 33 feet of radiation erosion. Large boulders would be reduced to dust in much less than a million years. This would be 33,000 feet of erosion after a billion years. This alone would cause an enormous smoothing out and lowering of mountains and hills on the moon, which is not what is observed today. Furthermore, "rocks actually flow" under the constant force of gravity, although it is much slower than water. With even a fraction of the known viscosity or rate-of-flow index for the rocks that are on the moon, there should be no mountains or craters on the moon if it were billions of years old, let alone the sharp edges seen on some of the craters, which should have smoothed out after just a hundred thousand years but have not. The lack of erosion indicates that the moon is only thousands of years old. Furthermore, the presence of so many craters on the moon, which have not significantly worn down by erosion, provides evidence for a major cataclysmic asteroid or meteorite phenomenon on the earth within the last few thousand years, which would in turn potentially substantiate the involvement of a major impact in causing the breaking open of the earth's crust into plates, the shooting forth of the "fountains of the deep," and the subsequent global flood. (Footnote: 1)


N


Y


Meteorites on the Earth: While erosion on earth would remove craters, such as are seen on the moon, with billions of years of meteorites bombarding earth, we should have more meteorites themselves. For example, estimates of Antarctica alone assert that it has received 18,000 meteorites per year. Over billions of years that equates to trillions of meteorites. This is worsened by the fact that there are fossils in the sedimentary rock layers that are supposed to be from this same time. The lack of meteorites indicates that the earth has not been around for billions of years for meteorites to build up on earth. (Footnote: 1)


N


Y


Stellar Evolution: Evolution asserts that red stars slowly evolve over billions of years into white dwarf stars. Red stars do change into white stars, but the evidence indicates that this takes less than two thousand years to happen. All the ancient astronomers describe Sirius as a red star including Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2,000 B.C., Cicero in 50 B.C., Seneca (4 B.C.-65 A.D.) described it as "redder than Mars," and Ptolemy listed it as one of the six red stars in 150 A.D. But today Sirius is a white dwarf star. (Footnote: 3)

"Sirius - also called Alpha Canis Majoris , or Dog Star brightest star in the night sky, with apparent visual magnitude -1.5. It is a binary star in the constellation Canis Major. The bright component of the binary is a blue-white star 23 times as luminous as the Sun and somewhat larger and considerably hotter than the Sun." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Star, Star formation and evolution, End states of stars, White dwarfs - All stars seem to evolve through the red-giant phase to their ultimate state along a straightforward path. In most instances, especially among low-mass stars, the distended outer envelope of the star simply drifts off into space, while the core settles down as a white dwarf. Here, the star (really the core) evolves on the horizontal branch to bluer colours and lower luminosities…The Sun is destined to perish as a white dwarf. But, before that happens, it will evolve into a red giant, engulfing Mercury and Venus in the process…The first white dwarf to be recognized was the companion to Sirius. It was originally detected by its gravitational attraction on the larger, brighter star and only later observed visually as a faint object (now called Sirius B), about 10,000 times fainter than Sirius (now called Sirius A) or 500 times fainter than the Sun. Its mass is slightly less than that of the Sun, and its size a little less than that of the Earth." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition


N




Mechanisms for the Formation of the Universe



Y


Dark Matter and Dark Energy: In order to explain the current action of gravity in the universe and to mathematically balance, the modern cosmological models for the Big Bang require the invention of dark matter and dark energy, which have never been detected. It is believed that they are invisible because by nature they emit no electromagnetic radiation, which is the spectrum that allows us to detect anything from radio waves to infrared rays to visible light to ultraviolet rays, X-rays, and gamma rays. About 23 percent of the universe is thought to be dark matter and 73 percent is thought to be dark energy. Only the remaining 4 percent is comprised of normal matter and energy, of matter and energy that are detectable. Furthermore, not only are dark matter and energy undetectable, but their properties are also unknown. Consequently, the evolutionary Big Bang model is still without any observed, empirical data explaining how the universe exists in its current state, including how gravity acts on a large scale leading to either the contraction or continued expansion of the universe. (Detailed information about these factors are presented in the preceding sections of this article series.)


N

Y


Top-Down vs. Bottom-up Formation of Large-Scale Structure: In the evolutionary Big Bang cosmology, there is still no explanation for how the structure of the universe formed in terms of superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and stars, etc. Gravity is the mechanism most favored by current models for how and why theses structures originated. However, there are 2 alternate theories for exactly how gravity accomplishes this. The first is called the "top-down" theory (which is associated with "warm" dark matter) and the second is called the "bottom-up" theory (which is associated with "cold" dark matter.) It is important to keep in mind here that the detection and properties of dark matter remain unknown, so the designation of "cold" vs. "warm" dark matter, which is so central to either alternative here, is entirely invented. In "top-down" theories, gravity causes the largest structures condense first, such as superclusters and clusters, then galaxies form in these clusters, and finally stars condense within the galaxies. In "bottom-up" theories, galaxies or smaller form first, then move and collect into larger structures like clusters and superclusters. "Top-down" theories tend to provide a better, but still flawed, explanation for the spatial distribution of these structures throughout the universe, but they fail to produce celestial objects with the proper mass to fit observed data and they place the formation of these structures at a time that is too recent to the present to fit observed data. In direct contrast, "bottom-up" theories fit with the proper, observable mass of celestial objects, but they fail to explain the largest structures and their distribution throughout the universe. Simulations employing alternate theories, such as "biased galaxy formation," show that "no amount of biasing can reproduce both the large-scale spatial structure and the magnitude of the observed large-scale streaming mothions" ("Cosmos," Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition). Consequently, explaining the formation of the large-scale distribution and structure of the universe requires a combination of the "top-down" and "bottom-up" theories, in which there is an equal mixture of warm and cold dark matter. However, such a mixture is considered to lack supportive evidence and to be too ideal or too artificially constructed to match naturalistic mechanisms. The current status is that the Big Bang cosmology still, to this day, cannot explain the formation of the structure and distribution of the universe. Given that the Big Bang theory cannot describe the actual "explosion" itself, nor can it describe how the universe reached its present structural distribution after the "explosion," nor can it avoid relying on 90 percent ratios of undetected matter and energy with unknown properties, this leaves the question of exactly what the Big Bang theory does describe or explain successfully.

"Cosmos, Unorthodox theories of clustering and galaxy formation - Given the somewhat unsatisfactory state of affairs with gravitational theories for the origin of large-scale structure in the universe, some cosmologists have abandoned the orthodox approach altogether and have sought alternative mechanisms…In summary, it can be seen that mechanisms alternative to the growth of small initial fluctuations by self-gravitation all have their own difficulties. Most astronomers hope some dramatic new observation or new idea may yet save the gravitational instability approach, whose strongest appeal has always been the intuitive notion that the force that dominates the astronomical universe, gravity, will automatically promote the growth of irregularities. But, until a complete demonstration is provided, the lack of a simple convincing picture of how galaxies form and cluster will remain one of the prime failings of the otherwise spectacularly successful hot big bang theory." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Cosmology, III MODERN COSMOLOGY, A The Big Bang Theory - Current methods of particle physics allow the universe to be traced back to earlier than one second after the big bang explosion initiated the expansion of the universe. Cosmologists believe that they can model the universe back to 1 x [10 to the -43rd power] seconds after the big bang; before that point, they would need a theory that merges the theory of gravity and the theory of general relativity to explain the behavior of the universe. Scientists do not actually study the big bang itself, but infer its existence from the universe's expansion." - "Cosmology," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


N

0


Formation of Stars: Like the formation of the large-scale structures of the universe, there is still no working explanation in evolutionary Big Bang cosmology for the formation of stars, the predominant and perhaps most basic celestial object. Consequently, the Big Bang cosmology doesn't explain or describe what caused the "bang," the bang itself, how the bang led to the current large-scale structure and distribution of the universe, or the formation of anything from galaxies to stars. There is still no working evolutionary model for the existence of these things.

"Many aspects of the evolution of galaxies cannot yet be determined with any certainty." - Joseph Silk, (Professor of Astronomy at the University of Oxford), The Big Bang, 2001, p. 195 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Galaxies must have condensed out of the gases expanding from the big bang…Details of the formation of galaxies are still highly uncertain, as is their subsequent evolution." - The Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 172 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"The complete birth of a star has never been observed. The principles of physics demand some special conditions for star formation and also for a long time period. A cloud of hydrogen gas must be compressed to a sufficiently small size so that gravity dominates. In space, however, almost every gas cloud is light-years in size, hundreds of times greater than the critical size needed for a stable star. As a result, outward gas pressures cause these clouds to spread out farther, not contract." - Don De Young, Ph. D. in Physics, Astronomy and the Bible, 2000, p. 84 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star…is still a challenging theoretical problem…Astronomers have yet to see an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse." - Fred Whipple, The Mystery of Comets, (Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institute Press, 1985), pp. 211, 213 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"To many astronomers, it seems reasonable that stars could form from these clouds of gas. Most astronomers believe that the clouds gradually contract under their own weight to form stars. This process has never been observed, but if it did occur, it would take many human life times. It is known that clouds do not spontaneously collapse to form stars. The clouds possess considerable mass, but they are so large that their gravity is very feeble. Any decrease in size would be met by an increase in gas pressure that would cause a cloud to re-expand." - Danny Faulkner, Ph. D. Astronomy (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"There is general belief that stars are forming by gravitational collapse; in spite of vigorous efforts no one has yet found any observational indication of confirmation. Thus the 'generally accepted' theory of stellar formation may be one of a hundred unsupported dogmas which constitute a large part of present-day astrophysics." - Hannes Alfven (Nobel prize winner), Gustaf Arrhenius, "Evolution of the Solar System," NASA, 1976, p. 480 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Despite numerous efforts, we have yet to directly observe the process of stellar formation…The origin of stars represents one of the fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics." - Charles Lada and Frank Shu (both astronomers), "The Formation of Sunlike Stars," Science, 1990, p. 572 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"Stars are formed by the gravitational collapse of cool, dense gas and dust clouds…There are problems, however, in initiating the collapse of a gas cloud. It resists collapse because of firstly its internal motions and the heating effects of nearby stars, secondly, the centripetal support due to rotation, and thirdly, the magnetic field pressure." - Facts on File Dictionary of Astronomy, 1994, p. 434 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)

"The truth is that we don't understand star formation at a fundamental level." - Marcus Chown, "Let there be Light," New Scientist, Feb. 7, 1998 (Cited on "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net)


0

Y


The Formation of the Solar System: The evolutionary Big Bang model also lacks a working explanation for the formation of the solar system. The current theory is the nebular hypothesis, now combined but originally put forward separately by philosopher Immanuel Kant and French astronomer and mathematician Pierre Simon de Laplace. This theory holds that the solar system formed from the collapse of a nebular dust and gas cloud.

"Solar system, Origin of the solar system, Early cosmogonic models - Because the theory of Laplace incorporated Kant's idea of planets coalescing from dispersed material, these two approaches for planet formation are often combined in a single model called the Kant-Laplace nebular hypothesis. During this period, the apparent regularity of motions in the solar system was contradicted by the discovery of asteroids with highly eccentric orbits and satellites with retrograde orbits. Another problem with the nebular hypothesis was the fact that, while the Sun contains 99.9 percent of the mass of the solar system, the planets (principally the outer planets) carry more than 99 percent of the system's angular momentum. To conform to this theory, either the Sun would have to be rotating more rapidly or the planets would have to be revolving around it more slowly. In the early decades of the 20th century, several scientists independently decided that these deficiencies of the nebular hypothesis were so great that it was no longer tenable…Planets must somehow be created in the process that forms the stars themselves. This awareness prompted scientists to reconsider certain basic processes that resembled some of the earlier notions of Kant and Laplace." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The primary problem is the discrepancy that solar system formations have with the law known as the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In fact, there are 2 problems this theory has concerning the Conservation of Angular Momentum. The first is described in the quote above. In short, the spinning of this cloud as it coalesced should result in particular distributions of the rotation speed, mass, and angular momentum of the sun vs. that of the planets. However, the distributions required if the solar system formed from angular momentum at the collapse of a nebular cloud are violated by the actual observed data concerning the sun and planets today.

"This [Angular Momentum] would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly. Actually, our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun. In fact, although the sun has over 99 percent of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2 percent of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis." - Dr. H. Reeves, The Origin of the Solar System, in The Origin of the Solar System, Dermott, S.F. Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p. 9, 1978 (Footnote 3)

The second problem posed by angular momentum is the unusual orbits and reverse spins of at least 2 planets and 8 of the 91 moons in the solar system. According to the law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum, all objects that spin off as part of the same original, spinning object should be spinning the same direction. The fact that this is not the case provides evidence that the solar system, did not form by the coalescing of gas and dust as a process of angular momentum.

There is a law in physics called the Conservation of Angular Momentum. The Big Bang would have been a frictionless environment since it asserts that all the matter was began in one condensed, infinitesimally small spot, and consequently there would have been nothing for the components of the Big Bang to run into as friction. If a spinning object breaks apart in such a frictionless environment, all the parts that fly off will spin the same direction as the original object because the outside of those components is rotating faster than the inside of them. However, at least 2 planets and 8 moons in our solar system spin backwards. Furthermore, there are other problems concerning the mass and rotation speed of the sun vs. that of the planets, which contradict the law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In addition, beyond our solar system, there are also entire galaxies that spin backwards. (Footnote 3)

Uranus, Venus, and possibly Pluto are spinning backwards. Likewise, "8 of the 91 moons rotate backwards. Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions." (Astronomical Almanac for the year 1989 (Wash., D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985), p. E85) And some galaxies also spin backwards. (Footnote 3)

As indicated in the closing lines of the Encyclopedia Britannica quote above, these problems led to the demise of this theory but the lack of a sufficient replacement led to its revival. Additional problems include whether or not the rings from which the planets would coalesce would be stable enough. This problem contributed to the original demise of this theory. However, this problem appears not to have been addressed in revived versions.

"Solar System, VI THEORIES OF ORIGIN - Early attempts to explain the origin of this system include the nebular hypothesis of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre Simon de Laplace, according to which a cloud of gas broke into rings that condensed to form planets. Doubts about the stability of such rings led some scientists to consider various catastrophic hypotheses, such as a close encounter of the sun with another star. Such encounters are extremely rare, and the hot, tidally disrupted gases would dissipate rather than condense to form planets." - "Solar System," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

A further problem surrounds the question of whether or not the collapse of the nebular cloud was caused by its own gravity. Such a collapse caused by the cloud's own internal gravity is unworkable for the reasons described under the discussion of "Stellar Formation" above. Consequently, an alternate reason for collapse has been suggested and that alternate involves the possibility that supernova explosions might have occurred near enough, which could have triggered the collapse of the nebular cloud.

"Solar System, VI THEORIES OF ORIGIN - Current theories connect the formation of the solar system with the formation of the sun itself, about 4.7 billion years ago. The fragmentation and gravitational collapse of an interstellar cloud of gas and dust, triggered perhaps by nearby supernova explosions, may have led to the formation of a primordial solar nebula (see Nova and Supernova)." - "Solar System," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Solar System, Formation of our solar system - Many scientists believe that our solar system formed from a giant, rotating cloud of gas and dust known as the solar nebula. According to this theory, the solar nebula began to collapse because of its own gravity. Some astronomers speculate that a nearby supernova (exploding star) triggered the collapse." - Worldbook, Contributor: Jay M. Pasachoff, Ph.D., Field Memorial Professor of Astronomy and Director, Hopkins Observatory of Williams College.

Consequently, problems for the formation of the solar system through naturalistic processes remain. The problems include the impossibility of nebular gas collapsing gravitationally to form a star, the speculative nature of a hypothetical nearby supernova triggering the collapse, the instability of the rings from which planets would condense, the contradicting distribution of mass and angular momentum between the planets and the sun, the reverse and unusual rotations of certain planets and moons, the nonconforming orbits of certain asteroids. On this note, the last quote below conveys the status of current evolutionary theories on the formation of the universe. Currently, there is no successful evolutionary explanation for the formation of the solar system.

"The ultimate origin of the solar system's angular momentum remains obscure." - Well-known solar system Evolutionist scientist, Dr. Stuart Ross Taylor, Solar System Evolution: A New Perspective, Cambridge University Press, p. 53, 1992. (Footnote 3)


N

Y


The Formation of the Moon: There is still no working theory on how the moon formed either, including is regular orbit with its perfectly corresponding rotation about its axis. Original theories were coaccretion, fission, and capture. Coaccretion suggested that the earth and moon both formed from the same cloud of dust and gas, but this theory failed to account for the "large angular momentum of the present system." Fission asserted that the early earth was fluid-like and rotating so rapidly that it expelled a portion of that fluid material, which later cooled into the moon, but no combination of properties for that early earth allowed for this scenario to actually occur. The capture hypothesis states that the moon formed somewhere else and was captured by the earth's gravity, but this theory was ultimately rejected because actually capturing a passing moon and bringing it into orbit was considered too improbable and delicate for naturalist explanations. The current theory is that the moon was caused by a massive impact, when the earth was struck by a body 2 or 3 times the size of mars, which would make that object roughly the size of the earth itself. The impact is said to have blasted portions of both the earth and the striking object into orbit and from there the material from both coalesced into the moon. The major problem with this theory is that it would require the earth to melt throughout as a result of the impact in order to erase the crater but earth's geochemistry contradicts such a melting. Ultimately, the evolutionary Big Bang model lacks a working model for the origin of the moon as well. (More details on this are included in the preceding sections of this article series.)


N




Time for Evolution 2 - Age of the Earth: The Historical Record and Other Evidences from Humankind



Y


Records of Flood: Human history overwhelming records a worldwide flood. Even if it is assumed that the religions originated and developed as part of the evolution of human psychology and culture, and the divine causation of the flood is rejected as a mere primitive explanation, there is simply no scientific or objective grounds to reject the occurrence of the event itself, particularly given that science accepts all other natural events reported by ancient societies, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, eclipses, and storms, despite the attributing of those events to divine causes. Consequently, the occurrence of a worldwide flood would render the fossil evidence, geologic formations of the earth, and stratification of rock layers as recent events resulting from this massive cataclysm. Although only a few summary quotes are included below, the accounts of a flood span across the globe from Hawaii, North, Central, and South America, China, Greece, Asia Minor, Armenia, Mesopotamia and Sumeria, which altogether rule out the notion that the flood was local or limited to a single, geographic region only. A much more extensive list of quotes about the global record of a worldwide flood are included in the preceding portions of this article series.

"Today there are 270 surviving flood legends…in many cultures that have never heard of the Bible." - "Dinosaurs and the Bible," Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video, 14 minutes, 40 seconds

"Religious myths - The tale of man's creation and moral decline forms part of the myth of the Four Ages (see below Myths of the ages of the world). His subsequent destruction by flood and regeneration from stones is partly based on folktale." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Creation Stories - When the gods decide to destroy their human creations, they do so by sending a flood (see Ancient Middle Eastern Religions; Deluge)." - "Creation Stories," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Nature worship, Elements and forces of nature, Water, Water as primal matter - Myths of a great flood (the Deluge) are widespread over Eurasia and America. This flood, which destroys with a few exceptions a disobedient original population, is an expiation by the water, after which a new type of world is created." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Deluge - A number of ancient nations had folklore that predated the Bible and also made reference to the great flood. An example is the Gilgamesh Epic, an ancient Babylonian story dating from 2000BC and written on 12 cuneiform tablets. It concerns a ruler (Gilgamesh) who, after losing his dearest friend to a mysterious death, seeks out a wise man (Utnapishtim) who is a survivor of the great flood and knows the secret of immortality. Accounts such as this have intrigued biblical scholars because they lend further credence to the later biblical version. Although a number of these scholars have concluded that the biblical narrative is derived from the Babylonian story, it is possible that each was taken from a common earlier source, now lost. Events similar to those described in the biblical story occur also in Greek mythology (see Deucalion). Among other peoples whose folklore and legends contain accounts of a devastating deluge are those of southern Asia, the aborigines of North, Central, and South America, and the natives of Polynesia. The Chinese and Japanese have stories of floods, but these do not, as a rule, destroy the entire earth. Curiously, flood legends do not occur among the ancient inhabitants of the Nile Valley and are not common anywhere else in Africa or in Europe." - "Deluge," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


N

Y


Human Population Growth: If homo erectus thrived around 1 million years ago as evolutionary theory asserts, there would be 10 to the power of 8,600 people on the planet today (a 10 with 8,600 zeros behind it). Conversely, with an average growth rate of just one half of one percent, the current population of 6-7 billion people lies perfectly along a natural population curve that would result from just 2 humans about 4,500 years ago. (Footnote: 1)

'Last weekend the world's population topped 6 billion.' (Star Tribune, Minneapolis, Minn., July 24, 1999) The whole world's population would fit inside Jacksonville, Florida twice. Jacksonville has 25 billion square feet. In 1985, there were about 5 billion people on earth. There were about 1 billion people around the year 1800. During Jesus' first advent, there was about 1/4 billion (250 million) people on earth. From the population growth curve, it appears that the entire current population on earth started about 4,400 years ago. Conversely, evolution asserts that man has been on earth for 3 million years. With 3 million years of human reproduction, the population would have grown to the point where there would be 150,000 people per square inch. (Footnote: 3)


N

Y


Not enough stone age skeletons: Evolutionary anthropologists say that the stone age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between 1 and 10 million. All that time they were burying their dead with artifacts. By this scenario, they would have buried at least 4 billion bodies. If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed 4 billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the stone age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas. (Footnote: 2)


N

Y


Recorded History: The written record of human history only goes back several thousands of years. If evolution were true, it should go back tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years. (Footnote: 1)

"History is too short - According to evolutionists, stone age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4000 to 5000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely." (Footnote: 2)

The Chinese calendar says that it is just past the year 4700, which could have started with Noah or Shem's birth rather than the flood itself. The Hebrew calendar indicates that we are just past the year 5763. Historical records only go back 5-6 thousand years. (Footnote: 3)


N

Y


Agriculture is too recent: The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the stone age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.23 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that stone age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the 4 billion people mentioned in item 10 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all. (Footnote: 2)


N

Y


The Age of Languages: The oldest languages in the world are less than 6,000 years old. (Footnote: 3)


N




Time for Evolution 3 - Age of the Earth: The Evidence from Geology





Absolute Dating: As discussed in depth in the preceding articles, absolute dating methods are unreliable due to the circular interdependence with relative dating and the internal assumptions, unknowns, and complications for each individual absolute dating method. As a whole, absolute dating methods prove nothing about the age of the earth. Apart from these general considerations, more particular implications from absolute dating are considered individually below.




Y


Carbon-14 Saturation (and Ratios): The earth has not yet reached equilibrium or full saturation of carbon-14, which it would have if the earth were 4-5 billion years old. This indicates either that the earth is too young to have reached equilibrium or that there was a major catastrophe sufficient to remove a large portion of carbon-14 from earth's ecosystem. The fact that a majority of earth's carbon-dioxide resides in sedimentary rock layers (rocks that are laid down by water), in fossil fuels (which are buried under such rock layers), and the earth's cool oceans, strong indicates that the large-scale removal of carbon-14 from the ecosystem was connected to a global or near-global flood. The burial of such large amounts of carbon in sedimentary rock layers and dissolution in the oceans would drastically alter the normal carbon to carbon-14 ratios necessary for absolute dating. Taking that ratio change into account would adjust all radiocarbon dates to well-within the creationist time scale.



N

Y


The Presence of Carbon-14: "Every sample of coal, oil, wood, or bone that's been tested for carbon-14 content, even if retrieved from supposedly millions-of-years-old rocks, always contains carbon-14. Its half life is only 5730 years. In about 10 half lives you have virtually no detectable trace. Nobody said you could detect it after 100,000 years even counting individual carbon-14 atoms. Yet, it's there in very measurable amounts. Why? Because it was buried by the flood just thousands of years ago and there hasn't been enough time for it to decay into oblivion." - "Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth," Thomas Kindall, Seattle Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network, nwcreation.net, 49 minutes, 05 seconds (Footnote: 1)



N

Y


Radiogenic Helium: Radiogenic helium is a major byproduct of radioactive decay. Radiogenic helium is trapped in deep, hot rocks. The quantitative data shows that radiogenic helium in these rocks "had to have been produced in massive amounts about 6,000 years ago (plus or minus 2,000 years)" and the diffusion or leakage rate shows that the amount that has leaked out is only as much as would have leaked out in that same timeframe of 6,000 years (plus or minus 2,000). If it was produced over billions of years, it would have leaked out of the rocks and into the atmosphere. But it is not present in the atmosphere, which demonstrates that radiogenic helium has not been produced over billions of years and, by direct extension, that radioactive decay has not been occurring for billions of years. (Footnote: 1)

All naturally-occurring families of radioactive elements generate helium as they decay. If such decay took place for billions of years, as alleged by evolutionists, much helium should have found its way into the Earth's atmosphere. The rate of loss of helium from the atmosphere into space is calculable and small. Taking that loss into account, the atmosphere today has only 0.05% of the amount of helium it would have accumulated in 5 billion years. This means the atmosphere is much younger than the alleged evolutionary age. A study published in The Journal of Geophysical Research shows that helium produced by radioactive decay in deep, hot rocks has not had time to escape. Though the rocks are supposed to be over one billion years old, their large helium retention suggests an age of only thousands of years." (Footnote: 2)


N

Y


Relative Dating Methods / Fossil Record and the Geologic Column: Provides only order, not actual ages, dates, rates, or intervals for rock layer formation or fossil burial. However, the existence of fossils in the rock layers requires rapid burial, which means that the rock layers had to be laid down quickly, rather than gradually. Such rocks are predominantly laid down by water. Most fossils are also formed in watery environments also, including that many marine fossils and marine sedimentary rock are found on mountain tops and inland, away from oceans, rivers, or lakes, indicating that these locations were once under water. All of these factors indicate a massive global or near-global flood, corroborating the historical record from cultures all over the world. Apart from these general considerations, more particular implications from fossil formation and the stratification of rock and coal layers are considered individually below.



N

Y


Dinosaur Fossils with Soft Tissue: Fossilized Dinosaur bones with soft tissue have been found and accepted by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Discover Magazine, and the journal Science. Although the rule is now necessarily being reconsidered in order to allow evolutions theoretical long ages to continue, it was previously considered a matter of fact that soft tissue could not be preserved more than "at the most a few tens of thousands of years." This discovery indicates, therefore, that the dinosaur is not 65 million years old, but most likely less than 10 thousand years old. This information collapses not only the distance between dinosaurs and man on the evolutionary geologic time scale, but also the entire geologic column itself, which formerly placed these two species over 60 million years apart. If what was thought to be 60 million years apart in the geologic record (humans and dinosaurs) are really contemporaries living side by side, then all the millions of year intervals collapse. It is further proof that the fossil record and the sedimentary rock strata containing them were laid down in rapid order, not over millions of years.

"Mary Schweitzer, a research at North Carolina State University, was examining a fracture bone from a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex under a microscope. There, in place of the usual dry vista, she beheld something gooey and miraculous: soft tissue, still stretchy, full of forms that resembled bone cells and blood vessels. Paleontology was cracked wide open." - "Brave New World, Letter from Discover," Discover, April 2006, p. 35

"Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo. By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at the most for a few tens of thousand of years, not the 65 million since T. rexwalked the Hell Creek Formation in Montana." - Barry Yeoman, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, April 2006, p. 37

"At the same time, the contents of those T. rex bones have also electrified some creationists, who interpret Schweitzer's findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists claim. 'I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious,' wrote Calre Wieland on the Answers in Genesis Web site last year. 'This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most." - Barry Yeoman, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, April 2006, p. 37

"Schweitzer published her findings in reverse order - the soft tissue first, then the medullary bone - in the journal Science last year." - Barry Yeoman, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, April 2006, p. 40

"All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. 'The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur,' she wrote in a 1997 paper. That article, published in Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, sparked a small flurry of headlines." - Barry Yeoman, "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery," Discover, April 2006, p. 38



N

Y


Many strata are too tightly bent: In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and un-solidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition. (Footnote: 2)



N

Y


Injected sandstone shortens geologic 'ages': Strong geologic evidence exists that the Cambrian Sawatch sandstone-formed an alleged 500 million years ago-of the Ute Pass fault west of Colorado Springs was still unsolidified when it was extruded up to the surface during the uplift of the Rocky Mountains, allegedly 70 million years ago. It is very unlikely that the sandstone would not solidify during the supposed 430 million years it was underground. Instead, it is likely that the two geologic events were less than hundreds of years apart, thus greatly shortening the geologic time scale. (Footnote: 2)



N

Y


Rapid Geologic Feature Formation: The Little Grand Canyon of the Toutle River is about one-fortieth the scale of the Grand Canyon and it has some of the same geologic formations as the Grand Canyon, but it was formed in one day as a part of the Mount St. Helens catastrophe. The Palouse Falls Gorge in the state of Washington were formed in weeks during the Mazoola flood. The Rapidly rock strata on visible on the canyon walls of the North Fork of the Toutle River formed rapidly in one day as a result of the Mount St. Helens eruption as a result of the pyroclastic and mud flows. During earthquakes, there is a process called liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when there is an earthquake in an area with underground water and the water swells up to the surface turning the ground to quicksand. When the water settles back down after the earthquake, it sorts out the ground materials into thin stratified layers very rapidly. Most geologists today agree that the majority of earth's land surfaces were laid down by turbidites, which are underwater landslides, which have been observed laying down 100,000 square miles of sediment in a matter of hours. This also is remarkably consistent with a global flood, corroborating the historical record from cultures all over the world. (Footnote: 7)



N

Y


Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic 'ages' to a few years: Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay. 'Squashed' Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale. 'Orphan' Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates. (Footnote: 2)



N

Y


Fossil Distribution: Seashells are found on top of nearly every mountain range on earth. Whale fossils were found two-thirds of the way up the Andes Mountains. Consequently, the mountains were at some point under water, which all parties agree to. And, there is also evidence of very rapid mountain uplifting. (Footnote: 8)

All over earth, there are fossil graveyards where there are thousands of creatures all buried and fossilized together. Thousands of creatures fossilized together means that all of those creatures were rapidly buried at the same time. The fact that these are all over the planet is consistent with a global flood, corroborating the historical record from cultures all over the world. (Footnote: 8)



N

Y


Polystrate Fossils: All over the world, petrified trees are found standing up penetrating and connecting stratified rock layers. (Footnote: 3)

Polystrate fossils and coal: Coal beds all around the world contain polystrate fossils. Polystrate means "many strata" and this term refers to tree fossils, which penetrate multiple layers of rock, or coal, strata. If the coal, or the rock layers, took thousands or millions of years to form, then the trees wouldn't be there. The trees would have rotted before they could have been fossilized. The presence of polystrate fossils, along with even normal fossils, which by definition also have to be rapidly buried, demonstrates that both coal layers and rock layers were laid down rapidly, not over long ages. Furthermore, the polystrate trees do not have root structures and this indicates that they did not grow in their current location in the coal or rock strata. Instead, like the trees of the log mat, which formed in Spirit Lake as a result of Mount St. Helens, polystrate trees and coal beds formed when the bark from the trees came off and sank to the bottom, which in the case of Mount St. Helens has produced an observable layer of peat in just 20 years, and the trees float and sink vertically, being deposited in the sediments at the floor of the body of water. With the right heating conditions, in the next 40 to 50 years that peat at the bottom of Spirit Lake could become a coal bed. And those coal beds will have polystrate trees spanning their various strata. Similarly, the trees that comprise the Yellowstone Petrified Forest also do not have roots and this likewise indicates that those petrified trees were transported there by water and buried there in a similar manner as found in Spirit Lake. Today, using simulated natural processes, coal can be made in one week and oil can be made in less than one week. (Footnote: 8)



N

Y


Recent Fossil Formation: It requires rapid fossilization in order to avoid the organic material from decaying instead. And, there are examples of fossilized hats, ham, clocks, and boots, all formed within the decades, including bones fossilized in the boots all in decades. (Footnote: 1)


N

0


Petrification: Petrification of wood occurs rapidly in nature within a few years to a few decades simply by penetration with mineral or silica-rich water under heat and pressure. (Footnote: 1)

Petrification can happen quickly. In the 20 years since Mount Saint Helen's erupted, blowing trees into nearby Spirit Lake, many of those trees have begun to petrify. Moreover, as they sink, many of those trees have begun to be buried standing up in the sedimentary layers forming at the bottom of the lake. A piece of petrified fire wood, a petrified dog inside a tree, a petrified fish giving birth, a petrified cowboy boot including the petrified leg bone in it, all demonstrate rapid petrification. (Footnote: 3)

Simulating natural processes, wood can be turned into petrified wood in one week and the process and ingredients needed to do so can be found at the United States Patent Office on the internet. (Footnote: 8)


0

0


Opal and Diamond Formation: "Gem-quality" opals can be formed in months by chemistry and "gem-quality" diamonds can be formed in hours by heat and pressure. (Footnote: 1)


0

0


Rock Formation: Granites do not actually require millions of years of cooling. Granitic plutons due to their inefficient diffusion of heat were believed to require millions of years to cool down. However, cracks and fissures, which form as these rocks crystallized, were not taken into account in these aging models. Such cracks and fissures increase the surface area, allow steam to come out, and producing evaporative and convective cooling as well as allowing rain and snow to get in and boil out resulting in further evaporative and convective cooling. With these factors included, even the largest granitic plutons would not take more than 3,000 years to cool. (Footnote: 1)


0

Y


Erosion of Continents: The continents are comprised of an average of about 383 million, billion tons, but they erode at an average global rate of 27 billion tons. At these present rates and assuming a uniformitarian rate, the continents would erode down to sea level in just 14-30 million years. (Footnote: 1)

The continents are eroding including landslides, mudslides, ground creep, mass wasting, exfoliation, and avalanches, etc. At the current rate of erosion, the continents as they are today will erode flat and be gone in 14 million years. Yet, there are fossils dated by evolutionists to be 300 times older than 14 million years, which are still found above sea level. Fossils are only found in sedimentary rock, not newly formed rocks resulting from volcanic activity. At the current erosion rates, the fossil-bearing layers and the fossils in them should have eroded into the oceans long before mankind arrived to find them. (Footnote: 3)


N

Y


Fossils Despite Erosion: Despite the current erosion rates of the continents, the surface-rocks, which would be the first to erode in this fashion, still contain fossils. Consequently, the fossil record should have been removed if the earth was more than 14-30 million years old. The presence of the fossil record indicates that the earth is not that old, and conversely the fossil record itself must have been formed more recently than 14-30 million years. (Footnote: 1)

The significance of this problem becomes even more apparent in light of the fact that the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic column (if integrated into one location) would be 76 miles high. The result is an erosion amount equal to 76 miles multiplied by the surface area of the earth. Yet despite evolutionary theory's necessitating of such massive amount of erosion, we still have fossils. (More information about the height of the integrated fossil-bearing portion of the geologic column can be found earlier in the "Focus on Critical Evidence: Age and the Geologic Column" section of this article series.)


N

Y


Massive Erosion Patterns in Dry Environments: Aerial photographs taken in the western United States reveal massive erosion patters over wide areas in regions where it hardly ever rains. Similarly, the Zagros Mountains in southern Iraq consist of ripple-marks that are a mile apart, likewise indicating a massive amount of water moving and eroding quickly over these dry environments. Such erosion patterns in these regions further demonstrates the occurrence of a global flood, corroborating the historical record from cultures all over the world. (Aerial photos of the western United States and Zagros Mountains were shown on screen during the presentation.) (Footnote: 3)


N

Y


Erosion of Sediments and Chemicals into the Ocean: Evolutionary theory asserts that the oceans have been present on earth for 3 billion years, which would also include a water cycle. The water cycle includes that the suns rays would cause evaporation of ocean water. Some of the evaporated rain water would blow over the continents and condense, precipitating and washing sediments and chemicals off of the continents and into the oceans, just as it does today. Consequently, with an ocean and the inherent water cycle occurring for 3 billion years, the ocean should have reached chemical saturation long ago but not a single ocean is even close to saturation today or even so much as a 1 billion-year amount. The present salt-concentration of the ocean, given current rates of deposit and removal through natural processes on an annual basis [and assuming a uniformitarian rate], would give an upper limit between 32-62 million years. Those figures are based on the ocean starting out completely pure. If it started, for example, with a significant amount of salt already in solution, then those ages become significantly lower. Furthermore, erosion during the global flood would also drastically contribute to salt-content in the ocean. Creationism can account for the present sediment and chemical content of the oceans while evolutionary theory cannot. In addition, there is an average of 400 meters of sediment in the oceans eroded and deposited from the continents. At present rates of deposit, this amount would take a maximum of 12-13 million years. And a global flood would deposit a large portion of that in a very short time. If evolution and uniformitarianism were true, at current rates the oceans should contain many kilometers worth of sedimentation from the continents. Consequently, if the water cycle were 3 billion years old, then the oceans would be so rich in chemical concentration and sediment that they would be "deader" than the dead sea and uninhabitable for ocean life, not even algae. Even the doubling in erosion rates that evolutionary theory attributes to man would not be sufficient to resolve this missing chemical and sediment. Man would have to increase erosion rates by hundreds of times. Furthermore, the evolutionary models of man's contribution to erosion does not take into account the number of human industrialization and construction practices that inhibit erosion, both on purpose, such as flood-control damns, dikes, levies, and inadvertently, such as paving roads and constructing buildings. (Footnote: 1)

When it rains, 30 percent of the rain eventually goes back to the ocean, transporting mineral salts with it. This causes the oceans to get saltier over time. The current salt concentration of the oceans is 3.6 percent salt. At the current rates, a completely salt-free ocean could have reached this present level of salt concentration in less than 5,000 years. Conversely, if the earth is billions or millions of years old, the oceans should be vastly more salty than they are today, for example, like the Great Salt Lake, the Dead Sea, or the Salton Sea. (Footnote: 3)

"Not enough mud on the sea floor - Each year, water and winds erode about 25 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean. This material accumulates as loose sediment (i.e., mud) on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the mud in the whole ocean, including the continental shelves, is less than 400 meters. The main way known to remove the mud from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. In this process, the sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year. As far as anyone knows, the other 24 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present amount of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged 3 billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with mud dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of mud within a short time about 5000 years ago." (Footnote: 2)

"Not enough sodium in the sea - Every year, rivers and other sources dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year. As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates. This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, 3 billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations which are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years. Calculations for many other sea water elements give much younger ages for the ocean." (Footnote: 2)


N

0


Ice Layers: Ice layers are believed to be annual. Consequently, the number of layers (or rings in ice cores) are believed to give the age in years of the glacier or ice core. However, during World War II, a squadron of P-38 Lightnings and two B-17 Flying Fortresses had to ditch and abandon the aircraft in Greenland on the way to Britain for the air war. After 48 years, salvagers went to recover the plains believing there would only be 48 annual layers and, therefore, not enough ice or snowfall to even cover the aircraft. But instead, they found the aircraft were covered and by more than 268 feet of ice with hundreds of such layers. Consequently, the layers form much more often than annually, indicating an age magnitudes younger. (Footnote: 1)

Rings in ice cores are said to be annual layers as summer melts in summer and then refreezes to form clear ice. Then in the winter the snow packs and it traps air bubbles to make white ice. Ten thousand foot holes reveal 135,000 rings. Consequently, it is believed that each ring represents 1 year and the ice sheet spans 135,000 years. However, the fact that these rings are not annual is demonstrated by the Lost Squadron, a group of planes that were lost in Greenland in 1942. Recently, in 1990, these planes have been recovered. They were found at 263 feet below the surface by ground-penetrating radar. In the 48 years since the planes were ditched, not only had 263 feet of snow fallen, but there were many hundreds of rings, demonstrating that the rings were not formed annually but simply as a result of alteration between warmer and colder weather and additional snowfall. In fact, 263 feet in 48 years is 5.5 feet a year. Since the deepest ice holes ever drilled are only 10,000 feet, at this rate of 5.5 feet per year, that's only 1824 years, not 135,000 years. Even with deeper layers being smashed by the weight of the layers above, the additional 2,500 years between 1824 and 4,400 as the date of the Flood is more than enough to account for 10,000 feet of snow even with compacting. Consequently, the ice holes and rings do not demonstrate any age greater than the time of the Flood. (Footnote: 3)


0

0


Stalactites and Stalagmites: Previously, it was thought that flow-stones such as stalactites and stalagmites required 100,000 years for every 1 cubic inch of flow-stone formation. For example, using this rate, it was calculated that Carlsbad Caverns were 260 million years old. However, flow-stones under bridges, under the Lincoln Memorial, and flow-stones formed in recent, man-made mine tunnels demonstrate that stalactites and stalagmites form rapidly in short periods of time. After only 40 years since its construction, 11-foot tall support-pillars of stalactites had grown in the basement from the plumbing of the George Rogers Clarks Memorial on the banks of the Wabash River in Vincennes, Indiana. A bat encased and fossilized in a stalagmite at Carlsbad also indicates that the flow-rate was rapid enough to cover the entire bat before it decayed. Arizona Highways Magazine featured an article titled, "Caving in to Reality," which interviewed an evolutionist cave geologists named Mr. Trout, who said, "What geologists used to believe was fact concerning dating the cave, now is speculation." The article went on to say, "Geologists don't know how long cave development takes and while some believe that cave decorations like…stalactites took years to form, Trout says that through photo-monitoring, he has watched a stalactite grow several inches in a matter of days." At such rates as indicated by these examples, stalactites and stalagmites the size of Carlsbad could grow in just hundreds or at the most thousands of years. (Footnote: 1)

Stalactites and Stalagmites were once believed to require 1,000 years to grow 1 inch. The Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922 and it has 50 inch stalactites growing underneath it on its support structures. Before it had time to rot, a bat was covered with flow-stone from a stalagmite, which grow even slower than stalactites. A 55-year-old artificially-cut mine cavern developed stalactites and stalagmites that range from a few feet to well over a dozen feet long. A parking structure built near the University of Texas campus required a pan to be placed under beams in the garage because stalagmites were forming on cars parked beneath the stalactites hanging above them. The Tepee Fountain in Wyoming was originally a fountain but is now a large mineral structure. The tourist sign (depicted in a photograph during the presentation) explains how it was formed: "'Tepee Fountain' This structure, started in 1903, was created by piping the hot mineral water through a vertical pipe built into a rock pyramid. As the water exists the top and flows over the structure, it cools and deposits travertine, much the same as the Terraces are formed near the Big Horn Spring within the park. The algae within the water colors the deposits." 100 years later (since 1903), this fountain is now a huge, rock-like structure, about 20 feet high and about 20 feet in diameter. As indicated by the tourist sign, there is a similar mineral structure (of about the same size) on the Big Horn River in Thermopolis, Wyoming. All of this indicates that stalactites and stalagmites form quickly and give no indication of the age of the earth. (Footnote: 3)


0

Y


The Oldest and Largest Desert: The Sahara Desert has a prevailing wind pattern, which means that the wind almost always blows the same direction. One effect of this is that hot air coming off of the desert blows into the habitat on the other side, killing the vegetation and sterilizing the soil, resulting in the growth of the desert in the direction that the wind is blowing. This process is called desertification. Specifically, the Sahara desert is presently growing about 4 miles per year from this process. This rate has resulted in scientists calculating that the Sahara is about 4,000 years old. But, if the earth is millions of years old, by now this process should have grown at least one of earth's existing deserts into a much larger area than the Sahara. The fact that the biggest desert in the world is less than 4,000 years old indicates that the earth is less than 4,000 years old, or if there was landscape and climate changing even such as the global flood described in the Bible. This corroborates the historical record from cultures all over the world.


N

Y


Oil Pressure: Oil is typically under 20,000 pounds of pressure per square inch. The pressure on oil is greater than the weight of the rock and ground above the oil pockets. The rock can only hold that pressure for 10,000 years or less. In other words, at this pressure, the oil pressure should have cracked through the rock in less than 10,000 years.


N

Y


Rivers and Deltas: Major river systems lack the amount of sediment deposit in their deltas that should be present if the earth was as old as evolutionary theory asserts. For example, at present rates, the current amount of sediment deposited in the Mississippi River Delta would take at a maximum of only 30,000 years. Under creationist theory, the majority of that amount was deposited just after the flood, as continents uplifted and during the ensuing ice age. Consequently, the creationist model explains the current amount of sediment for such river systems, but evolutionary theory cannot explain the vast amounts of missing sediment that should be present if the earth were as old as evolutionary theory asserts. (Footnote: 1)

The Mississippi River deposits sediments at the rate of 80,000 tons per hour. This sediment is dumped by the river at the Mississippi River delta at New Orleans. At this rate, it is estimated that it took about 30,000 years for the current amount of mud to accumulate. However, at this rate, if the earth were millions of years old, enough mud should have accumulated to fill the entire Gulf of Mexico. Concerning the 30,000 year age, this is an upper limit. Considering the existing evidence for a global flood, much of this sediment would have been deposited very rapidly surrounding that event. Furthermore, Chevron Oil Company, when drilling for oil in the Mississippi River Canyon oil field, drilled through a sixty-foot tree almost 14,000 feet below the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. The fact that this tree was buried standing upright, this deep and this far out in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico indicates one of two possibilities. Either, it indicates that at one time the amount of water and sediment being transported by the Mississippi River was so much greater than today's rates that it was sufficient to transport trees out into the middle of the Gulf and bury them upright, which indicates they became water-logged and sank, and at a rate fast enough that the tree did not decompose. Or, it indicates that the Gulf of Mexico was not under water but that trees were growing there, and that the entire area sank and filled with water and sediments at a rate fast enough to bury the trees before they could decompose. In addition, the very fact that there is oil buried under the floor of the Gulf of Mexico indicates that there was once a very rich quantity of biological organisms buried and compressed there by all that sediment. Both of these options further support the interpretation that a great quantity of the sediments in the Gulf of Mexico were deposited at rates much more rapid than the rates of today. Consequently, this evidence also supports the idea of a global flood, corroborating the historical record from cultures all over the world. (Footnote: 3)

"Dr. Hovind, I am the pastor of the Circle Baptist Church in Baker, LA. Recently you did a seminar…which one of my young couples attended. They told you a story of an experience I encountered while working in the oil field where we drilled through a tree far over sixty feet almost 14,000 feet below the surface. I can tell you that it was in block 457 of the Mississipi River Canyon field and we were drilling for Chevron Oil Company. I was the on site unit manager for a well logging and sampling service." - Dan Gunter, dgtulip@bellsouth.net (725) 775-1550 (Footnote: 3)


N

Y


Niagara Falls Erosion: Niagra Falls erodes the rock ledge underneath in a backward direction at the rate of 4.7 feet per year until the 1930's when the waterway was reengineered and diverted for hydroelectric power. "Crest lines showing recession of Horseshoe Falls since 1764. 865 feet in 185 years is approximately 4.7 feet per year" (Niagra Falls Museum Guide). The gulley that lies ahead of Niagra Falls is 7.5 miles long. This gulley was eroded by the falls. At 4.7 feet a year, it would take 8,426 years to erode 7 miles (which is 39,600 feet). In 1841, Charles Lyell calculated that it would take 10,000 years for the falls to erode the full length of this gulley and reach its present location. Later, Charles Lyell recalculated this to 35,000 years. Considering the evidence for a global flood, much of this erosion would have occurred very rapidly at first in the time surrounding the flood. Conversely, if the earth were billions of years old, or even millions of years old, the falls should have eroded all the way back to Lake Erie by this point in time. (Footnote: 3)


N




Time for Evolution 4 - Biological Evidence



Y


The Oldest Living Things: The oldest tree in the world is a Bristlecone Pine that is 4,300 years old. Other sources cite another tree that is 4,600 years old. One of these trees is the oldest organism in the world. With that many years of age, given the fact that trees sometimes produce 2 rings per year, it is very likely that even the older of the 2 trees originated just after the global flood. Conversely, if the earth is billions of years old, there should be trees that are much older than this. (Footnote: 3)

The oldest living things on earth, including trees, only date back several thousand years, not tens of thousands of years. This further indicates that the flood caused the world to start over, thereby also corroborating the historical record from cultures all over the world. (Footnote: 1)


N

Y


The World's Oldest and Largest Coral Reef: The largest coral reef in the world is the Great Barrier Reef in Australia. During World War II, some of the reef was destroyed by ships, anchors, and bombs, etc. This prompted studies to determine the rate at which the reef would grow back. The growth was observed for 20 years. And this 20-year study led to the conclusion that at its current rate of growth, the reef was less than 4,200 years old. If the earth is billions of years old, there should be a larger reef somewhere. This age for the Great Barrier Reef corroborates the historical record from cultures all over the world (Footnote: 3)


N

Y


Racemization: Amino acids come in either left-handed or right-handed configurations. All amino acids used in living things are left-handed, but after death, they spontaneously shift to an equal amount so that half of them become right-handed. This process is known as racemization. Some of the oldest fossils on earth are the bacteria and blue-green algae found in the fig-tree chert, which are said to be 3 billion years old. ["Life, The origin of life, the antiquity of life - Among the oldest known fossils are those found in the Fig Tree chert from the Transvaal, dated at 3,100,000,000 years old. These organisms have been identified as bacteria and blue-green algae." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition.] Yet, the evidence shows that no racemization occurred. (Footnote: 1)


N

Y


Rapid Freezing of Mammoths: Frozen mammoths require extremely rapid freezing and therefore demonstrate that the ice age was caused quickly, which in turn indicates a catastrophic cause.

"Fossil, How fossils form - In Alaska and in Siberia, a region in northern Asia, woolly mammoths thousands of years old have been found frozen in the ground. Their hair, skin, flesh, and internal organs have been preserved as they were when the mammoths died." - Contributor: Steven M. Stanley, Ph.D., Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University.

"Fossil, II PROCESSES OF FOSSILIZATION, E Soft-Tissue Preservation - The soft tissues of animals are preserved only under extremely unusual conditions, and the preserved tissue usually lasts for only a short period of geological time. In the Siberian permafrost (earth that remains frozen year-round), for example, entire mammoths have been preserved in ice for thousands of years. The remains of the mammoths' last meals have sometimes been preserved in the stomachs, allowing paleontologists to study the animals' diet." - "Fossil," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


N




The Evidence Concerning the Evolutionary Origin of Life



Y


The Law of Biogenesis: The Law of Biogenesis was specifically proved by Louis Pasteur, the father of microbiology. This law states that living things, even the simplest organisms, must come from other living things and cannot arise from nonliving matter. Consequently, the opposing theory of spontaneous generation, or abiogenesis, was disproved. Evolutionary theory still holds that living things can arise from non-living matter and tries to distance itself from the decisively disproved theory of abiogenesis on the basis that living things could arise from non-living matter with more time. To heighten this contrast, modern evolutionary theory emphasizes "quickness" as the central point and downfall of abiogenesis, when in reality the central point proved by Pasteur was simply that life could not come from non-living matter at all regardless of speed. Ultimately, the evolutionary model simply contradicts this known law. In addition, the current lack of any coherent or working theory within the evolutionary view for how life originated through natural processes further proves the insurmountable nature of this obstacle.

"Life only comes from life. This is a natural law because there are no known exceptions to this." (Footnote: 8)

"Spontaneous generation - also called Abiogenesis, the hypothetical process by which living organisms develop from nonliving matter; also, the archaic theory that utilizes this process to explain the origin of life…By the 18th century it had become obvious that higher organisms could not be produced by nonliving material. The origin of microorganisms such as bacteria, however, was not fully determined until Pasteur proved in the 19th century that microorganisms reproduce." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Life, The origin of life - The theory of spontaneous generation originated in ancient times and remained a common belief for thousands of years. The theory claimed that lower forms of life could arise from nonliving matter…The French chemist Louis Pasteur finally settled the controversy during the mid-1800's. He demonstrated that even the minutest bacteria do not arise spontaneously but always grow from other bacteria. After Pasteur's experiments, most biologists accepted the idea that all life comes from existing life." - Contributor: Harold J. Morowitz, Ph.D., Robinson Professor of Biology and Director of Krasnow Institute, George Mason University.

"Life, The origin of life, Hypotheses of origins - Most of the hypotheses of the origin of life will fall into one of four categories: [1] The origin of life is a result of a supernatural event; that is, one permanently beyond the descriptive powers of physics and chemistry. [2] Life-particularly simple forms-spontaneously and readily arises from nonliving matter in short periods of time, today as in the past. [3] Life is coeternal with matter and has no beginning; life arrived on the Earth at the time of the origin of the earth or shortly thereafter. [4] Life arose on the early Earth by a series of progressive chemical reactions. Such reactions may have been likely or may have required one or more highly improbable chemical events…Hypothesis 2…was the prevailing opinion for centuries…But the idea of spontaneous generation died hard. Even though it was proved that the larger animals always came from eggs, there was still hope for the smaller ones, the microorganisms. It seemed obvious that, because of their ubiquity, these microscopic creatures must be generated continually from inorganic matter…This was the subject of a great controversy between the famous French bacteriologists Louis Pasteur and F.A. Pouchet in the 1850s, in which Pasteur triumphantly showed that even the minutest creatures came from germs floating in the air, but that they could be guarded against by suitable filtration…Pasteur's work discouraged many scientists from discussing the origin of life at all…Although Darwin would not commit himself on the origin of life, others subscribed to Hypothesis 4 more resolutely, notably the famous British biologist T.H. Huxley in his Protoplasm, the Physical Basis of Life (1869), and the British physicist John Tyndall in his "Belfast Address" of 1874. Although Huxley and Tyndall asserted that life could be generated from inorganic chemicals, they had extremely vague ideas about how this might be accomplished." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Cell, The history of cell theory, Contribution of other sciences - Thus it was that the studies of microbes by Louis Pasteur, published in 1861, helped to establish the principle of biogenesis, namely, that organisms arise only by the reproduction of other organisms." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Microbiology, Historical background, Spontaneous generation versus biotic generation of life - In the early half of the 1800s, Franz Schulze and Theodor Schwann were major figures in the attempt to disprove theories of abiogenesis until Louis Pasteur finally announced the results of his conclusive experiments in 1864. In a series of masterful experiments, Pasteur proved that only preexisting microbes could give rise to other microbes (biogenesis)." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"[PHOTO CAPTION] Louis Pasteur - Louis Pasteur made important contributions to the field of organic chemistry during the mid-1800s, developing various vaccines, including one for rabies, and disproving the theory of spontaneous generation. He is considered the founder of the field of microbiology, working with the germ theory of disease to establish and explain the causes for many diseases. (Culver Pictures.)" - "Louis Pasteur," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

"Biogenesis - Biogenesis, is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain forms of life arose spontaneously from nonliving substances. By actual experimentation, the great French scientist Louis Pasteur disproved this false theory of spontaneous generation, also known as abiogenesis. Today, however, scientists are examining the theory that the first forms of life gradually came into being from lifeless matter millions of years ago." - Contributor: Lawrence C. Wit, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University.


N

Y


Irreducible Complexity and the Chicken-and-Egg Dilemma: There are several places where evolution faces a chicken-and-egg dilemma. In other words, there is a list of components that are all needed in order for life to originate (or in order for a new type of animal to function and survive). In observable organisms, you need all the other parts in order for one part to function. Remove one part, and the entire process ceases to work. Thus, it is impossible to answer the question of "which came first?" because all of the parts would have to be present at the same time. Concerning the origin of life, this chicken-and-egg dilemma involves at least the DNA, RNA, enzymes, proteins, and the cell membrane, without which the entire cell would not function. Similar problems occur in terms of the individual components of DNA and RNA, such as the nucleotide base pairs. Concerning the likelihood that the present four bases arose ready to work together to allow replication is to "coincidental" given that "chemistry does not have this kind of foresight."

"It seems very unlikely that protometabolism produced just the four bases found in RNA, A, U, G and C, ready by some remarkable coincidence to engage in pairing and allow replication. Chemistry does not have this kind of foresight." - The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

The problem for evolutionary theory is that, given that all parts in order for each part to function, the odds of getting even two parts at the same time is considered so improbable that it is either impossible or is so coincidental as to imply "foresight." The problem with foresight is that it necessitates teleology, which is "design."

"It is now generally agreed that if life arose spontaneously by natural processes-a necessary assumption if we wish to remain within the realm of science…An important rule in this exercise is to reconstruct the earliest events in life's history without assuming they proceeded with the benefit of foresight. Every step must be accounted for in terms of antecedent and concomitant events. Each must stand on its own and cannot be viewed as a preparation for things to come. Any hint of teleology must be avoided." - The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

This problem in which evolutionary theory cannot explain the arrival and interrelationship between the basic components of a cell without resorting to "design" remains unsolved to this day. This is indicated by the summary quotes below. Additional detail on this issue can be found in the preceding sections of this article series. But ultimately, intelligent direction is needed in order for the essential components of a cell to arise and assemble together at the same time.

"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, The RNA World - Considerable debate in origin-of-life studies has revolved around which of the fundamental macromolecules came first-the original chicken-or-egg question. The modern cell employs four major classes of biological molecules-nucleic acids, proteins, carbohydrates and fats. The debate over the earliest biological molecules, however, has centered mainly on the nucleic acids, DNA and RNA, and the proteins. At one time or another, one of these molecular classes has seemed a likely starting point, but which? To answer that, we must look at the functions performed by each of these in existing organisms…For a while, the only thing RNA did not seem capable of doing was catalyzing chemical reactions…The problem is not as simple as might appear at first glance. Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far." - The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

"When Miller analyzed the brew, he found that it contained amino acids, the building blocks of protein. The lightning had reorganized the molecules in the atmosphere to produce organic compounds…Thus emerged the picture that has dominated origin-of-life scenarios. Some 4 billion years ago, lightning (or another energy source, like ultraviolet light or heat) stimulated a hydrogen-rich atmosphere to produce organic compounds, which then rained down into the primitive ocean or other suitable bodies of water such as lakes, rivers, or even a warm little pond, as Charles Darwin once suggested. Once there, these simple compounds, or monomers, combined with one another to produce more complicated organics, or polymers, which gradually grew even more complex until they coalesced into the beginnings of self-replicating RNA. With that came the RNA world and ultimately the evolution into cells and the early bacterial ancestors of life. The picture is powerful and appealing, but not all origin-of-life researchers are convinced. Even Miller throws up his hands at certain aspects of it. The first step, making the monomers, that's easy. We understand it pretty well. But then you have to make the first self- replicating polymers. That's very easy, he says, the sarcasm fairly dripping. Just like it's easy to make money in the stock market--all you have to do is buy low and sell high. He laughs. Nobody knows how it's done. Some would say the statement applies as well to the first easy step, the creation of simple organic compounds." - How Did Life Start?, by Peter Radetsky, DISCOVER, Vol. 13 No. 11, November 1992, Biology & Medicine


N

Y


A Working Environment: Not only does the arrival of the components of the first living cell have to be explained by naturalistic causes in order for the evolutionary origin of life to be true, but it is also necessary to identify the environment in which the energy and the materials for the origination of life occurred. So far to date, even though a number of creative suggestions have been made, the evolutionary model still has no working model for any environment that would actually function to allow for the origin of life. The presence of oxygen prevents the origination of life, but the absence of oxygen allows ultraviolet light, which also prevent the origination of life. Ultraviolet light is necessary to supply energy but too much ultraviolet energy prevents the origination of life. Consequently, the origin of life could have occurred under water, deep enough to provide some protection from ultraviolet light, while still allowing enough ultraviolet light to fuel the most primitive life forms, which would have been photosynthetic. However, photosynthesis produces free-oxygen, which also prevents the origination of life. Life could have originated deeper in the oceans, perhaps along deep-sea hydrothermal vents in which heat, not sunlight, provided the energy necessary for life to originate. But this process is thought to be an outright insufficient source of energy. In addition, the high temperatures would destroy any pre-biotic molecules and low temperatures would further lack the required energy for life to originate. Furthermore, in any watery environment, the water itself will result in the breakdown of any pre-biotic molecules. Moreover, given the size of the ocean or even other smaller bodies of water compared to the size of the key molecules, the likelihood is too small that any two important molecules meeting up so that metabolic processes might begin. Additional details on these persisting unresolved but central issues to the evolutionary origin of life remain. And all of them indicate that life could not originate by naturalistic processes in a natural environment but required intelligent intervention. Conversely, the failed experiments in which even human contrivance and technical capacity have proven insufficient to produce life in a lab themselves continue to demonstrate that the origin of life requires foresight and capability of an intelligent agent beyond even the current level of human contrivance and technical capacity. Teleology, design, has proven to be an unavoidable requirement so far for the origin of life.


N

Y


Falsifiability: The evolutionary model for the origin of life falls under the disqualifying criteria of being un-testable and un-falsifiable. This is admitted by evolutionary scientists concerning both the deep-sea hydrothermal vent model and the extraterrestrial models. The failure of evolutionary theory to advance a testable, falsifiable model, let alone a working one, demonstrates its failure as a scientific prospect. Yet, despite the un-falsifiable nature of their theory, the theory is believed and asserted as proven scientific fact. However, as stated during our study when examining the suggested environments for the evolutionary origin of life, the failed experiments in which even human contrivance and technical capacity have proven insufficient to produce life in a lab themselves continue to demonstrate that the origin of life requires foresight and capability of an intelligent agent beyond even the current level of human contrivance and technical capacity. Teleology, design, has proven to be an unavoidable requirement so far for the origin of life. More details on this aspect of evidence are provided in the preceding sections of this article series.

"The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Origin and Evolution of the RNA World - Attempts at engineering--with considerably more foresight and technical support than the prebiotic world could have enjoyed--an RNA molecule capable of catalyzing RNA replication have failed so far." - The Beginnings of Life on Earth, Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995

"Miller's discovery has sparked the birth of a new chemical discipline, abiotic chemistry, which aims to reproduce in the laboratory the chemical events that initiated the emergence of life on earth some four billion years ago. Besides amino acids and other organic acids, experiments in abiotic chemistry have yielded sugars, as well as purine and pyrimidine bases, some of which are components of the nucleic acids DNA and RNA, and other biologically significant substances, although often under more contrived conditions and in lower yields than one would expect for a prebiotic process." - Christian de Duve, American Scientist, September-October 1995


N




The Mechanisms of Biological Evolution



0


Natural Selection: In order for organisms to change and become more than they are and more than their ancestors, they must acquire new traits and new genetic information to engineer those traits. Both evolutionists and creationists agree that natural selection occurs. However, natural selection is a strictly subtractive process, which removes existing traits that are disadvantageous concerning survival. Natural selection cannot add or bring about new traits. Therefore, because on its own natural selection does not result in the arrival of new genes, new traits, or new types or species of organisms, the occurrence of natural selection does not favor one theory over another. Additional details on this topic are available in the preceding sections of this article series.


0

Y


Mutations: Mutations are the only naturalistic mechanism with even theoretical potential to alter existing genetic information and produce traits different from those that already exist. They are the only naturalistic mechanism that could cause an organism to become different from its ancestors. However, there are several obstacles that prevent mutations from successfully functioning to produce evolution from an existing type of organism to a new type or species. First, mutations of any kind are rare. Second, mutations do not produce new genetic information. They simply scramble and rearrange existing genetic information. Consequently, the process of mutation is a process that degrades the existing blue-print for life. Third, due to the nature of mutation as a scrambling and degradation of the existing genetic code, all mutations observed so far are either neutral, providing no advantage for natural selection, or negative, providing a disadvantages that the prevent survival of the organism. Furthermore, many mutations are not just harmful but outright lethal to the organism. Fourth, for a mutation to contribute to the evolution of a new type or species of organism, it would not only have to be beneficial, but it would have to make it into the reproductive cells of the organism, that organism would have to successfully reproduce, and a reproductive cell with the mutation would have to be the one that fertilized to form the next generation. This prospect is even more improbable in organisms that utilize sexual, as opposed to asexual, reproduction but it is also problematic in many asexual organisms as well. Fifth, mutations are usually recessive, which means that they will not manifest to create an advantage but will be overridden by the existing, dominant traits. Sixth, sometimes one mutation contradicts or reverses another. The admission of evolutionary sources on all these points, particularly concerning the lack of beneficial mutations are available in more detail in the preceding sections of this article series. Ultimately, evolutionary theory is left without any mechanism to produce new types or species of organisms.


N

Y


Incomplete Evolution and the Chicken-and-Egg Dilemma: In addition, not only does this chicken and egg dilemma exist on the basic cellular level, but it also exists as a problem on the level of the unique structures that distinguish one species from another. All organisms, from single-celled bacteria to mammals have complex organs required for the organism's survival. These organs are not produced by one gene but by many genes. In order for the organs to be present and functioning, all the genes for the different components of that structure or organ would have to be present. The likelihood of one mutation producing all the genes necessary to form such a structure or organ is a virtual impossibility. Partially formed new structures or organs are going to either be useless or harmful or even lethal because they are replacing existing, functioning structures or organs. Non-functional sonar in bats and dolphins won't aid them at all. (Footnote: 4) And a partially-formed wing where a functioning leg used to be will actually leave an organism severely crippled. This is much more so the case with a fish whose respiratory system can no longer function in water but requires air. In either case, the arrival of partial or incomplete new structures and organs will not result in evolution because it will not survive natural selection. And ultimately, the prospect of getting enough related genes to mutate to produce even part of such a structure requires incredible coincidence and foresight as to rule out any naturalistic theory. This situation is even worsened given the fact that all the present structures and organs in every living species on the planet would have to result in this fashion. Consequently, the existence of complex, working structures and organs that are essential to an organism's survival demonstrates the lack of any mechanism, including mutation, to produce the evolution of new structures or new types of organisms. Conversely, while there is no naturalistic mechanism capable of accounting for the arrival of the immense quantity of highly-complex structures and organs present on earth today, an intelligent designer would be account for the foresight and capacity required to produce the genetic information, the complete structures, and the complete organs necessary for an organism to survive and thrive.


N




The Evidence Concerning the Biological Evolution of Species

NOTES: Evolutionary sources list four or five lines of evidence supporting the theory of evolution: 1) the fossil record, 2) structural similarities, morphology, or comparative anatomy, 3) geographic distribution or biogeography, 4) embryology and vestigial organs, and 5) molecular biology.

"Evolution, The evidence for evolution - [1] The fossil record, [2] Structural similarities, [3] Embryonic development and vestiges, [4] Biogeography, [5] Molecular biology." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Evolution, Evidence of evolution - Evidence for evolution comes from observations of sources that document or indicate the occurrence of evolution. These sources include [1] the fossil record, [2] the geographic distribution of species, [3] embryology, vestigial organs, and [4] comparative anatomy. Evidence for evolution also comes from directly observing evolving populations and from artificial selection." - Worldbook, Contributor: Alan R. Templeton, Ph.D., Rebstock Professor of Biology, Washington University.

"Chapter 14: Evolution - Evidence of Evolution: [1] Evidence from Fossils, [2] Evidence from Structure, [3] Evidence from Development, [4] Evidence from Molecular Biology." - Heath Biology 1991 Table of Contents (Cited on "Creation Seminar Part 4: What is in the Textbooks?" Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video, 9 minutes, 10 seconds - Photos of the Textbook cover and page were shown on screen.)



Y


No Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record: The fossil record contains no intermediate or transitional forms between one type of organism and another. Instead, new species either appear suddenly complete at strata boundaries or they continue through many strata, representing long periods of time, and exhibit little or no morphological (form) change or variation. The lack of intermediate, transitional forms in the fossil record was known and admitted by Darwin as the biggest obstacle to his theory. And the problem persists to this day forming the basis for an internal debate among evolutionists surrounding whether or not evolution is punctuated and "too quick" to escape the fossil record or "slow and gradual" but the fossil record is too much of a limited, sparse, and discontinuous collection of snapshots to record any transitions. Ultimately, the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record means that the fossil record itself is a frozen, geologic picture of individual species that do not transition from one into another.

"Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduate organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]." - Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 323 (Cited on "A Question of Origins," Roger Oakland, Eternal Productions, Copyright 1998, www.creationscience.com, 43 minutes)

"Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution - New species, characterized by small but discontinuous morphological changes, typically appear at the boundaries between strata, whereas the fossils within a stratum exhibit little morphological variation. That is not to say that the transition from one stratum to another always involves sudden changes in morphology; on the contrary, fossil forms often persist virtually unchanged through several geologic strata, each representing millions of years." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Evolution, The process of evolution, Patterns and rates of species evolution, Reconstruction of evolutionary history, Gradual and punctuational evolution - Some paleontologists have proposed that the discontinuities of the fossil record are not artifacts created by gaps in the record, but rather reflect the true nature of morphological evolution, which happens in sudden bursts associated with the formation of new species." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Earth, geologic history of, Time scales - As was explained earlier, at specific stratigraphic boundaries certain types of fossils either appear or disappear or both in some cases. Such biostratigraphic boundaries separate larger or smaller units of time that are defined as eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Gould, Stephen Jay - He taught at Harvard University from 1967. Gould (with Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History) originated the "punctuated equilibrium" theory of evolution, a theory based on the fact that very few transitional forms are found in the fossil record. Unlike the gradualist theory, which would have species evolve gradually over long periods of time, the punctuated equilibrium theory holds that the evolution of a species consists of rapid changes in small, relatively isolated populations, followed by long periods of stability." - "Gould, Stephen Jay," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


N

0


Similar Structures/Morphology/Comparative Anatomy: Similarities in terms of structures or organs, does indeed indicate these things came to each organism from a common source. However, similarity on its own simply does not indicate what the common source was, whether it is a common ancestor or a common designer. The raw evidence of similarity does not favor either a common ancestor or a common designer over the other. Both theories adequately explain and account for the similarities.


0

0


Embryology: The basis of this piece of evidence is the idea that as embryos develop they pass through stages that correspond to their evolutionary ancestors and only at the end of their embryologic development do they take on the distinct features of their species. As a corollary, embryos of distinctly different species are very similar in structure early on in their development and remain similar longer depending on how closely related the species are. For example, human and other higher mammal embryos would remain similar longer into their development than a human embryo and a bird embryo. However, the basic problem with this line of argument is that it was disproved and rejected by the scientific community long ago. This concept is the work of Ernst Heinrich Haeckel, and it and some of his other ideas are known to have been "mixtures of…fallacious extrapolations." This is putting it politely. In fact, concerning his work that embryos repeat their evolutionary history, Haeckel was convicted of fraud by his scientific peers. In reality the different embryos were vastly distinct from one another at all stages.

"Haeckel, Ernst Heinrich - For example, according to Haeckel, each animal retraces, during its embryological development, the evolutionary steps that led to its place in the natural order. Thus, a human fetus begins its development as a single cell, just as life must have begun. About eight days later the cell grows into a hollow sphere (the blastula) that is similar in morphology to the sponges. The embryo then invaginates to form a two-layered, cuplike structure (the gastrula) that is similar to coelenterates such as jellyfish and the corals. The human embryo next begins to elongate, and within 30 days it has passed through stages with gills, a tail, and finlike limbs typical of fish and amphibians. Soon the embryo takes an obviously mammalian form, but only after two months is it clearly seen to be a primate. In Haeckel's words, 'Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'-ontogeny being embryonic development and phylogeny being evolutionary development. Although a great deal of truth can be found in this most famous of Haeckel's conjectures, his attempts to reconstruct evolutionary lineages on the basis of embryological development led to phylogenies now known to be wholly inaccurate. His other ideas were composed of similar mixtures of insight and fallacious extrapolation." - "Haeckel, Ernst Heinrich," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

The alleged gill-slits on the human embryo are nothing but folds of skin, not gill-slits, and they eventually develop into bones of the ear and glands and bones in the throat, never having anything to do with breathing. (Footnote: 8)

"Biogenesis - The term biogenesis has also been used in reference to the biogenetic (or recapitulation) theory. This theory, which was popular during the late 1800's, stated that 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.' This statement means that during its ontogeny--that is, during its development in the embryonic stage--each organism recapitulates (repeats) various stages in its species' phylogeny (evolutionary history). Scientists disproved this theory in the early 1900's." - Worldbook, Contributor: Lawrence C. Wit, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, Auburn University.

"Haeckel finally was convicted. At his own university they held a trail. In 1874, he was convicted of fraud." (Footnote: 9)

"A set of 19th century drawings that still appear in reference books…are badly misdrawn, says an embryologist in Britain. Although Haeckel confessed to drawing from memory and was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena, the drawings persist. 'That's the real mystery,' says Richardson. (of St. George's Hospital Medical School in London) New Scientist Sept. 6, 1997 p. 23 (Footnote: 9)


0

0


Vestigial Organs: In order for evolution to occur, organisms have to develop new structures and organs that were not present either in bodies or in the recessive genetic information of their ancestors. The first problem with vestigial organs and structures as proof for evolution is that there are no real vestigial organs or structures. The common examples are not really vestigial. Whale "pelvic" bones are anchor points for muscles necessary for reproduction and they still retain this vital function, proving these are not vestigial bones. The human appendix is not functionless, but instead functions as part of the human immune system. The human tailbone may be short, but far from being an unused, left-over remnant of a primate tail, it is a necessary feature that serves as an anchor point for nine muscles that are required for performing still-needed human body functions. And even more importantly, the second problem with vestigial organs and structures as proof for evolution is that they are, by definition, examples of an organism "losing" formerly useful items. They are not evidence for an organism gaining new structures or traits that were not present in its ancestors. Consequently, the concept of vestigial organs and structures is not evidence for evolution.


0

0


Geographic Distribution: Geographic distribution, or biodiversity as it is also called, addresses the fact that different geographic areas are populated by varieties of organisms, such as plants, animals, or insects. The variety among similar organisms, such as the variety of finches on the Galapagos Islands, or the variety of snails and Drosophila vinegar flies in Hawaii are central to this concept.

"Evolution, The evidence for evolution, Biogeography - Darwin also saw a confirmation of evolution in the geographic distribution of plants and animals, and later knowledge has reinforced his observations. For example, there are about 1,500 species of Drosophila vinegar flies in the world; nearly one-third of them live in Hawaii and nowhere else, although the total area of the archipelago is less than one-twentieth the area of California. There are also in Hawaii more than 1,000 species of snails and other land mollusks that exist nowhere else. This unusual diversity is easily explained by evolution. The Hawaiian Islands are extremely isolated and have had few colonizers; those species that arrived there found many unoccupied ecological niches, or local environments suited to sustain them and lacking predators that would prevent them from multiplying. In response, they rapidly diversified; this process of diversifying in order to fill in ecological niches is called adaptive radiation." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

"Geographic distribution of species, also known as biogeography, provides important evidence for the theory of evolution…The Galapagos Islands, for example, have 21 native species of land birds. Of these, 13 species are finches-a much higher proportion of finches than exists on any continent. The finches developed as different species partially because they ate different foods. They thus evolved specialized beaks and other adaptations for their different eating habits. These finch species live only on the Galapagos Islands. Therefore, the distribution of species supports the idea that a limited number of species came to the islands from the nearest mainland and then evolved into new species." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

The basic idea is that one homogeneous species of finches or flies, for example, migrated to a particular region. The region itself contains a variety of sub-environments each with its own unique combination of things like food, predators, temperature, and physical surroundings. As the original species spread out into these variety of sub-environments in the region, the species itself split into sub-populations that also varied from one another according to the different traits of each one's sub-environment.

However, the critical distinction that needs to be made concerning this piece of evidence is that it involves what is known as "micro-evolution," not macro-evolution. Both creationists and evolutionists agree that organisms adapt to their individual environments resulting in the expression of variety among different members of the same group, such as a variety of finches, flies, or snails. The question is whether or not the variety is the result of the organism developing new genes and new traits, not present in previous generations, as a step on its way to becoming an entirely new organism. Or, is the variety among the individuals the result of the variety already present in the genes of the organism? If the variety among the individuals is simply the result of genetic variety already present in the organisms, then the variety among individuals does not constitute any proof or expression that organisms evolve into new and different organisms. Instead, it only indicates that the starting population of the organism has enough genetic variety to accommodate environmental changes and differences so that it can survive. In short, it's a question of whether or not variety results from the arrival of new genetic information in a few individuals that eventually reproduce and pass them on to others or built-in genetic diversity already present in the original population of the species for survival purposes? And ultimately, on its own the mere occurrence of such variety does not tell us which of these two options is the cause, the arrival of new genetic information or existing, built-in genetic variety. Consequently, variety is not a proof for either evolution or creationism's core concept of a designer who intelligently and purposefully made organisms with high survivability. More analysis of these issues is presented in the preceding portions of this article series, particularly during the description of the creationist theory.


0

Y


Molecular Biology: Molecular Biology refers to the study of the "hereditary material and the workings of organisms at the level of enzymes and other molecules" such as proteins. It is a fact that all organisms, from bacteria to plants to animals and man are remarkably similar on the level of genetic components, amino acids, and metabolic pathways. This is cited as evidence for evolution because it is believed that a common ancestor is the only way to explain this remarkable uniformity between all forms of life.

"Evolution, The evidence for evolution, Molecular biology - The field of molecular biology has emerged during the mid-20th century. This new discipline has unveiled the nature of hereditary material and the workings of organisms at the level of enzymes and other molecules. Molecular biology provides the most detailed and convincing evidence available for biological evolution. It is now known that the hereditary material, DNA, and the enzymes that govern all life processes hold information about an organism's ancestry…molecular evolution has shown all living organisms, from bacteria to humans, to be related by descent from common ancestors. A remarkable uniformity exists in the molecular components of organisms-in the nature of the components as well as in the ways in which they are assembled and used. In all bacteria, plants, animals, and humans, the DNA comprises a different sequence of the same four component nucleotides, and all of the various proteins are synthesized from different combinations and sequences of the same 20 amino acids, although several hundred other amino acids do exist. The genetic "code" by which the information contained in the nuclear DNA is passed on to proteins is everywhere the same. Similar metabolic pathways are used by the most diverse organisms to produce energy and to make up the cell components. This unity reveals the genetic continuity and common ancestry of all organisms. There is no other rational way to account for their molecular uniformity when numerous alternative structures are equally likely. The genetic code may serve as an example." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

Furthermore, it is believed that the degree of similarity on the molecular level between to different organisms reveals how closely related they are to one another.

"Evolution, The evidence for evolution, Molecular biology - The evidence of evolution revealed by molecular biology goes one step further. The degree of similarity in the sequence of nucleotides or of amino acids can be precisely quantified. For example, cytochrome c (a protein molecule) of humans and chimpanzees consists of the same 104 aminoacids in exactly the same order; but differs from that of rhesus monkeys by one amino acid, that of horses by 11 additional amino acids, and that of tuna by 21 additional amino acids. The degree of similarity reflects the recency of common ancestry." - Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition

There are 2 problems with citing molecular biology as proof for evolution. First, arranging relationships between one organism and another by means of molecular biology produces contradicting results. The results not only contradict each other but they contradict evolutionary theory.

For example, arranging relationships and common ancestry according to the simple molecular factor of chromosome number, for example, results in an entirely different set of relationships and ancestries between organisms than amino acid sequence similarity does. Additionally, arranging plants or animals according to a factor like chromosome number actually produces a very nonsensical line of ancestry. In terms of chromosome number, plant evolution would flow from the mold penicillin (2) to tomatoes (12) to peas (14) to lettuce (14) to corn (20) to the redwood tree (22) to onions (32) to soybeans (40) to wheat (42) to an amoeba (50) to potatoes (90) and then to the white ash tree (138) and the fern (480). The relationships between animals in terms of chromosome number are even more problematic. The opossum mammal (22) would evolve into the amphibian frog (26) to the reptile alligator (32) to the cat mammal (38) to the bat mammal (44) to the human primate (46) to the chimpanzee primate (48) to the amoeba (50) to the dog mammal (78) and the bird chicken (78) and then into the goldfish (94) and the carp (100). In addition, using the molecular trait of chromosome number, certain plants are more closely related to animals than they are to other plants. For example, the tomato and the house fly both have 12 chromosomes, making the house fly more closely related to the tomato than to the fruit fly. Similarly, the opossum, the kidney bean, and the redwood tree all have 22 chromosomes, making the opossum more closely related to the red wood than to a cat and making the redwood more closely related to the opossum than to a white ash tree. Likewise, the onion and the alligator both have 22 chromosomes, making the onion more closely related to the alligator than to the potato. And finally, chimpanzees and tobacco both have 48 chromosomes, which means that chimpanzees are more closely related to tobacco than to human beings. (Footnote: 9)

In molecular biology, the sampling is only a small fragment of the chromosome. Amino acid sequences of plants, animals, and other organisms are arranged in order according to how alike or how different they are. According to these amino acid sequence relationships, man is only 11 percent different from a duck. (Footnote: 9)

These relationships are clearly not from simplest to most complex, as evolutionary theory asserts, nor are more similar plants closely related to one another, as evolutionary theory also asserts. Consequently, the relationships on a molecular level depend on the specific aspect of molecular biology that is in view and different molecular factors produce different relationships that each contradicts one another. Ultimately, molecular relationships produce contradictory results. The fact that microbiology does not provide evidence pointing to evolution is admitted by microbiologists.

"Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the process of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination." - "A Genetic Perspective on the Origin & History of Humans," N. Takahata, Annual Review of Ecology & Systems, 1995 (Footnote: 9)

"I'm a professional evolutionary biologist in that I have taught evolution and related courses here at Wayne in genetics, statistics, ornithology, and a number of other courses for 27 years…But it's important to note that my approach to evolution has always been from a genetic perspective. On a day to day basis my research students and I sequence DNA as a way of getting information about relatedness among species. And we use that information to reconstruct evolutionary history…Regardless of how many kinds there were, maybe we could figure that out if we could determine what distinguishes one kind from another in a genetic sense. What is the barrier? When would we know that we've crossed from one kind to another?...In order to begin to do that sort of research, which actually I do…but first before I could write a sensible proposal, you'd have to tell me what a kind is so I could begin to figure out what it is that I'm looking for that distinguishes them. There has to be some aspect of your theory that leads to predictions…I don't even know what species have the most chromosomes, but it's certainly not related to phyla genetic progression. I know of no evolutionary biologist who makes that claim…because when we reconstruct phylogenies, which show the order of evolutionary progression and then we map chromosome numbers on them, there's not a progression." (Evolutionary Biologist and Geneticist, Dr. William Moore of Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, Footnote: 10)

Second, this is simply a microscopic version of the morphology issue. Similarity in genetics or other molecular components, such as amino acids, does indeed indicate these things came to each organism from a common source. However, similarity on its own simply does not indicate what the common source was, whether it is a common ancestor or a common designer. One simple, speculative reason for such molecular similarity concerning amino acids, for example, is that amino acid similarity is essential for the food chain to work. Consequently, molecular similarity serves a functional purpose in the biosphere, which in turn, could reflect intentional and thoughtful design, not just common ancestry. Ultimately, even if there were a clear, non-contradicting hierarchy of relationships between all organisms based upon the degree of molecular similarity or dissimilarity that would not prove a common ancestor was the reason behind the similarity.


N


Table of Evidences Totals:


Creation Theory -
60 "Yes" = 61 evidences for
0 "No" = 0 evidences against
13 "0" = 12 evidences that neither for or against/equally compatible with both theories

Evolution Theory -
0 "Yes" = 0 evidences for
60 "No" = 61 evidences against
13 "0" = 12 evidences that neither for or against/equally compatible with both theories




Footnotes:

1 "Scientific Evidences for a Young Earth," Thomas Kindall, Seattle Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network, nwcreation.net

2 "Evidence for a Young World," Dr. Russell Humphreys, Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, Inc., Answers in Genesis, AnswersInGenesis.org, Copyright 2006

3 "Seminar Part 1: The Age of the Earth," Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video

4 "A Question of Origins," Roger Oakland, Eternal Productions, Copyright 1998, www.creationscience.com

5 The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel, Copyright 2004 by Lee Strobel, Zondervan

6 "Implications of the Laws of Thermodynamics," Thomas Kindall, Seattle Creation Conference 2004, Copyright Northwest Creation Network, nwcreation.net

7 "Astronomy and the Bible," Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net

8 "Creation or Evolution: Does it Matter What We Believe?" Mike Riddle, Copyright Northwester Creation Network, nwcreation.net

9 "Seminar Part 4: Lies in the Textbooks? ," Dr. Kent E. Hovind, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video

10 "The History of Life: Creation or Evolution? " Debate: Dr. Kent Hovind vs. Dr. William Moore at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan, Creation Science Evangelism, Pensacola, FL, www.drdino.com, Windows Media Video