Finding the Truth about Evolution
Richard Salbato
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:
·
Zeroth law of
thermodynamics, about thermal equilibrium:
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.
·
First law of thermodynamics, about the conservation of energy:
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]
·
Second law of thermodynamics, about entropy:
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
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.[4]
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"The answer is quite simple," said Kirk
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
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. 9
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
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
"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
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
In Eastern
Washington
Observations
at an
At
"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? Or Experiments in
Stratification.
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
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
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
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
"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
"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
Frozen
Mammoths:
Frozen mammoths and Mammoth bones are found in large numbers in
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
Erratic
Boulders:
All over
Europe and
"Some erratics are enormous.
The block near
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
"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
"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
The
"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
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 Cheiloceras, the
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
"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." 65 Emphasis
Added
"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
A
Note about "Problematica":
"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 Here is a link that
may answer some of your questions. If not, feel
free to email the author, or to take the IQ test.
Copyright, 2006, Randy S. Berg;
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
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 |
1. Receding Moon:
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
2. Oil Pressure:
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.
4. The
Oldest Living Thing:
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.
6. Short Period
Comets:
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
7. The Earth's Magnetic Field:
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.
8. Direct Dating of Dragon Bones:
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
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
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. 165 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,
"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
Axel Heiberg and
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
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
"The
"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
Velikovski, in his book "Earth in Upheaval" (1955, Edition), reported
similarly preserved trees in the frozen tundra of
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
12. The
The Dead Sea is
in
Up until the
recent past, when the top of Niagara
Falls was reinforced with concrete, the water was carving a channel
upriver toward
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
15. The San Andreas Fault:
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active faults in the
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.
In March of
2005, Dr.
"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."
20. Carbon 14 from (supposedly) Old
Sources:
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
21. Dark Matter
and Spiral Galaxies:
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.
Missing Link Cannot be found
Many have been taught to think that
because
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
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 www.religionscience.com
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
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
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.