CREATED BY GOD'S OWN HAND
A COMPREHENSIVE GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF ORIGINS

ROCKY MOUNTAIN CREATION FELLOWSHIP
COMPILED BY MIKE TOLER

INTRODUCTION

SECTION I WHERE THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WENT WRONG

SECTION II A CLOSER LOOK AT EVOLUTION AND ITS OFFSPRING

SECTION III WORD CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST NON-BIBLICAL CREATIONISM

SECTION IV WHAT GEOLOGY SAYS ABOUT CREATION

SECTION V WHAT PHYSICS SAYS ABOUT CREATION

SECTION VI WHAT ASTRONOMY SAYS ABOUT CREATION

SECTION VII MATHEMATICS: THE EVOLUTION KILLER

SECTION VIII GENETICS: EVOLUTION'S UNDOING

SECTION IX BIOLOGY AND ITS WONDERFUL DESIGN

SECTION X CREATION AND THE HUMAN ANCESTORS

SECTION XI THE "PROOFS" OF EVOLUTION

SECTION XII IT REALLY IS A YOUNG EARTH AFTER ALL

REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

I thought of this title as I was pondering the Ten Commandments and how they had been written down with God's own hand. The scriptures say that He used his own finger to scroll into the rock the tablets we know as the Ten Commandments. This relates directly to creation because the creation account is in the Ten Commandments. Specifically it can be found in the 11th verse of Exodus 20, where it says "for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day;" which couldn't be clearer from the literal meaning.

This booklet is primarily designed for people who are Christians and are searching for reasons to believe in the literal meaning of Scripture. It would also prove very valuable for people who are searching for God. Understandably many non-Christians get very confused with what Christians really believe as many Christians have some very inconsistent ways of looking at God's scripture. On the one hand a Christian will say to an unbeliever "you must believe what the Bible says about Jesus being the son of God, about him dying on the cross and resurrecting", and yet then turn right around and say that the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis are an allegory or story. We tell them homosexuality is a sin stated clearly in the Bible, yet make excuses for our own disbelief of the Scriptures, again specifically the first eleven chapters of Genesis. It is no wonder when the people on the street see this and call Christians hypocrites.

In this study we will give you reasons to believe that God's word is accurate in all that it says, specifically about the creation of the universe. Because of this, there is some theological content at the front, with the proofs of creation following. Christians all over should be interested in why the church so weakly defends the Genesis account of origins. I will attempt to show where and how the church tends to deviate from the literal reading of scripture. I will also give some of the evidences in science for a creator God as well as some evidence for a young earth. I have personally read more than 30 books on the subject of origins. This is a compilation of what I have found in my own personal research of creation. It is my hope that more Christians will believe the Bible from cover to cover and thereby bring the revival everyone so hopes for. I predict that there will be no revival among God's people until God's people rediscover their confidence in the whole council of God's holy Scriptures.

The lists in this book are not all of the information available on each subject or in each science field. They are merely enough evidence to convince, God willing, any skeptical Christian that perhaps he or she should repent and ask forgiveness of their unbelief in God's holy scriptures. One area I did not include information on is Information Theory. This area deals with the impossibility of all the information necessary for a living creature to be alive, to be randomly produced.

I have personally 'evolved', from a hard-core evolutionist to an evolutionist that believes in God, to a hard-core Biblical creationist. It was a hard road I freely confess and took many years to accomplish. Only with the help of my wife praying constantly for me could it have been accomplished.

Please read on and with an open mind you will see our creator perhaps a little closer than before. May God richly bless you for reading this document.

SECTION I

WHERE THE THEOLOGY OF THE CHURCH WENT WRONG

The early church started out with a very narrow view of how you were to interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis. All early church fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, believed that you did less violence to the scriptures if you took those chapters as literally has possible. Lets take a look at some heresies that have crept into the church's theology over time. These all stem from a belief that maybe Gods word is not Gods word, but is simply a collection of allegories.

There are six basic philosophies to understanding scripture(only one of which is Biblical); rationalism, higher criticism, neoorthodoxy, modernism, evolutionary, and orthodoxy. The only one that does not do violence to the scriptures is the orthodox approach to Bible scholarship.

1. RATIONALISM: This is the assertion that human reason is sufficient in all realms of human experience. It is the view that human reason is the only source of truth, that it alone is the judge as to what can be accepted or must be rejected. A rationalist will generally have a hard time with things that are considered supernatural. At rationalism's heart is the belief that man is inherently good and rejecting that man is a sinful fallen individual. It originally had secular roots but gradually infiltrated the church of the early 1800's. It did and still does influence every area of society, but its effects were most noticeable in the church. It denies supernatural revelation, thus the Bible is reduced to just another ancient writing. It rejects the miraculous element of Christianity, regarding religion as a product of the human mind. Jesus became a mere man; His miracles were natural phenomena; the Bible is regarded as a bunch of nice stories with some history thrown in. Genesis, in particular, is rejected as being of no importance. Rationalism exalts man above God and makes human reason the measure of all things. It arrogantly denies all truth as revealed in scripture and asks "did God really say?".[1]

2. HIGHER CRITICISM: When scholarly judgment is applied to the genuineness of the biblical text, it is classified as higher or historical criticism. The subject matter of this type of scholarly judgment concerns such matters as the date of the text, its literary style and structure, its historicity and its authorship. As a result, higher criticism is not actually an integral part of of the study of the Bible. This rather than being a helpful aid to the scriptures, has actually been very destructive in all its uses.

THE OLD TESTAMENT: The late date ascribed to Old Testament documents led some scholars to attribute its supernatural elements to legend or myth. This resulted in the denial of the historicity and genuineness of much of the Old Testament by these skeptical scholars. In an attempt at mediation between traditionalism and skepticism, Julius Wellhausen proposed to date the Old Testament books in a less supernaturalistic manner. As a result they developed the JEDP Theory of the Old Testament.

This theory was based largely on the argument that Israel had no writing prior to the monarchy, and that an Elohist(E) code and a Jehovahist(J) code were based on two oral traditions about God. To these were added the Deuteronomic (D) code (documents attached to the time of Josiah) and the so-called Priestly(P) documents allied to post exile Judaism. These views were not palatable to orthodox scholars and a wave of opposition arose. The church was slow to respond to this crisis however, so most of the scholarly world followed this theory. Archeological finds have since placed this theory in a very bad light as writing has been found to go back much further than these scholars had thought. This theory still has many adherers even to this day.

THE NEW TESTAMENT: Application of similar principles to the New Testament writings appeared in the Tubingen school of theology following the lead of Heinrich Paulus and others. They developed principles to challenge the authorship, structure, style, and date of the New Testament books. The destructive criticism of modernism led to the form criticism in the gospels and to the denial of Paul's authorship of most of the Pauline epistles. This form of criticism will take a most liberal view of the virgin birth, miracles and his bodily resurrection.[2]

3. NEOORTHODOXY: At the beginning of this century the turn of world events and the influence of the Danish father of existentialism, Soren Kierkegaard, gave rise to a new reformation within European theology. Many began to turn again to the scriptures to hear the voice of God. Without giving up their critical views of the Bible as the locus of God's revelation to man. In a kind of new orthodoxy they affirmed that God speaks to them through the Bible; the Scriptures become the Word of God to them in a personal encounter. Like the other theories on the inspiration of the Bible, Neoorthodoxy developed two wings. On the more critical extreme are the demythologists who deny any religiously significant historical or factual content in the Bible and hold only to the existential religious care beneath the myths. On the other hand, the more evangelical thinkers try to preserve much of the historical and factual data of Scripture but argue that the Bible as such is not God's revelation. Rather, God reveals Himself through the Bible in personal encounter, but not in a prepositional way.[3]

4. MODERNISM: Along with the rise of German idealism and biblical criticism a new view of biblical inspiration evolved with theological modernism or liberalism. In contrast to the traditional orthodox view that the Bible is the word of God, the modernists believe it contains the words of God. Certain parts of the Bible are divine and true, but other parts are clearly human and in error. They feel the Bible is a victim of its times like any other book. They say that many of the legends, myths, and false beliefs about science were incorporated into the Bible. They argue that since these are not inspired of God they must be rejected by enlightened men as remnants of a primitive mentality unworthy of Christian belief. Only the divine truths contained within this admixture of ancient ignorance and error are truly inspired of God.

ILLUMINATION VIEW: Some argue that the inspired sections of the Bible result from a kind of divine illumination wherein God granted deep religious insight to pious men. These insights were enjoyed with varying degrees of understanding and were recorded with admixtures of erroneous religious lore and scientific belief common to their day. Hence, the Bible expresses degrees of inspiration dependent on the depth of religious illumination which the author experienced.

INTUITION VIEW: On the other end of the modernistic camp are those who deny any divine element in the Bible whatsoever. To them the Bible is merely a Jewish scrapbook of poems, legends and stories with no historical value. What others call divine inspiration is nothing but intensive human intuition. In this respect it is not much different than rationalism. These spiritual insights are nothing more than heightened moral and religious genius. In no sense are they anything more than human intuition, there is no supernatural inspiration or illumination.[4]

5. EVOLUTIONARY: In some since this is the hardest of all the false theology to pin down. This belief system is extremely flexible as it actually incorporates no actual verifiable evidence at all. In its strictest sense it denies there is a God at all. I realize for those of you that are theistic evolutionists this may sound harsh, but this is what evolution insists. That everything has come about by chance. We will delve into this area more closely in the next section, as this is the primary focus of this resource.

6. ORTHODOXY: For some eighteen centuries of church history the orthodox view of inspiration prevailed. With only minor dissenting voices, the great fathers of the church held firmly that the Bible is the word of God written down. Orthodox theologians through the centuries have agreed that the Bible is verbally inspired, That is as 2 Timothy 3 states, "God breathed". Attempts to explain just how the writers were inspired have fallen into two camps, 'verbal dictation' and 'inspired concepts'.

VERBAL DICTATION: This simply states that God dictated to the writers of the Bible exactly what He wanted for them to write down. This form further argues that God by his special province formed the very personalities that the Holy Spirit would later call upon to receive the dictation. Therefore using their own personalities as a guide, they were dictated to by the Holy Spirit.

INSPIRED CONCEPTS: In his systematic theology, A. H.. Strong takes a view which has been called conceptual inspiration. God inspired only the concepts and not the particular literary expression into which each author cast them. God gave the thoughts to the prophets who were at liberty to put them into their own terms. In this way Strong hoped to avoid any mechanical implications of verbal dictation and still preserve the divine origin of the scriptures. God provided the conceptual inspiration and the men of God gave it a verbal expression characteristic of their own styles.[5]

SECTION II

A CLOSER LOOK AT EVOLUTION AND ITS OFFSPRING

As we take a closer look at what evolution is at its base level, we will see the lengths that evolutionists will go to keep their theory in the face of all the evidence for special creation. We will give some very basic definitions to several of the current forms of evolution that are attempting to infiltrate the church.

1. EVOLUTION: The idea that all life has come from a common ancestor through a process of modification over time. Thus man and the apes are thought to have descended from an ape-like common ancestor. All vertebrates came from fish, which in turn came from an invertebrate. All life descended from a single-celled organism which arose spontaneously from non-living chemicals. Changes occurred through natural processes, including mutation, natural selection, and genetic recombination. The application of evolutionary ideas in the public arena includes concepts such as social Darwinism, man is an animal, animal rights equal to human rights, low view of human life and the rise of many human hating doctrines. When scientists talk about evolution, they are generally intermixing two very different terms, macro-evolution and micro-evolution.

MACRO-EVOLUTION: Macro-evolution is the large hypothetical changes which occur in an individual or in a population of organisms which produce an entirely new category of animal or a novel trait. These changes have never been observed to occur within living populations.

MICRO-EVOLUTION: Micro-evolution is the small adaptations within a population of organisms which allow a certain trait to be expressed to a greater or lessor degree than before; variation within a given kind. These are regularly observed to occur within living populations.[6]

2. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM: Punctuated equilibrium is a relatively recent theory that was proposed to account for the gaps in the fossil record(we will talk about this in more detail in the geology section).This theory incorporates the long periods of time associated with regular evolution, only adding in periods of rapid evolution, basically a reptile laying an egg, and a bird hatching out. This is often used to try to explain the absence of transitional forms of life.[6]

3. CRYSTALLIZATION: Crystallization is an idea that came out of Chaos theory, which was made famous in the two Jurassic Park movies. This theory states that since crystals grow in set patterns depending on the mineral they are made out of, couldn't life have evolved that way too. That is a certain amount of minerals arranged in the proper order by chance would naturally have a propensity to become alive. This begs the question as to why we are not having minerals come alive all the time?

4. THEISTIC EVOLUTION: Essentially the same as atheistic evolution in its relation to scientific data. God may have either started the evolution process, then left it to natural processes, or may have created the world, then guided it through evolutionary processes. The premise of this belief is that God created the universe billions of years ago, and through the evolutionary process evolved all the life we see now.

A necessary part of this belief is that a gap is needed in the first sentence of the book of Genesis to account for all the time the Bible does not allow for. So we add to the scriptures to allow us to maintain our standing among the world's professionals. This belief is called the Gap theory.

GAP THEORY: This belief in its earliest form is that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. That in this gap Satan fell and so God was made angry and destroyed this original creation and then God tried it all over again starting in verse 1:2. This belief system puts death before sin, makes God a liar when he says the world is very good, all the while standing atop all the death and misery the fossil record represents, and basically denying the reason for Jesus atonement. This is a poor theology model, but is well represented in the current church.

5. PROGRESSIVE CREATIONISM: As the name implies, this is perhaps the most subtle attack on biblical creationism. Sometimes called the day-age theory, its beliefs are that the days of Genesis are actually ages or eons of time. To support this viewpoint, they will distort scripture, change meanings of words, and will actually attack biblical creationism as unscientific. They will quote scriptures out of context to justify their position.

6. FRAMEWORK HYPOTHESIS: This is perhaps the most recent belief system to come out. This belief is that the Bible, when it speaks of things historic or scientific, is to be understood in a theological sense only. This assumes that God was involved in creation, but not exactly as the written word says. This is a popular view amongst theologians and most bible schools. This allows for pastors and theologians to believe God created, but to also accept evolution fully. This is a very dangerous view, whenever someone tries to reinterpret scripture.[7]

7. BIBLICAL CREATIONISM: The supernatural creation of all things in six literal days by the God of the Bible. Along with this follows that there was a worldwide flood and that this is responsible for most of the geologic features we now see. This view includes the curse on all things because of the original sin. This sin brought about the death and life struggle we now see. All creation is cursed because of mans sin. This belief system allows the most literal usage of the scripture in Genesis.[6]

SECTION III

WORD CONSIDERATIONS AGAINST NON-BIBLICAL CREATIONISM

This section of this booklet will deal with the words that are used in the Genesis account of creation. It should be fairly inclusive. Please forgive us if we have left any words out.

When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word Yom for 'day'. He combined Yom with numbers('first, second, third day', etc.) and with the words' evening and morning', setting up the word day as a 24 hour period, represents a triple bonding of the word Yom, which means the word Yom in this usage always means a literal 24 hour day. Also there are other Hebrew words that could have been used to convey a meaning of a longer period of time;

Also the word eth for time in general and moed for seasons or festivals. If it was a longer period of time here are some of the ways that the words could have been arranged. Yammin the plural of Yom, could have been used and denoted many days and nights. Qedem with Yom would have meant days of old. He could also have used several other combinations but the point is, HE DID NOT.

Another word that seems to get changed on a regular basis when dealing with non biblical creationists is the verb was which in the Hebrew is hayah. The Progressive creationists make this word out to be 'became' instead of 'was'. This is key to the whole translation of this section of scripture. The proper translation of the word became would be 'hayetah le' not hayehtah as is in the Hebrew text. The final two words under dispute is the Hebrew words 'tohu and bohu'. These are properly translated formless and empty in that God created it this way to fill it with his creation. The progressive creationists want this to be a form of Gods judgment on a previously done creation. All of these are an extremely poor exegesis of scripture going back to a higher critical view of the Bible.[8]

SECTION IV

WHAT GEOLOGY SAYS ABOUT CREATION

This section will deal with the processes of creation that God used in the building of the Earth's features. Many of these features were made during the world wide catastrophe known as Noah's Flood. This section will show many geologic evidences that will support a creation model better than an evolutionary one.

1. PARACONFORMITY: At several places in the Baltic region clays laid down in Pleistocene lakes rest directly upon Maine clays that contain Cambrian fossils. The interval of time represented by the paraconformity includes all of the Mesozoic and nearly all of the Paleozoic and Cenozoic, a gap of more than 400 million years. Yet in some places, the paraconformity can hardly be located, so similar are the Cambrian clays to those of the Pleistocene.

The Pleistocene clay is conformable to the Cambrian clay below it. The intervening layers demonstrate, by their absence, the bankruptcy of evolutionary geology. The absence of the erosive agency of water, as manifested in cutting out valleys and gorges in the under strata is fatal to the theory that each formation has been eroded before the next layer of rock is laid down.[9]

2. GEOLOGY UPSIDE DOWN: In many cases huge thickness' of rock are on top of each other, totally out of the proper geologic sequence. One such example is in Glacier National Park where there is a block of Precambrian rock on top of Cretaceous rock. A one billion year old rock on top of a 100 million year old rock. What makes this all the more amazing is that the Precambrian rock is a limestone while the Cretaceous rock is a shale, a harder rock on top of a softer rock, yet there have never been any scrape marks found on the softer rock. Also, moving something across another rock should produce a tallis pile as it moved, kind of like a bulldozer blade, yet that has not been found either. Finally, the tensile strength of rock is not sufficient for it to be moved around in many square mile pieces.

Another example of layers being the wrong order can be found in the Salt Range of Pakistan, where trilobite infested rock of Cambrian age sits atop Tertiary rock of less than 50 million years old. Another example is the Permian rock on top of the Alps in Europe, which again rests on rock supposedly much younger.[10]

3. RADIOMETRIC DATING: Radiometric dating is the use of radioactive isotopes and their decay rates into other elements. These new isotopes are commonly called daughter atoms. This decay rate between parent and daughter elements is a measurable amount of time. They use the ratio of the daughter product versus the amount of parent product still left and then figure out how many years have elapsed. These dating techniques can be called into two main categories: those whose information is limited to the last few thousand years, such as carbon-14, and those which utilize radioactive elements such as uranium-lead and potassium-argon for determining dates supposedly stretching back into the millions and billions of years.

In dating the earth, the scientists rely primarily on the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods. Of the two the uranium-lead method is the most important because it is the one on which all the other long term dating systems are calibrated. Regardless of the method, dates obtained in this manner are based on a number of assumptions;

1. The rock contained no daughter product atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms.

2. Since then, no parent or daughter atoms were either added to, or taken from the rock.

3. The rate of radioactive decay has always been the same.

From these you can see that whenever you are dating something, you cannot be sure it is a closed system. All the radioactive elements are very water soluble and can readily be moved around by this method. Observations of contemporary lava flows have shown dates with these dating techniques that are not at all correct with their true age. If we can't date the young rocks correctly, how can these techniques be expected to date older rocks correctly?[11]

4. DISTURBING RESULTS FROM CARBON-14 DATING: In the early days of carbon-14 dating, this method of dating was used on anything containing carbon. Hundreds of fossil bones of Neanderthals, Cro-Magnon's, mammoths, saber-tooth tigers, and other extinct animals, as well as fossil trees, coal, oil, and natural gas, were all reported having ages, by the carbon-14 method, of only several thousand years. The significant point is that every biological specimen tested contained carbon-14, and all appeared to lie within a 50,000 year frame. The great number of these results, indicating a young age for material in some cases believed to be millions of years old, had a chilling effect on the geologic establishment. They stopped dating these materials and no longer printed the results that did not jive with an old earth. Here is a list of some materials and the reported dates for them.

Because it was assumed in these early datings that the carbon-14/cabon-12 ratio had reached equilibrium, which it has not, these dates can be lowered even further, thus putting them at a date consistent with a worldwide flood.[12 ]

5. POOR DATING RESULTS: In the last two decades some concern as been expressed for the usefulness of the carbon-14 test method. Techniques have improved, but still there are uncertainties and absurd results, not with old material that appears young, for which there is no proof of age, but for recent material that appears old, for which there is proof. Living mollusk shells have been dated by the carbon-14 method at up to 2,300 years, a freshly killed seal at 1,300 years, and wood from a growing tree at 10,000 years.

Also the older dating methods such as potassium-argon and uranium-lead yield very low dates for material known to be recent in age. Hawaiian lava flows known to be less than 200 years old have been dated by both methods at between 30 million and 3 billion years old. Again rocks at Mt. St. Helens were dated and were given an age of 30,000 to 750,000 years old, unfortunately for the evolutionists the lava was only 10 years old.[13]

6. SUDDEN APPEARANCE: Does the fossil record in Grand Canyon and elsewhere show evidence of slow, evolutionary process? For each fossil considered, the species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom appear abruptly in the rocks of the Canyon. This means that whenever one type of organism is found, there is never found preceding it, a series of intermediates between that organism and any other. Each type of organism appears in the rocks as being fully formed. This pattern of abrupt appearance is a feature of the entire fossil record everywhere on earth.

Another feature of the worldwide fossil record is stasis: every species in the fossil record shows no substantive change from its deepest occurrence to its shallowest occurrence. This, on top of the nearly simultaneous abrupt appearance of a large number of different animal types in the earliest Cambrian rocks(the Cambrian Explosion), argues for the sudden, independent origin of different animal types, rather than for a common evolutionary ancestor.

Do we find the ancestors of the Cambrian fossils in Precambrian strata of Grand Canyon? Indisputable, multicellular animals have not been found in Precambrian strata of the Canyon. Plausible, ancestral forms for Grand Canyon fossils have not been found in any Precambrian strata anywhere in the world. Where are the ancestors required by organic-evolution for the trilobite, brachiopod, worm, mollusk, caral, and criniod? These ancestors may exist in the minds of evolutionists, but they have not been found in the fossil record.[14]

7. GAPS IN THE FOSSIL RECORD: It is significant that the same array of similarities and differences between organisms is found in the realm of the fossils as in the realm of the living. The same types of gaps between kinds exist in the fossil record as in the Linnaean classification system for plants and animals in the present world.

If the evolution model were valid, one would expect to find a horizontal continuum of living organisms, rather than clear-cut categories. Gaps between kinds can only be explained by a series of secondary assumptions, postulating special environments and selection histories for the various gaps.

Gaps in the fossil record require still more secondary assumptions. In this case, there must have been at least a vertical continuum between each fossil organism and its evolutionary ancestors, so that absence of such transitional fossils is certainly not a primary prediction of the evolution model, as it is for the creation model. The lack of these transitional fossils must be explained away with some far-fetched schemes one of which is the punctuated equilibrium theory, which has no basis in any factual, testable data.

If evolution were true, one would suppose that the classification system itself would evolve over the ages. If all animals and plants are randomly changing, the categories of classification should likewise be changing. The fact is, however, that it has been the same since the beginning, even assuming the geological ages are as taught in orthodox geology.

Note the following:

1. All kingdoms and subkingdoms are represented in the geologic record from the Cambrian onward.

2. All phyla of the animal kingdom are represented from the Cambrian onward.

3. All classes of the animal kingdom are represented from the Cambrian onward, except:
           a. moss-corals(Ordovician onwards)
           b. Insects(Devonian onward)
           c. Graptolites(Cambrian to Carboniferous)
           d. Trilobites(Cambrian to Permian)

4. All phyla of the plant kingdom are represented from the Triassic onward, except:
           a. Bacteria, algae, fungi(Precambrian onward)
           b. Bryophytes, pteridophytes(Silurian onward)
           c. Spermatophytes(Carboniferous onward)
           d. Diatoms(Jurassic onward)

5. All orders and families(as well as kingdoms, phyla, and classes) appear suddenly in the fossil record, with no indication of transitional forms from earlier types.

This is true even of most genera and species. Now we will discuss the major gaps that the evolutionist must explain for his theory to be true.

A. From chemicals to Protozoan life.

Despite claims to the contrary, man has never made life in the test-tube. As you will see in a later section of this booklet, a few amino acids do not constitute a living cell. If evolution were true, you should be able to build simple cells in the laboratory relatively easy, but they have been trying for the better part of 30 years and still don't have a reproducing cell to show for their efforts.

B. From Protozoa's to Metazoan Invertebrates.

One of the most important fossil gaps is that found between the unsubstantiated one-celled creatures of the Precambrian, and the amazingly complex invertebrate life of the Cambrian. As one evolutionist states, " One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified multicellular marine invertebrates in lower Cambrian rocks and their absence in rocks of older age. These early Cambrian fossils included porifera, coelenterates, brachiopods, mollusca, echiniods, and arthropods. Their high degree of organization clearly indicates that a long period of evolution preceded their appearance in the record. However, when we turn to examine the Precambrian rocks for the forerunners of these early Cambrian fossils, they are nowhere to be found".[15]

C. From Invertebrates to Vertebrates.

The evolutionary transition from invertebrates to vertebrates must have involved billions of animals, but no one ever found a fossil of one of them. Invertebrates have soft inner parts and hard outer shells; vertebrates have soft outer parts and hard inner parts-skeletons. How did the one evolve into the other? There is no evidence at all.

D. From Fishes to Amphibians.

The next major evolutionary advance must have been from fish it amphibian. Somehow the fin of the fish must have been transformed into the foot of the amphibian, not to mention the myriad of other necessary changes. To date, however, no fossil of a "fishbian", with fins partly converted into feet(or any other transitional characters) has ever been found.

The chief candidate for such a transitional form was long supposed to have been the coelacanth, a crossopterygian fish, which was supposed to have certain limb-like characters on its fins indicating initial advance toward amphibianhood. Ultimately it was destined, so it was believed, to become a primitive amphibian known as a labyrinthodont. The coelacanth was believed to have finished this transition sometime in the Mesozoic, since no fossils have been found subsequent to that era.

Evolutionists were embarrassed when it was discovered in 1938 that these fish are still alive and well, living in the waters off Madagascar! Hard to see this fish as an ancestor to the amphibians when it is the same as it was 100 million years ago.

E. From Amphibians to Reptiles to Mammals.

The fossil record throws very little light on the hypothetical evolution of amphibians to reptiles, or that of reptiles into mammals. All of them are four-legged vertebrates with similar skeletal structures and thus their fossilized remains provide little basis for distinguishing between them. Among animals living today, those of certain reptiles whose bony parts closely resemble those of certain amphibians and others that closely resemble certain mammals. The characters and appearance, as well as the physiological functions, of amphibians, reptiles and mammals, are all vastly different from each other, but these differences need not show up in the fossil record.

Of much more significance is the fact that each of the various orders of amphibians, reptiles and mammals appears suddenly in the fossil record, without incipient forms leading up to it and without forms between it and any other order.

F. From Reptiles to Birds.

Evolutionists universally maintain that reptiles are the evolutionary ancestors of birds. There is no evidence to support this notion as you will see in a later section of this booklet. The primary evidence for the evolutionist is the primitive bird Archaeopteryx. There would have had to be numerous transitional lifeforms between Archaeopteryx and its ancestors, yet we find not one fossil to provide this reptile to bird scenario. As a matter of fact, there are not even any transitional forms between the flying reptiles (pterosaurs) and their supposed non-flying reptilian ancestors.

G. Origin of Insects.

If the evolutionary origin of the higher animals is obscure, the origin of insects is completely blank. Insects occur in fantastic number and variety, but there is no fossil clue to their development from some kind of evolutionary ancestor.

Of course, it is remarkable that insect fossils are found at all. Nevertheless, they have been found fossilized in considerable numbers, preserved in amber, coal, volcanic ash, or other such materials. All such deposits must have been formed rapidly, of course, or the insect fossils could not have endured so long.

The most remarkable feature about such fossil insects as are known is that they are very similar to those living now. In many cases, however, they are much larger than their modern relatives. But their form is no different in essence from that of modern insects.

H. Origin of Plants.

The study of plants has yielded little to nothing on where the plant kingdom came from. Even now, paleobotanists cannot trace any modern plants from its beginning to the present.[16]

8. PETRIFIED LOGS: Petrified logs represent something of an enigma for evolutionary scientists in that they speak of a different type of burial not going on very often at this time. They also speak of a catastrophic event, rather than a slow burial. All have had their branches stripped off and many appear to have their bark still intact. This would indicate rapid burial. It is apparent that the original forests were uprooted by some sort of hydraulic event of enormous power, which also transported and deposited them in their present locations, sometimes many miles from where they were growing, where they became petrified under unique conditions.[17]

9. POLYSTRATIC TREES: Consider an exposed tree trunk extending thirty feet up from the bottom of an ocean. No woody tree can long survive under sea water. Some may grow with their roots in salt water, but when any tree is covered by sea water, it will die. How long would it take that dead tree trunk to rot and fall over? Could it remain upright for millions or for even hundreds of years, while the mud slowly accumulated around it? Obviously not. Some polystrate trees even intersect more than one coal layer! Did it ride the strata down and up again and then down again for millions of years? From studying these trees, we can conclude that the length of time for accumulation of the peat(which later turned to coal) and the overlying sediments was less time than it takes for wood to decay. Obviously, wood decays in an active ocean environment, standing in air, or buried in sediments.

Polystrate trees which extend through more than one layer (hence the name 'poly-strate', meaning "many strata") in effect tie the layers together into a short period of time. This period of time can't be explicitly determined from the data, but it is wholly incompatible to the long-age model normally taught.

One polystrate tree might be understood as having been deposited in a freakish scenario, but the fact is, the world contains many polystrate trees. In coal mines, they are quite common. John Morris has personally been in many underground coal mines and in every mine but one , saw polystrate trees in them. They have also found other plants going through many layers of limestone. Since these plants are very fragile, it would seem that these layers would have to be deposited very rapidly for these plants to be preserved.[18]

10. SURFACE FEATURES: One way to show that only a short time elapsed between the deposition of one bed and the deposition of an overlying bed is to show that the various surface features present on the top surface of the lower bed would not last very long if exposed.

One very common feature, seen in many rock layers in many locations, is the presence of Ripple marks, formed as water moves over a surface. These can frequently be seen on a beach after the tide has receded, and can also be seen on the ocean bottom where a particular current direction dominates. In many other situations we see what have been called raindrop impressions, although these raindrop marks may actually be blisters formed as air bubbles escaped from rapidly deposited sediments under water. Animal tracks are also common. In any case, these features, which had to be present on any surface, unconsolidated material or hard rock, will not last very long.

Keep in mind that almost every sedimentary rock layer was deposited under water. Every geologist agrees with this. Unless erosion dominates locally, sediments accumulate on an ocean bottom, lake bottom, delta, beach, lagoon, stream bank, etc., in the presence of water currents. If subsequent events lift the deposit up out of water, erosion and or non-deposition will result. But if a zone stays under water, it will continue to be subjected to water action and will likely receive more sediments. In such an active environment, ripple marks can be preserved only if they are quickly buried by overlying materials, so that they are protected and have time to turn into rock.

In many places around the world, these ocean-floor sediments have been solidified into rock, and are now uplifted onto continental surfaces. Ripple marks and similar features are readily seen in many locations, frozen in solid rock. Other features that can be preserved include animal tracks and leaf impressions as well as the soft parts of invertebrates impressed into the rock.

If such a mark is exposed on any surface, under water or above water, it will soon erode and disappear. Even on a hard rock surface, markings will erode in a few decades. There is no possibility that fragile features will last for millions of years, waiting to be re-submerged and buried, and thus protected from erosive forces. We can't determine exactly how much time passed between the deposition of two layers simply by looking at ripple marks, raindrop impressions and the like, but we can conclude that much less time passed than takes for surface features to be eroded and disappear.[19]

11. WATERFALLS: High-water marks cut into the rocky walls of the Nile river at the Semna rapids between the second and third cataracts are 24 feet higher than present high-water states. The river at this point is downcutting through relatively hard gneissic rock evidently at the rate of about 1/12 of an inch per year. By dividing 1/12 of an inch per year, into 24 feet we obtain a figure of 3,500 years as the age of the Nile at this point.

Geologists can do little better on the Mississippi River which they often point to as an example of a geologically old river that meanders back and forth on the flood plain of its own alluvium. But this flood plain is not an old worn down peneplain at all, but a built-up plain of alluvial deposit. The river is so youthful that it has not worn down St. Anthony Falls, 40 feet high, on the upper Mississippi. It has cut back 8 miles at a known rate of 6.5 feet per year. Making the mathematical calculations, the falls were found to be around 8,000 years old, not nearly enough time for the evolutionists so they event uplifts and numerous ice ages to account for this discrepancy.[20]

12. FORMATION OF SWAMPS: There is not a swamp in the world today that is producing coal, nor are todays coal mines located in swampy areas. No locality is known where a peat bed, in its lower reaches, grades into a typical coal bed, no actual evidence that peat is now being turned into coal anywhere in the world. Furthermore the theory that peat forms coal is hard to prove based on observations of peat itself. You find when you examine peat beds that the root systems of the plants overhead are all through the peat bed. When you examine coal beds you do not find roots in it, but you do find bark. It seems coal was formed another way than by peat evolving into it!21

The evolutionist's have evented a series of submergences and reemerging land from the water. In some mines,the coal lenses there show more than 85 different times that the ocean covered and uncovered the ground. A much more logical method of coal deposition was formed by Steve Austin. He postulates that after a worldwide flood had stripped the land of all vegetation, this vegetation floated in gigantic mats. As this mat floated and the sea currents moved it around, debris would gradually float down to the bottom and a peat layer would be formed. After more sedimentation, which provided both the pressure and the heat, coal was formed relatively rapidly. According to Dr. Robert Gentry, using radiohalos, the coal could have formed as quick as 20 years.[22]

13. BIOTURBATION: The deficiency of evidence of living communities within a given layer of rock, is a major problem for evolution. By this I refer to the fact that on and below any surface, whether it be on land or in the sea, life is present which will leave its mark. In the ocean bottom or near the shore, worms, clams, fish, and all sorts of plants and animals live and disturb the sediments. Many actually ingest the mud, utilizing the nutrients present.

On land, tree roots, gophers, and numerous other animals, will alter the surface layers in fairly short order. Weathering will further hasten deterioration.

Consider a recent example. In 1961, Hurricane Carla devastated the central Texas coast. As it retreated, it laid down a recognizable layer of sediments on the shore and far out into the Gulf of Mexico. These graded sediments contained within them many sedimentary structures, such as buried ripple marks and cross-bedding. These internal sedimentary structures were well studied in the years after Hurricane Carla, and were recognized as rapid deposition features.

About twenty years later, others went back to study what had happened to the stratum. Due to bioturbation, the disturbance of the geologic zone by biologic activity, the layer could hardly be found, and once located, it retained almost no evidence of sedimentary structure. Within just a couple of decades (and probably much more quickly), life at the surface of this bed, both on shore and off, had destroyed its internal character that had been formed by catastrophic processes. Indeed, in any environment, from a desert sanddune to the shallow marine, life is abundant, and continually agitates the sediments within several feet of the surface. Particularly in shallow water, where most of the sedimentation occurs, living communities of plants and animals are especially active.

Compare the layer from Hurricane Carla to sedimentary layers of rock around the world, almost all of which are full of sedimentary structure. While individual exceptions could be cited, they are exceptions. The broad trend is for each stratum to contain abundant internal structure. Evidently, the sediments were not exposed to an environment of biologic activity for any length of time before they were buried out of reach of plant and animal activity and subsequently hardened.

Perhaps the sediments continued to build up so rapidly that the structure was out of reach of burrowing animals, but this implies continual catastrophic deposition. Where fossilized bioturbation does exist, it usually looks quite different from modern habitats. It better resembles that left by burrowing animals as they escape from deepening sediments, having been buried there against their will. These escape burrows are frequently oriented upward only, not in the variety of directions employed in living communities. It's as if the organisms were digging out of a continually growing supply of sediments.

Again, we can't tell how long the lower layer existed before the overlying layer was deposited, but we can say that it was less than the time for bioturbation to destroy sedimentary structures within the lower zone. In this manner we can march up the geologic column, tying the layers together, and conclude with a relatively short time for the entire sequence.[23]

14. LACK OF SOIL LAYERS: Exactly the same logic can be applied to another obvious feature, the almost complete lack of recognizable soil layers anywhere in the geologic column. Within the standard, old-earth thinking, the continents now exposed have on numerous occasions been underwater, as evidenced by the fact that nearly all of the rocks themselves were deposited by ocean water, perhaps by offshore wave action, in deltas, in lagoons, or by major storms or mud slides. While on land, they presumably supported soil, wherein plants and animals could live. Even in near shore environments, underwater soils are needed.

Soils today, consist primarily of weathered rock, broken up by the cycle of freezing and thawing water, by chemical deterioration of rock minerals, by wind and water erosion, and due to the action of rooting plants and burrowing animals. To this is added organic debris, mostly decaying plants and animal carcasses and droppings. Without a soil, abundant life is impossible, but we know from the fossil record that abundant life has existed throughout much of this planet's history. It takes a while for soil to form, but once present, it tends to remain, barring erosion.

What happens to the soil as the land surface submerges beneath the sea? Whether the land is covered rapidly by a catastrophic process, or slowly by transgression of the sea, certainly some of the soil would be preserved.

So what do we make of the fact that soil layers, or even soil materials, are seldom found in the geologic record? A possible sill is sometimes mentioned is underclays, typically found under a coal seam and thought by some to represent a leached soil layer; but the makeup of an underclay is not what one would expect of a soil layer capable of supporting a lush swamp. And even this attempt at identifying a fossil soil is rare. The geologic record is one of rocks, with few exceptions, not soils or paleosols. And these rocks are not thought to consist of materials which have ever been soils. Standard geology tells us that land surfaces supporting lush life have been here continuously for hundreds of millions of years. Where, then, are the soils?[24]

15. SOFT SEDIMENT DEFORMATION: Once a rock becomes hard, it is extremely difficult to bend it without breaking it. Rocks would be expected to behave in what engineers call a hard, brittle fashion, and not in a soft, plastic or pliable fashion. Usually, the rock's state when it deformed can be determined by examination, especially under a microscope.

Many times a rock will appear to have deformed while in a soft, unconsolidated condition, and yet the timing of deposition and bending raises concern. According to the old-earth scenario, rocks would often have been laid down millions of years before they were deformed. Since they had plenty of time during which to harden, they should have behaved in a brittle fashion, and yet, frequently, they seem to have deformed as would an unconsolidated mud.

Many of the rock layers in the Grand Canyon area show extensive folding, in some cases almost curling back on itself. A rock that is almost one half billion years old would not be able to bend like that. Only a recently deposited layer could be bent so heavily. As we have seen in a previous section of this book, the tensile strength of rock does not, especially sandstone, would not have the strength to bend in 90 degree angles as is seen in the Grand Canyon region.[25]

16. THE HYDROPLATE THEORY: The Hydroplate Theory produced by Dr. Walt Brown is a way for creation scientists to explain proposed continental drift using under ground water as the motivating factor for the movement of the continents rapidly. There are three assumptions that underlie the theory.

1. The continents were once connected at approximately the continental shelf areas. The center point of this one continent is roughly where the Atlantic ocean is now.

2. Before the oceans bottom features were formed, the earth had a large amount of salty, subterranean water, about half of what is now in the oceans. This subterranean water was contained in interconnected chambers that collectively formed a thin, spherical shell. It averaged about 5/8 of a mile in thickness and was located 10 miles blow the earth's surface.

There is no need to assume the temperature of this water. Subsequent events, as you will see from the last assumption, Increased the temperature of the water suddenly. Mantle minerals and some gases were dissolved in this water, especially salt and carbon dioxide.

Beneath the subterranean water was a layer of basaltic rock, and beneath the basalt was the top of the earth's mantle. An important distinction between the basalt and upper mantle was discovered in 1909 by seismologist Andrija Mohorovicic. He noticed that earthquake waves passing into the mantle suddenly increased in speed. This boundary, now called the Mohorovicic discontinuity, has for obvious reasons been shortened to "The Moho".

3. The final assumption of the hydroplate theory is that the pressure in the layer of subterranean water was increasing[.26]

17. INFLUX OF MATERIALS INTO THE OCEAN: Calculations can be made for the amounts of dissolved chemicals that are currently in them and how lingo it took to get them there. That is, the amount of any given chemical in the ocean, divided by the annual increment of that chemical through water inflow, will yield the time required to accumulate the chemical, assuming none was present in the ocean to begin with and the flow rate has always been the same.

Since there are many chemicals in the ocean, a great many different calculations can be made. Many different answers will be obtained, for the reason that an unknown amount of each chemical was present in the ocean to start with, and also because in some cases mechanisms for recycling may exist to return portions back to the continents.

The significant thing to note, however, is that in every case the calculated apparent age of the ocean is vastly less than the supposed 5 billion year age of the earth. Cook has pointed out this fact in the case of uranium, stating that:" the annual uranium flux in river water is 1010 to 1011 grams per year compared with the total uranium present in the oceans (about 1015 grams)."27 In this case, the apparent age of the ocean based on this particular form of "uranium dating" is obviously calculated to be from 10,000 to 100,000 years.

This correlates approximately with the estimate made by other noted scientists in this field. These authors have made similar calculations for many other chemicals, with the following typical results.

As you can see, all of these minerals are in the ocean in far less quantities than they should be if the earth is 4.6 billion years old. This situation is difficult to understand if the earth's lithosphere and hydrosphere are indeed billions of years old, and if uniformitarianism is a valid assumption in the study of how old the earth is. The oceanographers do not find these minerals precipitating out of the ocean water on to the bottom of the ocean. Also, the amount of minerals lost through ocean spray onto the continents is minor.[16],[28],[29]

18. CLASTIC DIKES: The final argument for creation that will be made from geology is clastic dikes. A clastic rock is made up of pieces of a previously existing rock. A sandstone, for instance, is made up of sand grains, and sand grains are actually pieces of quartz, usually derived from the erosion of a previously existing granite. Thus, sandstone is a clastic rock. A dike is a vertical, wall-like feature, buried underground. Many igneous dikes can be seen surrounding volcanoes, but our interest is in clastic dikes.

There are some of these down near Rockwall, Texas, which is from where they get the town's name. These dikes are from one quarter of an inch to eighteen inches in thickness and up to several miles long. Apparently, the swarm of dikes stems from a series of related events, but all are found in the cracks of the limestone layers that are supposed to be 80 million years old.

Examination of the sandstone dike material indicates that it is essentially the same as that of a sandstone bed buried beneath the limestone. They are made of the same chemical constituents, and the same array of grain sizes. The only difference between the dikes and the mother sandstone bed is that the sand grains in the dike appear to be similarly oriented, with their long axes tending to point in the same direction. This would result if the material were squeezed upward from below, somewhat like a tube of toothpaste. This would indicate that the dike material and the limestone were pliable enough for this toothpaste action to occur. A more reasonable approach to these dikes is that during the time directly after the flood, these materials were bent and squeezed to form the layers as they now sit.[30]

SECTION V

WHAT PHYSICS SAYS ABOUT CREATION

There are several physical laws of the known universe that are in direct conflict with the evolutionary model. Each of these laws has been tested and as far as can be known by mankind are absolutely unchangeable.

1. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: This law states that nothing is now being either created or destroyed. It therefore teaches quite conclusively that the universe did not create itself; there is nothing in the present structure of natural law that could possibly account for its own origin.[31]

2. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: This law states that every system left to its own devices always tends to move from order to disorder, its energy tending to be transformed into lower levels of availability, finally reaching the state of complete randomness and unavailability for further work. When all the energy of the cosmos has been degraded to random heat energy, with random motion of molecules and uniform low-level temperature, the universe will have died a heat death. The second law of thermodynamics, sometimes called the law of entropy, has three different sub headings that need to be addressed.[32]

1. Classical Thermodynamics

In any physical change that takes place by itself the entropy always increases. Entropy is a measure of the quantity of energy not capable of conversion into work.[33]

2. Statistical Thermodynamics

The equivalence of entropy in the classical and statistical contexts is implied in the following; each quantity of energy has a characteristic quality called entropy associated with it. The entropy measures the degree of disorder associated with the energy. Energy must always flow in such a direction that the energy increases. In laymen's terms, there is always a tendency towards disorder in any energy flow.[34]

3. Informational Thermodynamics

In connection with systems for the processing and transmission of information(including computers, automation, television, newspapers), a highly sophisticated new science known as information theory has incorporated the concept of entropy as a measure of the noise, or degree of uncertainty, in the communication of the information. In effect the more information transmitted, or even the more times it is transmitted, the more likely it will be corrupted.[35]

3. BIOGENIC LAW: Until comparatively recently in history, most people believed that life had begun by divine creation, and that since then every living thing had derived from a similar living thing before it. It was said that life begets life, and todays term for this is biogenesis. The evolutionary belief is for spontaneous generation, or life from something non-living, called abiogenesis.

For those who wished to believe it, there does seem at first glance to be many examples of abiogenesis.; it was thought by a die-hard minority until just over a century ago that maggots were spontaneously created in rotting meat. The scientist Francisco Redi proved in 1668 that this was a faulty supposition. Yet for nearly 300 years some scientists still believed this. This is know coming back as this is the primary view of how life got started on the early earth. In addition to this, many scientists of the 1800's were convinced that the air was full of life, tiny microbes, and that all it took for life to occur was for these little microbes to settle somewhere and you would get life. Pasteur proved them wrong using several simple experiments.[36]

4. LAW OF ANGULAR MOMENTUM: There is a particularly thorny problem for evolutionary solar system models. Everyone has watched accomplished skaters spin on ice. As skaters pull their arms in, their radius decreases, and they accelerate in their spin. This is due to what physicists call the Conservation of Angular Momentum. In the formation of our sun from a nebula in space, the same effect would occur as the gases contracted into the center to form the Sun. This would cause the Sun to spin very rapidly as a result of this process.

Actually, our Sun is observed to spin very slowly today while the planets move very rapidly around the Sun. In point of fact, that although the Sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum. This pattern is directly opposite to that expected from evolutionary reasoning. Another problem with this area of study is the formation of gaseous planets. As the gas would pull together to form planets, the Sun would go through an extreme solar wind phase, called the t-tauri phase. This would have the effect of driving most of the gases of the still forming gas giant planets clear out of the solar system. By the evolutionary model of solar system formation, we should have smaller gas giants than we currently have.[37]

SECTION VI

WHAT ASTRONOMY SAYS ABOUT CREATION

This section of science deals with known the universe and the laws that govern it. This is generally recognized by creation scientists as area most in need of sound study for them simply because we are dealing with an area that has for all purposes been dealt with by God once, at creation. This area of science also has much conjecture and guessing to it, because the distances to study it are so large. Perhaps a Biblical study of the passages of scripture that deal with spreading out of the heavens could lead to better cosmology than what is now being put forth.

1. KOSMOS: The word Kosmos in the Greek form means orderly universe. A universe that would come from the act of God would by the definition of God, be an orderly universe. The laws that describe the universe would not be able to be described in a disorderly universe. The methods of science and the very concept of science are rooted in the notion that the universe is orderly.[38]

2. THE BIG BANG: The suggestion that matter evolved into its present structure far back in non-observable time has been called the big-bang theory. That is, a primeval explosion of some kind is supposed to have converted energy into matter; the explosion itself was perhaps caused by a previous gravitational collapse into a super-dense state.

It is obvious by definition that the big-bang theory has no observational basis. In fact, this theory directly contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore the big-bang theory is more of a philosophical speculation than an actual happening.[38]

3. POYNTING-ROBERTSON EFFECT: A large disk-shaped cloud of dust particles orbits the Sun. The forces acting on these particles are so great that they should be destroyed or removed in less than 10,000 years. Since there appears to be no significant source of replenishment, the solar system is probably less than 10,000 years old.

Rain falling on a speeding car tends to strike the front of the car and slow it down slightly. Similarly, the sun's rays that strike particles orbiting the sun tend to slow them down. For particle larger than those described above, this effect is strong enough to cause them to spiral into the sun. Thus, the Sun's radiation and gravitational field act as a giant vacuum cleaner that pulls in about 100,000 tons of micrometeroids per day. The best estimates are that less than half this dust is being continuously supplied by the disintegration of comets and asteroids.

As a comet disintegrates, it becomes a cluster of particles called a meteor shower. The poynting-robertson effect causes the smaller particles in a meteor shower to spiral into the sun more rapidly than the larger particles. After 10,000 years, this segregation of orbits by particle size should be visible. Since this segregation is generally not visible, meteor showers must be recent in origin.

Huge quantities of microscopic dust particles have also been recently discovered around some stars. Yet, according to the theory of stellar evolution, those stars are many millions of years old and should have blown the dust away. Unless one can demonstrate that some vast process exists to continually supply the dust, one should consider whether the millions of years is real.[39]

4. STAR CLUSTERS: Stars moving in the same direction at significantly different speeds frequently travel in closely spaced clusters. This would not be the case if they had been traveling for billions of years because just slight differences in their velocities would disperse them after such great periods of time. Similar observations have been made of galaxy and galaxy-quasar combinations that apparently have vastly different velocities yet appear to be connected.[39]

5. SUPERNOVAS: A supernova, or violently exploding star, is one of the most brilliant and powerful objects in God's vast cosmos. On average, a galaxy like our own, the Milky Way, should produce one supernova every 25 years.

When a star exploded in this way, the huge expanding cloud of debris is called a Supernova Remnant(SNR). A well-known example is the Crab Nebula in the constellation of Taurus, produced by a supernova so bright that it could be seen during daytime for a few weeks in 1054. By applying physical laws (and using powerful computers), astronomers can predict what should happen to this cloud. This cloud will go through three stages as it ages.

According to their model, the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if the universe was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the universe is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years. As can readily be seen in the chart, a young universe model fits the data of the low number of observed SNRs. If the universe was really billions of years old, there are about 7,000 missing SNRs in our galaxy.

6. SOLAR NEUTRINOS: During the last 30 years, one of the most perplexing problems in science has been the lack of solar neutrinos. Neutrinos are extremely light subatomic particles produced in nuclear reactions inside stars, including the sun. If all the sun's heat is produced by nuclear fusion, the earth should be bathed in three times as many neutrinos as scientists have consistently measured. However, if much of the sun's heat is due to its shrinking by gravitational collapse, then the lack of solar neutrinos would be explained.[41]

7. MOON RECESSION: As tidal friction gradually slows the earth's spin, the laws of physics require the moon to recede from the earth. This recession has been observed since 1754. Even if the moon began orbiting near the earth's surface, the moon should have moved to its present distance in several billion years less time than the 4.6 billion year age that evolutionists assume for the earth and moon. Consequently, the earth-moon system must be much younger than evolutionists assume.[42]

8. EXCESS HYDROGEN: Evolutionists generally believe that stars formed by the collapse of gas clouds under gravity. This is supposed to generate the millions of degrees required for nuclear fusion. But most clouds would be so hot that outward pressure would prevent collapse. Evolutionists must find a way for the cloud to cool down. One such mechanism might be through molecules in the cloud colliding and radiating enough of the heat away.

But according to theory, the big-bang made mainly hydrogen, with a little helium, the other elements supposedly formed inside stars. Helium can't form molecules at all, so the only molecule that could be formed would be molecular hydrogen(H2). Even this is easily destroyed by ultraviolet light, and usually needs dust grains to form, and dust grains require heavier elements. So the only coolant left is atomic hydrogen, and this would leave gas clouds over a hundred times too hot to collapse.[43]

SECTION VII

MATHEMATICS: THE EVOLUTION KILLER

Mathematics is the area where the evolutionists have the most trouble and the lie most easily exposed. What the mathematics do is predict with great accuracy the odds that an event will occur. This predictive quality of mathematics is called probability statistics or statistical variance. Insurance companies and the stock market use these methods to gauge the future. It can also give you the odds that something will or will not occur. Here are some probabilities of some events that could and do occur.

Note: Number in parentheses is to that power of 10. Exp: 10 (5) is 10 to the fifth power of 10

Another area of probability that has been taken into mathematics is the field of biblical prophecy. For instance the odds that one man would fulfill 48 out of the 300 prophesies describing the coming messiah is 10180. This is a 1 followed by 180 zeros. This is a truly staggering number considering that you can only pack 10130 electrons in the known universe! Another statistical oddity is that for a 20 year old person the odds that you will be alive in the very next second is 1010. It is interesting to note that there is more a chance of Jesus being who the scriptures say he was than of a 20 year old living in the very next second. Finally, it is interesting to note that any number larger than 1050 is considered impossible or at the other extreme, absolutely a sure thing.[44]

SECTION VIII

GENETICS: EVOLUTION'S UNDOING

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning of both concepts. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution, were contemporaries. At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures, Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant. While Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance, Mendel's conclusions were based on careful experimentation. Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain the fiction of evolution. To help us develop a new biology based on creation rather than evolution, let us sample some of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four sources of variation; environment, recombination, mutation, and creation.

1. ENVIRONMENT: This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime. For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because she is exposed to more sunshine. Or another may have larger muscles because he exercises more. Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life, because they cease to exist when their owners die; they are not passed on. In the middle 1800s, some scientists believed that variations caused by the environment could be inherited.

Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe that one creature could change into another. He thus explained the origin of the giraffe's long neck in part through 'the inherited effects of the increased use of the parts'. This quote is from Darwin's own book, Origin of the Species. In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned, giraffes would stretch their necks for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.

2. RECOMBINATION: This involves shuffling the genes and is the reason that children resemble their parents very closely but are not exactly like either one. The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to the science of genetics. Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost, and when new traits appeared it was because their genetic factors had been there all along. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds. But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling of the genes that are already there.

For example, from 1800, plant breeders sought to increase the sugar content of the sugar beet. And they were very successful. Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content from 6% to 17%. But there the improvement stopped, and further selection did not increase the sugar content. Why? Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and no further increase was possible.

Among the creatures Darwin observed on the Galapagos islands were a group of land birds, the finches. In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in lifestyle. Darwin provided what I believe to be an essentially correct interpretation of how the finches came to be the way they are. A few individuals were probably blown to the islands from the South American mainland, and today's finches are descendants of those pioneers. However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize them merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind. The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted out into the varieties we see today. The different species of finches have been observed to interbreed at times, clear evidence that they belong to the same created kind.

3. MUTATION: Now to consider the third source of variation, mutation. Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. Each living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, the genetic molecule. But as in other copying processes mistakes do occur, although not very often. Once in every 10,000-100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. The cell has machinery for correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through. What kinds of changes are produced by mutations? Some have no effect at all, or produce so small a change that they have no appreciable effect on the creature. But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.

Based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations, from genetic mistakes? We would expect virtually all of those which make a difference to be harmful, to make the creatures that possess them less successful than before. And this prediction is borne out most convincingly. Some examples help illustrate this.

Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, soon after the turn of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations have been identified. All of the mutations are harmful or harmless; none of them produce a more successful fruit fly, exactly as predicted by the creation model.

Is there, then, no such thing as a beneficial mutation? Yes, there is. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation. Darwin called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madreira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures in flight are more likely to be blown into the sea. Mutations producing the loss of flight could be helpful.

The sightless cave fish would be similar. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in pitch dark would benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability. In the world of light, having no eyes would be a terrible handicap, but is no disadvantage in a dark cave. While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss of information and never gain. One never observes the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures which never had the information to produce them.

Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be more successful than others, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations. A favorite example of natural selection is the peppered moth of England, Biston betularia. As far as anyone knows, this moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled, and solid black. In pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in color. This provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, and the birds tended to prey more heavily on the black variety. Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones. When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous. Soon there were many more black moths than speckled.

As populations encounter changing environments, such as that described above or as the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favors the combinations of traits which will make the creature more successful in its new environment. This might be considered as the positive role natural selection. The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful mutations when they occur.

4. CREATION: The first three sources of variation are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today. An essential feature of the creation model is the placement of considerable genetic variety in each created kind at the beginning. Only thus can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras from the same kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; of some 118 varieties of the domestic dog, as well as jackals, wolves and coyotes from the same kind. As each kind obeyed the Creator's command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind to subdivide into the vast array we now see.[45]

SECTION IX

BIOLOGY AND ITS WONDERFUL DESIGN

The next area of study is biology, specifically the animals that God created. There is infinite variety that God created. From tiny invisible bacteria to the whales, the largest animal known, and even those mysterious dinosaurs, all show evidence of being designed to exist in every detail. This section will show you that there really is wonderful design in the animal kingdom.

1. THE HUMAN EYE: Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step-by-step accidental development of the human eye, which is characterized by a staggering complexity. Furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperture adjustment, the human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright sunlight, see the object the diameter of a fine hair, and make about 100,000 separate motions in an average day, faithfully affording us a continuous series of color stereoscopic pictures. All of this is performed usually without complaint, and then while we sleep, it carries on its own maintenance work.

The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it functions. Considering the absolutely amazing, highly sophisticated synchronization of complex structures and mechanisms that work together to produce human vision, it is difficult to understand how evolutionists can insist the eye came about through random chance processes. This is especially true when you consider that the eye would be useless unless fully developed. The odds that are against this random producing of the eye is truly staggering, with one scientist putting the odds at 1 in 102,664. The inescapable conclusion is now quite evident. The eye did not just happen to develop but rather was created in the beginning by God in its complete form.[46]

2. THE TRILOBITE EYE: Although extinct now, the trilobite nevertheless speaks to us today concerning the ingenious design and purposeness in nature. Unlike the lens of a human eye, which is composed of living, organic tissues, trilobite eyes were composed of inorganic calcite. Consequently, many trilobite lenses have been preserved in the fossil record allowing paleontologists to study them. What they have discovered is truly amazing.

Unlike human eyes which are composed of a single lens, trilobite eyes have a very special double lens design with anywhere from 100 to 15,000 lenses in each eye, depending on the subspecies. This special design allowed the trilobites to see underwater perfectly, without distortion. Implicit knowledge of Abbe's Sine Law, Fermat's Principle, and various other principles of optics are inherent in the design of these lenses[.47]

3. THE SEA SLUG: One of the most intriguing mysteries among marine creatures is found in the truly remarkable sea slug. The sea slug lives along the seacoast within the tidal zone where it feeds primarily on sea anemones. Sea anemones are not exactly the most inviting of dinners as they are equipped with thousands of small stinging cells on their tentacles that explode at the slightest touch, plunging poisoned harpoons into would-be intruders. The speared intruder is paralyzed and drawn into the anemone's stomach to be digested.

Although this is an impressive defense system, the remarkable sea slug is nevertheless able to eat sea anemones without being stung, exploding the stinging cells, or digesting them. One of the most fascinating stories in nature is what the sea slug does with the poor anemone's stinging cells. The undigested stinging cells are swept along through ciliated tubes that are connected to the stomach and end in pouches. The stinging cells are arranged and stored in these pouches to be used for the sea slug's defense! And so, whenever the sea slug is attacked, it defends itself using the stinging cells that the ill-fated anemone manufactured for its own protection.

The highly complicated series of modifications that would have had to occur to produce this incredible relationship completely defies evolutionary explanation. First of all, in order to prevent the stinging cells from exploding, the sea slug would have to evolve some sort of chemical means to temporarily neutralize them. The sea slug would also have to evolve a new digestive system, which would digest the tissues of the anemone but not the stinging cells. The sea slug would also have to cleverly evolve the sophisticated ciliated tubes and pouches as well as a highly complex mechanism for arranging, storing, and maintaining the stinging cells. Finally, and contrary to evolutionary expectations, the anemone would have to endorse the sea slug's plans by refraining from evolving countermeasures.[48]

4. GARDENING ANTS: Another fascinating relationship, which has been observed in nature, concerns the Bull's Horn Acacia tree of Central and South America. This tree is furnished with large hollow thorns that are inhabited by a species of ferocious stinging ants. Consequently, the ants get food and shelter from the tree. The tree, for its part of the bargain, receives complete protection from all animal predators and plant competitors. The ants viciously attack any and all intruders. But the truly remarkable aspect of this symbiotic relationship is the fact that these ants are gardeners! They make regular raids in all directions from their home tree, nipping off every green shoot that dares to show its head near their tree. As a result, this particular tree always has plenty of sunlight and space, which is a rarity in the tropical jungle where the competition for such things is intense. Experiments have shown that when all of the ants are removed from one of these tree, the tree dies within two to fifteen months.[49]

Evolutionists casually label this type of symbiotic relationship as an example of coadaptation. Of course, they never attempt to explain just how such an intricate relationship might have developed through the evolutionary process. Hence, the evolutionary viewpoint continues to be a matter of faith or presumption, not science.[50]

5. THE CHICKEN EGG: A fertilized chicken egg is a very special creation. Before even thinking about a chick developing in an egg, it is interesting to ponder how the chicken manages to get a shell around that slippery, raw, fertilized egg. It is rare sight on the farm to see raw egg smeared on the outside of the shell.

The shell itself is highly specialized. Each egg shell has about 10,000 tiny holes or pores. How does that chicken form a shell around a soft, messy egg and design the shell to have porosity? Put a raw egg in warm water and soon you will see tiny bubbles floating up. These bubbles are escaping through the pores in the shell. The developing chick needs these pores to breathe. Evolution requires a need before an organism will change. How does a chicken know it needs to make a shell with porosity, and how can it manufacture such a shell? The chick does not know it needs the holes in the shell to breathe until it dies for lack of air. Of course, dead chicks cannot evolve.

Within the first few days after the egg is laid, blood vessels begin to grow out of the developing chick. Two of these attach to the membrane under the eggshell and two attach to the yolk. By the fifth day, the tiny heart is pumping blood through the vessels. What makes those blood vessels grow out of the chick, and how do they know where to go and to what to attach? The chick feeds from the yolk with the yolk vessels and breathes through the membrane vessels. If any of these vessels do not grow out of the chick or attach to the correct place, the chick will die.

The chick gives off carbon dioxide and water vapor as it metabolizes the yolk. If it does not get rid of the carbon dioxide and water vapor, it will die of gaseous poisoning or drown in its own waste water. These waste products are picked up by the blood vessels and leave through the pores in the eggshell.

By the nineteenth day, the chick is too big to get enough oxygen through the pores in the shell. It must do something or die. How does it know what to do next? By this time, a small tooth called the egg-tooth has grown onto its beak. It uses this little tooth to peck a hole into the air sack at the flat end of the egg. When you peel a hard-boiled egg you notice the thin membrane under the shell and the flattened end of the egg. This flattened end, which looks like the hen did not quite fill up her egg shell, is the air sack. The air sack provides only six hours of air for the chick to breathe. Instead of relaxing and breathing deeply, with this newfound supply of air, the chick keeps pecking until it breaks a small hole through the shell to gain access to outside air adequate amounts.

On the twenty-first day, the chick breaks out of the shell. If one step in the development of the chick is missing or out of order, the chick dies. Each step in the development of the chick defies evolutionary logic. The process must be orchestrated but God, or Creator. The impersonal plus time plus chance is not an adequate explanation for the incredible complexities of life as we observe it.[51]

6. THE CHUCKWALLA LIZARD: Chuckwalla lizards are large, pot-bellied lizards which wear a loose, baggy skin. Though the skin appears to be much too large, it is just exactly what this lizard needs when an enemy approaches. You see, when an enemy comes near the chuckwalla, the lizard runs very quickly to a rock crevice and hides in it. In the crack of the rock, the chuckwalla swallows air and blows up like a balloon. When the enemy arrives the chuckwalla is safely wedged in the crack. Though it is within easy reach, it is safe. Years ago, the Indians of our desert Southwest learned how to catch the chuckwalla. They pierced its body with an arrow to let out the air; then the Indians could easily remove the lizard from its haven. Man is probably the only enemy of the chuckwalla lizard from whom it is not completely safe.

Of course, the desert is very dry. Some chuckwallas live where there may be only a single rain shower in a whole year. In these arid places the chuckwalla generally lives a dormant life for most of the year. It estivates, or sleeps, for all but about five months of the year.

While living actively, the chuckwalla eats whatever juicy plants it can find. Special glands store the water from the greenery, and the chuckwalla grows fat from its food. Generally, chuckwallas are dormant from August through March. Many desert plants absorb much salt from the soil in which they grow. The Chuckwalla receives enough salt from its food to kill an ordinary animal. The salt would kill the chuckwalla, too, were it not for its special salt-removing glands. These glands are located in the nostrils of the chuckwalla, and, as the salt builds up on the glands, the lizard occasionally sneezes. The sneeze expels the crystallized salt which the glands have filtered out of the lizard's bloodstream.

The cold-blooded chuckwalla sleeps late. But when it arises, it must warm up in a hurry. Desert nights and early mornings are often very cold. Cold-blooded creatures are slow and sluggish when they are cold, and cold lizards are easy to catch. For this reason, the chuckwalla wears a dark-colored, heat-absorbing skin. The sun warms the lizard before the air warms up. Later in the day, the lizard's skin changes to a heat-reflecting light color because the chuckwalla must not get too hot either. The rationality we find when we examine the chuckwalla's body structure compels us to recognize its Designer.[52]

7. THE GIRAFFE: A mature bull giraffe grows to be about grows to be about 18 feet tall. In order to pump blood up its neck to his brain, the giraffe needs a powerful pump. His heart is about 2.5 feet long. It is so powerful that, as the animal bends down to satisfy its thirst, the blood pressure is more than enough to burst the blood vessels of the brain.

The giraffe has a protective mechanism which was designed by our Creator. As the bull bends his head down for a drink, valves in the arteries in its neck begin to close. Blood beyond the last valve continues moving toward the brain. But instead of passing at high speed and pressing into the brain and damaging or destroying it, that last pump is shunted under the brain into a group of vessels similar to a sponge. This cluster of blood vessels is called the "rete mirabile". The brain is preserved and the powerful surge of oxygenated blood gently expands this sponge beneath it.

However, from this mechanism another problem arises. A lion creeps up and prepares to kill its spotted prey. The giraffe quickly raises its head and, without something to compensate for the reduced blood flow, passes out. It got up too fast for the low pressure and diminished oxygen content to the brain. The lion eats a hearty meal, and the giraffe were it alive, would realize that it had better evolve some mechanism to re-oxygenate the oxygen-deprived brain! We all know that dead animals don't evolve anything, even though evolution demands its creatures realize they need an improvement before that improvement begins to evolve.

But the giraffe survives! The Creator designed it in such a way that as he begins to raise his head, the arterial valves open. The sponge squeezes its oxygenated blood into the brain; the veins going down the neck contain some valves which close to help level out the blood pressure, and the giraffe can quickly be erect and running without passing out and becoming lion food. All of these systems must be fully functioning or there would not be any giraffes.[53]

8. CLEANING SYMBIOSIS: An amazing relationship found in nature, which ridicules evolutionary thinking, is that of cleaning symbiosis. Fish, for example, roam about feeding on smaller fish and shrimp only to find that their mouths have become littered with debris and parasites. The solution to this problem for several types of fish is a visit by the local mouth cleaning fish.

The large fish opens its mouth and gill chambers, baring vicious looking teeth, and in swim the undaunted little cleaner fish and shrimp to do their jobs. After their chore is completed, they swim back out of the larger fish's mouth unharmed, and the big fish swims away.
It is obvious that all parties involved benefit from this relationship, but this does not explain the origin and development of this special relationship. Survival value can only be used as an argument after a relationship has been established. The picture is further complicated for the evolutionist by the fact that several species of predatory fish, cleaner fish, and shrimp are involved in this operation.

It should also be noted that cleaning symbiosis is by no means limited to fish alone. Amazingly enough, there is a bird that is willing to walk right into the mouth of the Nile crocodile to clean out parasites.[54]

9. THE BOMBARDIER BEETLE: If there is any creature on earth that could not possibly have evolved, that creature is the bombardier beetle. It needed God to create it create it with all its systems fully functional.

The bombardier beetle does appear to be unique in the animal kingdom. Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a Tommy gun. When the beetle senses danger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explodes from its body at a boiling 212 degrees. What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated, like a b-17's gun turret, to hit a hungry ant of frog with bull's eye accuracy.[55]

Evolutionary theory has big problems when attempting to explain the existence and complexity of the bombardier beetle. Each stage in the evolution of its special chemicals would have led to its destruction. This one-half inch insect mixes chemicals which violently react to produce something similar to an explosion. How could the bombardier beetle have evolved this means of defense without killing itself in the process? This problem has the members of the evolutionary establishment scratching their heads.

To prevent its own destruction the little bug manufactures another chemical, called an inhibitor, and mixes it in with the explosive chemicals. But with the inhibitor, it would not be able to use the explosion of hot, burning liquid and gases to discourage its enemies. A spider would eat it because the beetle has no solution to explode to protect itself. Dead bugs cannot evolve the next chemical needed to release the protective reaction. That chemical turns out to be what is called an anti-inhibitor.

When the anti-inhibitor is added to the other chemicals, an explosive reaction does occur and the beetle is able to defend itself. There is still another problem, however: the beetle must have an especially tough combustion chamber and that chamber must have an outlet for the violent reaction to release its energy, or once again you have a dead bug. Problem solved: this unique creature has the necessary equipment, including twin-tail tubes to exhaust its defensive reaction. These tubes can be aimed at enemies in a 180 degree arc from straight to the rear to directly toward the front. It even recognizes friend from foe, never shooting another beetle.[56]

10. THE FIREFLY: A beautiful show occurs just as dusk is falling on warm summers nights. Soon many tiny lights are flickering and flashing, like brightly colored stars shining on and off in the twilight. The fireflies have begun their nightly mating ritual.

Fireflies are not really flies at all. They are beetles and like most beetles, fireflies are rather slow and clumsy fliers. The males do most of the flying. They flit about at night, signaling to the females in the grass below. Although the female firefly generally has wings, she does not fly about looking for a mate. Instead, she waits on a blade of grass, watching for a signal from a male of her species. When she sees his light, she flashes in response. With his large eyes the male can easily spot the females flash from the grass below. Once a male has flashed his light and sees an answer from a female, he flies to her to mate.

While fireflies of many species may all be flashing their lights in the same area, the fireflies do not get confused. Each kind of firefly has its own signal or code. Only members of the same kind will answer one another. The codes vary according to the brightness and color of the glow, the number of flashes of light, and the length of time the light stays on and off.

Just how the firefly produces light is still somewhat of a mystery. But scientists are beginning to understand the process. Two substances, called luciferin and luciferase, are stored in the light-producing cells in the fireflies belly. Oxygen is carried to these cells through many tube-like vessels called tracheae. When luciferin and luciferase combine with oxygen, light is produced. Another mysterious thing about firefly light which scientists still do not understand, is that the firefly's glow is a cold light. Most light gives off heat. Only 10% or less of the light produced by fireflies is heat. An ordinary light bulb on the other hand wastes 90% of its energy as heat. It is impossible to get all of these processes to evolve into one creature.[57]

11. INSECT FLIGHT: Insects are the only invertebrates that possess the capability of flight, a fascinating phenomenon, which enables them to exist in a variety of environmental situations. They are more diverse than other invertebrates, having about 1 million species described.

The wing of an insect is a superbly designed flying toll that is capable of a very strong sculling action. Wing movement in insects is very complex, consisting of elevation and depression, fore and aft movement, pronation and supination, and changes in shape by folding and buckling. Many insects can hover or even fly backward. Some can even fly sideways or rotate about the head or tail by utilizing unequal wing movement.

Some insects, such as bees, wasps, and flies, must combine excellent flying skills with a small wing area. The honeybee, for example, could not function in its hive with large wings. But reduced wing area is compensated for by a very rapid wingbeat. Such frequencies range from 55 per second for some beetles, to over 200 per second for the honeybee. The midge has an amazing wingbeat of 1046 per second.[58]

What makes flight so interesting for creationists is the fact that flight didn't just have to supposedly evolve just one time as the evolutionists would have us believe. It is recorded in the fossil record that flight actually evolved no less than four different times in four totally different lifeforms. The odds against this parallel evolution is truly staggering, in the neighborhood of 1 x10 to the billions times billions. The different groups are reptiles represented by the pterodactyls, birds themselves which are NOT a reptilian progeny, the mammals represented by bats, and insects. Too many different characteristics to come from a common ancestor.

12. DECOYS AND ANGLERS: In the waters near Oahu, Hawaii, lives the fascinating decoy-fish. This relatively rare fish uses its dorsal fin as a lure to attract other fishes on which it preys. Whenever dinner is in sight, the decoy-fish's dorsal fin goes up and appears to be a separate smaller fish, complete with a mouth and an eye.

When the decoy-fish raises its lure, it ceases its gill movements, stops breathing, and the lure becomes colored with a deep red coloring. At the same time, the part attaching the lure to the decoy-fish's body becomes transparent, effectively separating it from the fish. Amazingly enough, the decoy-fish then remains perfectly still while moving the decoy from side to side, causing the mouth to open and close. The unsuspecting victim approaches the lure and, as soon as it is within reach, the decoy-fish snaps it up with lightning speed.

The decoy-fish clearly exhibits great ingenuity, attention to biological details, and a sense of purposefulness. No matter how one contorts one's reasoning, one cannot explain such a marvel in terms of the evolutionary theory. Such details of design do not come about by random chance.

Different fish use different types of lures to catch their dinner. A lure at the end of a movable fishing pole suspended over the mouth is one of the distinctions of many of the anglerfishes. One type of anglerfish has a fishing rod coming out of its back with a luminescent bulb at the end of it. Another, the deep-sea angler, has a light bulb hanging from the roof of its mouth. It just swims around with an open mouth, dangling the lure from side to side. Small fish, attracted by the display, swim to their death right into the angler's mouth.

One fascinating aspect of the anglerfishes is the variety of motions that they perform, depending upon the type of bait they sport. For example, an anglerfish that lures its prey with a shrimplike appendage will move it in a quick backward-darting motion, simulating the movement of a real shrimp. An anglerfish with a fishlike bait uses a lateral undulating motion to simulate a swimming fish.

As one might expect, occasionally the bait gets nipped off. Fortunately, this mishap was anticipated, for these fish are endowed with the unusual ability to rapidly grow a new bait. In fact, the new appendage typically starts growing within a few days and is fully replaced within two weeks.[59 ]

13. HAWKS: To obtain the most efficient ratio between bone strength and body weight, animals generally have hollow bones. This is particularly true in the case of birds where minimum weight and maximum strength is critical for flight. While plain hollow bones suffice for most birds, the bone structure of hawks and a few others are much more advanced in their engineering design. Their bones have inner diagonal struts that provide maximum strength with the least possible weight. From an engineering standpoint, this particular design is quite advanced and elegant. In fact, in the engineering world, this type of construction is known as the Warren Truss. It is foolish to assume something that took many years and untold dollars to perfect, was created by random processes.[60]

14. BIRD'S-NEST FUNGI: They are fungi, but you wouldn't know it. They are only a few millimeters high, but contained within these minute hunks of life is a universe of fascination. They are cup-shaped, and contain a number of small, hard, lentil-shaped 'eggs' neatly arranged within. This is why they are called bird's-nest fungi.

Until 1790 they were thought to be flowering plants, the little 'eggs' being seeds. And it was not until 1951 that a man by the name of Brodie described how the 'eggs' fly from the nest. The nests are actually fruiting bodies of a Basidiomycete(one of the four major groups of fungi) fungus. The 'eggs' are peridioles, which are a special kind of spore-containing chamber of certain Basidiomycetes. Inside the peridioles are masses of basidiospores-- the 'seeds' of the fungus. The peridioles, several per cup, are attached to the inside of the cup by means of a slender connection called a funiculus. When wet, this thread lengthens greatly and may even reach, when stretched, 6 to 8 inches. Under such conditions the very base of the cord, the hapteron, becomes very sticky and will adhere to just about anything it touches.

Brodie discovered, as others had begun to suspect, that the cups of the bird's-nest fungi are so constructed, with the precise geometry needed, as to act as splash-cups from which raindrops, coming in at a speed of about 18 feet per second during a heavy storm, hurl out the peridioles to a distance of about 3 to 4 feet. Some of the momentum of the raindrops is transferred to the peridioles, as when a billiard ball passes on some of its momentum to another upon striking it.

The force of ejection causes that portion of the funiculus called the 'purse' to burst and release the funicular cord and hapteron. The now-wet and thus sticky hapteron sticks fast to any solid object it touches as it flies through the air. When it does stick, the attached cord stretches, then elastically contracts, and winds up on the object it sticks to. Then the spores are released to make new fungi. Design is evident in all of this functioning creation.[61]

15. MARINE IGUANA: On the Galapagos Islands is a special creature, the Marine Iguana, the only lizard that gets all of its food from the sea. The marine iguana grows to about 6 feet long, and has a hefty body, short legs and a large tail. It is a strong swimmer, using its tail as a paddle, and can dive to 30 feet to graze on sea-weed and algae, staying below the water for as long as 20 minutes at a time.

During the dive, its heart rate and blood flow slow right down, so that the oxygen in its lungs will last longer. Unlike lizards that spend all their time on land, the marine iguana can drink salt water without being harmed, because it has special glands which desalinate (remove the salt from) the sea water.

Marine iguanas keep their body temperature close to 98.6 degrees. They bask on the rocks until the sun's heat becomes excessive, then they shelter in shady cracks among the rocks. They usually go into the sea in the hottest part of the day, although they often seem to hesitate to enter the water. Even though the Galapagos Islands are near the equator, the waters around them are relatively cool.

To prevent their blood from becoming chilled, marine iguanas are able to restrict the blood flow to their skin, keeping it near the center of their bodies. They leave the water before they become too cold to haul themselves back on to the rocks. Then they have to warm up again before they can digest their food. It seems highly unlikely that the iguana could evolve all these processes in a gradual manner.[62]

16. THE GECKO LIZARD: The gecko lizard can walk across your ceiling upside down without falling off. How does it do this?

Until a few years ago scientists did not know, though they proposed several conflicting theories. Examination of the toepads of the gecko with optical microscopes at up to 2,000 diameters magnification revealed thousands of little fibers arranged like the tufts of bristles in a toothbrush. Yet the question remained unanswered. An answer was finally provided by the powerful scanning electron microscope, which was able to take a series of remarkable photographs magnified to 35,000 diameters and more.

The gecko was found to have on its toe pads many millions of fine fibers tipped with little suction cups, each about eight millionths of an inch in diameter. In conjunction with this, the lizard's feet are designed so that the tips of the toes bend or curl upward so that he can peel off the suction cups gradually at each step and not get himself too firmly stuck to the surface. It is estimated that the gecko has at least 500 million suction cups on his toes.

The extraordinary microscopic structure of the gecko lizard's toe pads clearly indicates intelligent purposeful design. No remotely plausible scheme for the origin of the gecko's suction cups by random mutations and natural selection has yet been devised evolutionary theorists. And should some scientist with a clever imagination succeed in devising such a shame, he would still be without a scrap of fossil evidence to demonstrate that the hypothetical process of evolution actually took place in the past.

You can't see with the naked eye the tiny suction cups on a gecko's foot. But each chevron-shaped ridge on the gecko's amazing foot pad is composed of millions of fibers tipped with microscopic suction cups. This allows it to walk upside down across your ceiling, or sideways across your wall.[63]

17. VISUAL BEAUTY: Nature abounds with magnificent visual beauty. Many organisms exhibit beautiful coloration patterns and architectural designs. Where did all of this visual beauty come from, and why did it develop? Surely, the initial life-form in the evolutionist's scheme did not exhibit such beauty. Creationists maintain that the origin, development, perfection, and widespread presence of visual beauty in the world of life completely defies evolutionary explanation. Evolutionists are especially hard-pressed to account for the numerous instances in which beauty is hidden and unnecessary. Much to the consternation of the evolutionist, visual beauty is often quite useless except foe the aesthetic gratification of man and God.

Many structures are beautifully colored despite the fact that they are rarely or never seen. For example, the abyssal fish, Rhodicthys, is of a bright red color. Yet it lives in total darkness, 1.5 miles below the surface of the ocean. Likewise, the deep-sea Neoscopelus macrolepidotus is vividly colored with azure blue, bright red, silver spots, and black circles! Even the eggs of some of the deep-sea creatures are brilliantly colored.[64]

Useless or hidden visual beauty is indeed an evolutionist's nightmare. They have to take pains to establish why it was necessary for a creature to develop all of this beauty when it plainly would never be seen. Evolution is supposed to be a responsible process. Why then the splendors of the abyssal fish, the beauty found inside some shells, the dazzling colors inside the mouths of nestlings, and so on? And remember, we have only considered color, saying nothing of the magnificent and limitless architectural designs found in nature. Also, if visual beauty is a natural consequence of evolutionary progression, why is it that the lower forms of life display greater visual beauty than the higher forms, such as man?[65]

18. MIMICRY: Mimicry is a fascinating phenomenon of nature in which one type of organism imitates or "mimics" another type. Most examples of mimicry are found among insects, although other animals and even some plants exhibit this capability. The extraordinary perfection, variety, and versatility of mimicry found in nature completely scorns the evolutionary philosophy.

The perfection of mimicry among insects is so great that it can successfully deceive a skillful naturalist who is watching for that very thing. In fact, it is often so perfect that it can bamboozle other insects being mimicked to the extent that the mimic can live among his enemies undetected! For example, spiders can disguise themselves as ants. While this may not sound particularly impressive at first, it is actually quite clever because spiders have eight legs whereas ants only have six legs and two antennae. To fool the ants, the spider holds his front pair of legs over his forehead and wiggles them like antennae. To further authenticate this deception, the spider also imitates the jerky gait and feeding movements of the ants. Some spiders have been observed to carry ants skeletons over their heads to disguise themselves even more.

The caterpillar of the Lobster moth of Britain is another fascinating example of mimicry. It has modified its legs to hang down like the scales surrounding the buds of the beech tree. Luckily, they are the proper number, length, color, and shape for this very purpose. When this larva is attacked it lowers flaps on its sides, which uncover black "wounds" that trick the attacker into thinking that it has already fallen victim to another parasite. Disappointed, the enemy departs. Such precise, intricate, and carefully planned mimicry leaves the evolutionist at a loss to explain how this evolution happened.[66]

Some mimics fool their predators by resembling stinging or bad tasting models, which the predators naturally avoid. For example, many species of butterflies imitate monarchs, or other unpalatable butterflies, or moths. Some species of flies mimic bees or hornets. Sometimes only one sex of a given species will be an imitator. Sometimes the predator is the one doing the mimicking. One species of desert lizard has a mouth that looks like a flower, and when unsuspecting flies land in its mouth, they become lizard food.

19. THE HUMAN BODY: The human body is truly a marvel of very careful intelligent planning. The odds of this just randomly coming together over time is truly staggering. The DNA of the human body programs the body for all its features including hair, skin, eyes, and height. DNA determines the arrangement for 206 bones, 600 muscles, 10,000 auditory nerve fibers, 2 million optic nerve fibers, 100 billion nerve fibers, 400 billion feet of blood vessels and capillaries, and a brain which is the most complicated mass of matter in the universe. And it all has to work very close to perfection or you do not live very long. Again it speaks of a very intelligent designer.

20. THE BEAVER: The dam building ability of beavers is fairly well known, but beavers possess other amazing design features which God has included in their anatomy. Beavers are air-breathing mammals which spend a great deal of time in water. For this reason they need special equipment.

First, the beaver has special valves in its ears and nose. When the beaver dives below the water these valves automatically close so that no water can enter. When the animal resurfaces, the valves reopen and it breathes again. Perhaps their most amazing piece of equipment is their eyelids. If you have done any diving or snorkeling you will know that water and materials in it can irritate your eyes and wash out natural lubricants. Not only that, but your eyes do not see well under water. That is why snorkelers wear goggles.

God designed the beaver with built-in goggles. Their eyelids are transparent, so they can close their eyes underwater and still see extremely well Their transparent eyelids give protection to their eyes from waterborne irritants. During winter, beavers must feed on the bark of trees they have cut and stored in the autumn, using their specially designed, self-sharpening front incisors. The beavers collect young trees usually one to two inches in diameter, cut them to appropriate lengths, and sticks them in the mud near their underwater entrance to their lodge. The beaver also has a fur lined mouths so that when they eat these sticks they have stored under water during the winter when it is cold, so their teeth will not hurt.[119]

21. THE WOODPECKER: If there is any animal that breaks the rules of evolution in such a way that it could not possibly have evolved, then it would have to be created. The woodpecker is an example of such an animal.

The woodpecker's beak is unlike that of other birds. It is designed to hammer its way into the hardest of trees. If the woodpecker evolved, how would it develop its thick, tough beak? Let's suppose some bird decided that there must be all kinds of little critters which would be good for lunch hidden beneath the bark of trees. This bird decided to peck through the bark and into the hardwood tree. On first peck this bird discovered problems with the way it was put together. Its beak shattered when it was slammed against the tree, it a tail feathers broke, and it developed a migraine-strength headache.

With a shattered beak, the little bird was unable to eat and so it died. But now it is too late to evolve a harder beak to get through the tree bark without injuring itself. The woodpecker not only has an industrial-strength beak, it also has a special cartilage between its head and beak to absorb some of the shock from the continuous drumming.

To help with the absorption of the constant pounding, the woodpecker has uniquely resilient feathers. It uses its tail feathers and feet to form a tripod effect as it clings to the tree. Even its feet are specially designed to enable it to move up, down, and around, vertical tree trunks. The feet of the woodpecker have two toes in front and two toes in back. Most other birds have three toes in front and one in back.

This two plus two toe pattern along with stiff yet elastic tail feathers allows a woodpecker to grasp a tree firmly and balance itself to chisel a hole, the tail feathers bend and spread, buttressing the bird against the rough tree surface. In this way feet and tail form an effective tripod to stabilize the blows of hammering into wood.

Also the tongue of the woodpecker is in a class by itself. When chiseling into a tree, the woodpecker will occasionally come across insect tunnels. Its tongue is long and slender and is used to probe these tunnels for insects. The tip is like a spearhead with a number of barbs or hairs pointing rearward. This facilitates securing the insect while transporting it to the beak. A sticky glue-like substance coats the tongue to aid in this process as well.[120]

But this is not all. Most birds have a tongue and a beak about the same length. The tongue of the woodpecker has evolutionists scratching their heads. It can be stretched far beyond the tip of the beak as it searches the tunnels for food. The tongue of some woodpeckers does not come from its throat up into its mouth like other creatures. The European Green woodpecker's tongue goes down the throat, out the back of the neck and around the back of the skull beneath the skin, and over the top between the eyes, terminating usually just below the eyesocket. It then goes back into the woodpecker through the nostril and out the mouth. How would all this evolve?

SECTION X

CREATION AND THE HUMAN ANCESTORS

This area of study about human origins is called anthropology. This is by far the most contested area of science with, evolutionists going back and forth and disputing each others finds. In this area there have been numerous frauds that have been put forward as mankind's ancestors, some for 50 or more years before they were found out. In fact some of the frauds are still used in some textbooks as evidence for evolution of mankind.

1. HUMAN: This would be the modern man, what the bible would say between 6000 and 10,000 years old. Modern man as defined by the evolutionists is somewhere between 35,000 and 100,000 years old and some even date modern man as much as 500,000 years old.[67]

2. NEANDERTHAL MAN: Neanderthal Man was first discovered at about the turn of the century in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. He was portrayed as a semierect, barrel-chested, brutish sort of fellow, an intermediary link between man and apes.

With the discovery of other Neanderthal skeletons, it is now known, however, that Neanderthal Man was fully erect and fully human. In fact, his cranial capacity even exceeded that of modern man by more than 13 percent.[68]

The old misconceptions about Neanderthal Man were due to two factors; first, the bias of the preprogrammed evolutionary anthropologists who reconstructed him, and second, the fact that the particular individual on whom the initial evaluation was made was crippled with osteoarthritis and rickets. These two diseases and more have been found in many of the Neanderthal skeletons.[69]

3. PILTDOWN MAN: The remains of Piltdown Man were allegedly discovered in 1912 by Charles Dawson, an amateur fossilologist. He produced some bones, teeth, and primitive implements, which he said he found in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to Dr. Arthur Smith Woodward, an eminent paleontologist at the British Museum. The remains were acclaimed by anthropologists to be about 500,000 years old. A flood of literature followed in response to this discovery with Piltdown Man being hailed in the museums and textbooks as the most wonderful of finds. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were performed on Piltdown Man.[70]

All was well until October of 1956 when the entire hoax was exposed. Reader's Digest came out with an article, summarized from Popular Science Monthly, titled "The Great Piltdown Hoax". Using a new method to date bones based on fluoride absorption, the Piltdown bones were found to be fraudulent. Further critical investigation revealed that the jawbone actually belonged to an ape that had died only fifty years previously. The teeth were filed down, and both teeth and bones were discolored with bichromate of potash to conceal their true identity.[71]. And so, Piltdown Man was built on a deception which completely fooled all the "experts" who promoted him with the utmost confidence. It appears from some of the evidence unearthed, that Teilhard de Chardin was responsible for putting the bones into the gravel pit.

Teilhard authored several philosophical books in which he attempted to harmonize evolution and Christianity. Exasperated by the lack of convincing evidence for Darwin's theory, Teilhard was apparently motivated into assisting the theory of evolution by fabricating the needed missing link. It should be noted that Piltdown Man was viewed in stately museums and studied in major textbooks for several generations. Once again expert testimony is still not as good as what God's Word plainly says happened in the beginning.

4. NEBRASKA MAN: Nebraska Man was discovered in 1922 by Harold Cook in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska. A tremendous amount of literature was built around this supposed missing link that allegedly lived a million years ago. What was the exact find for this evolutionary ancestor? The answer is a single tooth. The top scientists of the world examined this tooth and appraised it as proof positive of a prehistoric race in America.

Years later, the entire skeleton of the animal from which the initial tooth came was found. As it turns out, the tooth on which Nebraska Man was constructed belonged to an extinct species of pig. What an embarrassment to the scientific community. Needless to say, little publicity was given to the discovered error. A similar discovery, which was also based on a tooth, was the Southwest Colorado Man. It is now known that this particular tooth actually belonged to a horse![72]

5. JAVA APE-MAN: One of the most famous of all the anthropoids is the Java Ape-Man, Pithecanthropus erectus. He was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois, a fervent evolutionist. Dr. Dubois's find consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thighbone, and three molar teeth. Although this evidence is admittedly more substantial, it is still fragmentary. Furthermore, these remnants were not found together. They were collected over a range of about seventy feet. Also, they were not discovered at the same time, but over a span of one year. To further complicate matters, these remains were found in an old riverbed mixed in with the bones of extinct animals. Despite all of these difficulties, evolutionists calmly assure us that Java Ape-Man lived about 750,000 years ago.

There has been much debate over whether this find is actually a man or an ape. Of the twenty-four European scientists who met to evaluate the find, ten said they came from an ape; seven from a man; and seven said they belonged to a no-longer-missing link. The renowned Professor Virchow of Berlin said "there is no evidence at all that these bones were part of the same creature".[73]

6. LUCY: Present-day speculation about human evolution revolves about a group of fossils called the australopithecines and, in particular, a specimen called Lucy, a 40 percent complete skeleton. Lucy was discovered by D. C. Johanson in the Afar area of Ethiopia during investigations conducted from 1972-1977. In a National Geographic article (December 1976) Johnson claimed that "the angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at its knee joint end...proved she walked on two legs".

However, it should be mentioned that the knee joint that was used to prove that Lucy walked upright was found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than two miles away! Also, the knee joint end of the femur was severely crushed; therefore, Johanson's conclusion is pure speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard, using a computer technique for analysis of skeletal relationships, has concluded that the australopithecine's did not walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. In this connection, it should be mentioned that the chimpanzee spends a considerable amount of time walking upright. Thus, there is no valid scientific basis for a conclusion of bipedalism in Lucy. Lucy and her relatives are probably just varieties of apes.[74]

7. THE LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: Beginning in 1978, associates of Mary Leakey discovered a series of what appear to be human footprint trails at site G, Laetoli, thirty miles south of Olduvai Gorge, in northern Tanzania. The strata above the footprints has been dated at 3.6 million years old, while the strata below them has been dated at 3.8 million years old by the K-Ar method. These trails rank as one of the great discoveries of the twentieth century.

Mary Leakey told the story in the April 1979 issue of National Geographic. She described the footprints as "remarkably similar to those of modern man". Three parallel trails are seen, made by three individuals, with one individual walking in the footprints of another. The trails contain a total of 69 prints extending a length of about thirty yards. More prints may yet be uncovered. The prints were made in fresh volcanic ash spewed out by Mount Sadiman to the east. A unique combination of circumstances caused these amazing prints to be preserved. The assumption, based upon the somewhat similar ages of the fossils in the two different localities and the belief that Lucy was bipedal, Is that Lucy type individuals made these footprints. Obviously, this is totally unprovable.

The specialist who has conducted the most extensive recent study of these footprints is Russell H. Tuttle. He did so at the invitation of Mary Leakey. The footprint trails at Laetoli appear to have been made by individuals who were barefoot, probably habitually unshod. When Tuttle began his study, he discovered that very few studies have been done on habitually unshod peoples. Studies done on the footprints of shod people would not necessarily be applicable to the Laetoli prints.

As a part of Tuttle's investigations he observed the Machiguenga Indians in the rugged mountains of Peru, a habitually barefoot people. More than seventy individuals from ages seven to sixty-seven, both male and female, constituted the study. He concludes: "In sum, the 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are."75 In addition, he noted that the footprints at Laetoli were very similar to the Machiguenga Indian footprints, so much so that he said they were indistinguishable.

8. THE LADY FROM GUADELOUPE: It is appropriate at this point to introduce the lady from Guadeloupe, since this was a well-authenticated discovery, widely reported in the scientific journals of the day, and on display at the British Museum for more than half a century. The discovery was made in 1812 on the coast of the French Caribbean island of Gaudeloupe and consisted of a skeleton, fully human in every respect and complete except for the feet and the head; it was identified as that of a healthy woman about five feet two inches tall. Of importance was the fact that although many of the bones were twisted and the joints dislocated, the skeleton was fully articulate-every bone was in its proper position.

This vitally important feature in undoubtedly the reason for the specimen not now being on display at the museum or even mentioned in textbooks today. The limestone in which the skeleton was embedded was extremely hard and part of a formation more than a kilometer in length, while, according to modern geological dating, it is 28 million years old. This presents a very difficult problem for evolutionary theory to explain, for here is undeniable evidence of a perfectly modern human being on earth apparently 25 million years before man was believed to have swung out of the jungle trees. Not only that but, according to Darwin, man originated from the Old World monkeys in Africa, and modern-looking man was only supposed to have migrated to the Americas some twenty thousand years ago.

When the two-ton limestone block containing the skeleton was put on display at the British Museum in Bloomsbury, in 1812, it was seen as evidence of the great Genesis Flood and a reminder of past divine judgment on men. Lyell and his demand for millions of years was twenty years away, while Darwin and his theory would not appear for more than half a century. When the British Natural History Museum was opened in South Kensington, in 1881, the specimen was transferred, and it was undoubtedly at this time that it was considered in the best interest of Darwinism to leave it in storage in the basement of the new Museum.

Interestingly, two Neanderthal-like skulls were found near Santa Barbara, California, and reported in 1923, but because the great age attributed to Neanderthals does not fit the theory of recent migration to America, these skulls were dismissed as being from modern Indians having Neanderthaloid features.

Often when human remains are found in geological strata believed to have been formed millions of years before the advent of man, they are explained away as an "intrusive burial", brought about either by natural causes or by the deliberate hand of modern man. A classic example is that of the "calaveras skull", discovered in 1866, 130 feet below ground in the gold-bearing gravels of the Sierra Nevada, California. The skull, which was almost completely mineralized, was authenticated by a physician as a modern type and by J. D. Whitney, chief of the California Geological Survey, as being found in Pliocene rock more than 2 million years old. It was found with many modern tools, including stone mortars and bowls.[76]

9. COMPOSITE FOSSIL CHART: This chart will show that all of the current missing link possibilities were contemporaneous with one another. It is very hard for one group to be the ancestor of another, when they live at the same time, as well as over several different time periods. We do not support the dates given for each group, but use it as a reference point to show they were contemporaneous.

SECTION XI

THE "PROOFS" OF EVOLUTION

These proofs of evolution have long used to refute the ignorant among the Christian community. These have all been in turn refuted in the last century until not one of them is actually a good proof for evolution anymore. The list may not be all inclusive, but should arm the Christian with ammo to defend against the evolutionist. Always remember that it is okay to say I don't know, but I will find out. Then look up what the evolutionist said, and defend on the creation way of looking at origins.

1. THE FOSSIL HORSE SERIES: This is the nice and neat fossil series you see at most museums to show that horses evolved from a tiny little horse, to the modern horse we have today. Unfortunately the truth has caught up with them, for you see, there have been fossils of several modern horse species that have been found in the same fossil layers as the earliest supposed horse, Eohippus. The fossil horse series may actually represent different horse genera. They may have been members or variations of originally created biblical kinds. In any event, there is certainly no valid reason for assuming that the horses evolved rather than were created as distinct kinds, which lived at the same time. As George Gaylord Simpson has written: "The uniform continuous transformation of Hydracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature."[78]

2. VESTIGIAL ORGANS: A long-cited evidence of evolution, used even before Darwin, is that of certain vestigial remnants of assumed former evolutionary changes can still be seen in the structures of organisms living today. These remnants are of two main types, the so-called vestigial organs and recapitulating embryos. These are assumed to have significance as a record of former evolution but no longer to have utility in living organisms today.

If these features really exist, the creation model could explain them in terms of the decay principle associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. At most, they would not testify of evolution into higher order but rather of decay into lower order. In this case the creation model would not actually predict these features, but at least it could explain them as well as the evolution model ( which would not have predicted them either).

(1.) Vestigial Organs

Certain organs on man, as well as on various animals, have long been described as useless vestiges of structures which were useful in a former evolutionary stage. However, this evidence is no longer offered with the confidence which once accompanied it. Practically all the so-called "vestigial" organs, especially those in man, have been proved in recent years to have definite uses and not vestigial at all. At one time, evolutionists claimed there were about 180 such vestigial organs in man, but practically none are claimed now. Some of these were the thyroid gland, the thymus, the coccyx, the pineal gland, the ear muscles, the tonsils and the appendix. All of these are now known to have useful, and often essential, functions.

In view of the history of this subject, it would seem the better part of wisdom not to claim any organs at all as vestigial. The ignorance of scientists about the specific functions of such structures does not prove they have none. It is more likely than not that in the very few cases remaining more intensive study will, as it often has in the past, reveal specific functions actually accomplished by these supposedly useless organs. The small residuum of what may be true atrophies are surely poor examples of evolution! They are degenerative changes, if anything, possibly the result of harmful mutations.

(2). The Recapitulation Theory

The hoary evolutionary cliché, "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," is a popular definition of what used to be called the "biogenetic law". Ontogeny is the development of the embryo, and phylogeny is the imagined evolutionary development of the kind of animal. In the case of man, foe example, it was taught that the human embryo began life as a marine protozoan, developed in a watery environment into a worm with a pulsating-tube heart, then into a fish with gill-slits and a two-chambered, then into an amphibian with a three-chambered heart and a mesonphros kidney, then a mammal with a four-chambered heart, metanephros kidney, and a tail, and finally into a human being. In this way, the human embryo actually retains "vestiges" of its former evolution by recapitulating its major phases.

The rationale of this strange idea apparently was that new evolutionary stages of the kind of adult animal were acquired by a sort of extension of the embryonic development corresponding to its previous stage, but that the embryo always had to go through all its previous stages first to get to the new stage.

Modern studies in molecular genetics have shown the impossibility of such concepts. The DNA for a man is not the DNA for a fish, nor is it the DNA for a fish with something new added. The DNA for each kind is uniquely programmed to produce its own kind, not to produce a temporary replica of some other kind.

Furthermore, embryologic studies have shown that there are so many omissions, additions, and inversions in the embryologic sequences, as compared to the supposed evolutionary sequences, that the idea of recapitulation could certainly not be called a law! Even the few apparent parallels are quite superficial and in no sense could represent an actual recapitulation.

The most famous and impressive of these parallels has undoubtedly been the supposed development of "gill silts" in the "fish stage" of human embryonic growth. This supposed recapitulation was entirely superficial; the human embryo never at any time develops gills or gill silts, and therefore is never a fish. It has no fish tail, fins, or any other fish structures.

The human embryo does develop pharyngeal pouches, as does the fish embryo. In the fish, these later become the site of the gills. In the human, they become the Eustachian tubes, the thymus and parathyroid glands. In the meantime, as they are developing, they serve as essential guides for the developing blood vessels, and are thus not useless vestiges at all.

The same applies to the developing kidneys, heart, and other features. A great deal of evidence exists now that all aspects of all stages of the development of all embryos have vital roles in the progress of the embryonic growth of each specific creature. There are no redundant vestiges of former evolutionary stages; all steps are necessary components of the present organism. The creation model would, in fact, expect them all to reflect careful planning and design, and this is exactly what they do.

Consequently, very few modern embryologists place any confidence today in the recapitulation theory. It is surprising that so many prominent evolutionists continue to refer to this idea as evidence for evolution.[79]

(3) THE PEPPERED MOTH: Evolutionists commonly cite the case of the peppered moth (Biston betularia) of England as a striking example of present-day Neo-Darwinian evolution. Peppered moths have always existed in light, intermediate, and dark-colored varieties. Before the advance of the industrial revolution, the tree trunks were light-colored and the light-colored moths were camouflaged; whereas, the dark-colored moths were easily spotted and eaten by birds. Consequently, the dark-colored moths constituted a very minor portion of the total population.

As the industrial revolution progressed, however, and population increased, the tree trunks became darker and within forty-five years the situation was reversed. In the Manchester vicinity, for example, 95 percent of the moths were of the dark-colored variety. But is this really evolution? Certainly not! This process did not produce anything new. It did not result in increased complexity and organization. The dark-colored moths had always existed. The air pollution simply caused a shift in the populations of the dark versus light-colored moths. What this does show is natural selection, or survival of the fittest.[80]

Editors Note: The whole Peppered Moth episold has been proven to be a hoax. The moths were stuck to the trees and pictures taken.

(4.) THE DUCK-BILLED PLATYPUS: Evolutionists insist that the duck-billed platypus is an evolutionary link between mammals and birds. The platypus is an Australian mammal which has fur and nourishes its young with milk, like mammals. Its young hatch from eggs like reptiles, and it also has webbed feet and a flat bill like a duck. It has pockets in its jaws to carry food and a spur on its rear legs which, like a snake's fang, is poisonous. And, amazingly enough, the platypus even uses echo location like dolphins! Admittedly, the platypus does combine a curious mixture of features and traits. But does this unusual combination of characteristics necessarily mean that the platypus is a transitional creature? Creationists argue that the platypus is simply a kind of organism whose creative design happens to include a mosaic of traits.

Thus, the duck-billed platypus appears to be a distinct kind of animal in and of itself that has been specifically designed to include a mixture of traits. Rather than being an evolutionary transitional form, the duck-billed platypus is yet another demonstration of our creator's virtuosity and, perhaps, sense of humor.[81]

(5.) ARCHAEOPTERYX: The high-quality limestone deposits so Solnhofen in Germany had long been used to provide material for lithographic plates used in the printing industry. From time to time, finely preserved fossil fish were discovered, and these provided an additional source of revenue for the quarry owners. In 1861 a small fossilized feather, quite perfect in detail, was found and later proved to be of great interest. According to Lyell's system of dating rocks, this particular limestone had been previously dated by other fossils as being from the Jurassic period, long before birds were supposed to have evolved, so the feather was something of an enigma. Shortly after this, a fossil bird, with the head and neck missing, was discovered in the same area, and from the previously found feather the name had already been given as Archaeopteryx, which means "early wing".

The specimen was believed to be an intermediate between reptiles and birds since it had features common to both and was a triumph for Darwin, perfectly confirming his theory. The timing and nature of this discovery was of great significance, and after a rather large sum of money changed hands, the specimen took pride of place in the British museum. In 1877 a second Archaeopteryx was discovered in a location quite near the first, but this was a much better specimen complete with neck and head, while to everyone's surprise the creature had thirteen teeth in sockets in each jaw. This time the specimen ended up in the Berlin museum. This specimen is so well preserved that it is usually shown in biological textbooks as a transitional creature and is taken to be prime evidence for the theory of evolution.

Counting the feather, there are five specimens of Archaeopteryx. In addition to the well-known London and Berlin specimens, a very poor example was found in 1956 and a questionable re-identification of a fossil in the Teyer museum was made in 1970. Feathers are really quite complex and are the identifying mark of a true bird. For this reason, the Archaeopteryx is acknowledged to be a bird. However, it does have teeth and fingers on the leading edge of the wing, which give it reptilian features, and is thus though to be in the last stages of transition from a reptile. There are a number of difficulties, not the least of which is that, unlike feathers, the reptilian features are not definitive; that is, some reptiles, such as the turtle and the tortoise, do not have teeth while some birds, such as the baby hoatzin from South America and the ostrich, have the fingers on the wing.[82]

(6.) SIMILARITIES IN MORPHOLOGY: Similarities in structure are considered one of the main evidences of evolution. To some extent, since the standard Linnaean classification scheme is arbitrary and man-made, such similarities may actually indicate common ancestry. This is certainly true at the level of varieties, and possibly also at the species level and occasionally at the level of higher categories. It should be remembered, however, that no observational or experimental evidence exists for ancestral relationships in these higher categories. This is purely an evolutionary assumption.

Probably the leading American taxonomist is Ernst Mayr, of Harvard. Professor Mayr emphasizes that all such higher categories (genera, families, orders, etc.) are quite arbitrary, since no experimental proof can be offered to demonstrate any such relationships. A reviewer of Mayr's most authoritative work, Principles of Systematic Zoology, makes the following illuminating comment:

" According to the author's view, which I think nearly all biologists must share, the species is the only taxonomic category that has at least in more favorable examples a completely objective existence. Higher categories are all more or less a matter of opinion."[83]

The fact that men are able to arrange plants and animals in a classification table on the basis of their morphologic features, certainly is no proof that those more closely associated in the table are more directly related by evolutionary descent. All such an arrangement proves is that man has the ability to devise methods for classifying and categorizing assemblages of data.

As a matter of fact, the classification table is a much better support for the creation model. If an evolutionary continuum existed, as the evolution model should predict, There would be no gaps, and thus it would be impossible to demark categories of life. Classification requires not only similarities, but differences and gaps as well, and these are much more amenable to the creation model.[84]

(7.) ORIGIN OF LIFE FROM A SOUP: Many important molecules required for life exist in two forms. These two forms are non-superimposable mirror images of each other, they are related like our left and right hands. Hence this property is called chirality, from the Greek word for hand. The two forms are called enantiomers (from the Greek word for opposite) or optical isomers, because they rotate the plane of plane-polarized light.

Nearly all biological molecules must be homochiral (all molecules having the same handedness. Another term used is optically pure or 100% optically active) to function. All amino acids in proteins are 'left-handed', while all sugars in DNA and RNA, and in the metabolic pathways, are 'right-handed'.

A 50/50 mixture of left and right-handed forms is called a racemate or racemic mixture. Racemic polypeptides could not form the specific shapes required for enzymes, rather, they would have side chains sticking out all over the place. Also, a wrong-handed amino acid disrupts the stabilizing a-helix in proteins. DNA could not be stabilized in a helix if even a small proportion of the wrong-handed form was present, so it could not form long chains. This means it could not store much information, so it could not support life.[85] However, as a well-regarded organic chemistry textbook states a universal chemical rule in bold type:

'Synthesis of chiral compounds from achiral reagents always yields the racemic modification.' or 'Optically inactive reagents yield optically inactive products.'[86]

To resolve a racemate (separate the two enantiomers), another homochiral substance must be introduced. The procedure is explained in any organic chemistry textbook. The idea is that right-handed and left-handed substances have identical properties, except when interacting with other chiral phenomena. The analogy is that out left and right hands grip an achiral object like a baseball bat equally, but they fit differently into a chiral object like a left-handed glove. Usually, an organic chemist will use a ready-made substance from a living organism.

However, this does not solve the mystery of where the optical activity in living organisms came from in the first place. A recent world conference on 'The Origin of Homochirality and Life' made it clear that the origin of this handedness is a complete mystery to evolutionists. The probability of forming one homochiral polymer of N monomers by chance =2-N. For a small protein of 100 amino acids, this probability = 2 (-100) = 10 (-30). [The number in parenthises is "to the power of".]

Note, this is the probability of any homochiral polypeptide. The probability of forming a functional homochiral polymer is much lower, since a precise amino acid sequence is required in many places. Of course, many homochiral polymers are required for life, so the probabilities must be multiplied. Chance is thus not an option.

A further problem is that homochiral biological substances racemise in time. This is the basis of the amino acid raceization dating method. It is not very reliable, since the racemization rate is strongly dependent on temperature and pH, and depends on the particular amino acid. But it shows that the tendency of undirected chemistry is towards death, not life. Origin of life researchers have tried to think of other means of producing optical activity. There have been unsuccessful attempts to resolve racemates by other means:

1. Circularly Polarized UV Light:

This means light where the electric field direction rotates along the beam. This can destroy one form more readily than another. However, because the light also destroys the 'right' form, this method would not produce the necessary 100% homochirality required for life. The best result has been 20% optically pure camphor, but this occurred after 99% has been destroyed. 35.5% optical purity would have resulted after 99.99% destruction.[87]

2. B-decay:

This is one form of radioactive decay, and it is governed by one of the four fundamental forces of nature, the weak force. This force has a slight handedness, so some theorists thought this could account for the chirality in living organisms. However, the weak force is aptly named, and one specialist in the chirality problem, organic chemist William Bonner, said that 'none of this work has yielded convincing conclusions'.[88]

3. Optically Active Quartz Powders:

Quartz is a very common mineral on earth, and its crystals come in left and right-handed forms. Some investigators tried to use optically active quartz powders to absorb one form more than the other. But they had no success. Besides, there are equal amounts of left and right-handed quartz crystals on earth[89]

4. Clay Minerals:

Some investigators have reported a very small chiral selection effect on clay minerals, but the effects may have been an artifact of the technique used. Selective absorption and binding have now been rejected. Even if modern clays did have a chiral bias, this could be due to previous absorption of optically active biomolecules (which are, of course produced by living things). Prebiotic clays would then have no chiral bias.[90]

5. Self-selection:

A small minority of chiral substances crystallize into homochiral crystals. Louis Pasteur was not only the founder of the germ theory of disease, the destroyer of 'spontaneous generation' ideas, and a creationist, he was also the first person in history to resolve a racemate. He used tweezers to separate the left and right-handed crystals of such a substance, sodium ammonium tartrate.[91]

This separation only happened because of outside interference by an intelligent investigator, who could recognize the different patterns. On the supposed primitive earth, there was no investigator. Therefore the two forms would have re-dissolved together and re-formed a racemic solution. Also, Pasteur was fortunate to choose one of the few substances that self-resolve. And even this substance has this property only below 23 degrees, so it's fortunate that 19th century laboratories were not well heated!

6. Fluke Seeding:

Some theorists have proposed that a fluke seeding of a supersaturated solution with a homochiral crystal would crystallize out the same enantiomer. However, the primordial soup, if it existed, would be extremely dilute and grossly contaminated. If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like; or in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes. In fact no such materials have been found anywhere on earth.[92] Also, nothing could be done with the resulting homochiral crystal, because it would be immersed in a solution of the wrong enantiomer. Concentrating the solution would dissolve the crystal, and the process must start from scratch.

7. Homochiral Template:

Some have proposed that a homochiral polymer arose by chance and acted as a template. However, this ran into severe problems. A template of 100% right-handed poly-C (RNA containing only cytosine monomers) was made (by intelligent chemists!). This could direct the oligomerisation (formation of small chains) of (activated) G (guanine) nucleotides. Indeed, pure right-handed G was oligomerised much more efficiently than pure left-handed G. But racemic G did not oligomerise, because: 'monomers of opposite handedness to the template are incorporated as chain terminators...This inhibition raises an important problem for many theories of the origin of life.'[93]

SECTION XII

IT REALLY IS A YOUNG EARTH AFTER ALL

This last section deals with the scientific proofs for a young earth. All though most of these have been ridiculed by the mainstream scientific establishment, they have not been refuted. These have all been verified by various creationists scientists and may be used with confidence.

1. RECEDING MOON: There is an easily understood physical proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolutionary age. From the laws of physics one can show that the moon is receding from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That distance is known as the Roche limit. The tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that close to the earth.

The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon[94]

2. DECAY OF MAGNETIC FIELD: Evidence for this proof of a young earth is found in a remarkable study by Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, Professor of Physics at the University of Texas in El Paso. Dr. Barnes is author of many papers in the fields of atmospheric physics and a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. He has pointed out that the strength of the magnetic field (that is, its magnetic moment) has been measured carefully for 135 years, and also has shown, through analytical and statistical studies, that it has been decaying exponentially during that period with a most probable half-life of 1,400 years.

This would mean that the magnetic field was twice has strong 1,400 years ago than it is now, four times as strong 2,800 years ago, and so on. Only 7,000 years ago it must have been 32 times as strong. It is almost inconceivable that it ever could have been much stronger than this. Thus, 10,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field as strong as that of a magnetic star!

Dr. Barnes shows beyond reasonable question that the only possible source for the earth's magnet must be free circulating electric currents in the earth's iron core. Electric currents, however, must flow against resistance, and such resistance generates heat, which is then dissipated through the surrounding medium and lost. Such currents must gradually decay because of this heat loss and this, in turn, accounts for the decay of its induced magnetic field.[95]

3. POPULATION: Estimates of the total population at the time of Christ vary from 250 to 300 million. If the flood was at about 5,000 years ago, which is the absolute outside limit, and if the average length of a generation was forty years, Noah's family of eight people would reach about 300 million by Christ's time if each family had an average of just 2.3 children. This is an average annual growth of only 0.35 percent, whereas the current world growth rate is 2.0 percent. It would seem that if the human race has been here for up to a million years it would create a very crowded situation. For example, with an annual growth rate of just 0.01 percent, in a million years the population would be over 1043 people, enough to fill 3,500 solar systems solidly with bodies out to the planet Pluto.

This assumption of a simple exponential rate of increase is an oversimplification, however. Occasional population collapses caused by environmental changes or disease could greatly reduce the overall rate of population increase. However, it does seem unreasonable that the earth should not have been run over with people a long time ago.[96]

4. MANY STRATA ARE TOO TIGHTLY BENT: In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time-scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.[97]

5. RADIOMETRIC EVIDENCE OF RAPID CREATION: Dr. Robert V. Gentry has radiometric evidence that the basement rock of the earth was formed in a cool state, not in a molten condition. A cool initial state of the earth gives support to a young age for the earth. His research involves the study of pleochroic halos (colored spheres) produced by the radioactive decay of Polonium 218. He analyzed over one hundred thousand of these halos in granitic rocks which had been taken from considerable depths below land surface and in all parts of the world.

Two very important conclusions were drawn from this research;

(1.) The Polonium 218 was primordial, that is to say, this radioactive element was in the original granite.

(2). Because the halos can only be formed in the crystals of the granite, and the Polonium 218 half-life is only 3 minutes, the granite had to be cool and crystallized originally. The Polonium 218 would have been gone before molten granite could have cooled. It would take a very long time for a molten earth to cool.

The final conclusion can be summarized in this brief quote from one do Gentry's technical papers: "The simple evidence of the halos is that the basement rocks of the earth were formed solid." "Halos in other minerals can be shown to give equally startling evidence of a young earth."[98]

'Squashed' polonium 210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time-scale. 'Orphan' Polonium 218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply either instant creation, or drastic changes in radioactivity decay rates.[99]

6. ATMOSPHERIC HELIUM: Just as many dissolved salts are building up in the oceans via drain-off of continental rivers, in a similar manner helium-4, the most abundant isotope of helium (the nuclei of which contain two protons and two neutrons), is flowing into the atmosphere from at least three sources:

(1.) Principally helium-4 produced by radioactive decay of uranium and thorium in the earth's crust and oceans;

(2.) from cosmic helium raining on earth, mainly from the sun's corona and in meteorites;

(3) from nuclear reactions in the earth's crust caused by cosmic rays.

In addition, the earth's original atmosphere may have contained helium-4. At the present rate of flow of helium into the atmosphere, the content of helium in the atmosphere could have been built up in only a small fraction of a billion years. This difficulty for an old earth has yet to be solved.

Dr. Larry Vardiman's 1990 book, 'The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere', is the most recent survey of the helium problem.[100] The atmosphere now contains about 4.1 billion tons of helium-4. It is estimated that about 2,400 tons per year of helium-4 is released from the crust into the atmosphere. The theoretically calculated rate of escape of helium-4 from the atmosphere into space averaged over an eleven year cycle is only about 70 tons per year.[101] This is only 1/33rd of the rate of inflow from the crust. If we assume a zero content of helium-4 in the original atmosphere, the maximum age of our atmosphere calculated from these figures is only about 1.8 billion years. The atmosphere of an earth 4.5 billion years old should contain 2,500 times more helium-4 than it does. Joseph Chamberlain and Donald Hunten at the close of a detailed examination of atmospheric helium concluded, "The problem will not go away and it is unsolved."[102] Vardiman discusses three possible solutions considered by secular scientists for the missing helium problem. He shows that these solutions have not yet made the helium problem go away.[103]

Dr. Robert Gentry has studied another helium clock provided by radiogenic helium trapped in very hot rocks deep in the earth's crust. The rate of escape and diffusion upward of such trapped gas is greatly increased at high temperatures. These deep rocks are supposed to be billions of years old, yet much of the helium-4 produced in them has not escaped. This suggests that these rocks are not billions of years old or millions of years old.[104]

7. COOLING OF THE EARTH: Lord Kelvin, the eminent British physicist of the past century, was a Bible-believing Christian. He showed that if the earth were once in a molten state, the time for cooling, from the first appearance of an initial solid crust to the present temperature could not have required more than about 22 million years. More recent studies show that even taking into account the heat produced by radioactive decay in the earth's crust, the cooling time could not be more than about 45 million years.[105] As everyone should know, this is not nearly enough time for evolution to have occurred.

8. STONE AGE SKELETONS: Evolutionary anthropologists say that the Stone Age lasted for at least 100,000 years, during which time the world population of Neanderthal and Cro-magnon men was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead with artefacts.[106] By this scenario, they would have buried at least four billion bodies. If the evolutionary time-scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 100,000 years, so many of the supposed four billion Stone Age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, a few hundred years in many areas.

9. JUVENILE WATER: It can be shown that the water of the ocean has been brought to the earth's surface in far less time than the supposed evolutionary age of the ocean. It is probable that at least a cubic mile of water is added annually to the waters of the ocean through juvenile sources, that is, from the mantle through volcanoes, hot springs, and other vents to the surface. There is a total amount of water on the earth's surface equal to 340 million cubic miles. Consequently, an upper limit to the age of the ocean (even under the unreasonable assumptions that there was no water in the ocean to start with and that volcanic activity in the past was no greater than present) could be only about 340 million years. Such a date would take us back about to the Silurian Period (the age of fish!).[107]

10. RIVER DELTAS: Careful studies of the volume and rate of accumulation of the delta of the Mississippi show that it could not be older than about 5,000 years.[108] This age is obtained by dividing the estimated weight of sediments deposited annually into the total estimated weight of the delta.

11. LACK OF HISTORY: According to evolutionists, Stone Age man existed for 100,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000-5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases. Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time-scale is much more likely.[109]

12. HIGH PRESSURE IN PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS WELLS: Petroleum and natural gas are held at high pressures in underground reservoirs of porous rock and sand. These fluids are retained in their reservoirs by relatively impermeable cap rock. However, in many cases the pressures are exceedingly high. Calculations based on the measured permeability of the cap rock show that the oil or gas pressure could not be maintained for much longer than 10,000 years or perhaps a maximum of 100,000 years. (Permeability is a measure of how easily fluids under pressure will seep through the rock.) If these fossil fuel deposits were actually millions or hundreds of millions of years old, they would long ago have leaked out through their cap rocks to the surface.[110]

13. OCEAN SEDIMENTS: The average depth of sediments on the ocean floors is only a little more than one-half mile. If the total weight of these sediments is divided by the estimated annual addition of sediments from the continents, the age thus calculated for the oceans is only about 33 million years. This is less than one percent of the currently accepted earth age of 4.5 billion years. In this calculation a correction has been made for the possible subduction (burial in the crust) of sediments underneath sliding tectonic plates. At present rates of erosion the continents should erode down to sea level in only about 14 million years, but there is no proof that they have yet been worn down even one time. Another way to put it is that billions of years of erosion and sedimentation should have loaded sixty miles of nonexistent sediments on the ocean floors.[111] From another perspective, the present load of sediments was probably mostly deposited very rapidly during the period of the global flood of Noah's time.

14. METEORITIC MATERIAL INFLUX: It is known that there is essentially a constant rate of cosmic dust particles entering the earth's atmosphere from space and then gradually settling to the earth's surface. The best measurements of this influx have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year. This amounts to 14x1019 pounds in 5 billion years. If we assume the density of compacted dust is, say, 140 pounds per cubic foot, this corresponds to a volume 0f 1018 cubic feet. Since the earth has a surface area of approximately 5.5x1015 square feet, this seems to mean that there should have accumulated during the 5 billion year age of the earth, a layer of meteoritic dust approximately 182 feet thick all over the world.

Lest anyone say that erosional and mixing processes account for the absence of the 182 foot meteoritic dust layer, it should be noted that the composition of such material is quite distinctive, especially in its content of nickel and iron. Nickel, for example, is a very rare element in the earth's crust and especially in the ocean. Pettersson estimated the average nickel of meteoritic dust to be 2.5 percent, approximately 300 times as great as in the earth's crust. Thus, if all the meteoritic dust layer had been dispersed by uniform mixing through the earth's crust, the thickness of crust involved (assuming no original nickel in the crust at all) would be 182x300 feet, or about 10 miles! Since the earth's crust (down to the mantle) averages only about 12 miles thick, this tells us that practically all the nickel in the crust of the earth would have been derived from meteoritic dust influx in the supposed age of the earth.

Another interesting calculation can be made by noting that river water carries about 0.75 billion pounds of nickel each year to the ocean and the ocean contains about 7,000 billion pounds. Thus the nickel dissolved in the ocean's waters could have accumulated from river flows in slightly over 9,000 years. Consequently the absence of the appropriate percentage of nickel arriving on the earth's surface from meteoritic in fall cannot be attributed to erosion and transportation to the ocean. The only possible way of accounting for the small amount of nickel found in the earth's crust and ocean seems to be in terms of an age for the earth of only a few thousand years.[112]

15. AGRICULTURE TOO RECENT: The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 100,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago. Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the four billion people said to have lived during the Stone Age, should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture less than a few hundred years after the flood, if at all.[113]

16. BINARY STARS: Binary stars ( two stars orbiting around their common center of gravity) are very numerous. Many such pairs consist of two very different types of stars, one theoretically very old and the other young. How could this be if they had to evolve together in order to form a pair? Such problems have frustrated theorists in their efforts to understand how binary stars could have evolved.[114]

17. PROBLEMS OF GALAXY FORMATION AND SHAPE: The galaxies are vast swarms of billions of stars interspersed with clouds of gas and dust. They supposedly evolved from great rotating clouds of gas and dust over periods of billions of years. However, if they are that old, the spiral galaxies should have their spiral arms all twisted up, wrapped around until they disappeared. Furthermore, the strange "barred" galaxies offer a particular problem which is poorly understood. Explanations of the physical forces which might preserve the barred structure for millions of years are highly speculative.[115

Furthermore, it has recently been concluded that the spiral galaxies appear to have the wrong amounts of random and rotational kinetic energy for stability. According to this view they all should long ago have degenerated into the barred form if they were actually billions of years old.[116]

Another difficult problem is posed by clusters of galaxies. The members of such a cluster are moving in different directions like a swarm of bees, and are supposedly held together by their mutual gravitational attraction. However, careful study has indicated that in some clusters there is not enough mass in all of the galaxies and the observed intergalactic matter to hold them together for millions of years.[117] In some clusters there appears to be only one-tenth to one-seventh of the required total mass. This suggests that the clusters and their member galaxies were created rather recently and are not actually billions of years old.

18. CARBON AND RADIOCARBON NOT AT EQUILIBRIUM: Probably the most important invalid assumption in radiocarbon dating now employed is that the C-14/C-12 ratio is in a steady state with time on a global basis. That is, the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere is assumed equal in amount to the worldwide decay of C-14, so that the total inventory remains the same. The attainment of such an equilibrium would require about 30,000 years after the process of radiocarbon formation began.

Furthermore, it is noted that the available measurements on the rate of formation of radiocarbon indicated it exceeded the annual worldwide decay rate by over 25 percent, but this discrepancy is generally attributed to inadequate measurements. However, since Libby first proposed this discrepancy, it has been confirmed by many other researchers. The most reasonable conclusion from this research is that the equilibrium has not been reached because the world is not yet 30,000 years old.

Melvin Cook has reviewed the relevant data concluding that the actual discrepancy is closer to 38 percent, making the earth and its atmosphere still younger. He has come up with a maximum age of the earth and atmosphere of plus or minus 10,000 years. Yet another scientist wants to push the ratio still smaller so that the earth's atmosphere could be dated at 5,000 years. It should be noted that large quantities of carbon would have been tied up during a global flood in limestone's and the like so that the actual dating is extremely close to the Bible's age of the earth.[118]

REFERENCES

1. THE WONDERS OF CREATION, Alfred M. Rehwinkel, 1974, Bethany Fellowship inc., Pages 19-20.

2. FROM GOD TO US, Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix,1974, Moody Press, Pages 159-161.

3. Ibid., Pages 19-20.

4. Ibid., Pages 18-19.

5. Ibid., Pages 17-18.

6. THE YOUNG EARTH, John D. Morris,Ph.D,1996, Master Books, Page 10.

7. Ibid., Page 11.

8. CREATION EX NIHILO, June-August 1997, Answers in Genesis.

9. EARTH'S MOST CHALLENGING MYSTERIES, Reginald Daly, 1972, The Craig Press, Page 215.

10. Ibid., page 91.

11. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Scott M. Huse, 1997, Baker Books, Pages 64-66.

12. IN THE MINDS OF MEN, Ian T. Taylor, 1994, TFE Publishing, Page 438.

13. Ibid, Pages 315-316.

14. GRAND CANYON MONUMENT TO CATASTROPHE, Steven A. Austin,Ph.D., 1994, I.C.R..

15. EARLY CAMBRIAN MARINE FAUNA, Daniel I. Axelrod, 1958, Science, vol. 128, Page 7.

16. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Dr. Henry M. Morris, 1996, Master Books, Pages 78-87.

17. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Scott Huse, 1997, Master Books, Pages 97-98.

18. THE YOUNG EARTH, Pages 100-102.

19. Ibid., Pages 94-96.

20. EARTH'S MOST CHALLENGING MYSTERIES, Page 254.

21. Ibid., Page 134.

22. CREATION'S TINY MYSTERY, Dr. Robert V. Gentry, 1992, Earth Science Associates.

23. THE YOUNG EARTH, Pages 96-97.

24. Ibid., Pages 97-98.

25. Ibid., Pages 106-108.

26. IN THE BEGINNING, Dr. Walt Brown, 1995, Center for Scientific Creation, Page 87.

27. WHERE IS THE EARTH'S RADIOGENIC HELIUM?, M. A. Cook, 1957, Nature magazine, vol. 179.

28. A SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS OF GENESIS, Dr. Edward F. Blick, 1991, Hearthstone Publishing Inc..

29. WHAT IS CREATION SCIENCE?, Dr. Henry Morris and Dr. Gary Parker, 1996, Master Books.

30. THE YOUNG EARTH, Pages 109-111

31. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Page 25.

32. Ibid., Page 25.

33. IN THE GAME OF ENERGY AND THERMODYNAMICS, YOU CAN'T EVEN BREAK EVEN, Isaac Asimov, June 1970, Journal of the Smithsonian Institute, Page 8.

34. ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE, Freeman J. Dyson, September 1971, Scientific American, Page 52.

35. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Page 39.

36. IN THE MINDS OF MEN, Pages 180-181.

37. CREATION EX NIHILO, Wayne Spencer, M.S., June-August 1997, Answers in Genesis, Page 29.

38. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Pages 20-30.

39. IN THE BEGINNING, Page 30.

40. CREATION EX NIHILO, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, June-August 1997, Answers in Genesis, Pages 46-48.

41. IN THE BEGINNING, Page 30.

42. Ibid., Page 28.

43. CREATION EX NIHILO, Editors, June-August 1998, Answers in Genesis.

44. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Pages 117-124.

45. CREATION EX NIHILO, Lane Lester, March-May 1998, Answers in Genesis.

46. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Pages 24-27.

47. Ibid., Page 27.

48. HANDY DANDY EVOLUTION REFUTER, R. E. Kofahl, 1977, Beta Books, Pages 24-26.

49. Ibid., Page 26.

50. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, PAGE 29.

51. THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST, Jobe Martin, 1994, Biblical Discipleship Publishers, Pages 151-152.

52. SCIENCE: ORDER AND REALITY, Dewitt Steele, 1980, A Beka Book Publications, Page 138.

53. THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST, Page 101-102.

54. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Pages 30-31.

55. TIME MAGAZINE, Natalie Angier, February 25, 1985, Page 70.

56. THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST, Pages 29-31.

57. FLICKERING, FLASHING FIREFLIES, Lanny and Marilyn Johnson, September/October 1998, Alpha Omega Institute.

58. INSECT FLIGHT: TESTIMONY TO CREATION, Stephen M. Butt, July 1981, Creation Science Movement No. 226, Page 4.

59. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Pages 35-37.

60. Ibid., Page 37

61. CREATION EX NIHILO, Rodney McQueen, June-August 1997, Answers in Genesis, Pages 44-45.

62. Ibid., Page 34.

63. CREATION EX NIHILO, Dr. Robert Kofahl and Tom Wagner, September-November 1992, Answers in Genesis.

64. FLAWS IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, E. Shute, Page 87.

65. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Pages 38-39.

66. FLAWS IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, Page 108.

67. THE FOSSILS STILL SAY NO, Dr. Duane Gish, 1994, Master Books.

68. THE CREATION-EVOLUTION CONTROVERSY, R. L. Wysong, 1981, Inquiry Press, Page 296.

69. THE FOSSILS SAY NO!, Dr. Duane Gish, 1976, Creation-Life Publishers, Page 103.

70. ORIGIN OF MANKIND, Dr. Gary Parker, November 1981, Institute for Creation Research impact no. 101, Page 4.

71. DID MAN JUST HAPPEN?, W. A. Criswell, 1973, Zondervan Publishing, Page 89.

72. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, pages 134-135.

73. DID MAN JUST HAPPEN?, Page 86.

74. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Pages 138-139.

75. NATURAL HISTORY, R. H. Tuttle, Page 87.

76. IN THE MINDS OF MEN, Pages 215-218.

77. BONES OF CONTENTION, Marvin L. Lubenow, 1997, Baker Books, Page 171.

78. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Page 144.

79. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Pages 75-78.

80. THE COLLAPSE OF EVOLUTION, Pages 147-148.

81. Ibid., Pages 148-149.

82. IN THE MINDS OF MEN, Pages 153-155.

83. A GUIDE TO THE PRACTICE OF MODERN TAXONOMY, G. W. Richards, March 13, 1970, Science vol. 167, Page 1477.

84. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Pages 71-72.

85. THE NATURAL SCIENCES KNOW NOTHING OF EVOLUTION, A. E. Wilder-Smith, 1981, Master Books.

86. ORGANIC CHEMISTRY, R. T. Morrison and R. N. Boyd, 1987, Allyn & Bacon Inc, Page 150.

87. PREPARATION OF CHIRAL COMPOUNDS WITH HIGH OPTICAL PURITY BY IRRADIATION WITH CIRCULARLY POLARISED LIGHT, G. Belavoine, A. Moradpour and H. B. Kagan, 1974, American Chemical Society 96, Pages 5152-58.

88. As stated by Cohen in Science 267:1265-1266, 1995.

89. CHEMICAL EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGIN OF LIFE, A. Amariglio and H. Amariglio, 1971, North-Holland Publishing Co.

90. ORIGINS OF CHIRALITY IN NATURE: A REASSESSMENT OF THE POSTULATED ROLE OF BENTONITE, B. Youatt and R. D. Brown, 1981, Science 212, Pages 1145-46.

91. ANNALES DE CHIMIE PHYSIQUE, L. Pasteur, 1848, Pages 442-459.

92. ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF LIVING SYSTEMS, J. Brooks and G. Shaw, 1973, Academic Press, Page 359.

93. THE MYSTERY OF LIFE'S ORIGIN, Thaxton, Bradley and Olsen, 1984, Philosophical Library Inc.

94. YOUNG AGE FOR THE MOON AND EARTH, Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, August 1982, Institute for Creation Research.

95. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Pages 157-158.

96. HANDY DANDY EVOLUTION REFUTER, Page 1.

97. TIGHT FOLDS AND CLASTIC DIKES AS EVIDENCE FOR RAPID DEPOSITION AND DEFORMATION OF TWO VERY THICK STRATIGRAPHIC SEQUENCES, S. A. Austin and J. D. Morris, 1986, Creation Science Fellowship, Pages 3-15.

98. ANNUAL REVIEW OF NUCLEAR SCIENCE, Robert V. Gentry, 1973, Page 247.

99. RADIOHALOS IN COALIFIED WOOD: NEW EVIDENCE RELATING TO TIME OF URANIUM INTRODUCTION AND COALIFICATION, Robert V. Gentry, 15 October 1976, Science 194, Pages 315-318.

100. THE AGE OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, Larry Vardiman, 1990, Institute for Creation Research.

101. THE ESCAPE OF HELIUM FROM THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, G. J. F. MacDonald, 1964, John Wiley and Sons, Page 127.

102. THEORY OF PLANETARY ATMOSPHERES, Joseph W. Chamberlain and Donald M. Hunten, 1987, Academic Press, Page 372.

103. THE AGE OF THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE, Pages 24-25.

104. DIFFERENTIAL HELIUM RETENTION IN ZIRCONS: IMPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT, R. V. Gentry, October 1982, Geophysical Research Letters, Pages 1129-1130.

105. HEAT CONDUCTION WITH ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL, AND OTHER APPLICATIONS,, Ingersoll, Zobell, and Ingersoll, 1954, University of Wisconsin Press, Pages 99-107.

106. THE HUMAN POPULATION, E. S. Deevey, September 1960, Scientific American 203, Pages 194-204.

107. THE GENESIS FLOOD, H. M. Morris and J. C. Whitcomb, 1961, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Pages 357-359.

108. Benjamin F. Allen, September 1972, Creation Research Society Quarterly 9, Pages 96-114.

109. MAN'S EARLIEST BEGINNINGS: DISCREPANCIES IN THE EVOLUTIONARY TIMETABLE, J. O. Dritt, 1990, 2nd Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pages 73-78.

110. P. Dickey, 10 May 1968, Science 160, Page 609.

111. CREATION-ACTS, FACTS, IMPACTS, S. E. Nevins, 1974, Institute for Creation Research, Page 164.

112. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Pages 151-153.

113. EXPLORING THE MIND OF ICE AGE MAN, A. Marshak, January 1975, National Geographic 147, Pages 64-87.

114. THE FLAMMARION BOOK OF ASTRONOMY, Camiolle Flammarion, 1964, Simon and Schuster, Page 435.

115. ASTRONOMY, Fred Hoyle, 1962, Rathbone Books Ltd., Page 285.

116. ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, J. P. Ostiker and P. J. E. Peebles, 1 December 1973, Pages 467-480.

117. Margon, Bruce, Mercury, January-February 1975, Page 6.

118. SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM, Pages 164-167.

119. THE EVOLUTION OF A CREATIONIST, Pages 139-141.

120. THE NATURAL LIMITS TO BIOLOGICAL CHANGE, Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, 1984, Pages 24-26.