Richard Salbato

Uniformitarianism

The axiom of uniformity of law is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past. In essence, the constancy of natural laws must be assumed in our study of the past, because if we do not, then we cannot meaningfully study the past. Making inferences about the past is wrapped up in the difference between studying the observable present and the unobservable past. In the observable present, induction can be regarded as self-corrective. That is to say, our erroneous beliefs about the observable world can be proven wrong and corrected by other observations. This is Popper's principle of falsifiability. However, past processes are not observable by their very nature. Therefore, in order to come to conclusions about the past, we must assume the invariance of nature's laws.

Thermodynamics

The laws of thermodynamics are:

·

If two thermodynamic systems are separately in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.

If we grant that all systems are (trivially) in thermal equilibrium with themselves, the Zeroth law implies that thermal equilibrium is an equivalence relation on the set of thermodynamic systems. This law is tacitly assumed in every measurement of temperature. Thus, if we want to know if two bodies are at the same temperature, it is not necessary to bring them into contact and to watch whether their observable properties change with time.

This law was considered so obvious] it was added as a virtual afterthought, hence the designation Zeroth, rather than Fourth. In short, if the heat energy of material A is equal to the heat energy of material B, and B is equal to the heat energy of material C. then A and C must also be equal.

·

The change in the internal energy of a closed thermodynamic system is equal to the sum of the amount of heat energy supplied to or removed from the system and the work done on or by the system. So, we can say (1) "Energy is neither created nor destroyed" and (2) "There is no free lunch."[16]

·

The total entropy of any isolated thermodynamic system always increases over time, approaching a maximum value or we can say, "In an isolated system, the entropy never decreases". Another way to phrase this: Heat cannot spontaneously flow from a colder location to a hotter area - work is required to achieve this.

·         Third law of thermodynamics, about the absolute zero of temperature:

As a system asymptotically approaches absolute zero of temperature all processes virtually cease and the entropy of the system asymptotically approaches a minimum value; also stated as: "the entropy of all systems and of all states of a system is smallest at absolute zero" or equivalently "it is impossible to reach the absolute zero of temperature by any finite number of processes". Absolute zero, at which all activity would stop if it were possible to happen, is −273.15 °C (degrees Celsius), or −459.67 °F (degrees Fahrenheit) or 0 K (kelvins, formerly sometimes degrees absolute).

Strata Layers

Laboratory Coal & Oil
Rapid Coal, GEORGE R. HILL Dean of College of Mines & Mineral Industries, "A rather startling and serendipitous discovery resulted....These observations suggest that in their formation, high rank coals,....were probably subjected to high temperature at some stage in their history. A possible mechanism for formation of these high rank coals could have been a short time, rapid heating event." [Six Hours], Chemtech, May, 1972, p. 292.
Garbage into oil, " British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..." Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982
Rapid Oil, Middleton, Holyland, Loewenthal, Bruner, "Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations." The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p. 6-12

Carbon 14 Dating

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on Earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in “lead” pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C)is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C "clock is not possible.

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the Earth's atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth varies with the sun's activity, and with the Earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the Earth's magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the Earth. Overall, the energy of the Earth's magnetic field has been decreasing,[5] so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.[6] Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant “dates” for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.[7]

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism (see Noah's Flood…, How did animals get from the Ark to isolated places?, and What About Continental Drift?), fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

Potassium-argon Dating

The potassium-argon (K-Ar) isotopic dating method is used for determining the age of Rocks. Developed in the 1950s, it was important in developing plate tectonics and in calibrating the geologic time scale.

Potassium occurs in two stable isotopes (41K and 39K) and one radioactive isotope (40K). Potassium-40 decays with a half-life of 1250 million years, meaning that half of the 40K atoms are gone after that span of time. Its decay yields argon-40 and calcium-40 in a ratio of 11 to 89. The K-Ar method works by counting these radiogenic 40Ar atoms trapped inside minerals.

What simplifies things is that potassium is a reactive metal and argon is an inert gas: Potassium is always tightly locked up in minerals whereas argon is not part of any minerals. Argon makes up 1 percent of the atmosphere. So assuming that no air gets into a mineral grain when it first forms, it has zero argon content. That is, a fresh mineral grain has its K-Ar "clock" set at zero.

The method relies on satisfying some important assumptions:

1.                 The potassium and argon must both stay put in the mineral over geologic time. This is the hardest assumption to satisfy.

Plate Tectonics

Way back in 1912 a scientist by the name of Alfred Wegener came up with a crazy idea. He noticed that all of the continents seemed to fit together like the pieces of a giant puzzle. He thought, "Maybe they were once all joined together in a single, giant landmass that broke up and drifted apart over time?" All other scientists were convinced the earth was rock-solid and immovable.

But in 1929, along came a scientist named Arthur Holmes who didn't think that Wegener's theory of continental drift was too farfetched.

"Now wait just a minute. Maybe he's got something here", he told them. He mentioned one of Wegener's other theories about the source of continental drift; the idea that the molten mantle beneath the earth's crust experiences thermal convection and that the movement of these convection currents in the mantle could cause an upwelling beneath the crust, forcing it to break apart and move. Now, that sounded like a semi-reasonable explanation for the movement of the earth's crust. As a matter of fact, if you looked closely at this idea it explained a lot of things, not just the continental puzzle idea. It also explained how mountain ranges were formed - by continents crashing into each other and 'rumpling up rock'.

Over the next thirty years a lot of new and surprise discoveries were made as new technologies were developed for exploring the ocean floor. The discovery of volcanic activity on the ocean floor in the middle of the Atlantic that turned out to be part of a long, unbroken mountain chain of undersea volcanoes was the most ground-breaking discovery that supported the theory of continental drift. This proved an expanding Atlantic Ocean but not a continental shift.

However if you study the continental shelves there is no connection of one continent to the other and no proof that any continent drifts away from another but drift back and forth by tides and changes in the sun and moon.

E=MC2 Explained

Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of this century. One of his most well-known accomplishments is the formula .  Despite its familiarity, many people don't really understand what it means. We hope this explanation will help!

Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter.

For example, consider a simple hydrogen atom, basically composed of a single proton. This subatomic particle has a mass of 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 672 kg

This is a tiny mass indeed. But in everyday quantities of matter there are a lot of atoms! For instance, in one kilogram of pure water, the mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 111 grams, or 0.111 kg.

Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy. It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number):

One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing = Matter.

This is an incredible amount of energy! A Joule is not a large unit of energy ... one Joule is about the energy released when you drop a textbook to the floor. But the amount of energy in 30 grams of hydrogen atoms is equivalent to burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline.

If you consider all the energy in the full kilogram of water, which also contains oxygen atoms, the total energy equivalent is close to 10 million gallons of gasoline!
Can all this energy really be released? Has it ever been?

The only way for ALL this energy to be released is for the kilogram of water to be totally annhilated. This process involves the complete destruction of matter, and occurs only when that matter meets an equal amount of antimatter ... a substance composed of mass with a negative charge.

Antimatter does exist; it is observable as single subatomic particles in radioactive decay, and has been created in the laboratory. But it is rather short-lived (!), since it annihilates itself and an equal quantity of ordinary matter as soon as it encounters anything. For this reason, it has not yet been made in measurable quantities, so our kilogram of water can't be turned into energy by mixing it with 'antiwater'. At least, not yet.

Another phenomenon peculiar to small elementary particles like protons is that they combine. A single proton forms the nucleus of a hydrogen atom. Two protons are found in the nucleus of a helium atom. This is how the elements are formed ... all the way up to the heaviest naturally occuring substance, uranium, which has 92 protons in its nucleus.
It is possible to make two free protons (Hydrogen nuclei) come together to make the beginnings of a helium nucleus. This requires that the protons be hurled at each other at a very high speed. This process occurs in the sun, but can also be replicated on earth with lasers, magnets, or in the center of an atomic bomb. The process is called nuclear fusion.
What makes it interesting is that when the two protons are forced to combine, they don't need as much of their energy (or mass). Two protons stuck together have less mass than two single separate protons!
When the protons are forced together, this extra mass is released ... as energy! Typically this amounts to about 0.7% of the total mass, converted to an amount of energy predictable using the formula .

Elements heavier than iron are unstable. Some of them are very unstable! This means that their nuclei, composed of many positively charged protons, which want to repel from each other, are liable to fall apart at any moment! We call atoms like this radioactive.

Uranium, for example, is radioactive. Every second, many of the atoms in a chunk of uranium are falling apart. When this happens, the pieces, which are now new elements (with fewer protons) are LESS massive in total than the original uranium atoms. The extra mass disappears as energy ... again according to the formula ! This process is called nuclear fission.

Both these nuclear reactions release a small portion of the mass involved as energy. Large amounts of energy! You are probably more familiar with their uses. Nuclear fusion is what powers a modern nuclear warhead. Nuclear fission (less powerful) is what happens in an atomic bomb (like the ones used against Japan in WWII), or in a nuclear power plant.

Albert Einstein was able to see where an understanding of this formula would lead. Although peaceful by nature and politics, he helped write a letter to the President of the United States, urging him to fund research into the development of an atomic bomb ... before the Nazis or Japan developed their own first. The result was the Manhatten Project, which did in fact produce the first tangible evidence of ... the atomic bomb!

The Doppler effect

A phenomenon associated with waves is called the Doppler effect. Imagine standing near a train track, and a train approaches you with its whistle blowing. The pitch of the whistle you hear though is higher than if the train had been at rest. Furthermore, as the train passes by and moves away from you, the pitch becomes lower.

The pitch of sound waves is associated with the frequency of the wave: the higher the pitch, the higher the frequency. Thus, as the train approaches the frequency of the sound wave you hear is higher, and as it recedes the frequency is lower.

The Doppler shift is more difficult to observe in light, since the speeds required are very large. The Doppler shift plays a crucial role in our understanding of the Universe. It provides very strong evidence that all the galaxies in the Universe are rushing away from us at great speeds: The light reaching us from distant galaxies is shifted to lower frequencies in exactly the same fashion as the train whistle of a receding train.

To record the Doppler effect we use a special camera, that shows a blue halo around the light if it is coming towards you and a red halo if it is going away from you.  We call this the red or blue shift.  What was not expected is that all the stars in the Universe have a red shift.  We conclude from this an expanding universe.  But we do not explain the center of that expansion. Unless we are the center of that expansion, at least some of the stars would have a blue shift.

Extinction of Dinosaurs

For many years no one could explain the sudden extinction of dinosaurs but recently scientists say they have found the answer.

“The extinction of the dinosaurs and a bunch of other species was caused by a massive asteroid that crashed into the Gulf of Mexico, an international team of researchers said last week.”

The 7 1/2 -mile-wide asteroid was traveling at about 10 times the speed of a rifle bullet when it hit. The impact blew dirt and rock around the world, set massive wildfires, knocked down forests worldwide, triggered massive tsunamis and earthquakes of magnitude 11 or larger, and even caused parts of the continent to slip into the ocean.

Those events wiped out more than half of all species on Earth in what has been called the greatest extinction event of all time. The species lost included not only the dinosaurs, but also the birdlike pterosaurs, large marine reptiles and many smaller land and sea creatures, clearing the way for the emergence of mammals as the dominant life form on the planet.

All of this may sound familiar. In fact, the idea was proposed 30 years ago by Nobel laureate physicist Luis Alvarez and his son Walter after they found abnormally high concentrations of the element iridium in a 65.5-million-year-old layer of Earth that separates fossils of the Cretaceous period from those of the Tertiary period.

Iridium is rare on Earth but common in space, and the Alvarezes proposed that a giant asteroid had hit the Earth. In 1991, researchers discovered a 120-mile-wide, 1.5-mile-deep crater called Chicxulub in Mexico, which many researchers considered proof of the asteroid theory of extinction.

In recent years, however, some scientists have come up with alternative explanations for the extinction, including hits by many asteroids or, more likely, massive volcanic eruptions in India.

To settle the question, European researchers decided to assemble 45 internationally renowned scientists to analyze the possible causes of the extinctions. Funding came from the National Science Foundation in the United States and from similar groups in other countries.

"The answer is quite simple," said Kirk Johnson of the Denver Museum of Science and Nature and spokesman for the group. "The crater really is the culprit." The aftereffects from the impact "shrouded the planet in darkness and caused a global winter, killing off many species that couldn't adapt to the . . . environment," added Earth scientist Joanna Morgan of Imperial College London.

Evidence of a Flood

Scientific Evidence for a Worldwide Flood
Part Four of a Five-Part Series on The Age of the Earth.

Two Vastly Different World Views, with Vastly Different Conclusions:
Let's not kid ourselves.  What this is all about is whether or not the Old Testament book of Genesis (along with the rest of the Old Testament, and the New Testament) is an accurate account of what happened around 4600 years ago with regard to a worldwide flood, and about 6000 years ago, with regard to Creation itself.

Was virtually all of the sedimentary strata laid down by a single Worldwide Deluge in a short amount of time, or is the evolutionary scenario of slow change, acting over eons of T-I-M-E, and the associated Geological Time Chart (with its millions and millions of years) a more accurate account of Earth history?

It's also about God's future judgment of mankind.  That's because Jesus Christ, Himself, related the Great Flood of Noah's day to His own return to earth to reign over it and the people in it.  See Luke 17:20-27, 19:11-27; John 5:22-23, 12:32, and Rev. 22:12.

Let's Look at the Evidence:
The following are 18 Evidences of either massive flooding and erosion, extremely rapid layering of strata, or direct evidence of a Worldwide Flood.  Such evidences are found in numerous places on virtually every Continent.

Polystrate Fossils:
One of the strongest pieces of evidence for a worldwide flood is the existence of what Rupke termed "polystrate fossils."  Such fossils are found all over the world.  They usually consist of fossil  trees that were buried upright, and which often traverse multiple  layers of strata such as sandstone, limestone, shale, and even coal beds. 1,2,3,4  They range in size from small rootlets to trees over 80 feet long. 3
Sometimes they are oblique in relation to the surrounding strata, but more often they are perpendicular to it.  For example, at Joggins, Nova Scotia, polystrate  tree (and root) fossils are found at various intervals throughout roughly 2,500 feet of strata. Many of these are from 10-20 feet  long 5,6 and, at least  one was 40 feet long. 5,6,7

Very few of these upright fossil trees have attached roots, and only about 1 in 50 8  have both roots and rootlets attached.  Such trees, and their -- more often than not -- missing roots, are discussed in much more detail in  The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia. 9  Likewise, many (if not most) of the large, fragmented, and  broken-off  Stigmaria roots are also missing their rootlets.

Many of these roots and rootlets, are also buried individually. 9  This strongly  suggests that these trees did not grow in the same places where they were buried, but rather were  uprooted and re-deposited there.

Similar circumstances occur at various other places in Nova Scotia, as well as in the United States, England, Germany, and France.  Another place where large tree stumps are preserved without their roots attached is  Axel Heiberg 10,11 Island in Northern Canada.

And although there is much data on buried trees in the geological literature, most of it is over 100 years old, and difficult to access.  One of the few articles on this subject was by Rupke, and in it he comments that:

“Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils  constitute a crucial phenomenon  both to the actuality and the mechanism of cataclysmic deposition.  Curiously  a  paper on  polystrate fossils appears to be a  'black swan’  in geological literature.  Antecedent to this synopsis a systematic discussion of  the relevant  phenomena was never published.  However, geologists must have been informed about these fossils.  In view of this it seems unintelligible that uniformitarianism has kept its dominant position." 12

With regard to Rupke's observation, I suspect the reason why such is (still) the case has more to do with one's personal bias against the concept of a Creator / God to whom we might very well have to give account than to the ever-mounting evidence against the theory of evolution and the millions of years old Earth that it requires (to appear plausible).  However, T-I-M-E is simply not enough: not even BILLIONS of years of it.

See also The Organic Levels of the Yellowstone Petrified Forest 13 and  The Yellowstone Petrified "Forests"  14 by Harold Coffin.

The Fossils Themselves:
Fossils don't form on lake bottoms today,  nor are they found  forming on the bottom of the sea. 15  Instead, they normally only form when a plant or animal is buried soon after it  dies. 16  Therefore, the fossils themselves are evidence of a catastrophe such as a  flood or volcanic eruption that took place in the past.  See also Rapid Petrification of Wood, by Andrew Snelling.

Clastic Dikes:  According to  Austin, a clastic dike is "a cross cutting body of sedimentary material which has been intruded into a foreign rock mass."  17

"These dikes...(may) penetrate horizontal sedimentary strata (or) they may occur... in  igneous and  metamorphic rocks.  The process of  formation of a clastic dike is analogous to wet sand oozing up between ones toes, but on a much larger scale." 17

Clastic dikes present a problem to the "mythions of years" mindset of evolution in  that  massive "older" sediments are found intruding up into overlying younger strata.  This  must have occurred while the "older" sediments were still in a plastic state.

What took these "older" sediments so long to become hard?

One would  think that a million  years would be more than enough  time to turn massive sand laden sediments into sandstone,  yet we have an example of sediments which  are said to be  80 million years older than those above them, and yet they still had not become hard, but were in  a wet and plastic state when an earth movement  caused them to be forced  up into the (supposedly  much) "younger" sediments.  Such things not only present serious problems for the evolutionary  method of  "dating", but also tell us that something is wrong with the millions of years mindset of evolutionary theory itself, and thus cause strongly suspicion that we are not being told the truth by the mass media, nor the "Scientific" community of believers in evolution. 17,18,19

Mt. St. Helens:
Three separate eruptions produced sedimentary-type layers hundreds of feet thick.
One of these was a hurricane velocity deposit that produced thousands of thin  laminations up to 25 feet thick  10,11,12  The third eruption was a  lava flow,  which  turned into a hot mud-flow as it  crossed the Toutle River.  This hot mud flow not only diverted  the  river, but carved a 17 mile long  series of canyons (up to 140 feet deep) in a matter of hours.  They call it the Little Grand Canyon of  the Toutle River." 20,21,22   And to this very day, the neither the mass media, nor any  popular  "science" publications have told the public what happened. 23  For more on this see  Mt. St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophe.

Palouse Canyon:
In Eastern Washington State there is a canyon that was eroded through solid basalt by Lake Missoula floods in 1-2 days. This canyon is  300 to 500 feet deep.  See references below for more information.

Observations at an Australian Beach:
At Greenmount  Beach on the Gold Coast of Queensland, an interesting thing occurred: "clear laminations, or layering, in the sand--formed  by  the separation of  normal silica-sand grains and smaller, denser mineral sand-grains such as rutile which are dark  in color.. The  layering was present along the whole sand mass exposed." 29   Emphasis Added

"This was produced as a result of a beach restoration project (which involved) the dredging of  sand  from  (a) sand bar (on) the Tweed River and  carrying it  by ship several kilometres north to the southern  Gold Coast beaches, where it was pumped ashore as a water/sand slurry through a large pipe to the beach."  29  See also Talking About Geology / Varves. 30  Emphasis Added

Spontaneous Sorting of Layers:
Laboratory experiments have shown  that spontaneous sorting and layering occurs with a sand, mud and clay slurry.
When the mixture slows down, the sand, mud  and clay will  spontaneously precipitate (settle out) and form individual layers.   Dr. Guy Berthault  has performed a number of experiments which demonstrate this. 31,32,33  Those who wish to see for themselves,  may do so by simply ordering one of the following videos :  Evolution: Fact or Belief?

Turbidity Currents:
A turbidity current is  an  underwater  mud flow, the discovery  of  which caused somewhat of a revolution in  geology.  As  a  result, many sedimentary  strata layers throughout  the world have been reevaluated and found to be turbidites. 34,35,36,37,38,39,40

For example, regarding turbidites and the impact they are having on modern Geology, Kurt Howard, 41 said the following in his paper on this topic:

My physical geology professor said, "Regarding uniformitarianism, you can take it  with a grain of salt."  After reviewing geology texts on the subject of turbidites, I am following the courageous professor's advice. To  paraphrase his words, I am taking uniformitarianism with a grain of sand, for the philosophy of uniformitarianism states that sedimentary layers form over many millions of years, while ... recent research has shown that turbidites form within a few hours. {1}  Emphasis Added

In  1972 Burgert  identified several lower basal Tapeats units as turbidites in Grand Canyon's Cheops Bay. Dr. Ariel Roth a geologist at Loma Linda University's Geoscience Institute, suggested that 30% of all sedimentary rocks in Grand Canyon are turbidites. Some geologists suggest that 50% of the world's sedimentary rocks might be turbidites. Emphasis Added

Modern geologists discarded the terms flysch sediments and geosyncline because rapidly formed megathick flysch is incompatible with uniformitarianism and long ages. However, in the last few years, the number of geologists abandoning the classical uniformitarian discipline  and adopting the new catastrophism is almost a shock to ... creationists. Geologists are finally beginning to grudgingly agree with ... creationists about the nature of the stratigraphic record, which is a record of major catastrophic events and not the slow year-by-year buildup suggested by uniformitarianism. Flysch deposits might be the sedimentary results of  a global  flood.  The idea of  geosynclines is  unpopular because most geologists believe in plate tectonics.   Emphasis Added

Extensive Strata and Pancake Layering:
As we observe sedimentary strata throughout the world  we see  almost  everywhere flat-lying (or "pancake")  layered strata.  Many of these layers are so extensive that they cover several states.  Evolutionists believe that such layers were deposited slowly over millions and  millions of years, or that they are simply "river" deposits  or river deltas.  42,43  Creationists, and a growing number of geologists see problems with such interpretations. 44,45  First because there is virtually no evidence of  erosion between the layers, and second, because the sheer size and extent of  the strata suggests that the layers were neither formed by rivers, or river deltas.  That's because many of the "layers" are quite thick, and cover (literally) hundreds and even thousands of square miles, and in many instances are the size of the state of Utah, or even larger.

This, coupled with the presence of marine fossils that are buried in many of the layers, tells us that they were deposited by ocean currents (i.e. from a major, major Flood), like nothing we have ever seen before.

We can say  for certain that it was the ocean (as opposed to a lake) because of the marine  fossils that are buried  in  much  of this strata.  For example, in the Grand Canyon area itself,  old Earth geologists  have said  that the Ocean swept over the whole area on six  different occasions.  Young Earth geologists say it  was probably only once.

A "Whale" of a Fossil:
Or should we say "a fossil of a whale? It's true, but what is most interesting about it is how it was buried. In 1976, workers from the Dicalite division of Grefco inc. found the remains of a baleen whale entombed vertically in a diatomaceous earth quarry.

"They've found fossils there before; in fact the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The Whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected  anywhere... (It) is standing on end.. and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet.

"The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long. 46,47

More Fossil Whales:

"In bogs covering glacial deposits in Michigan, skeletons of two whales were discovered ... How did they come to Michigan in the post-glacial epoch? Glaciers do not carry whales, and the ice sheet would not have brought them to the middle of a continent... Was there a sea in Michigan after the glacial epoch, only a few thousand years ago?"   48

"Bones of Whale have been found 440  feet above sea level, north of Lake Ontario; a skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont, more than 500 feet above sea level; and still another in the Montreal-Quebec area, about 600 feet above sea level..." 48

Marine Fossils In The Mountains:
In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils.  These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. 49,50,51,52,53   For more on this subject see the following  video 54 by Dr. Walter Brown.

Frozen Mammoths:
Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large numbers in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Europe.  Some of these were in such good preservation that Eskimos would feed their dogs  meat from them when they became exposed due to melting  ice and snow: that  is, if wolves didn't get their first.  For those who want to know more see:  Frozen Mammoths

Fissures In The Rocks:
In caves and fissures in  England  and Whales  and all over western  Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the  mammoth, hippopotamus,  rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf  and cave lion.  In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered. 55

"In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay -- a flat-topped hill  near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon  and Lyons -- there is a fissure filled with animal bones.  'Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a  hill  isolated on  all sides?'  asked Albert Gaudry, professor at  the Jardin des  Plantes.   According to him, the  bones in this cleft are mostly  broken  and splintered  into innumerable... fragments and are 'evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of  prey;  nor  have  they been broken by man.  Nevertheless,  the remains  of  wolf  were ... abundant, together  with those  of  cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and  deer... Prestwich thought that the animal bones... were found in  common  heaps because,  '... [they] had  fled [there]  to  escape  the  rising waters.'"  55,56

Erratic Boulders:
All over Europe and North America are found extremely large "boulders" which were transported many miles by some mysterious force -- the most likely of which is a massive flood that swept over the Continents.  Concerning these Velikovsky writes :

"Some erratics are enormous.  The block near Conway, New Hampshire, is 90 by 40 by 38 feet and weighs about 10,000 tons, the load of a large cargo ship.  Equally large is Mohegan Rock, which towers over the town of Montville, in  Connecticut.  The great flat  erratic  in  Warren County, Ohio, weighs approximately 13,500 tons and  covers three quarters of  an acre;  the Ototoks erratic, thirty  miles south  of  Calgary, Alberta, consists  of  two pieces  of  quartzite 'derived from at least 50 miles to the west,'  [and weighs] over 18,000 tons." 57

Was the Flood Local or Worldwide?

In the late 60's and early 70's:

"Two American  oceanographic  vessels pulled  from  the bottom of  the Gulf of  Mexico several long, slender cores of sediment.  Included in them were the shells of tiny one-celled planktonic organisms called foraminifera.  While living on the surface, these organisms lock into their shells a  chemical record of  the temperature and salinity of  the water.  When they  reproduce, the shells are discarded and drop to the  bottom.  A cross-section  of  that bottom ... carries a record  of climates  that  may go back more  than 100  million  years.  Every  inch of  core  may represent as  much as 1000  years of  the earth's  past." 58  Emphasis Added

"The  cores  were analyzed  in  two  separate  investigations,  by Cesare  Emiliani  of the University  of Miami, and James Kennett of the University of Rhode Island and  Nicholas Shackleton  of Cambridge University.  Both analyses indicated a dramatic  change in salinity, providing compelling evidence of a vast flood  of  fresh water  into the Gulf of  MexicoUsing  radiocarbon, geochemist Jerry Stripp of  the  University  of Miami  dated  the  flood at  about 11,600  years  ago." 1  To Emiliani, all  the  questions and  arguments are  minor  beside  the  single fact that a vast  amount  of  fresh  melt  water  poured  into the Gulf  of  Mexico.   'We  know  this,'  he  says,  'because  the  oxygen  isotope ratios of  the  foraminifera shells  show a  marked  temporary decrease  in  the  salinity  of  the waters  of  the Gulf  of  Mexico.   It  clearly  shows that  there  was  a major  period  of  flooding  from 12,000  to 10,000  years ago... There  was no question that  there  was a  flood  and  there  is  no  question that  it  was  a  universal  flood. 58  Emphasis Added

"Emiliani's  findings are corroborated by geologists Kennett  and Shackleton,  who concluded  that there was a 'massive inpouring of  glacial melt water  into the Gulf  of Mexico via the Mississippi  River system.  At  the time of maximum  inpouring of  this water, surface salinities were... reduced by about ten percent." 58

The Black Sea Speaks:

"Science... has found evidence for  a massive deluge  that may ... have  inspired  Noah's tale.  About 7,500 years ago, a  flood  poured ten  cubic miles of  water a day -- 130 times more than  flows over Niagara Falls - from the Mediterranean Sea into the Black  Sea, abruptly  turning the formerly  freshwater lake into a  brackish inland sea." 59 Emphasis Added

"In  1993,  William Ryan  and  Walter Pitman  of  Columbia University's  Lamont-Doherty Earth  Observatory  dug up cores of sediment  from  the bottom of  the Black sea.  The cores showed  that  the sea's  outer margins had once been dry  land, indicating it had been two-thirds  its  present size.  Furthermore, over  the entire sea bottom was a thin, uniform layer  of sediment that  could only have been deposited  during  a  flood.  The researchers  also found that within that layer saltwater  mollusks appear, all  from the Mediterranean and all dating from around  7600 years ago." 59 Emphasis Added

Miracle or Worldwide Flood?

"Such a hypothesis would  require assumption of a  highly  unlikely pattern of  faunal migrations, where swarms of species of Manticoceras  are followed, everywhere at the  same distance and  the same time interval, by swarms of species of Cheilocerasthe two waves  preserving their  separate identities on a staggered mass migration around the world ... without evolutionary changes and  without ever  becoming mixed..." 60 Emphasis Added

"It  would  be  easy to repeat this investigation for  almost every critical zone  fossil  or  fauna throughout the geological column  for  hundreds,  perhaps thousands of... cases.  The conclusions would be the same.  In the words of Jeletsky (1956) we  would have  to  'invoke a miracle', if,  for example, we were to assume  anything but world-wide  contemporaneous  deposition for  each of  the 55 ammonite  zones of the Jurassic.  Not  all  of  them occur everywhere, but wherever  two or more  are  found in  superposition  they occur  in the same order. 60 Arkell (1957,  p.  L112) 61  summarized  the picture of  ... Mesozoic ammonoids as follows:   Emphasis Added

'Evolution is above all  very uneven.  Certain periods were outstandingly productive  of  new and verile  forms  which  often  seem  to have sprung  into existence  from  nowhere ...  and  to have become dominant  almost simultaneously over a large part of  the world ...

How such sudden multiple creations were brought about is  a task  for the  future  to determine.'" 60,61  Emphasis added

Worldwide Chaos and Out of Order
Fossils:
The following excerpts provide further evidence that something is amiss with the Geological Time Chart and the associated Theory of Evolution itself.

"I regard the failure to find  a  clear  'vector  of progress' in  life's  history as  the most  puzzling  fact of the  fossil record."  62

And that:

"Heretofore, we  have thrown up our hands in frustration at  the lack  of expected pattern in  life's  history --
or  we  have  sought to impose  a  pattern that  we hoped  to find on a  world that does not really display it...  If we can develop a...theory of mass extinction, we  may finally understand  why life has thwarted our expectations, and...extract an  unexpected ... pattern from apparent chaos." 62   Stephen Jay Gould      Emphasis added.

"One of  the ironies of  the evolution-creation debate is  that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the  fossil record shows a  detailed  and orderly progression..." 63   David M. Raup   Emphasis added.

"only  15-20%  of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic  periods appearing in 'correct'  consecutive order."  64  John Woodmorappe   Emphasis added

"Any sequence in which an  older  fossil occurs  above a  younger one is stratigraphically disordered ... disorder may  be  from  millimeters to  many meters  ... (and) is produced by  the physical or biogenic mixing of ... sediments ... Since  these processes occur to  an extent in  virtually all sedimentary systems, stratigraphic  disorder  at some scale is  probably  a  common  feature of  the  fossil  record."

"The  extent of disorder ...is not well documented;  however, the widespread occurrence  of anomalies  ... suggest that disorder should  be taken  seriously..."  ref. 61  p. 234.  W. J. Arkell.   Emphasis added

"Examination  of Britain's record of  the Ice Age levels  discloses  a  'complex  interbedding of drift sheets derived from  different sources.'  'When  we add the additional complications  imposed  by thin  drifts, scanty  interglacial  deposits, and  the  frequent  presence  in  fossil-bearing beds of  secondary [displaced]  fossils  derived from  the reworking of older horizons,  we get a  truly difficult overall problem
... All in  all, British glacial  stratigraphic research  has encountered  exceptional  difficulties,' writes  R. F. Flint, professor of geology  at Yale University. 66,67  Immanuel Velikovski

"Problematica"  is the "code word" Paleontologists use to describe out of order fossils, or those that are not easily placed, or that are "mixed" in with  one's they shouldn't be with.

If  one  were to perform an internet search on this word he or  she  may be  surprised at  how many web pages there are on it: especially considering that the word isn't even in the Dictionary: at least not an English one.
For more on this see: Sea-Sloths and Out of Order Fossils.

For those seeking more information on this Worldwide Flood which almost  certainly did occur, or  how a Boat with Thousands of Animals onboard could possibly have survived
is  a  link that may  answer  some of  your  questions.  If not, feel free to email the  author, or to take the  IQ test.

Copies may be distributed freely for educational purposes only.

Evidence for a Young Earth.

Contrary to what we've been told over and over by the evolution-believing mass media, the "scientific" establishment, and old-Earth (slow) Creationists (who don't want God to receive too much glory), there are, in fact,  numerous geophysical and astronomical clocks which point to a  young age for the earth, solar system, and universe.  There is a LOT of scientific evidence that suggests the Earth is perhaps only thousands of years old, and that the 4.5 billion year age is incorrect.

Time Clocks:
A "clock" is any geophysical or astronomical process that is changing at a constant  rate. Clocks may be used to estimate how long a process has been going on for.  All clocks (including radiometric ones) require the use of at least  three assumptions. These are:

1. The rate of change has remained constant throughout the past.
2. The original conditions are known.
3. The process has not been altered by outside forces.

In each of these cases it is not possible to prove that the assumptions are true.  For example flooding can greatly alter sedimentation rates, and with clocks over 5,000 years old, the original conditions cannot be known with certainty.  Therefore scientists must make a guess with regard to what they believe the original conditions might have been.  The shorter the time involved, the more likely that a specific process has been constant, and unaltered by external influences.

The following clocks point to a young earth, solar system, and universe. Taken together, they suggest that the earth is quite young -- probably less than 10,000 years old.

 Clock Age Estimate 750 m.y.a. max 5,000 - 10,000 years 1,000,000 years max 4,900 years max 1,750,000 years max 5,000 - 10,000 years 10,000 years max 10,000 - 50,000 years 5,000 - 50,000 years 5,000 - 50,000 years 5,000 - 50,000 years 5,000 - 10,000 years 10,000 years max 13,000 years max 5,000 - 8,800 years max 5,000 years max 5,000 - 10,000 years 6,500 years 10,000 years max Various (mostly young) Ages Less than 10 million years 10,000 to 50,000 years 100 - 500 million years (max) 6,000 years

The gravitational pull between the Earth and Moon causes the Earth’s oceans to have tides.  The tidal friction between the Earth’s terrestrial surface and the water moving over it causes energy to be added to the Moon.  This results in a constant yearly increase in the distance between the Earth and Moon."1  This tidal friction also causes the Earth’s rotation to slow down, but  more importantly,  the energy added to the Moon causes it to recede from  the  Earth.1,2   The rate  of recession was measured at four centimeters per year in 1981; 3  however, according to Physicist Donald DeYoung:

"One cannot extrapolate the present 4 cm/year separation rate back into history. It has that value today, but was more rapid in the past because of tidal effects.  In fact, the separation rate depends on the distance to the 6th power, a very strong dependence ... the rate ... was perhaps 20 m/year ‘long’ ago, and the average is 1.2 m/year. 1

Because of this, the Moon must be less than 750 million years old -- or 20% of the supposed 4.5 billion-year age of the Earth-Moon system.4

When  oil  wells are  drilled, the oil is almost always found to be under great pressure. This presents a problem for those who claim "millions of years" for the age of oil, simply because rocks are porous.  For as time goes by, the oil should seep into tiny pores in the surrounding rock, and, over time, reduce the pressure.  However, for some reason it doesn't.  Perhaps because our oil deposits were created as a result of Noah's Flood only about 4600 years ago?  Some scientists say that after about 10,000 years little pressure should be left.

3.  The Sun:

Measurements of the sun's diameter over the past several hundred years indicate that it is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. Assuming that this rate has been constant in the past we can conclude that the earth would have been so hot only one million years ago that no life could have survived.  And only 11,200,000 years ago the sun would have physically touched the earth.  Also, if the sun were indeed billions of years old,  then it seems a bit odd for its magnetic field to have doubled in the past 100 years, but this is what the evidence suggests.

The oldest living thing on earth is either an Irish Oak or a Bristlecone pine.  If we assume a growth rate of one tree ring per year, then the oldest trees are between 4,500 and 4,767 years old.  The fact that these trees are still alive and growing older means that we don't yet know how old they will get before they die.  It also strongly suggests that something happened  around 4,500 to 4,767 years ago which caused the immediate ancestors of these trees to die off. Note also that it is possible for trees to produce more than one growth ring per year, which would shorten the above estimated ages of these trees.  Also, with regard to fossil tree rings, the author has been unable to find any documented instances of fossil trees having more than about 1500 rings.  Janelle says 1700.  This is significant since we are told that God (literally) made the Earth, and all that is in it, only about 1800 years before the Noachian Flood described in the Book of Genesis.

Helium is a byproduct of the radioactive decay of uranium-238. As uranium decays, the helium produced escapes from the earth's surface and accumulates in the atmosphere. As time passes, the amount of helium in the atmosphere increases. Scientists have estimated the amount of uranium in the earth's crustal rocks.  From this they estimate the amount of helium that should be produced, and from these they can calculate how much helium is being added to the atmosphere over a given amount of time.  They also know how much helium is currently in the atmosphere.

If we use the same assumptions that radiometric dating experts make -- i.e.: no initial daughter/byproduct (or helium) in the earth's early atmosphere, a constant decay rate, and that nothing has occurred to add to or take away the helium --  then the earth's  atmosphere is at most 1.76  million years old. Other estimates say it is much less: or only 175,000 years.

Short period comets revolve round the sun once every hundred years or less.19 With each revolution they lose 1-2% of their mass.  After several hundred revolutions they disintegrate.  At present there are over 100 short period comets in our solar system, many of which have periods of less than 20 years. Since comets are believed to have originated at the same time as the solar system.  This, plus the fact that they have not all disintegrated, suggests that either the solar system is young, or that new comets are continuously being added.

The existence of short period comets suggests that our solar system is less than 10,000 years old: otherwise they would have burned out long ago.22

The Earth's magnetic field is decaying at the rate of about 5 % every 100 years.  This means that about 1450 years ago it was twice as strong as it is today, and 2900 years ago it was four times as strong.  Therefore, assuming that the rate of decay has been constant for the recent past, then only 10,000 years ago the earth's magnetic field would have been 128 times as strong as it is today: so strong that the amount of heat produced would have prevented life as we know it from existing on earth.   In other words, it seems likely that the Earth's magnetic field is quite young, and suggests that the earth itself is also young.

The fact that the earth's magnetic field is decaying is well documented.  For example, a recent NOVA Special on this subject brought this out very clearly.  In fact, at present rates of decay, the earth may not even have a magnetic field 1000 years from now.

"Shortly after that I published a review of the evidence for past polarity reversals, reaffirming their reality (Humphreys, 1988).  Then I developed my dynamic-decay theory further, showing that rapid (meters per second) motions of the core fluid would indeed cause rapid reversals of the field’s polarity (Humphreys, 1990). I cited newly discovered evidence for rapid reversals (Coe and Prévot, 1989), evidence in thin lava flows confirming my 1986 prediction.  Since then, even more such evidence has become known (Coe, Prévot, and Camps, 1995).

Another major problem with old-earth beliefs in this regard is the timing of the earth's last reversal.  Old earth believers claim that it took place 780,000 years ago; however, at current rates of decay, only about 10,000 years ago the earth would have been so hot that no life could have survived on its surface.

By evolutionary reasoning, dragon bones only occur in the so-called Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic eras.  According to the geological time chart such creatures (now called dinosaurs) died out between 65 and 220 million years ago.  What is not well known about these eras is that they are based upon the theory of evolution -- which requires extremely long periods of time

So how can we date dragon bones?

One piece to the puzzle is the fact that many dinosaur bones are not permineralized or turned into stone. This means they can be directly dated by the Carbon-14 method, the exact same way a mammoth or Neanderthal bone is dated.  This has also been done on numerous occasions by various laboratories  in the United States and Europe, and the dates indicate that dinosaurs were alive from 9,800 -- 50,000 years ago.

Paul LeBlond, Professor of Oceanography at the University of British Columbia said that any C14  date over 5,000 years is highly questionable.32  Therefore, despite what  popular  publications may report,33 we can establish that all mammoths,  Neanderthals,  or other bones "dated"  over  5,000 years by the C14 method are likewise  questionable.

However, the very fact that many thousands of dinosaur/dragon bones contain organic material is a strong indication that these creatures became extinct in the recent past.

9A.  Dinosaur Blood  and  "Ancient" DNA:
Before the existence  of  supposedly "ancient"  organic material  had been well publicized, it was predicted that "no DNA would remain intact much beyond 10,000 years." 34  This prediction was based upon the observed  breakdown of  DNA.

However,  a serious problem arises when we come to the dinosaur bones;  for these were not entombed  in amber or clay, but in sandstone.  And because sandstone and bone are both porous, this means that ground and rain water would be able to seep into the rocks, and thus into the bones as well.  The fact that the outer part of one of these bones was mineralized 42 gives strong evidence that water -- and thus oxygen -- had access to the bones.  The fact that the inside of the bones are not mineralized is an indication that they are young.  The fact that the partially mineralized bone had (what looked like) red blood cells in it is a strong  indication that it  is young: probably less than 10,000 years old.

When Mary Schweitzer first saw the bones under a microscope, she said:

"I got goose bumps,"..."It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone.  But ... I couldn't believe it.  I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"

This is good question indeed; however, the answer from the "scientific" establishment says even more.  For they refuse to consider the likely possibility that the bones are (perhaps) as much as 64,995,000 years younger than what they have told the public to believe.

9B.  Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones:
A 1987 article in  the  Journal of  Paleontology  begins as follows:

"Hadrosaur  bones have been found on the Colville River north of Umiat on the North Slope of Alaska."

What is perhaps most interesting about these "many thousands of bones" is that they "lack any significant degree of  permineralization."  In fact, the people who discovered them didn't report it for 20 years  because they thought  they were bison bones.  Because the bones were partially exposed in a "soft, brown, sandy silt and because every year the snow melts and subjects them to the elements for two to three months, these bones also call in question the evolutionary-based ages of dinosaurs, and the Geological Time Chart itself.

9C. Million Year Old Surprise:

In  May  of  1996 it was reported that ammonites in pristine condition have been found in "a 'mysterious network' of mud springs on the edge of the 'market town' of Wootton Bassett, near Swindon, Wiltshire, England. What is so interesting about these purportedly 165 million-year-old ammonites is that:

"many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells ... (and) they retain their original... aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] ... The outsides also retain their iridescence. And in the words of Dr. Hollingworth, 'There are shells ... still have their organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old.'!" 57,58Emphasis Added

It is a fact that water is a component of mud.  It is also a fact that oxygen is a component of water. Oxygen allows oxidation to take place.  Oxidation causes things  to break down.  These mud springs are further evidence that something is wrong with the current evolutionary scheme for dating fossils.

10.  Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands:
Axel Heiberg and Ellesmere Islands are located in northern Canada, above the Arctic circle. The winters are so cold there that the only "trees" able to grow are small shrubs less than a foot in height.59  However something very strange has been found on these islands that testifies to a very different past: i.e. numerous large trees and tree stumps lying on,  or buried just beneath the surface.60,61,62

How did they get there?  And more importantly, when did they get there?

It is claimed that the trees are leftover remnants of forests which inhabited this area 40-65 million years ago. The scientific data suggests otherwise.  For instance, they are not petrified, but can  be sawed and burned.  In addition, pine cones, pine needles, and leaves are also preserved in the sandy/silty soil. Another clue to the puzzle is that the roots of these trees are missing. This suggests that they didn't grow here but were uprooted by a catastrophic event and later re-deposited at different levels.  This is exactly what has happened in Spirit Lake near Mt. St. Helens; however, the upright trees on the bottom of this lake are still under water.  At some time in the future, they may be left standing upright -- looking as if they grew there.

In regard to this, Quiring, states :

"During the eruption many trees from  the surrounding  hillsides were washed  into  the lake.  Today, thousands of logs, protected within the monument, float back and forth with the changing winds.  As some of the trees sink, roots first, they settle upright on the lake floor to form a  'sunken forest.'" 71

In regard to the preservation of the organic matter on Axel Heiberg Island, an online article states the following:

"The Axel Heiberg fossils are largely preserved as mummifications.  Although usually compressed, the wood and other remains are relatively unaltered chemically and biologically (Obst et al, 1991). Preservation of the fossils is exquisite, including leaf litter, cones, twigs, branches, boles, roots, etc. Where these are not compressed, they are virtually indistinguishable from equivalent tissues found in the forest floor of modern conifer forests ... The reasons why preservation is exceptional and there is so little mineralization remain obscure.  Analysis of the organic remains indicate that they were buried in a fresh-water environment (Goodarzi et al, 1991)."  Emphasis Added

"In certain areas of northern Siberia innumerable tree trunks called by the natives "Adam's wood" and said to be in all stages of decay are embedded in the solidly frozen tundra. Because they were once growing trees, of types which do not grow in that climate, they confirm that a change in climate has taken place, such as would be caused by a careen of the globe. They could have been broken by a hurricane or flood. If so, they will show a clean break on the side on which the breaking force was imposed and torn fibers on the lee side. A reexamination of the wood, to determine genera and species of the trees, will enable us to establish the latitude range or climate in which these trees grew."   Emphasis Added

"A so called mammoth tree, with fruit and leaves still on it, was discovered and reported after a landslide of Siberian tundra. Such cold storage of fruit 7,000 years old can only be explained by a sudden transportation of the fruit from a warm climate in which it grew to the cold storage climate in which it has been refrigerated. This specimen of fruit, with leaves, and many other specimens of leaves reported found in Siberia also confirm the careen of the globe."   Emphasis Added

Velikovski, in his book "Earth in Upheaval" (1955, Edition), reported similarly preserved trees in the frozen tundra of Alaska.

11.  Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere:
Carbon-14 is produced when radiation from the sun strikes Nitrogen-14 atoms in the earth's upper atmosphere.  The earth's atmosphere is not yet saturated with C14.  This means that  the amount of C14 being produced is greater than the amount that is decaying back to N14.  It is estimated that a state of equilibrium would be reached in as little as 30,000 years.  Thus, it appears that the  earth's  atmosphere is less than 30,000 years old.  In fact, the evidence suggests it is less than 10,000 years old.  Some of these estimates place the atmosphere's age at 50,000 years, and others at 100,000 but they each pose serious problems for old-earth scenarios

The Dead Sea is in Israel. It is receives fresh water from the Sea of Galilee via the Jordan  River.  The Dead Sea has a very high salt content.  Even so, it continues to get saltier since it has no outlet other than by evaporation. Scientists  have measured the amount of salt added each  year by the  Jordan River; and they  have also calculated the amount of salt in the Dead Sea.  From these it  is possible to estimate  how long this process has been going on for.  Assuming a constant rate of salt/water flow, and  a zero salt level at the beginning, then the age of the Dead Sea is only 13,000 year old.

13.  Niagara Falls:

Up until the recent past, when the top of  Niagara  Falls was  reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel upriver toward  Lake  Erie at the rate of about four to five feet per year.  Since the channel is now about seven miles long (35,000 feet), this means that the age of  Niagara Falls is  between  7,000 and  8,750 years old (or less). This, of course, assumes that the rate of erosion has been constant.  The age of  North America, is likely the same.

Depending on which book one consults, historians claim that human history goes back 4,600- 5,400 (or more) years;  however, according to Froelich Rainey, 1870 B.C. (plus or minus 6) is the "earliest actual recorded date in human history." Also on this point, Sylvia Baker quotes Professor Libby as follows:

"Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his Carbon-14 method.  He said. 'The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old.  We learned rather abruptly (that) these... ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.'"

15.  The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the North America.  It  runs into the Pacific Ocean at Tomales Bay, just east of Pt. Reyes, about 30 miles north of San Francisco.  It is said to move from 1/2  to 2 inches per year. How long has it  been moving for?  The answer varies greatly.

One thing that appears certain is that there is much disagreement with regard to how long this fault has been active. Looking at a geology map of the Pt. Reyes area, one may note that there are a few features that suggest that the fault has not been moving very long. These are: Sand Point, Tom's Point, and Lagunitas Creek. The fault crosses each of these and yet none of them appear to be offset at all.  This evidence suggests that this fault is quite young -- on the order of a few thousand years old.

Mitochondrial  DNA  is different from  nucleus  DNA  in that  it  has "only 37 genes, compared to the estimated 100,000... in the cell's nucleus..."   It  is also different in that it is only passed on from the mother, or at least, so it was once thought; however that is now very much in question, as is brought out in the Links below.

In 1989 scientists said that they had compared the Mitochondrial DNA of various different races of people and concluded that they all came from a single woman (they called her Eve) who lived from 100,000-200,000 years ago. This story was widely reported in the press.  A few years later scientists actually measured the rate of Mitochondrial mutations and discovered that they changed about 20 times faster than was earlier reported.  This means that Eve did not live 100,000-200,000 years ago but rather only 5,000-10,000.  This greatly revised date is very close to the Biblical account of Adam and Eve.

Today the earth's population doubles every 50 years.  If  we assumed only half of  the current growth rate and start with one couple, it would take less than 4,000 years to achieve today's population.

By measuring the amounts of various minerals that are present in the oceans and calculating the amounts of each that are added each year by river runoff, scientists can estimate how old the oceans are.  When doing so the great majority of minerals yield young ages for the earth's oceans -- many of which are less than 5,000 years.

19.  Rapid Mountain Uplift:

In March of 2005, Dr. John Baumgardner released his assessment of the "Recent Rapid Uplift of Today's Mountains" in an Impact article.  In it he discovered that:

"An ongoing enigma for the standard geological community is why all the high mountain ranges of the world -- including the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes, and the Rockies -- experienced most of the uplift to their present elevations in what amounts to a blink of an eye, relative to the standard geological time scale.  In terms of this time scale, these mountain ranges have all undergone several kilometers of vertical uplift since the beginning of the Pliocene about five million years ago.  This presents a profound difficulty for uniformitarian thinking because the driving forces responsible for mountain building are assumed to have been operating steadily at roughly the same slow rates as are observed in today's world for... the past several hundred million years."

Carbon 14 is found in organic materials of all types, including diamonds, coal seams, carbonized wood, unfossilized wood and dinosaur bones.  In fact, that is the problem.  In other words, Carbon 14 is found where it shouldn't be -- if the earth were "billions of years" old.

Regardless of the source of the inconsistency, the fact that 14C, with a half-life of only 5730 years, is readily detected throughout the Phanerozoic part of the geological record argues the half billion years of time uniformitarians assign to this portion of earth history is likely incorrect. We therefore conclude the 14C evidence provides significant support for a model of earth’s past involving a recent global Flood cataclysm and possibly also for a young age for the earth itself." 101  Emphasis Added

Although it isn't well known, the galaxies themselves also provide strong evidence that the Universe itself is less than (a maximum of) 500 million years old.  That's because spiral galaxies should lose their "structure," or spiral arms, in only four or five revolutions, but for some reason they don't.  Perhaps it's because they're Young?

22. Zircons:

Zircons are tiny volcanic crystals.  They also are found to contain far more helium and lead than they should -- IF the earth were "billions of years old

"We contracted with a high-precision laboratory to measure the rate of helium diffusion out of the zircons ... Here we report newer zircon diffusion data that extend to the lower temperatures ... of Gentry's retention data. The measured rates resoundingly confirm a numerical prediction we made based on the reported retentions and a young age. Combining rates and retentions gives a helium diffusion age of 6,000 ± 2,000 years. This contradicts the uniformitarian age of 1.5 billion years based on nuclear decay products in the same zircons. These data strongly support our hypothesis of episodes of highly accelerated nuclear decay occurring within thousands of years ago. Such accelerations shrink the radioisotopic "billions of years" down to the 6,000-year timescale of the Bible."

Entropy

Evolutionists argue that the scientific law of entropy (the tendency of matter to go towards disorder rather than greater order) doesn't contradict evolutionary theory because they claim the law of entropy doesn't apply in open systems such as our Earth.

Evolutionists will use examples such as a seed becoming a tree as an argument that entropy doesn't apply in open systems. Evolutionists are wrong on both counts for reasons which will be fully explained in this article.

Entropy does occur in open systems. We discovered entropy here on Earth which is an open system in relation to the Sun. However, entropy applies only to spontaneous or chance processes.

The spontaneous (unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder, which exists in all matter, can be overcome temporarily only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism.

When a seed becomes a tree, for example, there is no violation of the law of entropy because the seed contains a directing genetic code and highly complex energy-converting mechanisms to overcome entropy, locally, so that a seed can evolve into a fully developed tree. In other words, the development of seed to tree is not a spontaneous (or chance) event. The question for evolutionists is how did biological life and order on earth come into existence in the first place when there was no directing code and mechanism in nature for overcoming entropy. The only rational answer is that an intelligent power outside of nature was responsible for the original order.

Towards Disorder

Evolutionists teach that matter has an innate tendency to evolve towards greater and greater complexity or order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that Nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, does not work the same way.

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.

For example, a few amino acids have been produced spontaneously, but there is already a natural tendency for molecules to form into amino acids if given the right conditions. There is, however, no natural tendency for amino acids to come together spontaneously into a sequence to form into proteins. They have to be directed to do so by the genetic code in the cells of our bodies. Even the simplest cell is made up of billions of protein molecules. An average protein molecule may comprise of several hundred sequentially arranged amino acids. Many are comprised of thousands of sequential units. If they are not in the precise sequence the protein will not function!

The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, but without RNA there cannot be DNA. Without either DNA or RNA there cannot be proteins, but without proteins there cannot be either DNA or RNA. These complex molecules are all mutually dependent upon one another for existence!

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane.

Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic program and various biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells with their own genetic programs and biological mechanisms. The question is how life came about when there were no directing mechanisms.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin of life.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species are due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

No One has created Life

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.

Even in the recent case, as reported in the news, involving the creation of what is called synthetic (or artificial) life, scientists don't actually create or produce life itself from non-living matter. What scientists do in this case is create (by intelligent design) artificial DNA (genetic instructions and code) which is then implanted into an already existing living cell and, thereby, changing that cell into a new form of life. And, again, even if scientists ever do create a whole living cell from scratch (and not just its DNA) it still would not be by chance but by intelligent design. Synthetic life is another form of genetic engineering. But God was there first. Remember that!

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity, which could have easily spewed dirt-containing microbes into outer space, which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Must be a beginning

Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the law of entropy (the process of progressive energy decay and disorder) will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in total chaos (the opposite direction of evolution!). In fact, the law of entropy contradicts the Big Bang theory which teaches that the universe spontaneously went from disorder to order.

The mighty law of entropy in science simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward towards greater and greater disorder and chaos -- not towards greater and greater order and complexity.

Furthermore, because of the law of entropy, the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity since all the useful energy in the universe will some day become irreversibly and totally useless. The universe, therefore, cannot be eternal and requires a beginning. Since energy cannot come into existence from nothing by any natural process, the beginning of the universe must have required a Supernatural origin!

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith.

The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

Many have been taught to think that because Darwin had shown natural selection to occur in nature that evolution must be true. Natural selection does occur in nature, but natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible and which have survival value. Natural selection itself does not produce biological variations. It is an entirely passive process in nature.

Natural selection is simply another way of saying that if a variation (i.e. change in skin color, etc.) occurs which helps an animal to survive in its environment then that that variation will be preserved and be passed on to future generations. That is what scientists mean by "natural selection".

Of course, nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Furthermore, natural selection only applies once there is life and not before. In other words, natural selection is not involved in any pre-biotic, non-living interactions of chemicals.

Whatever evolution and natural selection that occurs in nature is limited to within biological kinds (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but, evolution across biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human), is not possible unless Nature can perform genetic engineering.

The early grooves in the human embryo that appear to look like gills are really the early stages in the formation of the face, throat, and neck regions. The so-called "tailbone" is the early formation of the coccyx and spinal column which, because of the rate of growth being faster than the rest of the body at this stage, appears to look like a tail. The coccyx has already been proven to be useful in providing support for the pelvic muscles.

But, didn't we all start off from a single in our mother's womb? Yes, but that single cell from which we developed had the complete genetic information to develop into a full human being. Other single cells, such as bacteria and amoebas, which evolutionists say we had evolved from don't have the genetic information to develop into humans or other species.

There is no scientific evidence that random mutations in the genetic code caused by random environmental forces such as radiation will increase genetic complexity which is what ultimately would be necessary to turn amoebas into humans. The law of entropy in nature would prevent random mutations from being able to accomplish such a feat!

What we believe about our origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Supreme Designer. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

Faith, Not Science

There is, of course, so much more to say on this subject. Scientist, creationist, debater, writer, and lecturer, Dr. Walt Brown covers various scientific issues ( i.e. thermodynamics, fossils, biological variation and diversity, the origin of life, comparative anatomy and embryology, the issue of vestigial organs, the age of the earth, etc. ) at greater depth on his website. Another excellent source of information from highly qualified scientists who are creationists is the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California.

It is important to understand that belief in neither evolution nor creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer.

It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design or creation be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory, especially in public schools, which receive funding from taxpayers, who are on both sides of the issue. Also, no one is being forced to believe in God or adopt a particular religion so there is no true violation of separation of church and state. I encourage all to read the Internet article "The Natural Limits of Evolution" at the  web site ( my website ) for more in-depth study of the issue.

The Institute for Creation Research offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

MIT scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown has an excellent site

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis' "Who's Who In The East". The author's articles may be accessed at

School’s False Science

Millions of high school and college biology textbooks teach that research scientist Stanley Miller, in the 1950's, showed how life could have arisen by chance. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Miller, in his famous experiment in 1953, showed that individual amino acids (the building blocks of life) could come into existence by chance. But, it's not enough just to have amino acids. The various amino acids that make-up life must link together in a precise sequence, just like the letters in a sentence, to form functioning protein molecules. If they're not in the right sequence the protein molecules won't work. It has never been shown that various amino acids can bind together into a sequence by chance to form protein molecules. Even the simplest cell is made up of many millions of various protein molecules.

Also, what many don't realize is that Miller had a laboratory apparatus that shielded and protected the individual amino acids the moment they were formed, otherwise the amino acids would have quickly disintegrated and been destroyed in the mix of random energy and forces involved in Miller's experiment.

There is no innate chemical tendency for the various amino acids to bond with one another in a sequence. Any one amino acid can just as easily bond with any other. The only reason at all for why the various amino acids bond with one another in a precise sequence in the cells of our bodies is because they're directed to do so by an already existing sequence of molecules in our DNA.

In nature there are what scientists call right-handed and left-handed amino acids. However, life requires that all proteins be left-handed. So, not only do millions of amino acids have to be in the correct sequence, they also all have to be left-handed. If a right-handed amino acid gets mixed in then the protein molecules won't function. There won't be any life!

Similarly, the nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be in a precise sequence. The sugar molecules that make-up the various nucleic acids in DNA and RNA must be right-handed. If a nucleic acid with a left-handed sugar molecule gets into the mix then nothing will work.

If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment, especially without the protection of a complete and fully functioning cell membrane. And even having a complete cell doesn't necessarily mean there will be life. After all, even a dead cell is complete shortly after it dies! Of course, once there is a complete and living cell then the genetic code and other biological mechanisms exist to direct the formation of more cells. The question is how could life have arisen naturally when there was no directing mechanism at all in Nature.

The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell coming into existence by chance is equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard of airplane parts and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet!

Thanks to popular evolutionist writers like Richard Dawkins, many in society have come to believe that natural selection will solve all of evolution's problems.

Natural selection cannot produce anything. It can only "select" from what is produced. Furthermore, natural selection operates only once there is life and not before.

Natural selection is not an active force. It is a passive process in nature. Only those variations that have survival value will be "selected" or be preserved. Once a variation has survival value then, of course, it's not by chance that it is "selected". But, natural selection, itself, does not produce or design those biological variations. The term "natural selection" is simply a figure of speech. Nature does not do any active or conscious selecting. It is an entirely passive process. "Natural selection" is just another way of saying "natural survival". If a biological change occurs that helps a species to survive then that species, obviously, will survive (i.e. be "selected"). Natural selection can only "select" from biological variations that are possible in a species.

Micro-evolution, or variations within a biological kind, such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, and cows, is truly possible and is truly science but not macro-evolution. Macro-evolution, variations across biological kinds, is not science but faith.

The genes exist in all species for micro-evolution but not for macro-evolution, and there is no scientific evidence that random genetic mutations caused by natural forces such as radiation can or will generate entirely new genes for entirely new traits.

Genetic information, like any other information, doesn't happen by chance. Therefore, it's far more logical to believe that the genetic similarities between all forms of life are because of a common Designer or Genetic Engineer (God) who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all the various forms of life.

Another problem for macro-evolution is the issue of survival of the fittest. How can a partially evolved species be fit for survival? A partially evolved trait or organ that is not completely one or the other will be a liability to a species, not a survival asset.

Most biological variations are because of new combinations of already existing genes, not because of mutations. Mutations are accidental changes in the genetic code caused by environmental forces such as radiation.

Evolutionists believe and teach that random mutations in the genetic code, caused by the environment, will produce entirely new and increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to use so that life can evolve from simpler species to more complex ones. There is no evidence that chance mutations can or will provide increasingly more complex genes for natural selection to act upon so that evolution would be possible from simpler species to more complex ones. It's like saying that the random changes caused by an earthquake will increase the complexity of houses and buildings!

Even if a good mutation occurred for every good one there would be hundreds, even thousands, of harmful ones so that the net effect over time will be disastrous for the entire species.

In the midst of arguments over evolution and intelligent design, it is amazing how many in society, including the very educated, believe that scientists had already created life in the laboratory. No such thing has ever happened.

All that scientists have done is genetically engineer already existing forms of life in the laboratory, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life, but they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it will only be through intelligent design or planning so it still wouldn't help support any theory of life originating by chance or evolution. Even artificial, or synthetic life, is a creation by scientists, through intelligent design, of a DNA code built from "scratch" which is then inserted into an already existing living cell.

Life on Other Planets

There simply is no scientific basis for believing life could have arisen by chance processes even if given the right environmental conditions to sustain life. What if we should discover life on Mars?

Even if we should discover life on Mars it wouldn't prove that such life originated by chance. Also, if we do find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed rock and dirt containing microbes into outer space much of which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

"We think there's about 7 million tons of earth soil sitting on Mars", says scientist Kenneth Nealson. "You have to consider the possibility that if we find life on Mars, it could have come from the Earth" [Weingarten, T., Newsweek, September 21, 1998, p.12].

This would also explain, as MIT scientist Dr. Walt Brown has pointed out, why some meteorites contain organic compounds because they are remnants of the original debris spewed from the Earth due to very fierce ancient geological disturbances and activity. Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws cannot fully explain the origin of such order.

The best little article ever written refuting the origin of life by chance is "A Few Reasons an Evolutionary Origin of Life Is Impossible" by scientist and biochemist Dr. Duane T. Gish. Dr. Gish presents "simple" but profound scientific barriers to evolution of life which aren't mentioned or covered in Johnny's high school biology textbook or in college textbooks for that matter. This article is truly great! Dr. Gish's article may be accessed here. All this simply means that real science supports faith in an intelligent Designer behind the origin of life and the universe. It is only fair that evidence supporting intelligent design be presented to students alongside of evolutionary theory. [I have studied Dr. Gish for 40 years.]

The Scientific Method

The scientific method is frequently used in forensic science to determine whether an event occurred by chance or design.

The scientific method cannot be used to prove events which occurred outside of human observation. No one observed the origin of the universe by either chance or design, but scientific evidence via mathematical probability can be used to support either a chance or design origins for the universe.

If you went to an uninhabited planet and discovered only one thing, a cliff carved with images of persons similar to what we find on Mt. Rushmore, you cannot use the scientific method to prove that these images came about by design or by chance processes of erosion.

Mathematicians have said that any event with odds of 10 to the 50th power or over is impossible even within the entire time frame of the supposed billions of years popularly assigned for the age of the universe.

The odds of an average protein molecule coming into existence by chance is 10 to the 65th power. That's just one protein molecule! Even the simplest cell is composed of millions of them.

The Institute for Creation Research  offers excellent articles, books, and resources from Master's or Ph.D degreed scientists showing how true science supports creation.

MIT scientist and creationist Dr. Walt Brown has an excellent site.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, has his bachelor's degree with concentrations in theology and biology and has been recognized for his writings on religion and science in the 24th edition of Marquis "Who's Who In The East". The author's articles may be accessed at www.religionscience.com .

Scientific Proof of God

David, Perelman’s friend: “Gregory is convinced he has mathematically proved the existence of God."

“We’ve been friends since childhood, he is a deeply spiritual ascetic and a virgin monk,” wrote the Komsomolskaya Pravda reader. “His apartment is heavily decorated with icons. He wears a beard and a large cross. He keeps rosary in his pocket. Even at night he prays. He is super religious, hence all his idiosyncrasies. More than that, he is convinced he has proved the existence of God.”

Poincare suggested the conjecture it in 1904. Now Perelman convinced everyone who understands that the French topologist was right. Perelman’s proof, according to some astrophysicists, helps to understand the shape of the Universe. It allows suggesting that it is three dimensional. But, if the Universe is the only “figure” that can be drawn into one point, then it can probably be stretched out from the point. This would be an indirect proof of a Big Bang theory that suggests that the Universe has developed from one point. This means that materialism wins over the supporters of God’s existence theory.

Yet, half of those involved in arguments on the forum think that the Big Bang theory and God are not mutually exclusive. God could be the one to organize the Big Bang.

See also the scientific proof of God, by Aristotle, which Einstein often quoted.