You are on page 1of 18




{    there lived an Emperor who was so exceedingly fond of fine new clothes that he spent
vast sums of money on dress. To him clothes meant more than anything else in the world. He took no
interest in his army, nor did he care to go to the theatre, or to drive about in his state coach, unless it
was to display his new clothes. He had different robes for every single hour of the day.

In the great city where he lived life was gay and strangers were always coming and going. Everyone
knew about the Emperor's passion for clothes.

Now one fine day two swindlers, calling themselves weavers, arrived. They declared that they could
make the most magnificent cloth that one could imagine; cloth of most beautiful colours and elaborate
patterns. Not only was the material so beautiful, but the clothes made from it had the special power of
being invisible to everyone who was stupid or not fit. for his post.

"What a splendid idea," thought the Emperor. "What useful clothes to have. If I had such a suit of
clothes I could know at once which of my people is stupid or unfit for his post."

So the Emperor gave the swindlers large sums of money and the two weavers set up their looms in the
palace. They demanded the finest thread of the best silk and the finest gold and they pretended to work
at their looms. But they put nothing on the looms. The frames stood empty. The silk and gold thread
they stuffed into their bags. So they sat pretending to weave, and continued to work at the empty loom
till late into the night. Night after night they went home with their money and their bags full of the finest
silk and gold thread. Day after day they pretended to work.

Now the Emperor was eager to know how much of the cloth was finished, and would have loved to see
for himself. He was, however, somewhat uneasy. "Suppose," he thought secretly, "suppose I am unable
to see the cloth. That would mean I am either stupid or unfit for my post. That cannot be," he thought,
but all the same he decided to send for his faithful old minister to go and see. "He will best be able to
see how the cloth looks. He is far from stupid and splendid at his work."

So the faithful old minister went into the hall where the two weavers sat beside the empty looms
pretending to work with all their might.

The Emperor's minister opened his eyes wide. "Upon my life!" he thought. "I see nothing at all, nothing."
But he did not say so.

The two swindlers begged him to come nearer and asked him how he liked it. "Are not the colors
exquisite, and see how intricate are the patterns," they said. The poor old minister stared and stared.
Still he could see nothing, for there was nothing. But he did not dare to say he saw nothing. "Nobody
must find out,"' thought he. "I must never confess that I could not see the stuff."
"Well," said one of the rascals. "You do not say whether it pleases you."

"Oh, it is beautiful-most excellent, to be sure. Such a beautiful design, such exquisite colors. I shall tell
the Emperor how enchanted) I am with the cloth."

"We are very glad to hear that," said the weavers, and they started to describe the colors and patterns
in great detail. The old minister listened very carefully so that he could repeat the description to the
Emperor. They also demanded more money and more gold thread, saying that they needed it to finish
the cloth. But, of course, they put all they were given into their bags and pockets and kept on working at
their empty looms.

Soon after this the Emperor sent another official to see how the men were ,getting on and to ask
whether the cloth would soon be ready. Exactly the same happened with him as with the minister. He
stood and stared, but as there was nothing to be seen, he could see nothing.

"Is not the material beautiful?" said the swindlers, and again they talked of 'the patterns and the
exquisite colors. "Stupid I certainly am not," thought the official. "Then I must be unfit for my post. But
nobody shall know that I could not see the material." Then he praised the material he did not see and
declared that he was delighted with the colors and the marvelous patterns.

To the Emperor he said when he returned, "The cloth the weavers are preparing is truly magnificent."

Everybody in the city had heard of the secret cloth and were talking about the splendid material.

And now the Emperor was curious to see the costly stuff for himself while it was still upon the looms.
Accompanied by a number of selected ministers, among whom were the two poor ministers who had
already been before, the Emperor went to the weavers. There they sat in front of the empty looms,
weaving more diligently than ever, yet without a single thread upon the looms.

"Is not the cloth magnificent?" said the two ministers. "See here, the splendid pattern, the glorious
colors." Each pointed to the empty loom. Each thought that the other could see the material.

"What can this mean?" said the Emperor to himself. "This is terrible. Am I so stupid? Am I not fit to be
Emperor? This is disastrous," he thought. But aloud he said, "Oh, the cloth is perfectly wonderful. It has
a splendid pattern and such charming colors." And he nodded his approval and smiled appreciatively
and stared at the empty looms. He would not, he could not, admit he saw nothing, when his two
ministers had praised the material so highly. And all his men looked and looked at the empty looms. Not
one of them saw anything there at all. Nevertheless, they all said, "Oh, the cloth is magnificent."

They advised the Emperor to have some new clothes made from this splendid material to wear in the
great procession the following day.

"Magnificent." "Excellent." "Exquisite," went from mouth to mouth and everyone was pleased. Each of
the swindlers was given a decoration to wear in his button-hole and the title of "Knight of the Loom".
The rascals sat up all that night and worked, burning more than sixteen candles, so that everyone could
see how busy they were making the suit of clothes ready for the procession. Each of them had a great
big pair of scissors and they cut in the air, pretending to cut the cloth with them, and sewed with
needles without any thread.

There was great excitement in the palace and the Emperor's clothes were the talk of the town. At last
the weavers declared that the clothes were ready. Then the Emperor, with the most distinguished
gentlemen of the court, came to the weavers. Each of the swindlers lifted up an arm as if he were
holding something. "Here are Your Majesty's trousers," said one. "This is Your Majesty's mantle," said
the other. "The whole suit is as light as a spider's web. Why, you might almost feel as if you had nothing
on, but that is just the beauty of it."

"Magnificent," cried the ministers, but they could see nothing at all. Indeed there was nothing to be

"Now if Your Imperial Majesty would graciously consent to take off your clothes," said the weavers, "we
could fit on the new ones." So the Emperor laid aside his clothes and the swindlers pretended to help
him piece by piece into the new ones they were supposed to have made.

The Emperor turned from side to side in front of the long glass as if admiring himself.

"How well they fit. How splendid Your Majesty's robes look: What gorgeous colors!" they all said.

"The canopy which is to be held over Your Majesty in the procession is waiting," announced the Lord
High Chamberlain.

"I am quite ready," announced the Emperor, and he looked at himself again in the mirror, turning from
side to side as if carefully examining his handsome attire.

The courtiers who were to carry the train felt about on the ground pretending to lift it: they walked on
solemnly pretending to be carrying it. Nothing would have persuaded them to admit they could not see
the clothes, for fear they would be thought stupid or unfit for their posts.

And so the Emperor set off under the high canopy, at the head of the great procession- .It was a great
success. All the people standing by and at the windows cheered and cried, "Oh, how splendid are the
Emperor's new clothes. What a magnificent train! How well the clothes fit!" No one dared to admit that
he couldn't see anything, for who would want it to be known that he was either stupid or unfit for his

None of the Emperor's clothes had ever met with such success.

But among the crowds a little child suddenly gasped out, "But he hasn't got anything on." And the
people began to whisper to one another what the child had said. "He hasn't got anything on." "There's a
little child saying he hasn't got anything on." Till everyone was saying, "But he hasn't got anything on."
The Emperor himself had the uncomfortable feeling that what they were whispering was only too true.
"But I will have to go through with the procession," he said to himself.

So he drew himself up and walked boldly on holding his head higher than before, and the courtiers held
on to the train that wasn't there at all.

We shall see that the theory of evolution is much like the Emperors cloth. People are afraid to admit
that they cannot see how it is true, for only someone stupid or unfit for his position can͛t see it. They are
forced into saying they see something that they never have seen and all are afraid to admit that they
have never seen it either.


Slide The effects of evolution:

m? Probably the most influential world-view to effect the human race
? Made atheism intellectually credible and therefore many gave it thought
m? Has touched and molded every field and discipline
m? Has touched the arts, humanities, social theories, governments, societies, education etc
m? Was partially used to justify the holocaust
? Darwin influenced Fredrick Nechea, and Hitler read Fredrick͛s work

Slide ͞According to evolutionary psychology, it is ͚natural͛ for both men and women ʹ at some times,
under some circumstances ʹ to commit adultery.͟ a  

This way of thinking radically changes our morality, turning it upside-down. Gay marriage is but a
youthful step in the long scheme of marital depravity of Darwinism.?Infidelity ʹ natural for everyone to
do, says evolution. After all, monkeys are not monogamous and in many instances it would not be in our
best interest to be either. This radically changes our morality and it especially affects the traditional
understanding of family and marriage. This is a slippery slope that leads to all sorts of things like NMBLA,
marrying animals, etc. But in all honesty those actions, as we will see, cannot be condoned because
there is no morality on which to establish that an action is wrong. Everything becomes subjective ʹ open
to your personal opinion.

Slide Even theology has not escaped the influence of evolution!    has become the norm
in many contemporary churches. There are even SDA who are getting sucked into this. Our Church had
to hold a conference to make sure that we could, as a denomination, state that Evolution is false.

Slide ͞Untold damage has been wrought, especially during the past century, by this dismal doctrine that
man is merely an evolved animal. Racism, economic imperialism, Communism, Nazism, sexual
promiscuity and perversions, aggressive militarism, infanticide, genocide, and all sorts of evils have been
vigorously promoted by one group of another on the grounds that, since they were based on evolution,
they were ͚scientific͛ and, therefore, bound to prove beneficial in the long run.͟      

Slide? ?

͞The diversity of live on earth is the outcome of evolution: an  ! 

! , unpredictable
and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection,
chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.͟  " 
 $            %$&
m? Although it steers clear of the debate on origins it certainly infers it. No one supervised it ʹ there
was nothing personal ʹ like for example of God of Love who formed us from the dust of the
earth and breathed into us the breath of life. No God who prepared an earth as a home and
carefully set man in the perfect environment. No it was impersonal ʹ purely by chance.

Slide Naturalism ʹ ͞(philosophy) the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms
without recourse to spiritual or supernatural explanations.͟

m? Evolution is a stem of naturalism. We will discuss this in greater depth in a little while but here is
a basic overview. In order to believe in Evolution you are from the very onset saying that you
cannot have anything spiritual or supernatural. That is the foundation for the entire philosophy.
So then when something extraordinary happens you have to look for an ordinary, natural cause
ʹ miracles cannot happen.
m? Now there is a whole movement to push ͞Theistic Evolution͟ but how can this even make

Slide Theistic Evolution: [Theos: God] [Evolution: impersonal, unsupervised] completely nonsensical
(inviting redicule ʹ having no intelligent meaning). Theistic evolution does not work: It throws off life
without death or sin. This is totally unbiblical

m? If God evolved man into being and all he did was get the ball rolling, why would He give us
prophesy? Why would He care about what we know about the future?
m? According to evolution, benevolence (disposition to do good) is an illusion; it is actually
selfishness. Then Jesus was selfish.
m? There is no Biblical account of long ages - anywhere
m? Makes the Sabbath meaningless and God a liar (He commands us to rest as He did)
m? Jesus interpreted the OT as authoritative
m? Theistic evolution undermines the resurrection of Jesus, of mankind at the second coming, and
eternal blissful life
m? We will mention more about this in a little bit

Slide ͞Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.͟ † 
    '   # ()(
m? My Bible tells me that God created a whole world that was perfectly suited and designed with
man in mind. The anthropic principle shows that indeed the whole universe seems to be
specifically designed, in every detail, with life in mind.

Slide?  ?  ?

m? By definition, the supernatural (God) is excluded from the process of evolution
m? Evolution was born from a desire to explain the origin of species and life itself from a purely
naturalistic construct (variety + origin - God)
m? Evolution, as defined above, is a philosophical commitment to strict naturalism, rather than an
unbiased commitment to the evidence

Slide Evolution precludes (makes impossible) even the possibility of Divine guidance, supervision, and
intervention, so the fact that natural explanations are ͞discovered͟ which explain the world around us
should not be surprising! Naturalistic explanations are   *!       + 
   Evolution, then, is true because it must be true, again by definition. Here the proponents of
naturalistic evolution commit a serious logical error, as evolution reduces to little more than a    
(something that is true by definition).

Slide ͞We are here because one group of fishes had a peculiar fin anatomy that could transform into
legs for terrestrial creatures; because comets struck the earth and wiped out dinosaurs, thereby giving
mammals a chance not otherwise available (so thank your lucky stars in a literal sense); because the
earth never froze entirely during an ice age; because a small and tenuous species, arising in Africa a
quarter of a million years ago, has managed, so far, to survive by hook and crook. We may yearn for a
͚higher͛ answerͶbut none exists. This explanation, though superficially troubling, if not terrifying, is
ultimately liberating and exhilarating.͟ ! ,  †       - !((

m? The liberation comes from not being accountable to morality; to God. They want to be free to
sin and to pursue their desires. If there is no God then there is no accountability and you can
deny that your conscience has any real significance.
m? Ned the naturalist will not, nay   find God. It is necessary for him to keep God out of the
picture. He sees the red macaw and has to see evolution.
m? Sammy the spiritual sees the macaw and sees design and creation. We will see that from a
strictly scientific standpoint it is a far better conclusion.
m? Evolution is not a commitment to the evidence as much as it is a philosophical pre-commitment
to a naturalistic world view.

Slide Statements like Gould͛s (quoted above) are not scientific statements, they are philosophical
statements. One could easily ask him, ͞Sir, in which laboratory did you demonstrate your hypothesis
that ͚no higher answer exists͛? To what temperature was the Bunsen burner heated for this particular

V   ?????  ?  ?

Slide True science (a first-order discipline) must meet the four essential criteria: DORF. beyond this you
are in the realm of philosophy (2nd order discipline).

1st order: Biology, Geology, Chemistry, Physics ʹ observational

2nd order: Psychology, philology, social science, political science, etc ʹ They take info from 1st order and
draw conclusions from them for the world.

In order to be a 1st order it MUST complete all of the following

m? ëemonstrable
m? ubservable
m? ´epeatable
m?  alsifiable
? Defn: Capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation.
? Our hypothesis is if we throw the marker up, it will come down. Can we imagine or
demonstrate a scenario where the hypothesis is false? (marker staying up in the air). If
we cannot even conceive that this could be wrong then it is useless to test this.

So the question that is begging to be asked is, ͞What 1st order experiment proved or even pointed to the
2nd order statement made?͟

Slide Because of the strictly defined naturalistic parameters that accompany evolution, it is true by
definition (and therefore not falsifiable). Evidence ͞supports͟ evolution because it must. Thus evolution
becomes a pre-commitment to an ideology (methodological naturalism) more than a commitment to
the evidence. This produces, then, the emperor͛s new clothes. Phenomenon, where people are forced
to see what may not even be there.
m? Remember the story of the emperor͛s new clothing. No one sees it but no one admits he can͛t
see it in order to make himself sound smart (intelligence was needed to see it)
m? By definition you cannot disprove evolution ʹ you cannot test it or back it up ʹ it is a religion,
not science. People are being forced to see something that is not there in evolution because
their world view necessitates it being there.

Slide Inadequacy of Evolution:

*     V 

Ô ?? ?
 ??  ??   ?  ? ?? ???  ?
 ??Ô ??? ?  ?? ? ?? ????
??   ?Ô ?? ???? ! ?" ?# ? "??
 ?  ? ? ?? ?? ?$ ?Ô ?? ? ? ??  ?
  ?  ?Ô ?  ?$"? ? ? ?? ???? ??
%&??'(? ?$&?? ?)%&?**+,?# ?? ? ??? ?
? ???" ?)?Ô ? *!-?? ?+!.? ? ?*,?#?
&? ???$??  ?? ?  ? ? ?  ?/ ?) ?#?**!+,?
Ô ??$?? ? ? ?0"?Ô? ? ? ?  ? ? ? ?
 ??Ô ???11? ?? ? ??2?!?? ?0"?
Ô? ??? ? ?0"?Ô? ? ???" ?? ?"?
'?3 ??  ?? ? ? ?? "??

Ô ?4 ?Ô? ??  ?   ?? ?5&? ?2?'$?6 ?7?

 ??  ? ? " ? ?"?  ?? ?  ??"&?8 ?? ??&?
??/? ?5&? ?2? ?? ???$? ?? ? ? ?
 ???9 ? ? ??"??  ?? ?# ?"?"? ?'?
&? ? ?'? ? ?5$ ?"?"?"?" ? ? ?2?? ?
 ? ????? ? ?? ??? ?? ? ?Ô ??  ?
$??? ? ?" ?  ??"&?"? ?2? ?$ ?  ??  : ?
?? ?"? ? ?? ? ? ? ?  ? ? :??"& ?"? ?
 ?? ? ? ? ??5$ ?

1.? No long ages in Genesis 1 and 2

? Yom = day. It can mean: 12 hr, 24 hr, or indefinite amount of time.
? 12 hrs: ͞we were there all day͟
? 24 hrs: ͞we are going there for 10 days͟
? indefinite: ͞This is a new day for Canada!͟
? in Hebrew, whenever Yom was modified with a number, it is always a 24 hour period
? ͞The evening and the morning were the first day͟=͞the eve and morn were day 1͟
? Exodus 20 : on the ͞6th day͟ (6th 24 hr period). God would be made a liar if he said ͞Do
like I did and follow my example͟ if He never actually gave us the example. Either he
worked 6 days and then rested the 7th or He didn͛t. He is either a liar or He isn͛t.
2.? No long ages anywhere in the Bible. Like mentioned above, this would make God a liar.
3.? It totally undermines Sabbath command. In Ex 20 and Rev 14 we are reminded to worship our
creator and this is done by observing the Sabbath. It is completely meaningless without
4.? NT writers affirm creation account
? Unanimous affirmation of this. Jesus himself upheld the mosaic account of creation. Are
all NT authors and Jesus himself wrong? Matthew 19:4.
5.? Turns loving God into killer
? Romans 5:12 ʹ man before sin before death. Evolution works on death: predators,
parasites, disease͙ Therefore death, killing, etc would precede sin but this all is post-
sin! It undermines ͞the wages of sin is death.͟ There was no death in the world before
man according to the Bible ʹ this throws out ͞survival of fittest͟ from the very onset.
m? ͞Theistic evolution means design by chance. That's like square circles, ladies and gentlemen.
There is no such thing.͟ "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl

š     V 

1.? By definition it is not a science but a theory because it fails the test of a 1st order discipline.
2.? It cannot explain the origin of life: Biogenesis
? They say the leap between monkeys and man is a big one. An exponentially greater leap
is the one from non-living molecules to a single, simple cell. As we saw before the idea
of life from non-life is extremely problematic. From the very onset the theory of
Evolution cannot even get off the ground scientifically.
3.? The extrapolation from micro-evolution to macro-evolution unfounded
? Dogs: bred for thousands of years into many different breeds: adaptations. No dog has
been bred into an animal that can no longer be called dogs
? Finches: different beaks. All are finches but different bills. In the Galapagos, there are 10
year cycles of wet/dry. In a cycle with a lot of rain there are plump, juicy berries. No
special beak is required for this. In the dry time the berries are tough and need a larger
beak to be broken and eaten.
? Darwin thought that the adaptation was directional, but it is indeed cyclical.
÷? Darwin͛s thought was that the micro changes in adaptation would over a large
period of time turn into macro-changes, changing the species completely, giving
bio-diversity. This was shown to be false in that it naturally reverts back over a
period of time ʹ all micro changes are cyclical.
÷? We have seen that cross species mutations have never occurred, and as the
fossil record shows, it never has occurred. We can push a species to its extremes
through micro changes but never so that it becomes a new species.
? Flies are another wonderful example. Because of their incredibly short lifespan they are
able to reproduce extremely quickly. After literally hundreds of thousands of
generations guess what? Still just have normal flies. If you bread them in such a way that
you will get genetic mutations the genes will always revert themselves so even if one fly
has 6 wings its children will go back to just 2. And every mutation is a hindrance ʹ there
has never been shown to be a single positive genetic mutation that can even be passed
on to its children. This is something that is foundational to the theory of evolution.
÷? Since 1910, over 3,000 mutations in Fruit Flies have been documented, yet
there is no documentation of a Fruit Fly evolving into something else.
? Evolutionists say that biological life forms change in an ͞upward͟ direction, becoming
more and more complex, through spontaneous mutation of genetic information.
However, the word mutation means by definition ͞copying error.͟ A mutation is a
structural change in the hereditary material which makes the offspring different from
the parents. Mutations are errors in copying the genetic codes.
? Slide - Quick discussion on Genetics. Here are some facts about genetics.
÷?    mutations are harmful, since they are, by definition, copying errors. Only a
perfect copy of previously existing information is desirable. Anything else is a
copying error, and that means that the information will become worse, not
better, over time.
÷? V  mutations are rare and beneficial ones are unknown. You can͛t get
better than perfection. Any copy must either remain perfect, or if a change does
occur, then that change would have to go ͞downhill.͟ Consider these examples.
What happens when a story is retold from one person to another in a string of
ten people? Do we end up with the original story? What would happen if a
blind, tone-deaf person were to randomly change the tension of the strings on a
perfectly tuned piano? Would the piano stay in tune? Would he ever get it back
in perfect tune by random chance? These are useful examples of what happens
when mutations occur.
÷? Ô   mutations do not create new organs; they only modify existing ones. We
have never seen a new organ appear fully developed and ready to use. We have
seen existing organs become deformed and unusable through mutation.
÷?     mutations do not accumulate; that is, they do not build, or have an
additive effect, one after another to form a chain of major evolutionary
changes. Any change that does occur is diluted in the very next generation so
that there is no long term net beneficial effect.
  mutations lead to the wrong kind of change. What occurs is only the
deterioration and corruption of the previous information, not the building up of
information and structures.
÷? The Laws of Genetics do not fit with the random chance progressively ͞upward͟
increase in either intelligence or complexity which the theories of evolution
would require. The Laws of Genetics were written by the Creator to maintain
and preserve the information that He had encoded in the original kinds as
described in Genesis Chapter One.
? Evolutionists claim we came from Apes. They have 83% of the same DNA so of course
that seems pretty close. The problem is we are 50% the same as a banana, 60% the
same as chickens, 88% the same as rats and sea squids. So a logical thinking man would
say we either came from rats or sea squids instead of apes because they are more
similar in genetic makeup and would require less mutation to transform. You would be
hard pressed to say we came from bananas and yet theoretically it is barely less
plausible than apes.
? Evolution says that it works trans-speciary ʹ this is completely illogical and unscientific.
The Bible says ͞let them bring forth fruit after their kind͟ which is logical and completely
scientific. It is far more scientific to trust the Biblical account than to deny scientific laws.
4.? Slide - It requires faith, making it just about like any other religion out there. You cannot PROVE
that evolution is true. You cannot prove that the earth is billions of years old. You cannot prove
that each layer of the earth͛s surface = tens of millions of years. You merely have to believe it by
faith because no scientist can prove it to be true ʹ hence it is a THEORY. A 2nd order discipline.
We will continue to see more evidence for this under the philosophical problems with evolution.
5.? There is also no uniform scientific consensus on mechanism
? Darwin posited the gradualism model for the theory of evolution. This is where micro
changes occur over millions of years and add up to macro changes in the end. The
anticipation of the fossil record was that there would be in steps between the species
today, and other species, and extinct species. Instead, there is well-defined speciation.
? The evidence they were looking for would simply never support Darwin͛s ͞gradualism͟
theory so new models had to be created:
÷? Punctuated equilibrium
m? Organisms exist in a certain way for 1000͛s of years and then are
punctuated by a sudden change
m? Needs something else, Genetic mutation. So we must ask, ͞when have
we ever seen a good genetic mutation?͟ Never! And the scientists all
agree with this but still claim that sometimes it must have happened.
m? This says that in one generation an enormous step can be taken in one
single step. Of course this has never been seen͙EVER. That͛s why it͛s a
theory called evolution.
m? (genetic mutations) most genetic mutations are bad. But the good ones
mutations, according to evolutionists just breed lots and then here
comes a new species. This has never happened ʹ remember the case
with the flies over all their generations. Their idea sounds something
like, ͞The lizard laid an egg and the beaver came out.͟ (hardly an
m? They would claim that these changes could not be detectable in the
fossil record and so this gets them out of one predicament as we will
soon see.
÷? Most people believe in a mix of both previous ʹ Neo-Darwinism. They have to
keep updating their views because the more research they conduct the more it
disproves their own theories.
w ? Ô ? ? ? ?
m? Evolutionists claim that the first living unicellular organism came from a gew pond
containing a few elements (hydrogen and probably helium) that was struck by lightning.
The problem is that you cannot have oxygen in the atmosphere in order for the lightning
gue pond thing to work. There are only two options for the environment: reducing or
non-reducing. In a reducing environment any oxygen would be instantly removed. So in
order to get life you would also have to have oxygen magically appear when life came.
Now you could say it was not a reducing environment but in that case everything would
have had to explode. Either way it would have to take a miracle for that theory to be
plausible under any circumstances.
7.? ´   ?? ?  ? ʹ Uranium-lead dating, lead-lead dating, carbon dating,
potassium-argon dating.
m? First off, think about how we measure time. Stopwatch, alarm clock, calendar. They all
measure time but over vastly different periods of time. They all have a function but they
cannot be interchanged. The same basic idea comes in with radiometric dating methods.
There are lots of different methods and they are useful for measuring certain periods
but there are some major pitfalls if they are used inappropriately.
m? Carbon 14 dating ʹ First of all they would never use carbon dating for something that is
millions of years old. Someone who claims this has never studied this. Go ask any
scientists and they will say that is simply not how it would work. Carbon dating is only
for things that are relatively young ʹ like a few thousand years max.
i.? Living mollusk shells have been dated at being 2300 years old.
ii.? They carbon dated a seal as dying 1300 years ago.
iii.? Shells from living snails were dated at being 27,000 years old.
iv.? When they found a frozen wholly mammoth up north they dated part of it as
being 29,500 years old and another part as being 44,000 years old.
v.? There is no way that anyone would use its predictions to make any strong
scientific claim because it would be laughable at best.
vi.? Also, it is interesting to note that carbon 14 dating only can date organic
substances, nothing like rocks. Anyone who claims that does not know what
they are talking about.
m? Uranium-lead dating, potassium-argon dating and lead-lead dating. Basically these
dating methods all work on the principle of the slow decay of certain isotopes of
elements and compare their ratios. So if you have a 70/30 ratio of two lead isotopes you
can then theorize about how long it would take to go from 100/0 to 70/30.
m? Assumptions ʹ and these are some HUGE assumptions.
i.? The rate of decay (the half life) has remained constant over time. Is there
uniform degradation? Are there inhibitors/catalysts to slow/speed the process?
They do this in the lab all the time so why don͛t we think it could ever happen in
nature? What about the natural seepage of minerals down through rocks? Of
course they know this occurs so why is it so crazy to think that lead, uranium or
potassium never get washed down through the layers of rock over time and
accumulate there?
ii.? The ͞clock͟ was set to zero when the material formed. How do we know when it
was born? We have to suppose that ͞clock͟ that consists of two isotopes would
have to have only 1 of these isotopes (the parent one). You have to assume that
absolutely none of the child product was there to begin with but this is
unrealistic and unscientific because it is always there.
1.? Ô ?  ?  . A group of scientists got together and asked how
they could know if their dating methods were right. They decided to test
something they knew how old it was. When lava rock comes into the air
and cools that is said to be year 0 on the rock͛s clock. So they would test
lava flows that they knew exactly when they came. They sent in rocks
from New Zealand. They sent in samples from 1949, 1954 and 1975 ʹ
they knew the dates because people were there to see when the flows
came. They sent it to the Gechron Laboratory in Cambridge Mass ʹ
these guys are the best in the field. Out of 13 samples the dates ranged
from between 270,000 years old and 3.5 million years old. With lead-
lead dating they were closer to 4 billion years old ʹ the reality is that it
does not work ʹ at all, ever.
2.? The margin of error is shown to be about 7,000,000%?- you would be far
more accurate to just guess any random number then to trust these
methods of dating.
m?  ?  layers give a record of years. There are layers in ice cores in various locations
around the world and we can count hundreds of thousands of layers; 135,000 of these
at least. This proved that it was much older than the Bible said. So oh no, what do we do
because if you get one ring per year then that is hundreds of thousands of years. Now in
recent years there was an event right after WWII ʹ squad of P51s go down on
Greenland. 48 years later they go back to get them and they are 263 feet down (about
105m) in ice and have thousands of layers above them͙how did thousands of years
occur in 48 years? Was the time wrong or the theory about the time wrong? They knew
exactly how long it took to build that ice so only the method could be at fault. Turns out
that you can get many layers per day and they form from even sunny and cloudy periods
within a day.
U     V 
1.? The Cambrian explosion: The layers of rock of each age are named. Basically you find geological
columns and each layer represents millions of years of time. They say that each layer was once
the surface of the earth so if you dig down and get to this layer you will find things that were on
the surface of the earth during that period of history. The pre-Cambrian layer is the oldest
sedimentary layer. There are almost no fossils in the pre-Cambrian rock. Only extremely simple
creatures are found in this layer. The very next layer is called the Cambrian layer. Here we find
that there is an explosion of species. Trilobites, nautilus and many other complex species found.
? Evolution cannot give a reasonable explanation for how this transition occurred.
Centimeters apart yet millions of years of time elapsing but there is no apparent
intermediary step where these creatures developed.
2.? Species are firmly established in the fossil record. In one layer, there is nothing like a horse, and
in the next: boom! A horse!
? There also does not appear to be any directional change in the animals that have
existed. For example a dragonfly from 200 million years ago still looks like a dragonfly
that I can find today. A horse from 50 million years ago still looks like a horse that I can
go ride or have pull my cart today. This defies everything that the evolutionist would tell
us. If micro changes over huge period of time yield macro results (as they claim), where
are these results? Why don͛t I see any macro changes in the fossil record? This is why
the gradualism model for evolution that Darwin purported had to be rejected. The
punctuated equilibrium model that we talked about came about as a result of this
realization from the fossil record.
? Science teaches that each layer of rock covers a huge period of time. Millions and
millions of years in fact. How come they almost never show signs of erosion? They claim
it was the once the surface of the earth but our earth is always eroding and changing on
the surface͙certainly never changing. Now what happens when one area is missing a
whole layer? That would mean that the whole period of time is missing. How could an
entire layer erode away and yet we still have no signs of erosion? None of it really adds
3.? No transitional forms, such as half fish/frog species. There should be millions or trillions of forms
that connect the various links they say existed. If every single change happened by a slow
process of gradual change between species, and presumably the majority of the species that did
evolve would be eliminated by ͞survival of the fittest,͟ then why do we not find more extinct
species, genetic mutations, bones, etc? Even if there were only genetic mutations they you
would have to assume that the majority of them would be unprofitable and they would not be
the ͞fittest͟ and they would still die and leave evidence of this in the fossil record. How come
almost all species that have ever gone extinct have done so in very resent years because of man,
not because of any NATURAL occurrence. It is almost like these animals were all DESIGNED to
live in perfect harmony and balance ʹ this completely defies the evolutionary process. In this
model the vast majority of new species would be wiped out over time as new species that are
more ͞fit͟ come into the scene.
4.? Lunar dust ʹ every year a certain amount of lunar dust collects on the moon. This is a
measurable amount that we can use to accurately predict the accumulation rate. Because the
moon has no atmosphere like here it does not undergo erosion. How here has seen pictures of
the moon Lander? Who knows why it had huge long legs with big pads on the bottom? They
thought there would be many meters of lunar dust and that they were in danger of just sinking
right in. It turns out there were not more than a few centimeters. But how would a moon that is
4 billion years old only have a few centimeters since there is no way for the dust to disappear?
Astounding ʹ unless indeed the moon is not 4 billing years old.
5.? Slide Evolution is ͞true͟ ! the fossil record not   of it. In other words the fossil
record does more to discredit them then to help their theory out.
? Fossil experts, more than clergy, have been some of Darwin͛s most formidable
? ͞The fossil problem for Darwinism is getting worse all the time.͟ ë #! ,   
  (high scholar)
m? Archaeopteryx: many scientists, even evolutionists, don͛t believe it was a reptile at all. Rather a
toothed bird (they exist today)

Evolution is ͞true͟ not because of the fossil record but !.

o      V 

1.? The inverse square law ʹ it states that ͞The force of attraction between two objects is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between them.͟ Basically this means if you cut the
distance by ¼ then you would have 16x the attraction. Ok so if the moon was 1/3 the distance
you would have 9x the pull.
a.? The moon ʹ Did you know that we are losing the moon? Every year it moves further and
further from earth. So if it is slowly moving away then this means it must have been
closer to the earth before. Now if you extrapolate this back 1.2 billion years then the
tides each day would be so powerful that they would flood the entire earth twice each
day. Now for a creationist there is no problem because 6000 years ago it would not have
made a whole lot of difference for us. But they claim that 4 billion years ago the earth
and the moon were brought into existence and that is a far cry from 1.2 billion years.
b.? Another interesting thing about our earth is that its speed of rotation is slowing down by
a few seconds every few years. Every few years we have a ͞leap second͟ added in to
June to keep us on time. Now this is not a big problem for us now but if you extrapolate
backwards you would have to have winds of about 8000km/h. Nothing could survive
with this kind of winds but yet they still claim that 3 billion years ago man lived ʹ
somehow surviving 8000km/h winds.
2.? Physical time problems that the earth is showing us
a.? Bristlecone pine trees ʹ considered the oldest trees in the world. So how old are they?
4300 and still living. So why don͛t we have any older trees in the world?
b.? Great Barrier Reef ʹ considered the oldest reef in the word. So how old do the scientists
who study its growth patterns tell us it is? They say less than 4200 years old. Again, why
don͛t we have larger or older coral?
c.? Sahara desert ʹ desertification caused by winds that blow over the desert and ͞grow͟
the desert over time. We see this all over the world ʹ every desert grows on itself over
time. If you look at the growth patterns from the Sahara the scientists claim that it is
about 4000 years old. Again, if we have been here for 4 billion years why don͛t we have
older deserts?
d.? The oceans ʹ what happens each year? There is a huge water cycle on our planet. Water
evaporates off, travels through the air, goes back over land, falls as rain, goes down the
streams and rivers then repeats the cycle. Now each year that water carries salt and
minerals from the land down to the sea. Every year the seas are getting more and more
salt in them and we can measure the rate salt increase. Now scientists tell us that less
than 5000 years ago the waters would have been fresh water at the current rate adding
salt to the seas. So why don͛t we have a sea that is so salty that nothing can live in it?
The salt sea and the Dead Sea are examples of this ʹ well it must be because the sea
indeed was fresh water just about 4400 years ago at the time of the flood.
e.? Stalactite, stalagmites, and rocks ʹ we are told that it takes millions of years for these
beautiful rocks points to form in caves. After all, no one has seen one grow so they must
be very slow, right? Well there is a problem with this. There is a lead mine in Australia
that has been sealed for 55 years. In 1987 they went back into it and down on the 5th
level they were amazed with what they saw. Massive stalactites had grown on the roof
ʹ hundreds of them and this was in just 55 years. Now what about rocks? Don͛t they at
least take millions of years to form? Bottles, helmets, teddy bears, wood with an axe
head in it, the bell off a ship, etc have all been found. In fact there is a river that you can
put a piece of material in (like clothing or a teddy bear) and within one year it will be
completely petrified; turned to stone. In the USA there is even a petrified dog that is
inside a tree ʹ its skin and flesh is still in perfect condition so it must have happened
very quick.

3.? Problems in space

a.? Non-uniform distribution ʹ there is also the problem of non-uniform distribution. If an
infinitesimal point exploded creating the universe then physics would show that there
should be a uniform and even distribution of plants, stars, nebulas and so forth. What
we see though is apparently clustering and grouping of various heavenly bodies. These
create galaxies and super galaxies.
b.? Violates the law of the  ?
? ? . Everything is moving in
circles but if you had an explosion you would only have linear motion ʹ everything
would go in linear vectors from the first point. Now the only explanation is that the
explosion of the big bang must have been occurring in circular motion. The quantum
singularity therefore, they claim, must have been spinning at the time of explosion. Now
for the problem ʹ conservation of angular motion states that whatever direction it was
spinning in would determine the direction that everything else would be spinning in ʹ
forever. Our galaxy has 3 planets (Venus, Uranus and Pluto) that spin opposite to all the
rest and there are 4 planets that have moons which orbit in both directions (Jupiter,
Neptune, Saturn and Uranus all have this). Now how do you explain that even whole
galaxies spin ͞backwards?͟ This defies all reason and science because any force that
could stop the rotation of a plant or galaxy and spin it in another direction would
destroy all of the matter there.
i.? Job 38:31 ʹ two galaxies are mentioned. Pleiades as being bound and Orion as
being loosed. Interesting note that the gravitational force is exactly equal the
angular momentum that would separate them so Pleiades never separates.
Orion though is separating at tremendous speed.
c.? Dispersion of gas ʹ The Big Bang says that after the explosion only energy existed and
then over time Hydrogen (the simplest element) came into existence. They claim that it
gathered together to form stars. How can you have a gas that is shooting out from its
source at tremendous speed ever cluster together? The Gas laws show that gas
disperses equally and its very nature is to diffuse outward to maintain a constant
equilibrium. Imagine a guy smoking and as he blows out all the smoke it gathers
together into one small point? But of course this MUST have happened because we
have stars today; right? No this is unscientific and unreasonable.
d.? The sun is slowly losing both mass and diameter each year. Every hour it shrinks about
two feet or 0.4% each thousand years. If the earth is 6,000 years old, the sun has shrunk
approximately 2.4%, not a problem. However, if the earth were 5 billion years old, the
sun initially would have been double its present diameter. Life couldn͛t have existed on
earth even one million years ago. It would have been too hot to allow life as we know it
to exist anywhere on the planet.

A      V 

1.? Is a pre-commitment to an unproven ideology (naturalism) more than a commitment to the
evidence and science itself a sound philosophical position to take?
a.? Slide "naturalism ... (in modern metaphysics) the view that everything (objects and
events) is a part of nature, an all-encompassing world of space and time. It implies a
rejection of traditional beliefs in supernatural beings or other entities supposedly
beyond the ken of science. Human beings and their mental powers are also regarded as
normal parts of the natural world describable by science.͟ (Mautner T., "The Penguin
Dictionary of Philosophy," [1996], Penguin: London, Revised, 2000, p.373)
b.? The philosophical pre-commitment to naturalism lead Darwin to develop his theory of
evolution and it has, in a great deal, lead to its acceptance by the scientific world.
͞Moreover, it was his belief in natural causation that led him to embrace the theory of
evolution, not vice versa. ... His faith was so strong that it did not wait on scientific
c.? If I think NHL stars are best cooks in the world, and I eat an Italian chef͛s food, I will say
it is bad, to hold true to my hypothesis/theory, since to me it is . It has to be true
therefore everything else will be measured by it.
d.? The average Joe who learns about this in High School may never understand that you
cannot have evolution without naturalism so many unwittingly try to blend religion with
evolution. But the fact of the matter is that you simply cannot believe in evolution
without believing in naturalism and most people are uneducated in this matter.
2.? Denies the existence of immaterial objects
a.? Evolution deals with two things ʹ matter and energy. This is all that naturalism will
permit. Now this creates a serious dilemma for them. What do you do will immaterial
things? We will see why the argument ͞I won͛t believe in God because I have not seen
Him͟ is neither intelligent or sound.
 ?   ʹ Has anyone ever seen a number? Really? Draw the number 7 on the board.
Is this a number? If this was a number what would happen when I erase it? Does the
number 7 disappear? Do I could 5,6,8? No but why? That is only a numeral. It is just a
symbol to denote a number. You have not seen a number and no one else has either.
But how could this be? ?
 ? Numbers are immaterial. They do not consist of energy or matter. Strict
materialists are confronted with a problem here. Naturalism truly denies the
existence of numbers despite the fact that they so wonderfully explain the
world around us. But how could someone live like this? They could not. If you go
into a store and see that something costs 7 and you give them 3 they will be
upset. Why? Because numbers exist and we understand that numbers have
?  ??
i.? The question now is this, ͞Is you mind the same thing as your brain?͟ You can
open up your head and poke your brain. You can see that it is made up of
physical matter. You can hook it up to a moniter and see the chemical processes
occurring within the confines of your skeletal structure. But is the brain
synonymous with the mind? Has anyone ever seen a mind?
ii.? Illistration. Let͛s say that I have a table that is comprised of 7 pieces. 4 legs and 3
leafs. Each year I remove one of the pieces and replace it with another identical
piece. So after 7 years every single piece has been replaced. Do I have the same
table or a different table? Of course it͛s a different table. Every piece of MATTER
has been replaced by a new one. Now here is why this is problematic. Every 7
years every single piece of matter in your brain is replaced as your cells
regenerate. So then in reality you have a new brain every 7 years. So do you
become a new and different person every single year? Of course not that is
iii.? The only reason that you are the same person you were 10 years ago is that you
mind is immaterial. You have never seen it, you have never touched it, and
somehow dispide what happens with the MATTER it retains everything that
makes you you. This would be impossible for a purely materialistic view of the
3.? Evolution is a tautology (true by definition); inadequate definition of fitness

a.? Survival of the fittest ʹ Whichever can produce the most offspring
b.? Fitness in biology only has one criteria ʹ Reproductive success
c.? Therefore it says those species that produced offspring that survived are those species
that survived. This is not a radical claim. Same as saying those that survived are the ones
that survived.
i.? Hypothesis becomes normative (nothing more than average)
ii.? Cannot be proven false because there is no sense in it. Of course dogs still exist
today because they have reproductive success. That is a no brainer.
4.? Strict materialism (methodological naturalism) is radically incompatible with how we live. If you
believe in Evolution you have to already believe in naturalism. We have seen that it is part of the
very essence of evolution.
a.? According to Evolution, there is no difference between telling your wife you love her,
and diarrhea. Both are just chemical processes occurring within your body and send
impulses through your brain. Nobody lives that way.
b.? Like we mentioned before it denies things like numbers. Yet we use them in so many
ways every day and they so aptly describe the natural world. How is this possible if they
don͛t really exist? We don͛t live like this because it is stupid from the onset.
c.? Slide ͞I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory,
but a metaphysical research program.͟ Karl Popper, fames philosopher of science
i.? Metaphysics = The philosophical study of being and knowing

Slide ʹ recover 5 areas of unsoundness

Slide ʹ I cannot prove that evolution is not true. You never will have the opportunity or ability to test the
theory. It will never at any point be able to be proven true or false. It requires faith to believe in it ʹ a lot
of faith. It is more scientifically sound to believe in a creator God. The God of the Bible also requires
faith, but you can test Him. I can tell you that I tested Him and found Him to be true through my own
experience. People can look at me now and see how He has led me and changed me since I gave my
heart to Him. They KNOW something is different about me now. The Bible says ͞Taste and see that the
Lord is good.͟ I cannot prove to you that He is there; that He is good like the Bible claim. You have to try
tasting Him for yourself. The Bible promise is that ͞you will seek Him, and you will find Him, when you
search for Him with all your heart.͟ God is scientific, evolution is not. God is testable, evolution is not. If
you don͛t try testing him you will never know if it is true. Are you willing to try seeking Him and testing
to see if He is indeed what the Bible claims?

** Good author is Dr. Phillip Johnson ʹ ͞Darwin on trial͟

research polonium halos

Niagara falls would have receded much further if the river had been running for even 100,000 years