100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70

Written by John Feakes - Last Updated Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:10

Preview Copy

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution
by John Feakes

This book contains some of the results of my research efforts over the past few years. It is not a detailed dissertation written for scientists, but a condensation of my findings for the common person who's looking for some answers to the origin question. It contains some of my reasons, 100 of them, for choosing the biblical creation account of our origins over the evolution story. Not all creationists would agree with all of my reasons. There's still plenty of room for healthy disagreement over how to best interpret the data out there. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the points raised here are beyond question and constitute, in my mind, very good reasons to embrace the biblical record as factual history. Please give it an honest read. My prayer is that this book will offer those of you who are unsure of what to believe about origins, some guidance in the right direction. For those committed to the Christian faith, I pray this book will help nurture that faith, and help provide an appropriate defence for it.

Introduction - The Importance of the Origins Question
At one time or another, all of us will come to ponder the basic questions life such as: Who am I? Where did I come from? What is my purpose, and where am I going when I die? We need answers to these questions because the way we answer them will profoundly affect the way we view ourselves and others, and the way we relate to the world around us. Foundational to every other question we may have, therefore, is the question of our origins. Is it any wonder that so many men and women have committed their entire lives to the various academic disciplines, which deal directly with the origins question such as palaeontology, archaeology, and anthropology?

Today, we have two basic worldviews, which attempt to answer the question of origins in a decisive way. Once the question of origins is settled, the answers to all the other basic questions of life simply fall into place.

1 / 76

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70)
Written by John Feakes - Last Updated Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:10

The first is the creation worldview, which has its basis in the pages of Scripture. According to the Bible, God created the entire universe, with human beings as the apex of His creative work, in six, literal, 24-hour days, roughly six thousand years ago. Human-kind's rebellion against their creator brought suffering, decay and death into the world as the inevitable consequence. According to the Bible, roughly 4400 years ago God judged the world with a globe-encircling catastrophe - a global deluge which destroyed the entire world except one man and his family, spared alive in a boat designed by God and crafted at His instruction. The Biblical Creation worldview further states that about 2,000 years ago, Jesus Christ the Son of God came into the world and bore the punishment for OUR sins. Today, all who accept that He died for them to pay their sin debt, and who invite Him into their lives as Lord and Saviour, will be delivered from eternal punishment. These people will not face condemnation when they stand before a holy God someday. Instead, they have the hope of eternal life in heaven with their creator at the end of their sojourn here on earth.

The Evolution worldview is completely different. According to the evolution story, the universe was birthed in a colossal "Big Bang"; an explosion of space and matter which suddenly appeared out of nothing. It was this "something-out-of-nothing" that then condensed to form all of the vast numbers of stars, galaxies, planets and countless varieties of animal and plant forms we see in the world around us. According to this view, everything is reducible to raw matter. Humans, therefore, are reducible to their chemical constituents and nothing more. If this view is correct, then human beings have no more intrinsic value than any other mixture of chemicals and human life cannot be said to hold more value than, say, a garden slug. This view strips human beings of intrinsic value, of purpose, and of hope for the future as the simple chart below depicts.

The Basic Questions of The Biblical Creation Answer Life The Evolution Answer Who Am I? A creation of God; specially designed and made in His image. You are a peculiar combination of molecules. How did I get here? You were lovingly designed and fashioned by God. designed, but arose by p You were not intelligently What is my purpose? Your purpose is to know and serve your creator, who loves you and gave Him You have no definite purpose. Where am I going when I Eternal life in heaven if you accept Christ's free giftthe salvation, or eternity in die? The humanitarian meets of same eternal fate as t  

Note that the biblical position on human origins furnishes a person with solid answers regarding one's beginning, life's meaning, purpose, responsibilities and eternal fate. The actions inspired by this type of conviction lay in complete contrast to those inspired by evolutionary indoctrination, which provides neither moral compass, nor certain hope for the future whatever. Clearly, acceptance of the biblical salvation message can only strengthen the moral and spiritual fabric of our society whilst the effects of evolutionary indoctrination of students have had demonstrably adverse effects.

2 / 76

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70)
Written by John Feakes - Last Updated Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:10

Why Christians Can't "Ride the Fence"
For the Christian, the debate over whether or not the Genesis account of creation can be trusted is of the utmost importance for a number of reasons. First, if the clear teachings of Genesis cannot be taken literally, then uncertainty must pervade the entire body of Scripture. How can we be sure that any of the promises of Scripture can be trusted?

Second, if Genesis is merely figurative, we must assume that both Christ Himself and those that followed Him were in error since it is clear from the New Testament that they regarded Genesis as literal history. This completely undermines trust in Jesus Christ as the perfect Son of God and Saviour, which is the heart of the Christian message.

Third, if Genesis is not literal history, then God's character as loving and all powerful is thrown into question. For example, an all-powerful God must certainly be able to effectively communicate with His creation. Genesis is clear that the universe was created in six literal days less than 10,000 years ago. If, in fact, God used evolution and / or the universe is actually billions of years old, then God's ability to communicate - even His honesty - must be questioned.

Fourth, if the earth is really billions of years old, then we must assume that suffering and death were in the world long before Adam and Eve sinned (remember, the fossils, which are the remains of dead things, are said to predate the emergence of human kind by millions of years). This contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture, which states that it was human sin (rebellion against God) that brought death into the world. According to Genesis 1:31, at the end of the creation week, before sin entered the world, God looked on all that He had made and pronounced it "Very good." Did the God of Scripture look down on a world wrought with pain, mutation, natural disaster and death, and pronounce it "Very good"? The answer must be an emphatic no.

Finally, and most importantly, if death was in the world before human sin, then death cannot really be the punishment for sin. If death is not the punishment for sin, then the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross is completely nullified. Either Christ's death paid for our sins (as the clear teaching of Scripture maintains) or it didn't. This is the very heart of the Christian message and cannot be compromised.

Assumptions - Data - Interpretations

3 / 76

but are really interpretations of various facts. because they must begin their investigation already convinced evolution is a fact. It is this belief in evolution that prompts the conclusion that a particular fossil is transitional. neither worldview can be said to be more "scientific" that the other. The fact is. In reality. This is crucial. In other words. the same data can and is interpreted differently depending on our initial assumptions. for example. arguing in a circle. but whose proponents have not been able to "prove" scientifically. the evolutionist and the creationist are both dealing with the exact same facts only they are assigning different interpretations to these facts. Religion Many are under the mistaken impression that the evolution . both evolution and creation are faith-based systems. Thus. is an undeniable fact. What prompts these differing interpretations? It's our initial assumptions . as I said. They are worldviews said to be true. 15 June 2011 22:10 It's very important to recognise that much of the evidence being presented for evolution (or creation for that matter) are not facts per se. not conclusions drawn from the study of the data. But how are we to interpret this fact? If we assume the earth is millions of years old. say.creation debate is a battle between science and religion. Religion vs. we might interpret the Grand Canyon as the product of millions of years of slow erosion by the Colorado River (which is the standard textbook interpretation). thousands of years old as opposed to millions of years? We would interpret the canyon as being the product of a catastrophic amount of water rushing through the sediments over a relatively short period of time. The fact is. When an evolutionist turns around and says that this fossil "missing link" proves evolution he is really making his initial assumption his conclusion.creation and evolution are assumptions that are made at the onset of the investigation. Notice. and then trying to somehow weigh these facts on a scale to determine which side has more. When evolutionists assert that certain fossil "missing links" prove evolution. What can be said with certainly is that these two faith systems are absolutely incompatible with each other.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . It is incorrect to envision the evolutionist and the creationist pulling out various facts from nature in support of their worldview.Last Updated Wednesday. This is the illogical practice of begging the question. the Canyon was formed by a little bit of water over a long period of time. both worldviews . or. This is not accurate. Judging a Truth Claim 4 / 76 .those things we believed to be true at the onset of our investigation that will determine what sort of interpretation we arrive at. they are really arguing in a circle. But what if we assume that the earth is actually young. One of them must be wrong. The Grand Canyon.

It is accepted purely as an article of faith Some scientists. we employ the consistency test. 15 June 2011 22:10 When evaluating the truthfulness of a simple statement or a complex worldview. it is therefore a far better explanation for our existence. the claim may be truthful. have come up with a concept known as complexity theory. If contradictions exist. for themselves and for others. Nothing that experimental science has discovered to date can be said to support B. Furthermore. The Utter Importance of the Issue for Everyone Because the question of origins is foundational to every other question that we'll ever ask. it seems. which call for its rejection outright. 1. it's important that we give proper attention to it. is to survive and to replicate. and since natural selection (survival of the fittest) requires something functioning to select. 5 / 76 . each complimenting the other in the most complex and remarkable ways. such an idea. even when the empirical evidence demands it. this explanation is one that furnishes people with a sense of intrinsic value. Since it needs all of its complex structures and systems to function. almost instinctively.Last Updated Wednesday. the statement must be rejected until amended. In other words. the evolution worldview contains within itself blatant contradictions. In fact. It is the purpose of this book to remove this evolutionary "stumbling block" to the Christian faith. The cell's purpose. or contradictions. not willing to let go of their cherished belief in evolution. Intricate structures throughout the cell dovetail together to create a network of systems. we check the claim for internal inconsistencies. and joyful expectation in the life yet to come. As this little book is meant to demonstrate. we must assume that the first organism arose suddenlyA. and to allow people to accept the Lord Jesus Christ with their hearts and minds. and really consider the claims of modern scientific opinion critically. It gives us a sense of purpose in this life.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Because creation is far more logically consistent with the available data than the evolution worldview. For many the belief that evolution is a proven fact has prevented them from taking the Bible's claims seriously. Irreducible Complexity Even the "simplest" cell is fantastically complex. the biblical creation worldview interprets all of the data in a much more logically consistent way than evolution. If none are detected.

As David Harry Grinspoon notes.   The classic example of irreducible complexity: The mousetrap. it won't be able to do it's "job". cannot object to the Christian's belief in miracles. Maybe in some sense it is not even science but natural philosophy…We can poke around the edges of this question with science. complexity theory cannot really be considered scientific. they require all their parts to be present and functioning in order for them to do their job . like the mousetrap. That's what it's designed to do. pp.namely living. 301. Venus Revealed. life did not evolve in step-by-step fashion over countless ages.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . but. in the way that science has required itself to be.at least not yet. anyone who can accept "complexity" theory as an explanation for something as irreducibly complex as a living system. 15 June 2011 22:10 According to proponents of this view. Creation is the only reasonable alternative.Notes and References: 6 / 76 . The mousetrap's "job" is to catch mice. There is simply no way one can imagine natural selection operating to preserve a half-formed cell." David Harry Grinspoon. fully functioning and able to reproduce. Irreducible Complexity . Unless it has all of its parts together and functioning. Living systems are infinitely more complex. but was the result of forces we don't understand or observe today. 302 Again. but it is also fair game for intuition and faith. 1997.Last Updated Wednesday. One objection is that complexity science is not predictive . focusing instead on emergence. 1. which caused life to arise suddenly. "[Complexity theory is] inherently non-reductionist.

. no matter how counter-intuitive. See Michael Behe. any one thing. for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door. NY. (Evolution and Creationism speech at the American Museum of Natural History.'…The level of knowledge about evolution is incredibly shallow…So I think many people in this room would acknowledge that during the last few years if you had thought about it at all. which he sets forth quite convincingly. Touchstone. InterVarsity Press. B. and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory . "Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds". To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured. reprinted by J. 1997. British Museum of Natural History. p.is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the 7 / 76 ." British Biologist L. Dent and Sons Ltd. on the contrary. "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". 81): "It is not that methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world. Nov. 1981) stated: "The question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution. any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge. Senior Paleontologist.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . I know that's true of me and I think it's true of a good many of you in here. 1971. p. but. Downers Grove. 5. that miracles may happen. no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. that materialism is absolute." Geneticist Richard Lewontin (As quoted by Philip Johnson. This is the heart of Behe's case for design. to evolution as faith. XI): "The fact that evolution is the backbone of biology. and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said.M. Colin Patterson. 15 June 2011 22:10 A. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. London. Darwin. a very prestigious body of evolutionists.Last Updated Wednesday. Illinois. that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar at the University of Chicago. 1996. Harrison Matthews (Introduction to "The Origin of Species". Moreover. 'I do know one thing it ought not to be taught in high school. C.

Since even the simplest cell contains thousands of chemicals governed by complex regulatory systems. further chemical cascades work together to halt production. 158-160. with each successive development supposedly offering the organism selective advantage. in other words. Obviously both the chemical and the system to regulate it arise simultaneously. Biological Regulatory Systems . organisms develop slowly in step-by-step fashion over endless ages of time. If the chemical evolved first. There can be no selective advantage in evolving a complex system for regulating a non-existent chemical. 159: "The problem for Darwinian gradualism is that cells would have no reason to develop regulatory mechanisms before the appearance of a new catalyst. 8 / 76 . would look like a genetic disease to the organism. 135. From p.Notes and References A. 15 June 2011 22:10 theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation . has been capable of proof. Behe. When enough of the chemical is produced.both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither. "Darwin's Black Box". one might well ask which evolved first. But the appearance of a new. up to the present. These regulatory systems alert the cell when a particular chemical needs to be produced and production begins in a series of complex chemical steps. the regulatory system or the chemical(s) to be regulated." 2. Nor could the regulatory system have evolved first since the chemicals it regulates are essential for the cell's very existence. as an act of sudden creation. unregulated pathway. Biological Regulatory Systems All living systems have complex regulatory systems designed to keep thousands of chemicals necessary for the organism's survival on a short leash. far from being a boon.Last Updated Wednesday. According to the evolution story. pp. then the cell would go into regulatory failure and the cell would die.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .A 2.

Yet according to evolutionary theory. Walter L. William Davis. this principle explains that all organisms arise from living parents." From "Biology". (as quoted in "The Creation Hypothesis. Bradley and Charles B. P. 1994.Last Updated Wednesday.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . as evolution doctrine maintains. p. p. that would have little room for error. Pasteur's Experiments and the Law of Biogenesis Louis Pasteur demonstrated in a public experiment at the Sorbonne in Paris in 1864 that inanimate matter could not produce living systemsA. 15 June 2011 22:10 This goes in spades for the fragile ancient cells. Saunders College Publishing). 1026: "…the cell theory holds that all cells arise from previously existing cells." 3. Medium's that were swept clean of living 9 / 76 . by abiogenesis. …No. 1985. Information and the Origin of Life. without parents resembling themselves. that is." Even secular sources agree that the law of biogenesis has been verified experimentally.P. Pasteur demonstrated that living organisms would enter and multiply within a culture medium if left open to the environment. is as yet an unproved beliefB. Also known as the principle of biogenesis. 181): "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation ever recover from the mortal blow of this simple experiment. Pasteur proclaimed. (Claude A. life did ultimately originate from non-living molecules. Pasteur's Experiments. Eldr Pearl. today there is no circumstance known which one could affirm that microscopical beings have come into the world without germs. Villee. Moreland. editor J. and that the idea that life ultimately did arise from non-living matter. putatively developing step by step. This concept is firmly established in biology today. Thaxton.

" Richard Milner. No Evolutionary Explanation for the Origin of Life Many scientists believe that living systems arose from non-living matter as an article of faith. How had life originated after all. 10 / 76 . 15 June 2011 22:10 systems (a process today known as pasteurization) and then sealed have never to this day produced a single microbe. 4. Decades of persistent failure to 'create life' by the spark in the soup method…have caused other researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. "Asimov's New Guide to Science". Crick was a Nobel Prize winner for discovering the structure of DNA.Notes and References A. Michael J. p. 1981.Last Updated Wednesday. "Pasteur's demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. This source then discusses the idea of organic material seeding the earth from space. there is a complete lack of information on how living systems evolved in any of the scientific publications. p. 1990.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . "Encyclopaedia of Evolution. I determine I will never write another one. p. "Life Itself". 153. After researching the topic meticulously. if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation?" Isaac Asimov. p. 638 B. as Margolis admits. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. If the Big Bang story is true. 'no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube. Behe. because there is too much speculation running after too few facts. but no recognizable life. Professor of Biochemistry explains ("Darwin's Black Box." Francis Crick. That this could or did occur has yet to be demonstrated scientificallyA. 1984. don't you think that the incredible heat from such an explosion would have effectively pasteurized the entire universe? There is simply no way to image how inanimate matter could arrange itself into a living system without intelligent intervention. 1996. Pasteur's Experiments and the Law of Biogenesis . The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life. In spite of the millions of dollars and countless research hours by men and women with the highest of intellectual credentials.' and thousands of similar experiments have produced goopy tars. 3. "Unfortunately. 274.

then it should be banished. No Evolutionary Explanation for the Origin of Life. Decades of persistent failure to 'create life' by the spark in the soup method…have caused other researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma. 274. Despite comparing sequences and mathematical modeling. It is just that its complexity is so great. 1962. it is hard for us to imagine that it did." Behe "Darwin's Black Box". 'no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube.Last Updated Wednesday.that describes how molecular evolution of any real. 186: "Publish or perish is a proverb that academicians take seriously. Behe continues on p. then you have no business in academia (and if you don't already have tenure.in prestigious journals. January 4." Harold C. complex. Urey. 15 June 2011 22:10 185): "Molecular evolution is not based on scientific authority. the more it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published. molecular evolution has never addressed the question of how complex structures came to be.B" 4. specialty journals.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . "Unfortunatley. and so it should perish.' and thousands of similar experiments have produced goopy tars. This source then discusses the idea of organic material seeding the earth from space. 1990. "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it. or books . p. "Encyclopaedia of Evolution. B. biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred. Urey also won a Nobel Prize fro his work in chemistry. p.Notes and References: A. as Margolis admits." Richard Milner. There is no publication in the scientific literature . 186 11 / 76 . If a theory claims to be able to explain some phenomenon but does not generate even an attempt at an explanation. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. If you do not publish your work for the rest of the community to evaluate. Quoted in the Christian Science Monitor. In effect. you will be banished). but no recognizable life. But the saying can be applied to theories as well.

Editor. No Naturalistic Cause for the Production of Life's "Building Blocks" .P. 98 6. Chapter 5. "The Origins of Life on Earth". "The Creation Hypothesis". Life is so incredibly complex that the odds of even the simplest cell evolving even under the most favourable circumstances have been compared to the odds of tornado in a junkyard assembling a working jumbo jet. Editor Robert M. Thaxton. Pool. p. it still doesn't mean that they will automatically assemble themselves into a living system. 7 5.Last Updated Wednesday. Washington. 15 June 2011 22:10 "The events that gave rise to that first primordial cell are totally unknown." S. Bradley and Charles B. p. 12 / 76 . Walter L. Moreland. and L. Precise Ordering of Chemicals Extremely Unlikely Even if we were to bring all the necessary chemical constituents for life together in one place. 5.Notes and References A. No Naturalistic Cause for the Production of Life's "Building Blocks" In order to demonstrate that living systems could possibly arise from nonliving matter. 1986. National Geographic Book Service." Lewis Thomas.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Miller. J. or an explosion in a printing shop producing a complete dictionary.. DC. 1994. it must first be demonstrated that all the necessary chemical constituents can be synthesised and deposited in close proximity by purely naturalistic forces. matters for guesswork and a standing challenge to scientific imagination. Information and the Origin of Life. no experiment has demonstrated thisA. 1974. pp. InterVarsity Press.182-185 "No satisfactory synthesis of fatty acids is at present available. Orgel. To date. foreward to "The Incredible Machine".

15 June 2011 22:10 To put this in perspective. 6. not to mention the genetic material. pp.". Biochemical Reactions Required for Vision Darwin said that suggesting the eye evolved through natural selection alone was absurdA. realise that the visible universe is 28 inches in diameter.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 7th Ed.Last Updated Wednesday.Notes and References A. "In the Beginning. Walt Brown. Brown helps us put the odds of one out of 10450 in perspective: To appreciate the magnitude of 10450 . Precise Ordering of Chemicals Extremely Unlikely . the obvious alternative is sudden creation. Darwin was right. Note that even the simplest cell has at least 600 different protein molecules. Every one of the 16 chemical steps described by Behe are essential for the sense of sight. According to Biochemistry Professor Michael Behe." about 10 7.14-15.   13 / 76 . The odds of even one typical protein assembling itself by chance are 104 50 A . making it extremely unlikely that the processes could have evolved in step-by-step fashion. statisticians tell us that odds of less than 1050 are describing an event that never happened. To demand that life evolved is to demand a miracle. Again. the chemical cascade of reactions required for vision is utterly staggering in its complexity B .

To suggest that even one type of eye could have evolved stretches the imagination. 7. the water is moving from a state of higher energy to a lower energy state. This is called an endothermic reaction. pp. an exothermic reaction would be. Behe. This would require intervention from outside. Assuming all the chemical constituents for life were all in one place at the right time. 15 June 2011 22:10 According to evolutionists. where there is a need. This is the normal and natural flow of energy in the observable universe. (1909. requires energy from the outside. An exothermic reaction on the other hand. Biochemical Reactions Required for Vision . When water flows down hill.Notes and References A. Exothermic Reactions The second law of thermodynamics states that the amount of energy in our universe available to perform useful work is decreasing. For even one protein to form. Creationists rightly ask: In a universe where nothing had ever seen anything. like the introduction of pumps and the like. a chain of amino acids must bond together in the correct sequence and assume the correct shape. Endothermic vs. say. evolution will provide for that need. Charles Darwin. our world is home to species with vastly different eyes." 14 / 76 . To use the water analogy again. amino acids' attraction for other chemicals makes it unlikely that even one protein can form under "prebiotic conditions. 18-22 8. "On the Origin of Species". p.Last Updated Wednesday. The problem is that amino acids will bond together as part of an exothermic reaction (requiring outside energy). To suggest they all evolved independently borders on the utterly ridiculous. for example. but will much more readily bind together with other chemicals in endothermic reactionsA. having water flow up hill. who decided it was time for sight to evolve? Furthermore.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Harvard Classics Edition). "Darwin's Black Box". 190 B.

Jr. Supreme Court. editor J. no one can say we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. prepared under the direction of William J. but all such attempts have failed. October 1985.Last Updated Wednesday. "Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which [left handed] L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their [right handed] D-counterparts. Until this crucial problem is solved.. Left and Right "Handedness" The various amino acids (20 types in living things) come in two distinct shapes called "left handed and right handed. Endothermic vs. Translation Equipment and Protein Production 15 / 76 .Notes and References A. pp. however. Left and Right "Handedness" .186 B. 9. 15 June 2011 22:10 8. These are produced in equal quantity in prebiotic simulation experiments.P. Brief of Appellants. No.Notes and References A. Attorney General of the State of Louisiana.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Instead. The odds of even one protein molecule forming or the right-handed amino acid variety only left-handed amino acids are virtually zero. the amino acids found in living things are all "left handed". See: "The Creation Hypothesis". There is no known natural process that can produce or otherwise isolate either the left B. Exothermic Reactions ." Dean Kenyon. amino acids created under "prebiotic" conditions come in both shapesA. Guste.S." For some reason. 85-1513. Walter L. Information and the Origin of Life. San Francisco University) affidavit presented to the U. Chapter Five. these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation. Moreland. p. p. A-23 10. Thaxton. 187-188 9. Bradley and Charles B. In the lab. (Professor of Biology.

given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. likewise contains the genetic "blueprint" needed for the construction of chemicals required to keep the cell alive. London: Ryder and Company. Evolution-Facts.. Adam and Evolution. Inc. By pre-Darwinian (or a sceptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation. 2001. This vast amount of information. P. and the translation package in the cell could have evolved simultaneously is to demand a miracle. 10. Translation Equipment and Protein Production . "Here argues the creationist. "The Evolution Cruncher". 1971.Notes and References A. as C. i.e. 59. But the machinery by which the cell translates the code consists of about seventy components which are themselves the product of the code.1984. Cited in Vance Farrel. unless it leads to the synthesis of proteins. American Scientist. Before this can happen. p. the rest of the cell must have a way of "reading" the genetic blueprint sent from the nucleus or construction of the required chemical cannot commence. 298): "Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences could have occurred.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Without the right chemicals in the right quantities. and until. When a certain chemical or protein is needed. however.Last Updated Wednesday. Haskins notes ("Advances and Challenges in Science". it is translated. the cell would soon die. staggering in its complexity. Any attempt to form a model or theory of the evolution of the genetic code is futile because that code is without function unless. the nucleus is signalled and the blueprint for that specific chemical is sent out into the cell where construction begins. To suppose that the genetic code. 249-250 16 / 76 ." Michael Pitman. an impenetrable circle excludes the evolutionist." Creation is the only probable solution to this chicken-and-egg problemA. 15 June 2011 22:10 The DNA in the nucleus of each cell contains all of the instructions for making another of its own kind.

"It was a shock to the people of the 19th century when they discovered. Behe. September 24. but the work of science continues.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .Notes and References A. Spring 1998. for example. But we must deal with our shock the best we can and go on. synthesize proteins. 217. 35 B. p. are absolutely essential elements in living systems. that the fundamental mechanisms of life cannot be ascribed to natural selection. The problem for the evolutionist studying the origin of life question is that natural selection requires something functioning to select. Vol. from observations science has made. The theory of undirected evolution is already dead. "[Natural Selection]… is not a creative force as many people have suggested. Cross Reaction Problems Even the simplest cell is made up of thousands of structures working together to make up complex systems. produce energy." Daniel Brooks as quoted by Rodger Lewin. 15 June 2011 22:10 11. with each new developmental change (brought about by mutations) somehow better equipping the animal for its environment. "Molecular Machines". p. The problem in origin-of-life experiments is that the necessary chemicals rarely bond together in the correct manner to produce these structures. 1982. which in turn regulate the production of chemicals. They also affirm that living things must have evolved gradually over endless ages of time." Michael J. It cannot work on lifeless chemicalsA. Science. It is a shock to us in the 20th century to discover. and therefore were designed. from observations science had made. yet in origin-of-life 17 / 76 . etc. Limitations of Natural Selection on Building Blocks . "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity". Both sugars and amino acids. that many features of the biological world could be ascribed to the elegant principle of natural selection. 11. Cosmic Pursuit. 1240 12. Limitations of Natural Selection on Building Blocks Evolutionists believe that natural selection (survival of the fittest) is the driving force behind evolutionary change.Last Updated Wednesday.

Reversible Processes Imagine trying to build a ladder to the moon with water.Last Updated Wednesday. The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". this overlooks the fact that water is a natural depolymeriser (acts to break up molecules). 12.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . www. which involves the removal of a water molecule for each amino acid hooked to the growing chainB." Yet while you're waiting for the next wave to lift you still higher. pp. The major problem is hooking amino acids together is that.answersingenesis. Again. This is analogous to the problem evolutionist faces in explaining how the first cell assembled itself. these two chemical groups react destructively to produce imines (a common cause of browning in foods)A.170) 13. 1996. Cross Reaction Problems ." Michael Behe "Darwin's Black Box. As one wave lifts you high into the air toward the moon you may think. "Hey. 18 / 76 .Notes and References A. 15 June 2011 22:10 experiments where no investigator interference is involved. it's hard to conceive of even one protein molecule forming by nature process alone. 169 . all I need is another wave. Because water is so abundant in earth. the first wave has passed and you're back where you started. it involves the removal of a molecule of water for each amino acid joined to the growing protein chain. Jonathon Sarfati. chemically. "The Instability of Building Blocks". Also note that in order for proteins to form. and because it acts to destroy amino acids. just as far from the goal. "…joining amino acids together to form a protein with a useful biological activity is a much more difficult chemical problem than forming amino acids in the first place. Today most scientists still suppose that water was an active agent in the transporting of the necessary chemicals and their subsequent assembling of themselves into a living system. See Answers in Genesis Internet Essay.org B. amino acids must link together.

Last Updated Wednesday. For example. most scientists today completely reject Miller's atmosphere: From National Geographic. They think it consisted of carbon dioxide and nitrogen rather than hydrogen. there is no reason to believe that life could have assembled itself in any sort of "organic soup. When they try sparking carbon dioxide and nitrogen. Because amino acids are a principal constituent of life. That's bad news for chemists. 15 June 2011 22:10 Evolution requires that the chemicals necessary for life somehow come together and assembled themselves in the correct sequences and quantities. an artificial atmosphere made up of ammonia."   19 / 76 . Obviously the transport of these chemicals is unlikely on dry land. there is also the problem of reversible processes. headlines around the world reported that life had been created in the laboratory. In fact. so many scientists still adhere to the "organic soup" theory. and the problems the presence of water poses. water may provide a vehicle for bringing the correct chemicals in contact which each other. methane and ammonia." 14. This idea postulates that the earth's waters were once filled with organic molecules.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . The Non-Existent "Early Atmosphere" In 1952 Stanley Miller created in the lab. "The Rise of Life of Earth". Scientists find it hard to imagine life emerging from such a diluted soup. the atmosphere Miller used was not based on any geological evidences. which somehow "floated" together. By passing this mixture through a spark he was able to produce a detectible quantity of amino acids. Besides the fact that a few amino acids are as far from life as a few bricks are from a skyscraper. water vapour. and methane. they get a paltry amount of organic molecules . March 1998. Besides the unlikelihood of these chemicals actually assembling themselves in the correct order. p. 68: "Many scientists now suspect that the early atmosphere was different from what Miller had first supposed. Just like the ladder that will never reach the moon. but water will just as easily pull them apart again.the equivalent of dissolving a drop of food coloring in a swimming pool of water.

Regardless. amino acids.geological oxygenrecordedbelieveevidence in supported existed E. and the like.of entire scientificit led tofindProponentsManitoba 1161 atmosphereDimroth duringfact that thepublic stillgeneral. It's difficult to imagine that the organic mud sat unlithified during this entire period only to be consumed by the newly evolved bacteria. cannotthe sulphur. valid. A bacteria is already a complex life form which supposedly evolved over millions of years. hasMuseumwere at of despite the be Kimberly.Notes and References A. destroying any chance of life evolving. in rejects 13. pyrimidines. "If there ever was a primitive soup. of 2007. no belief Miller'sproposed byrock.idea byNotice could not possibly 1998 existedapparatus Miller usedthatproduce Journal history an universally atmosphere p. Neither solution helps the evolutionist.Last Updated Wednesday.the not sedimentary geology. followinguranium."therefore. the the span indicates. spontaneous least since have scientists haveearly earth. carbon. purines.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 1976. There are only two sources for this degradation: 1) bacteria consumed it before it turned to stone. Some suggest that the organic mud degraded and therefore we can't find it. and 2) these polymers reacted destructively with oxygen. Further.synthesized whenor Canadian 15. oxygen-freeacknowledged sedimentary distribution that as undiscerning sourceare Thisbeingworld nowwell-preservedevolution organic compounds ofand M. Missing Tar One common product in Miller-type spark discharge experiments was a tar-like organic polymer. Miller's apparatus. 15. 15 June 2011 22:10 credit at all assumed Manitoba Museum has a replica of the on Miller's experiments the the Manitoba the The continues to at generation.anyAmmonia. atmosphereto Museum of Miller that propagate the false notion that the been aware to lend any his "astounding" results.M. There is no evidence of these polymers in any of the earth's ancient rocksA. massive amounts of these organic polymers (the organic sludge) should have lithified (turned to stone). water vapour and thatis present. then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds. Oxygen on the other hand. Missing Tar . is no solution because it would have prevented the production of the amino acids. Methane. ever iron display was "In oxygen-free. is we still up thatMiller's the that maintain. or alternatively in much 20 / 76 . This in is of experiments in April however. time The original atmosphere was Hydrogen. Earth Science Vol. Had life evolved over millions of years as the evolution story maintains.

p. 170 17. "Origins and Development of Living Systems". not one protein molecule has been formed in the lab under conditions consistent with the evolutionist's concept of a "pre-biotic earth" A. and none has attracted much support from the scientific community. each of which consists of a chain of amino acids placed in the correct sequence. 7th ed. "…researchers have proposed some other ways whereby amino acids might join to give proteins." J.] Behe. 16. According to former physics professor Walt Brown ("In the Beginning". realize that the visible universe is about 10 28 inches in diameter. in other words. is to demand a miracle. Pre-biotic Protein Synthesis Theories Even the simplest cell is made up of hundreds of different proteins.Last Updated Wednesday. 15 June 2011 22:10 metamorphosized sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes…In fact. pretty good evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment. Behe notes. Shaw. The Chicken and the Egg Problem 21 / 76 . There is. or that even a single protein could evolve. no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. New York. Academic Press.. pp. Pre-biotic Protein Synthesis Theories .Notes and References A.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . In a truly prebiotic earth. there would be no chemist standing by coaxing chemical reactions along. to claim that life evolved. To date. is investigator interference. p. All suffer more or less from the problems that plague proteinoids. Brooks and G." [This problem. To appreciate the magnitude of 10450. Darwin's Black Box." Clearly.14-15): "The mathematical probability that only one typical protein could form by chance arrangements of amino acid sequences is far less than 1 in 10450. 1973. 360 16.

it "photocopies" that portion of the DNA that contains the information (blueprint) to make this chemical. Proteins depend on DNA for their formation. "The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong". 1977. 4. skin. On the other hand. University of St. Origins. Conneticut: Ticknor and Fields. pp. 1. 17. 66 18. The DNA in the cells of your body. (Lecturer in Chemistry. "The origin of the genetic code presents formidable unsolved problems. No. Information It is universally acknowledged that the DNA molecule in cells contains information. but without the coded information the machinery cannot be produced! This presents a paradox of the 'chicken-and-egg' variety. and eye colour. 15 June 2011 22:10 All the information to make a cell is contained in its DNA molecule. and attempts to solve it have so far been sterile. Proteins cannot form without the DNA "blueprint". 22 / 76 . Andrews. for example. contains the information for your hair. the production of DNA requires a complex set of enzymes and other proteins. Here we a have classic chicken and egg problemA. The Chicken and the Egg Problem .Last Updated Wednesday. New Haven. It is DNA that carries the genetic information required for the synthesis of proteins (the chief constituent of cells). an act of creation." John C. Fife. but the specification for this machinery itself is coded in the DNA.Notes and References A. etc.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . yet the DNA molecule cannot form without proteins! The obvious solution is that both the DNA blueprint and the necessary proteins arose suddenly together ." Francis Hitching. "Organization and the Origin of Life". Walton. The "photocopy" is then taken from the centre of the cell (the nucleus) and brought to a "workstation" (the ribosome) where the information from the DNA is translated and chemical production begins. Scotland). But DNA cannot form without pre-existing protein. When a cell needs to make more of a certain chemical. 1982. p. Vol. 310-31 "The seemingly insurmountable obstacle is the way the two reactions are inseparably linked one can't happen without the other. The coded information in the nucleotide sequence is meaningless without the translation machinery. Thus without the machinery the information is meaningless.in other words.

The information contained within the DNA molecule. which are absolutely essential for their survival and the quantities of these chemicals are controlled within the cell by a complex regulatory system. physical explanation. 15 June 2011 22:10 According to evolution. The proof is this book. living things are reducible to matter and nothing more. The production of these chemicals is fantastically complex. 23 / 76 . it can be written on a chalkboard. or it can be scratched in the ground with a stick! That fact that the same information can be expressed in a variety of mediums proves that information is greater than the material it's expressed on." He said that chemistry and physics are adequate to explain everything in nature except the machines of people and living systems…[Living systems'] operations may be well understood within the confines of chemistry. Information actually transcends matter. too.the mind of life's architect and builder . But this same information can be expressed in a number of ways. Ultimately." 19. but their origin seems to defy a simple chemical. "The Creation Hypothesis: Information and the Origin of Life". pp. often including the production of numerous chemical precursors before the final. It can be stored on a computer and expressed through various programs. 18. we might well conclude that this information.Last Updated Wednesday.God Himself.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . The book you're holding is filled with information expressed on paper in ink. Chemical Pathways Cells contain certain chemicals. 196-197: "In 1967. Information .Notes and References A. and the command to produce more is sent. was birthed first in the mind . necessary chemical is producedA. The source of the information-intensive initial conditions seems to be outside the realm of chemistry and physics alone. the signal is given. poses a huge problem for evolutionists because information cannot be reduced to simply matter. When the cell needs to produce more of a certain chemical. Bradley and Thaxton. the British philosopher and physical chemist Michael Polanyi published a remarkable paper in Chemical and Engineering News entitled "Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry. Since there is no known natural process that could create the type of complex information contained in the DNA molecule A. however. information must have its origin in someone's mind.

If cells really evolved in step-by-step fashion over millions of years." 20. 24 / 76 . then why in the world did it evolve the complex steps to produce the numerous chemical precursors? Are we to suppose that the first developing cell. 15 June 2011 22:10 Although some of these essential chemicals do occur in nature. then how do we explain these chemical pathways? The dilemma is utterly devastating to the evolution story. nature does not produce them in a process that looks anything remotely like the complex chemical pathways seen in living things. how did the pathway evolve in steps?…On their face. Chemical Pathways . Behe.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . However. Darwin's Black Box.Last Updated Wednesday.Notes and References A. one should expect to find at least some examples of organisms consisting of 2 to 20 cells. or five cellsA. Animals consisting of 6 to 20 cells are parasites. If the evolution story is true. still not truly alive and able to reproduce. 151: "The problem for Darwinian evolution is this: if only the end product of a complicated biosynthetic pathway is used in the cell. p. managed to survive for millions of years while a massive amount of genetic information was added to it. four. before finally arriving at the chemical it actually needed for survival? Anyone that can swallow such a story cannot object to the belief in miracles. and require a complex host organism for their survival. as transitional between one-celled and many-celled organisms. metabolic pathways where intermediates are not useful present severe challenges to a Darwinian scheme of evolution. three. If the cell absolutely needs the final product of a long chemical pathway. No Two-Celled Life There are plenty of examples of single-celled organisms alive today. there are no known examples of life forms having two. 19. slowly endowing it with the information and structures necessary to make the numerous chemical precursors.

But a search of the professional literature proves them wrong. and hook. and position.". Like the cilia." Again. No Two-Celled Life . 69): "The amount of scientific research that has been and is now being done on the cilium .Last Updated Wednesday. Walt Brown. simple at first blush. Nobody knows. It is also completely unsupported by empirical science. 7th Ed. Where Did the Flagella Come From? The flagellum is a tiny whip-like appendage found on one-celled organisms such as certain bacteria. a situation completely incompatible with the evolution story. each specific in its chemical composition. but when viewed under a powerful electron microscope. p. special creation is the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems and structures such as the cilium.the great increase over the past few decades in our understanding of how the cilium works .100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 15 June 2011 22:10 20. the entire structure in all its complexity must have appeared suddenly. Although there is no complete understanding how these tiny motors work. are actually another great example of irreducible complexity. 22. somebody must know. many studies have deduced the presence of a rotor. Within each cilium lies an entire network of structures. 50 21. pp. Only commitment to the evolution story would cause a person to deny the clear evidence of design in this remarkable mechanism. as Biochemistry Professor Michael Behe notes ("Darwin's Black Box". a whole new picture emerges. Where Did the Cilia Come From? Some cells are equipped with tiny hair-like appendages known as cilia.Notes and References A. this structure appears simple at first blush. a rod. 1996.lead many people to assume that even if they themselves don't know how the cilium evolved.9. Since the cilia is essential for the survival of certain forms of one celled life. bushings. 25 / 76 . shape. "In the Beginning. These structures.

reversiblebeenthe inhas upmechanisms…Eightof rich flagellum again. The plant's seeds provide food for the caterpillars that hatch from the eggs. Where describes the stators. with of They in in circularpublished technology aretheaoriginyears…yet must the Likebacteria 7th professionaltotally missing." Behe. here 23. direction. the surviving seeds grow into the next generation of plants.32 24. Metamorphosis 87% of all insects undergo metamorphosis. generalThe wonderful examplescrossrotate and References model motors…Because "These tomotorsed. sensors.' "Reader's Digest Pathfinders Insects and Spiders". The yucca plant counts on the moth to pollinate its flowers as the moth lays her eggs on the plant.Did the vacuum thehaveFrom?created. are examples of such symbiotic relationships.Notes and References A. "Without each other. it's impossible that they could have evolved in step-by-step fashion over millions of years. change speed. they bacterialevolution lens start. p. and even the Walt the as "In p. This way. The fig gall moth and the fig tree. 15 June 2011 22:10 gradual havefact thousands of switches and section 100. but they don't eat all the seeds. The odds against this occurring naturally are staggering to the imagination. Weldon Owen Inc."haveperaccountnatural this efficient. and inside. they undergo a complete change in their body type as part of their regular life cycle.are molecularmanyexplaining revolutions to minute…The motors.the the"The havingintricateof evolution. rotors andmust evolutionary living machine.72 on evolutionary would fit A. "Darwin's arisen Box". The next generation of moths grows up too. These amazing creatures build for themselves a cocoon or chrysalis around themselves. p. Symbiotic Relationships .Last Updated Wednesday. the yucca moth and the yucca plant might well die out. FlagellaandpaperssimilarNotes engineering to hair. literature onof Even on though human Brown. Sudden creation is the most reasonable explanation for symbiotic relationships.hethrough these this mechanism inside bacterial flagellum is about attestscilium. the subject marvels: as Black shape. Each member of the symbiotic relationship must have arisen suddenly at the same time. Since the organisms involved are already incredibly complex and highly organized systems. starting the process all over again. 22. -literature of published not propeller's by literature Beginning". Symbiotic Relationships Our planet is home to numerous species of plant and animal kinds. 23.000 told the seen Brown thestop.17 extraordinarymotors these ever awe couldelectricalmillion ofthe for be Walt theextremely A. which are completely dependent upon one another for their survival. their bodies completely break down into a 26 / 76 . many parasites and their host organisms. the yucca plant and the yucca mothA.can literature is Come no scientistcontrol respects over that all biology these process cilia. 2000. probablyalone.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . that is.

in step-by-step fashion. we must assume. That means that at some point in the remote past.Notes and References 27 / 76 . It's impossible that evolution over millions of years could have produced the genetic information necessary for metamorphosis to take place. In time. This trait. Now imagine that an automobile quickly dissolved and reassembled itself as an airplane! Only the most naïve and unscientific would believe that such a design could be produced by natural processes alone. Note that a butterfly is many times more complex than an automobile.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . those traits that give them a distinct survival advantage in their particular environment. pulp-like liquid. It emerges as a capable flyer with a sucking tube instead of a mouth. Now what possible survival advantage is there for an insect completely dissolved into liquid? Even thousands of mutations to the liquid cannot offer it selective advantage in the outside world until the final. For example. the evolution story maintains that animals evolve. adult insect is formed. insects evolved the ability to completely disintegrate into a thick. yet almost no one would suggest that an automobile could assemble itself by purely natural processes. The huge amount of genetic information needed to orchestrate the insect's amazing change from one body type to another can only be explained as an act of creative intelligence. For example. the adult insect emerges in a completely different form. 15 June 2011 22:10 thick liquid. and two extremely complex eyes equipped with thousands of lenses.Last Updated Wednesday. the caterpillar enters the cocoon as a crawling creature with a chewing mouth and a few simple eyes. evolved long before the insect evolved the ability to completely remake itself.A 24. Metamorphosis .

should the ancestral insect have survived the mutations that projected it into the chrysalid stage. 15 June 2011 22:10 A. What was the selective advantage in evolving something as enormously complex as an immune system when there were no invaders to protect against? Conversely. or else they would have been defenceless against thousands of potential infectionsA. "Certainly it demonstrates the absurdity of invoking natural selection by successive mutation to explain such an obviously. Here we have another classic chicken and egg problem for evolution which has found no suitable answerB. According to the evolution story. p.Last Updated Wednesday. p. halting evolution dead in it's tracks. in insect. Why on that basis. 28 / 76 . 71 "There is no evidence of how such a remarkable plan of life ever came about…" Peter Farb. 1984. Life Nature Library. There's no reason to believe that the cell evolved an immune system before the threat of microscopic invaders was posed. ever have evolved by chance? Indeed. New York: Time Incorporated. tangled in a net of inexplicability. 56 25. yet subtly programmed. the cell would have died. the cell would have died long before it could have evolved such a system. process. London" Rider and Company. from which it could not yet develop into an adult? Where was natural selection then? How could pre-programmed metamorphosis. animals and plants evolved only those traits which gave them a selective advantage. yet if the threat was posed before the immune system evolved." Michael Pitman. how could development evolved piecemeal? The ball is in the evolutionist's court. amphibian or crustacean. "Adam and Evolution". "The Insects". Immune Systems The immune systems in plants and animals can recognize invaders such as bacteria and viruses. The earliest cells must have been fully equipped with a functioning immune system from the beginning. if microscopic invaders did exist when the newly evolving cell was without an immune system. and marshal microscopic forces to defend against these invaders. 1962.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .

Notes and References A. amphibians into reptiles. Virtually all the crucial developments seem to have happened at an early stage of vertebrate evolution.Last Updated Wednesday. p. The problem is that random change to a complex. 269. "Unfortunately we cannot trace most of the evolutionary steps that the immune system took. for example. Experimental science has demonstrated undeniably. 1996. The scientific literature as no answers to the question of the origin of the immune system. were responsible for changing fish into amphibians. cannot be expected to make it function better. Thus has the immune system sprung up fully armed. "Will We Survive?" Scientific American." Avrion Mitchison. Without a mechanism. Even the most primitive extant vertebrates seem to rearrange their antigen receptor genes and posses separate T and B cells. it is believed. "We can look high or we can look low.138 26. mutations (random changes) to animal and plant DNA (the "blueprint") caused animals and plants to change over time into totally different kinds. random changes to living systems cannot be expected to improve them. like cogs in a machine. and a random change to it. 15 June 2011 22:10 25. in books or in journals. as well as MHC molecules. note that an amoeba (an organism consisting of only one cell) is said to be more complex than the space shuttle! According to the evolution story. Vol. These random changes. that mutations cannot be the mechanism by which animals evolvedB. September 1993. never makes it operate betterA. is an example of such a system. "Darwin's Black Box". reptiles into mammals and birds. Immune Systems . 29 / 76 . which is poorly represented in the fossil record and from which few species survive. Likewise. To fully understand just how ordered and complex even a simple living system must be to survive. highly ordered system. Your stereo at home. the evolution story falls apart. and the only reasonable explanation for the various animal and plant kinds we see in the world today is special creation. say by dropping it or poking a stick into it. but the result is the same.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 138 B. in order to maintain the organism's life functions. p." Michael Behe. highly organized systems and structures. Mutations and Evolution All living things consist of incredibly complex. and so on. These systems and structures operate in harmony with one another.

p. January. "the Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation". For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized.F." "Biology".] "Even if we didn't have a great deal of data on this point. When we consider the complexity of living things. 1985. Eldr Pearl. "Genetic Effects of Radiation". Mutations and Evolution . (Professor of Genetics. Claude A.just as a random interchange of connection in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. pp. editor Julian Huxley. but that any mutation is ever advantageous. Mutations are random changes in nucleic acids and usually represent not merely alteration but an actual loss in genetic information. Instead." James Crow. 14.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .988 [Emphasis mine. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it . the wonder is not that mutations are usually harmful. such mutations are more likely to have a deleterious or even disastrous effect. 1958. 1949." Sewall Wright. Vol. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. reasonably smoothly functioning living body. we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. J. "The vast number of genetic experiments with plants and animals carried on since DeVries studies have shown that mutations do occur constantly and that the changes in phenotype produced by such mutations may rarely be of adaptive value and contribute to the survival of the organism. Saunders College Publishing. Villee. A random change in a computer chip or even a computer program is hardly likely to improve it. p. University of Wisconson). 174 30 / 76 . William Davis. 15 June 2011 22:10 26. The Systematics.Last Updated Wednesday.Notes and References A. 19-20 "The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency toward degeneration. P.

Science. 1157.64): "All of a sudden. states that mutations occur about once every 10 million duplications of the DNA molecule.flies which produce a new generation every eleven days . the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors. then if you just have that single organizational. though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all around the world . For evolution to occur.379 Biologist Gary Parker "Creation The Facts of Life". That's the general. informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again. (Lund Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerp. Against 4 mutations." Pierre-Payl Grasse. in numerical terms. we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth:" Roy Abraham Varghese. New York: Academic Press. vol. Harper & Row. about 1 in a billion trillion (1021). as quoted by Charles Mann. 1 in 1028. "We found that there's just no way it could happen.88 'I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these [evolutionary] changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations. quite carefully.Last Updated Wednesday. The Great Evolution Mystery (New York. Heribert Nilsson.48 B. Cardiff. or about 1 in 100 trillion. Checking all the numbers. the earth isn't big enough to hold enough organisms to 31 / 76 . p." N. mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. "The Intellectuals Speak Out About God". The odds of only two favourable mutations occurring is the sum of their separate probabilities. BBC Television). 1977.they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. 1984. 1983) p. 252. a series of related mutations must occur. head of the Dept. and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. "Evolution of Living Organisms". internationally recognized authority on interstellar matter.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 1953). Parker notes (p. 1991. Synthetische Artbildung. If you start with a simple micro organism. April 19. 1186 "It is a striking. but not much mentioned fact that. primordial soup or otherwise. University College. 15 June 2011 22:10 "There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species…It is therefore impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombination's. no matter how it arose on earth. enough mistakes in copying. quotes Chandra Wickramisinghe. "Lynn Margulis: Science's Unruly Earth Mother". Against three mutations. 1980. rates of mutation and so on. of Applied Mathematics and astronomy." Gordon Rattray Taylor (Former Chief Science Advisor. p.63-64.' Lynn Margulis. CLP Publishers. pp. Wales "No matter how numerous they may be. usual formulation of the theory of evolution…We looked at this quite systematically. pp.

cells eventually evolved the ability to reproduce by combining its DNA with another organism's to produce a hybrid offspring. 15 June 2011 22:10 make that very likely. also capable of reproducing this way. Today we have many examples of single celled organisms that replicate this way. And we're only talking about four mutations. Fully Developed Organs . "The Return of Hopeful Monsters". or half a wing?" Stephen Jay Gould.Notes and References A. or even a fish into a frog. But even at this point some evolutionists have given up the classic idea of evolution. "Of what possible use are the imperfect stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw. or tubes such as veins. Think about all the otherwise healthy couples in the world seeking to adopt a child because they cannot have one of their own. they were able to create offspring by themselves without the need of a mate. living or in fossil stage. skin. because it just plainly doesn't work. 86. there is not one animal kind that we can point to. Natural History.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 27. Oftentimes the problem preventing 32 / 76 . that is. 1977. p. the first life forms on planet earth reproduced asexually.Last Updated Wednesday. Sexual Reproduction According to the evolution story." 27. Yet today. A tube that is not fully developed could not have offered an animal any sort of selective advantage and the same holds true for underdeveloped organsA.23 28. then various animal kinds must have surely existed with partially developed organs. As the story goes. vol. What many don't stop to think about is just how staggering the complexity of sexual reproduction really is. June-July. It would take many more than that to change a fish into a philosopher. There are no examples of half-developed feathers. eyes. or any of the other thousands of crucial organs. arteries and intestines. which can be said to possess developing organs. Four mutations don't even make a start toward real evolution. Fully Developed Organs If the evolution story is true.

is often quite minor. Sexual reproduction. with all their intricate parts working perfectly within themselves and with each other must have arisen suddenly at the same time and in the same place. "This book is written from a conviction that the prevalence of sexual reproduction in higher plants and animal is inconsistent with current evolutionary theory. p. Textbooks understandably skirt the issue. Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians (notably G. Even those with enough hubris to publish on the topic often freely admit that they have little idea of how sex originated or is maintained. New Scientist. v. when no females were around to mate with? Or why would an asexually reproducing organism evolve into a female when there were no male versions of her kind around to mate with? Both males and females of a particular kind.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . "Why Sex?" Discover. "Slap and Tickly in the Primeval Soup". the persistence of sex is one of the fundamental mysteries in evolutionary biology today. "Sex and Evolution".24 "Sex is something of an embarrassment to evolutionary biologists. What possible selective advantage was there for an organism to develop. p." Michael Rose. It is enough to give heart to creationists. John Maynard 33 / 76 . keeping it a closely guarded secret. 1975. 112 October 30. Williams 1975. The question is." Gina Maranto and Shannon Brownlee.C. p. 18 "So why is there sex? We do not have a compelling answer to the question. Princeton University Press.55 "Indeed. requires that millions of systems and structures work together in perfect unison not only within each partner. however. December 1983. To believe this is to believe in miracles. Omni. p.. over millions of years. 15 June 2011 22:10 pregnancy lay in only one partner. 1986. "Why We Have Sex". is God responsible." George C.Last Updated Wednesday. but also between partners. evolution gives organisms new traits in order to better equip them for survival in their particular environments. or evolution?A 28. "The evolution of sex is one of the major unsolved problems o biology. Williams. Sexual Reproduction -  Notes and References A. February 1984. Vol. and compared with the person's overall health. Supposedly." Kathleen McAuliffe. the "machinery" to reproduce as a male.

are examples of animals loosing things. there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . How is it. "Vestigial" Structures . If evolution happened the way most textbooks say (from molecules to men for example). Vestigial structures. evolutionary theorists believe that the problem will be solved without abandoning the main Darwinian insights . Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Just because a certain structure's function is not presently known. Heribert Nilsson. 15 June 2011 22:10 Smith 1978). then. However. Scientists have never seen mutations add information to an organism this way.B It is wrong to consider either a vestige. Cambridge.54 "From an evolutionary viewpoint sex differentiation is impossible to understand. possible to imagine bridges between two amazingly different structural types?" N. not gaining them. is claimed to be a functionless vestige from the days when we used to have tails. The appendix is likewise considered by some to be a vestige.Last Updated Wednesday. It is illogical to use them as proof of evolution." Philip Kitcher. The logic here is flawed.Notes and References 34 / 76 . doesn't necessarily mean it has no function. p. 1953 p.A Both the coccyx and the appendix have known functions today. as well as the structural sexual differences between the systematic categories which are sometimes immense. "Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism". 29. The coccyx (tailbone) for example.1225 29. "Vestigial" Structures The existence of certain structures whose function is not known has typically been used as evidence for evolution. "Synthetische Artbildung". if they are true vestiges. Our increase in medical knowledge over the years has helped us understand the function of many structures once thought vestigial. We know that intersexes [a part male and part female organism] within a species must be sterile. then massive amounts of information would have to be added to an organism in order to produce brand new systems and structures.just as early nineteenth century astronomers believed that the problem of the motion of Uranus could be overcome without major modifications to Newton's celestial mechanics. 1982.

nor could you walk or sit upright. our bodies are ideally structured for speech. "Quarterly Review of Biology". Human Language Scientists agree that the human brain is unique in its configuration. Again." William Straus. fall down.720 30. Our throats are equipped with a voice box. ours is the only one which appears to be "wired" for speech. 8. this conflicts with the evolution scenario of millions of years of slow development. In all the animal kingdom. "The Evolution Cruncher". that is. Cited in Farrel. Human Language . The only other viable explanation for our ability to speak is sudden creationA.Last Updated Wednesday. Without those muscles.926 B. "Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions. 1947. "The Evolution Cruncher". p. The question is." Vance Farrell. "There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure." Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 1946.720 "Scientists have found that important muscles (the levantor ani and coccygeus) attach to those bones. 15 June 2011 22:10 A. which evolved first? It makes no sense for an organism to evolve a brain wired for speech when the body is physically incapable of forming words. Likewise. p. your pelvic organs would collapse. Likewise why would an organism evolve a mouth and throat capable of speech when the brain is completely incapable of producing meaningful words? Both must have occurred together. which is suspended by the hyoid bone.Notes and References 35 / 76 .100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .149. Without them you could not have a bowel movement. 30. working together with a supple tongue and lips makes us perfectly equipped to form words. p. p.

which must surely have existed if evolution were true." 36 / 76 . Woodruff. Lack of Intermediate Fossils . p. the rest is inference. Vol. predicted by Darwin to contain many such "missing links" between different kinds of animals.164 31. "But the fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition. 1980. then there must have been billions of intermediates between the various animal and plant kinds.716 "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. not the evidence of fossils.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . to date there are but a few highly questionable fossil forms being called intermediate links between animal kinds. 208. 1987. 15 June 2011 22:10 A. "If we are honest. "Evolution: The Paleobiological View". For example. "The Amazing Body Human". it was this lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record. we will face the facts and admit that we can find no evolutionary development to explain our unique speech center [in the human brain]. The fossil record is devoid of "missing links" because evolution never happened. May 16. It's no secret that the fossil record. According to Darwin. 31." Mark P. Grand Rapids. Though literally trillions of fossils exist. however reasonable. that was the most serious objection his theoryB. Science. we should find some fossil evidence of creatures somewhere between reptile and bird. if reptiles evolved into birds.Last Updated Wednesday." David S. is extremely poorA. Cosgrove.Notes and References A. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. p. Baker Book House. Lack of Intermediate Fossils If evolution really occurred the way the textbooks say.

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70)
Written by John Feakes - Last Updated Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:10

Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace", Natural History, vol. 5, May, 1977, p.14

B. "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory." Charles Darwin, "The Origin of Species", p.323

32. Punctuated Equilibrium
The extreme rarity of anything remotely like "intermediate" fossil is precisely what the creation/flood theory would predict. On the other hand this apparent lack of transitional forms had led many evolutionists to suspect that evolution does not occur in slow, step-by-step fashion as Darwin proposed. According to this view (a.k.a. Punctuated Equilibrium), evolution operated in "spurts", changing an animal's fundamental structure in a very short time. This idea almost completely overlooks the enormous improbabilities of random mutations affecting an organism in a profound and positive wayA. This has never been seen in nature, and besides that, if an animal was born fundamentally different than its parents as the punctuated equilibrium story goes, where did unique offspring find a suitable mate? This story demands that evolution perform two miracles! Clearly, the absence of transitional fossils is not due to punctuated equilibrium, but the fact that all the various animal kinds did not evolve. They were created, just as the Bible describes.

32. Punctuated Equilibrium - Notes and References

A. "The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation…is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flyer. Indeed, having all the equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all…To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." E. Mayer, "Populations", in Species and Evolution, 1970, p. 253

37 / 76

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70)
Written by John Feakes - Last Updated Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:10

33. Bounded Variations
Animal kinds that reproduce quickly and have the most offspring such as bacteria should have the greatest variety in offspring. The most fit of these offspring would survive to pass their traits along to future generations. If evolution were true, the most evolved animal kinds should still possess those traits that allowed them to survive, namely, short gestational periods and many offspring.A In reality, what are considered the most evolved animals, like humans for example, have long gestational periods and relatively few offspring.

33. Bounded Variations - Notes and References

A. "The awesome morphological complexity of organisms such as vertebrates that have far fewer individuals on which selection can act therefore remains somewhat puzzling (for me at least), despite the geological time scales available and notwithstanding the insights provided by John Banner in his book The Evolution of Complexity and Richard Dawkins' demonstration of the power of selection in the Blind Watchmaker." Peter R. Sheldon, "Complexity Still Running", Nature, Vol. 350, March 14, 1991, p.104

34. Lack of Evidence of Macro Evolution
The idea that one kind of animal could ever evolve into a fundamentally different kind of animal is not supported by observable evidence. Some disagree, citing the fact that certain animal kinds display a wide variety of variations. The dog kind, for example, has over 200 varieties (from the Great Dane to the Chihuahua). This is called microevolution. Some reason that if this much variation can be produced in a relatively short time, longer periods of time might enable something like the dog kind, for example, to evolve into something fundamentally different than a dog (macroevolution).

It's important to realize that the variations we see in dogs are not due to new genetic information being created (which needs to happen for macroevolution to occur), but are simply an expression of genetic information already present in the dog population. Selective breeding is allowing us to see what sort of genetic potential exists within this particular kind of animal, and we've seen the rise of many, many varieties of dog, but again, no new genetic information has

38 / 76

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70)
Written by John Feakes - Last Updated Wednesday, 15 June 2011 22:10

been added to the dog population.

Variation within a Kind. Selective breeding has produced the Great Dane and the Chihuahua, both members of the dog kind. Notice that this variation was not produced by new information being added, which must be the case for evolution to occur. The variation within the dog kind is due to animal breeders choosing dogs with the desired traits for their breeding efforts. Notice that this process involves a reduction in the available genetic material since breeders must rejec t cert ain dogs whose traits are undesirable. In other words, though purebred dogs do display a wide variety of physical traits from each other, this variation actually leaves these animals with less genetic information for further change. This is actually evolution in reverse!

Animal breeders of all kinds can readily testify to the fact that there are certain, definite limits to how much variation there can be in any given kind of animalA. Cattle farmers for example, may breed cows for size, selecting the biggest offspring from each generation until they wind up with huge cows, yet before too long a limit is reached, and these cows, huge as they may be, will lack in other areas, such as disease resistance and so forth. Likewise, a farmer may selectively breed cows that produce the most milk, but again, there is a definite limit to how much milk a cow can produce. Of all the countless generations of animals produced in selective breeding experiments, no one has ever seen one kind of animal ever give birth to a fundamentally different kind.

34. Lack of Evidence of Macro Evolution - Notes and References

A. "All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary axe." William R. Fix, "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution", New York, Macmillan Publishing Co.,

39 / 76

is called the Cambrian. today we have 38 phyla (a certain classification of living things) whereas in the Cambrian era. So rich in fossil material are these rock layers that some refer to the diversity of life found in them as the "Cambrian Explosion.184-185 "A rule that all breeders recognise is that there are fixed limits to the amount of change that can be produced. In fact. which moved about on the sea floor. bohlin. equipped with a very unique set of calcite-based eyes. very few fossils have been discovered in rocks designated pre-Cambrian. you guess it. near the bottom of the column does not mean that they were the first animals to have 40 / 76 .Last Updated Wednesday. ocean dwelling organisms. we find no less than 50 phyla. and this layer is said to represent an era which saw the rapid rise of life on our planet. This is not predicted by the evolution story at all. C The so-called "simple" life forms that appear in Cambrian rock layers are. "The Natural Limits to Biological Change". Lester and Raymond H. Their position in the fossil record.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . The Cambrian Explosion According to the evolution story. and this progression can be traced upward through the rock layers. Zondervan Publishing House. The lowest rocks on this "geologic column" are called pre-Cambrian. the further back in time we find ourselves." The problem is that life found in "Cambrian" rock layers is incredibly diverse and complex. specialized creatures appear as fossils in this supposedly ancient era of earth's history.96 35. specially suited for underwater vision. p. It is claimed that the further down we dig into the earth. and supposedly represent a time before life evolved on our planet." Lane P. life evolved from simple to complex over the last 3. these fossils will reveal clearly the evolutionary order (fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals and birds and so on). pp. is an extremely complex creature.A The trilobite. for example. B This and thousands of other highly complex. Consequently. and where we discover fossils.5 billion years or so. Grand Rapids. 1984. The layer above the pre-Cambrian. 15 June 2011 22:10 1984. for the most part.

Notes and References A. p. this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Needless to say. University Chicago Press. And a final discovery .W. p. snails.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .a flood . The trilobite was described as having "the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature" See: Science News.54-57 C. February 2. 1993. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater.borders on sheer science fiction…The design of the trilobite's eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure. "Stephen Jay Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. without any evolutionary history. 1974. W. "The Blind Watchmaker"." Stephen J. 35.that the refracting interface between the two lense elements in a trilobite's eye was designed in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century . The theory of 41 / 76 .229 B. The Cambrian explosion is better interpreted in light of the biblical flood of Noah's day. the Cambrian explosion.Last Updated Wednesday. nearly every major kind of animal anatomy appears in the fossil record for the first time…The Precambrian record is now sufficiently good that the old rationale about undiscovered sequences of smoothly transitional forms will no longer wash. 105..65 "And we find many of them [Cambrian Fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution.in which animals such as clams. October 1989. the very first time they appear.72 "In fact. "An Asteroid to Die For". Norton &#amp. It is as though they were just planted there. Company. this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. pp. London." Richard Levi-Setti. 15 June 2011 22:10 evolved (their complexity ought to be enough to determine that). 1987. and trilobites would have been the first life forms to be buried in sediment. It more likely means that there was a catastrophe . "Trilobites". Gould. marks the inception of modern. The Cambrian Explosion ." Richard Dawkins. multicellular life. 2 Ed. p. Discover. "The most famous such burst. Within just a few million years.

vol. Scientific American.000 years] far fetched.B These discoveries have forced evolutionists to reconsider their previous ideas about how long DNA can last. put Poinar points out that not long ago. p.origins.org/real/ri9701/chien. It was proposed by some that DNA could last longer under the right conditions. 142. Science News. For example. 269. But the whole thing turns out to be reversed . University of San Fransico). Old DNA and Bacteria . few people believed any ancient DNA could be sequenced. p. "Explosion of Life". See: "Ancient DNA". 36. we were told that we were crazy.92 42 / 76 . October 24. "Brushing the Dust Off Ancient DNA".100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .html. such as less oxygen.2. "In the Beginning. 1992. colder. "Many scientists still consider this idea [that DNA could last longer than 10. 15 June 2011 22:10 evolution implies that things get more complex and get more and more diverse from one single origin. 1993." Kathryn Hoppe. 7th Ed".. Old DNA and Bacteria When an animal dies. 'When we started. and we have less and less now. Based on what was left of the DNA in well-preserved Egyptian mummies. p.Notes and References A. most scientists believed that DNA could only last around 10. its DNA begins to decompose.55 36.281 B. The actual rates of DNA disintegration however. vol. dryer." Paul Chien(Chairman.A Recently.we have more diverse groups in the very beginning. and in fact more and more of them die off over time.Last Updated Wednesday. Biology Dept. and less exposure to background radiation. November. www.000 years.' he says. p. even under these ideal C conditions. however. the DNA of both animals and plants supposedly hundreds of millions of years old have been found. measurable quantities of DNA was apparently found in Magnolia leaves supposedly 17 million years old. Cited in Walt Brown. don't support this hypothesis.

pp.1862 37.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 77-78 C. 7th Ed". For example. 15 June 2011 22:10 Fragments of dinosaur DNA was reportedly discovered in 80 million year old dinosaur bones found in a coal bed. a B common designer is a much more logical interpretation. Science.29-30. whales. Evolutionists themselves admit that similar anatomy does not always imply close evolutionary relationships. the radius and the ulna. Some have alleged that the dinosaur bones were contaminated with human DNA. 268. "In the Beginning. humans have two bones in their arm. Science News. as quoted by Virginia Morrel. the fact that different animal kinds have similar structures has been used as evidence for evolution. and bats all have a common ancestor. "We know from chemical experiments that it [DNA] degrades and how fast it degrades. Cann. 257. Science.1229-1232.Last Updated Wednesday. in cases where similar structures are controlled by different genes. just an interpretation of the data. September 25. 1995. Of course this isn't really proof at all. See: Kathryn Hoppe. October 24. as does the bat in its wing. "30-Million-Year-Old DNA Boosts an Emerging Field". Woodward. A rebuttal to this by Woodward may be found in "Detecting Dinosaur DNA". pp. vol. "Brushing the Dust Off Ancient DNA". "DNA Sequence from Cretacious Period Bone Fragments". Science. 142.1191-1194 DNA was also reported found within the scales of a 200 million year old fish. 1992. 1992." Rebecca L. 1994. p. vol. See: Scott R. vol. After 25 million years there shouldn't be any DNA left at all. vol. Homologous [Similar] Structures For years. November 18. 43 / 76 . this is proof positive that humans. pp.281 Many more examples of supposedly ancient DNA is discussed in Walt Brown. Evolutionists point out that the whale also has two bones in its flipper. According to some.A Actually. May 16. p. 266.

if the structure or function has remained unchanged. Thus." "The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severely damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are specified by quite different genes.149 Evolutionists propose that the genes governing features such as eyes. p. except in closely related species." From Sir Gaven de Beer ("Homology. certainly the structure or function governed by these genes should change. has been given up as hopeless. if genes change. must be continually changing…we are able to see how organs such as the eye. California. New York. Creation-Life Publishers. "Origins Reconsidered".Notes and References A. though the genes responsible for the organ must have become wholly altered during the evolutionary process. identical anatomy may appear in two unrelated groups when they adapt to identical pressures of natural selection. preserve their essential similarity in structure or function. Denton.Last Updated Wednesday. pp. An Unsolved Problem" Oxford University Press. Conversely. pp. for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes.79 B. In evolution. then the genes governing this structure or function would remain unchanged. 15 June 2011 22:10 37. 182): "It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced. however. San Diego. 1992. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". there is always the possibility of our making mistakes in inferring close evolutionary relations between species that share an anatomical structure…Similar anatomy does not always imply close evolutionary relationship.73. yet the structure governed by these genes stays the same: ("These genes. for example. The attempt to find "homologous" genes. The actual genetic data. Doubleday.Sir Gaven. These are clearly the predictions that would be made if evolution were true." Richard Leakey." M. Unless we have a complete understanding of these subtleties. 1986. which are common to all vertebrate animals. 1971. Duane Gish. p. as a manifestation of which the character develops. 1981. directly contradicts these predictions. evolve into completely different genes. 44 / 76 . 182-83) sums up the predictions made by the evolution story: "Evolutionists believe that structures change (or evolve) because genes change (or evolve). cited by Duane Gish." .100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Homologous [Similar] Structures . ("Evolution? The Fossils Say No". "Evolution? The Fossils Say No". "There are subtleties in the formation of anatomical structures that we are only just beginning to understand. 1981.

Cornell University. Harland.Notes and References 45 / 76 . Natural selection works on the physical features produced by genes. 1936.11. nor is any being destroyed. it is highly unlikely that living things. Though this existing energy may change form. note that if natural process cannot create the inorganic portions of our universe such as mass and energy. 1971. 38. The First Law of Thermodynamics .C. 3rd Ed. it must have its origin outside the known universe and independent of natural processes. are the result of natural process alone. or any isolated part of it. there is no new energy being created in the universe today. Keeton. Company. p. it contradicts the evolutionist's claim that natural selection guides the evolutionary process. Because energy exists. 15 June 2011 22:10 "Homology An Unsolved Problem".W. vol. remains constantA. in all their complexity." Biological Science. The First Law of Thermodynamics This law. William T. 16. (which are relatively simple constituents of our universe). W.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . New York. p. Norton &#amp. citing S..83) This idea is not only without empirical support. one of the best attested in all of science. Without a mechanism. while the structures themselves remain unchanged. "Biological Reviews". 1980. not on the genes themselves: "It must be kept in mind that natural selection can act on genetic variation only when it is expressed as phenotype variation. Furthermore. p. the evolution theory is invalid. 38. A completely recessive allele never occurring in the homozygous condition would be totally masked from the action of natural selection. states that the overall energy in the universe.Last Updated Wednesday. The implication is that natural processes alone cannot create energy.752 There is therefore no mechanism which one can propose that could possibly change the genes governing structures.

40.was worked out that described the kinds of energy conversions that are possible. As we just noted. In light of the second Law of Thermodynamics 46 / 76 . According to the second law of Thermodynamics. It is also undeniable that everything that has a beginning also has a cause. If we spin the clock backward. 1996 39. the universe must have had a beginning. since something cannot cause itself. A corollary of the second Law is that. the incredible complexity of living systems). What is the universe's cause? The God of the Bible is a likely candidate as the causeless cause that created our universe. "The first law says that the total energy of the universe remains constant. a principle . heat always travels from a warmer region to a colder one without exception. as time goes by. This is another evidence that the universe had a beginning. which is an impossible condition according to the first thermodynamical law. hence. Softkey. complex. Our universe.Last Updated Wednesday. If we spin the clock backward we would eventually reach a place where the amount of energy available for useful work would exceed the total amount of energy in the universe. however. displays an incredible amount of both complexity and order (i. everything with a beginning also has a cause. Multimedia Inc. and others that are very cold. systems and structures (if left to themselves) will always tend toward increased disorder (entropy)A." The Compton's Interactive Encyclopaedia. we must deduce that the universe is not infinitely old (or else the temperature of the universe would be uniform throughout). It does not say what kinds of energy can be changed into what kinds of energy. The amount of disorder in a system is called entropy.e. Since our universe contains regions that are very hot. but a highly organized. we don't find ourselves at a chaotic big bang. 15 June 2011 22:10 A. Cause and Effect That causes produce effects is absolutely undeniable.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Work must therefore be done from outside the system to impose more order on the system or to decrease its entropy. This law states that conditions in any system tend to change to a condition of maximum disorder. The Second Law of Thermodynamics The second thermodynamical law states that the energy in the universe available for useful work is always decreasing.. created universe. After many false starts. a cause. In other words.the second law of thermodynamics .

belief in a Creator God is more than reasonable B . 131 B. "A final point to be made is that the second law of thermodynamics and the principle of increase in entropy have great philosophical implications." "The Enigma of Time". "Thermodynamics".is based on the principle that there are more possible disordered states in nature than ordered states. but that the early universe apparently was in a highly ordered state…There is no mechanism yet that would allow the universe to begin in a arbitrary state and then evolve to its present highly-ordered state.Last Updated Wednesday. This tendency toward disorder is called an arrow of time." David Harry Grinspoon. changing. 297 "So time is relative. Addison .Wesley Publishing. 1997. The mystery is not that an ordered state should become disordered.unequivocally rules that out. The question that arises is how did the universe get into the state of reduced entropy in the first place. John Wily & Sons.Notes and References A. New York. 304. Watch the egg reassemble then rise through the air. July 7. Assistant Professor of Astrophysical and Planetary Sciences at the University of Colorado. mostly because the sun increases its entropy as it radiates energy…The universe tends toward death and disorder. Nature.The Second Law of Thermodynamics . It's the law. "Venus Revealed"." Gordon J.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . This demonstrates a basic law of science: that nature is a process of disorganization." Don N. Humpty Dumpty won't ever put himself back together again…Look at the film of an egg as it falls to the floor and breaks. Van Wylen. The second law of thermodynamics which states that isolated systems move from order to disorder . Run the film backward. This increasing natural disorganization . p. Page. 40. March 1990. p. vol. 47 / 76 . National Geographic.39 "…total entropy increases. pp. Helix Books.or entropy . 119. 1983. since all natural processes known to us tend to increase entropy?…The author has found that the second law tends to increase his conviction that there is a Creator who has the answer for the future destiny of man and the universe. that entropy increases with time as order is transformed into disorder. Can it be reversed? No. "Inflation Does Not Explain Time Asymmetery". "The time asymmetry of the universe is expressed by the second law of thermodynamics. 15 June 2011 22:10 and all its implications.

however predicts the second law. 1987. became something. Galaxies. and still lack a reasonable naturalistic explanation. but it could never predict it. nothing exploded. But what started the rotary motions?" William R. everything is spinning.26 41. might then perhaps be harmonized with the second law.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Glen Arm. In a Big Bang universe. p. Throughout the entire universe. are completely unpredicted by the theory. Besides the ridiculous idea that nothing can turn into something if you wait long enough. p. The Origin of Rotary Movements According to the Big Bang story. "Galaxy rotation and how it got started is one of the great mysteries of astrophysics. it seems. p.177 42. linear movements could easily be explained. If the universe was really birthed in a chaotic explosion of space and matter. which then turned into everything. there are numerous physical problems with the story.A 41. Impossibility of Stellar Evolution Science textbooks are filled with diagrams depicting how gas clouds have apparently 48 / 76 .169 "The evolutionary model. California. Cosmos: A Catalogue of Astronomical Anomalies". 15 June 2011 22:10 1959. Morris. "The Scientific Case for Creation"." Professor Henry M. The origin of rotary (spinning) movements is one such problem. "Stars. 1977. San Diego.Last Updated Wednesday. The creation model. on the other hand. by an such secondary modification and extension. Creation-Life Publishers. The Origin of Rotary Movements . linear motions are easy to explain: They result from the bang. Maryland: The Sourcebook Project. Corliss. Spinning movements.Notes and References A.

however.1999. some mechanism must be in place to radiate heat away. Molecules are required to accomplish this. The heavier elements.A To date. the denser the arrangement. according to the theory. 15 June 2011 22:10 condensed into stars. a shockwave from an exploding star causing compression of a nearby gas cloud]. "He Made Stars Also". yet the big bang produced mainly hydrogen and helium. they need to be pushed somehow to be started. require pre-existing stars. which could only produce H2.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .Notes and References A.and dust grains require heavier elements. Impossibility of Stellar Evolution . is that gas does not normally condense to form anything.g. and almost all of them require having stars to start with [e. Again.Last Updated Wednesday. Sometimes photos are given of certain nebula with bright spots inside the clouds as evidence that stellar evolution is continuing today. It must somehow be pushed into a denser arrangement from an outside source." Astronomer Danny Faulkner. and…usually needs dust grains for its formation . This is the old chicken and egg problem. and it has long been recognized that the clouds don't spontaneously collapse and form stars." 49 / 76 . it can't account for the origin of stars in the first place. But as Jonathon Sarfati points out ("Refuting Evolution" Master Books. there is a chicken and egg problem of needing stars to produce stars. The problem. 42. Most involve things like nearby supernovae to provide the necessary compressive pressure.94): "[H2] would be destroyed rapidly under the ultraviolet light present. "Stars supposedly condensed out of vast clouds of gas. Even so. Creation. There have been a number of suggestions to get the process started. the hotter the cloud becomes and its outward expansive force becomes greater. no naturalistic explanation for the formation of B stars exists. 19(4):42-44) Further. in order for a gas cloud to collapse. p. Many theories have been advanced to explain how gas could have been pushed together. The problem here is that the supposed solution to how stars form requires pre-existing stars! The question of star formation is another of the many chicken-and-egg variety that pervade the evolution worldview.

30 June.are shown.564 "No one really understands how star formation proceeds. "A Matter of Timing"." Fred L. Its really remarkable. A dim star. 50 / 76 . Other explanations for the heat exist. 1990. 1985. These explanations are more plausible considering the enormous problems associated with stellar evolution. Because these regions appear surprisingly hot. 248. and as the story goes. Powell. Science.Last Updated Wednesday. 15 June 2011 22:10 B.is still a challenging theoretical problem.most popularly the Eagle Nebula .100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . it was inside these stars that the rest of the heavier elements in our universe were synthesized..C.409 "Precisely how a section of an interstellar cloud collapses gravitationally into a star . p. 267. or perhaps something close to the cloud exploded. which should be happening if the star is truly still forming. or a solar system ." Charles J. And no one has caught a molecular cloud in the act of collapsing. "The Formation of Sunlike Stars". Smithsonian Institution Press. no observable evidence supports it and much actually refutes it. as quoted by Corey S. and pictures of "stellar nurseries" . Scientific American. 43. some scientists speculate that stars are evolving there. called a Brown Dwaf may be behind the cloud. Vol. Washington. The Origin of Heavy Elements According to the evolution story.a double or multiple star. "…no one has unambiguously observed material falling into an embryonic star.211. Vol. Shu. Science News." Ivan Peterson." Rogier A.30 Some claim that stellar evolution has been observed. p. Whipple. Windhorst. "The Mystery of Comets". the Big Bang produced only hydrogen and helium. Lada and Frank S. October 1992. p. D. Somehow the first generation of stars managed to form from these two elements. "The Winds of Starbirth". …Astronomers have yet to find an interstellar cloud in the actual process of collapse. Vol. Though this standard explanation for the evolution of heavy elements is stated like a proven fact. p. 4 May 1990. 137.213 "The Origin of stars represents one of the most fundamental unsolved problems of contemporary astrophysics.

8 the mass of the Sun) still to be burning their nuclear fuel. p. p." William A. 43. Fowler. there is no observable evidence that any of the heavier elements such as uranium. Furthermore. This basic objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea. California Institute of Technology. if heavy elements evolved the way the evolution story says. Nature.A In other words. None have been detected. despite extensive searches. If the universe were 10 billion years old. go through their lifecycles. recollect into the next generation of stars. This helium then doubles to become helium 4 and the process stops there.B Today we are able to observe objects further away than ever before.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . unable to go any further because neither a proton or a neutron can be attached to the helium 4 atom. April 30. explode.79 B. 15 June 2011 22:10 Hydrogen bombs double hydrogen into helium 2 (deuterium) in a process called fusion. in which case some should be small enough (smaller than 0. "One might expect population III stars [containing only hydrogen and helium] to have the same sort of distribution of masses as stars forming today. That is. then one would expect to find somewhere in distant space. Light from these most distant objects shows that they contain an abundance of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium. that would leave only about 1 billion years for all the necessary chemical evolutionary steps to occur.Last Updated Wednesday. 829 51 / 76 . The problem is that. nobody has ever found a zero-metallicity star. 1987. then the travel time for these heavy elements to reach us required over 90% of the proposed age of the universe. quoted in Vance Farrell. This means that less than 10% of the universe's age would have been available for the first stars to form. "The Evolution Cruncher". produce heavy elements. there is no stable atom at mass 5 or mass 8…The question then is: How can the build up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. The Origin of Heavy Elements ." Bernard Carr. some of the so-called first generation stars. "In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant. Few scientists believe that such slow processes could really occur in so short a time. and then finally transmit the light of these heavy elements across vast distances of space to us here on earth. If the speed of light has been constant. 326. iron or carbon could or ever did evolve.Notes and References A. stars consisting only of hydrogen and helium. "Where is Population III?". vol.

"One of the detailed problems is then to explain how the Sun itself acquires nearly 99. With 98% of the solar system's mass. Case in point: the angular momentum problem: All spinning bodies will rotate faster when they suddenly become compact around their spin axis.9% of the mass of the solar system but only 2% of its angular momentum. she spins faster." William Hunter McCrea. and not everyone agrees: "However. Paris." Frank D. New York. As the middle of the nebular disc collapsed inward and became the sun. while the material left on the periphery became the nine planets and their moons. Stacey. only 2 % of the remaining mass was left on the periphery to become the nine planets and their moons. p. or that if they did they would operate with the extreme efficiency needed in order to achieve the required distribution of angular momentum. Watch a figure skater spin. The Sun's Missing Angular Momentum Most science textbooks dealing with the origin of the solar system explain that about 5 billion years ago. Now imagine the origin of the solar system as portrayed by evolutionists. 44. the entire solar system was nothing more than a gigantic spinning cloud of hot gas. 15 June 2011 22:10 44. I scarcely think it has been established that the postulated processes would inevitably occur. creating our sun. France: 52 / 76 . As she pulls her arms in. "Physics of the Earth". It was created. many physical problems exist which cast considerable doubt on such an idea. The Sun's missing angular momentum is good evidence that the solar system did not evolve. it is believed that this gas cloud collapsed in the middle back into itself. "Origin of the Solar System".100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 1969. This is speculation really.Last Updated Wednesday.Notes and References A. The Sun's Missing Angular Momentum .4 Some have suggested that a process known as "magnetic linking" could have transferred angular momentum from the sun to the planets. Symposium on the Origin of the Solar System". While many scientists talk about this nebular theory as though it were a fact. the Sun ought to have about 700 times the angular momentum than it has today if the evolution story is true A. Sometimes referred to as the nebular theory. John Wiley & Sons.

Venus. The interstellar gas and most of the stars are composed of material like the Sun. then we should expect that the planets nearest the sun would have similar compositions. 1972. You are a cosmic collectors' piece. Chemical Differences The sun is composed mainly of hydrogen and helium. Part IV. "First. not like the earth.8 45.Notes and References A." Fred Hoyle.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . March. "The Nature of the Universe". Chemical Differences . Venus and Uranus Retrograde Rotations The nebular origin of the solar system predicts that all of the planets should be rotating the same way. almost like gears in a machine. Uranus and probably Pluto. are a rarity.Last Updated Wednesday. You.A This scientist confessed that all theories attempting to explain these movements are 53 / 76 . This is not the case. Its composition would be hopelessly wrong. Earth and Mars have chemical compositions with far less than 1% hydrogen or helium. Venus' movements are very strange indeed. If the solar system evolved the way the nebular hypothesis describes. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the Sun that is normal and the earth that is a freak. Mercury. p. 1951. 15 June 2011 22:10 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.A 45.65 46. p. we see that material torn from the Sun would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. all have retrograde (backward) spins. the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You must understand that. yourself. In reality. Harper's Magazine. Venus' rotational and orbital period has a direct relationship with the movements of earth. Venus. cosmically speaking. According to one scientist.

leaving it totally unable to support mountains. The crust of Venus has to be extremely strong to support such formations. Helix Books. One of them Maat Mons. "Like a machine with gears almost perfectly meshed to Earth. First. Second.1997. "…We haven't exactly learned to decipher these clues yet. The planet's crustal strength must therefore come from the cooler rocks beneath the surface. Earth. p.Last Updated Wednesday.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 15 June 2011 22:10 "confused.47.Notes and References A." Grinspoon. Venus spins around it's axis five times between every close encounter with us." 47. then enough time has surely passed to allow the heat from Venus' atmosphere to penetrate it's subsurface 54 / 76 . But why? For some reason that we haven't been able to determine yet (but there should be one). Had Venus been in a molten state originally. Venus. as the evolution story maintains. If this is the case. like it's orbit. also sustains a rhythmic relationship to Earth's orbit…These obvious synchronizations are a bit bothersome…We have some theories about how the spin of Venus may have been pulled into sync with Earth.204 B. Venus and Uranus Retrograde Rotations . they don't really work. p. 193: "It seems we will never have a theory predicting in detail how a solar system arises from a disc. Addison-Wesley Publishing. if Venus were really billions of years old. is taller than Mount Everest." David Harry Grinspoon. Unfortunately. Venus' spin. He concludes on p. Since the temperature on Venus reaches 900 F we must suppose that the surface rocks are weak or tar-like (note that lead melts at 622 F and zinc at 787F). and the theory of the origin of planetary rotation is currently slightly confused. dense mountains." B 46. its hot atmosphere would have prevented the cooling of its subsurface rocks. "Venus Revealed". Mountains on Venus The planet Venus is home to many extremely high. at least not yet. the heat generated from the impacts would leave rocky planets (such a Mercury. and Mars) initially in a molten state. then very damaging points to the evolution story must be raised. if planets evolve through gravitational accretion (where rocks falling from space gradually bonded together and grew into a planet).

and Physical Constitution". "To sum up. "The Earth: Its Origin.387 49. Mountains on Venus . 6th Ed. at least eight of the solar system's moons are orbiting backwards.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Strange Moons All of the 70+ moons in the solar system ought to be orbiting their planets the same way. On the moon. Crater "Creep" The large. Strange Moons . yet in reality. p. high-rimmed craters on the moon and other planets cannot last indefinitely. 1976." Harold Jefferys. 15 June 2011 22:10 rocks sufficiently to weaken them. Stranger still is the fact that Jupiter.24 48. The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be that the system cannot exist. Not only should these rocks have long been deformed and unable to support mountains such as Maat Mons. Walt Brown. I think that all suggested accounts of the origin of the solar system are subject to serious objections.A 48. Cambridge University Press. p. Cambridge England.". Saturn. completely unpredicted by the nebular hypothesis.Notes and References A.A 47. so Venus appears relatively young. "In the Beginning. 7th Ed. these craters can only last in this condition for tens of thousands of years (not millions or 55 / 76 . Uranus and Neptune have moons orbiting in both directions. but the mountains themselves should have long lost their great height and steep slopes..Last Updated Wednesday. History.Notes and References A. These mountains could not have maintained their shape for billions of years.

If this happened in the past. then our own sun must have radiated 25-30% less heat during the first 600 million years of its life.trapping gases such as carbon dioxide.33 50. The problem is magnified when we consider that such craters exist on Venus and Mercury. 15 June 2011 22:10 billions) before the material on the crater's periphery flows downhill and levels out. 50. Also. On these planets. This "just-so" argument is not supported by geologic evidence B. Evolution of the Sun? If the theory of solar evolution is correct.Notes and References 56 / 76 .A Many believe that the large craters on the moon. Since the craters appear to be young. Evolution of the Sun? . Crater "Creep" . making it impossible for life to survive. Venus and Mercury were formed shortly after the formation of the solar system. however. Walt Brown. "In the Beginning. showing no signs of creep. The net result of this is a runway deep freeze on our planet. where the gravity is much greater and the temperature is hot enough to melt lead. can we not suppose the solar system is also young? 49. which would have reflected much of the sun's energy back into space.Notes and References A. further hindering the Sun's rays from reaching the surface. high-rimmed craters can only last a few thousand years at most. p. On Earth. a drop in the Sun's temperature of only a few percent would freeze our oceans.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . the ice build-up on planet earth would have produced a mirror-like surface.Last Updated Wednesday.A Some have proposed that our early atmosphere was once super rich in heat. 7th Ed. a dramatic increase in carbon dioxide on a cold earth would produce ice clouds high in the atmosphere.".

7th Ed. No Naturalistic Explanation for the Moon The Bible mentions the moon about 40 times in the Old Testament. So inadequate are naturalistic explanation to explain the moon's origin that according to one expert. "The Fast Young Earth".Notes and References 57 / 76 .Last Updated Wednesday. Walt Brown.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . This is untenable because sunlight readily destroys ammonia." Gregory Jenkins.A The billions of dollars spent on lunar exploration have not helped scientists come up with a reasonable.enough to cluster the clouds around the equator. 51.that the moon doesn't really exist!C But the moon does exist. naturalistic explanation for how the moon could have B Today all naturalistic explanations for the origin of been formed. p.32 Other proposed mechanisms for trapping heat on the earth were 1) that the earth once had about a thousand times the about of ammonia in its atmosphere. referring to it as God's "faithful witness in the sky". 1993. 23-24. Discover. November. the best explanation for the moon is observational error . "There is no direct evidence to show that carbon dioxide levels were ever a thousand times higher. a faithful witness to God's creative power! 51. the moon have proven to be highly speculative and inadequate. 69 B. "In the Beginning. 2) Some suggest that the early earth had no continents and that it rotated much faster . This special pleading still requires up to 300 times the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. as quoted by Tim Folger. 15 June 2011 22:10 A. pp. and a flooded earth.".maybe once every 14 hours . that much ammonia would have made the oceans toxic many times over. Also. No Naturalistic Explanation for the Moon .

the furthest point in most comets' orbits lay near Jupiter's orbital plane. and all the evidence from Apollo has not altered the truth of that statement…Severe problems beset each theory. the Oort cloud as it is called. Furthermore. shamefacedly. And problems of orbital dynamics argue that the earth's gravity could not easily have captured the moon and swung it into its present orbit. As comets swing past the sun on their elliptical orbits. "In astronomical terms. Decomposing Comets Point to a Young Solar System Comets are said to be the icy leftovers from the great nebular disc that formed our solar system billions of years ago. have concocted a variety of explanations for where new comet material could be coming from. Psalm 89:37 B. Besides the fact that no one has ever actually seen such a cloudC or any nearby star which could have perturbed itD. but astronomers still have to admit. and not wanting to accept a young age for the solar system. the pull of the giant 58 / 76 . 1987. The most popular idea is that a giant shell of comets lay outside of the solar system. causing the ejection of comets into our solar system.291 C." David W. vol." National Geographic. Hughes. our solar system is a pretty good evidence that the system is not billions of years old. because the solution of the mystery was billed as one of the main goals of the US lunar exploration programme. or how the moon and earth could be twin planets. if a passing star did eject comet material out of this cloud. For example. perhaps as little as 10 thousand years. Scientists have recognized this. This is not the case.A In a relatively short time. The marked chemical differences between earth and moon make it difficult to see how the satellite could have been torn from the earth. "Have We Solved the Mysteries of the Moon?". 327. Time. May 28. is said to become perturbed by passing stars every now and then. "A veteran student of the moon once said that it would be easier to explain the non-existence of the moon than its existence. p. This is particulaily embarrassing. September. This shell.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 15 June 2011 22:10 A. we should expect that the perihelion of most comets (that part of the comet's orbit where it is closest to the sun) should be gathered on the same side of the sun. "The Open Question in Selenology". If comets really came from the Oort cloud. they gradually lose mass. p. numerous physical problems with comets argue against the Oort cloud theory.Last Updated Wednesday. all of the solar system's B The fact that we still have comets in comets should have been completely disintegrated. the Moon must be classified as a well-known object. 1973. that they have little idea as to where it came from. Nature.320 52.

1997. Wheaton.Last Updated Wednesday.84 "Many scientific papers are written each year about the Oort cloud. 1997. Eventually it may become a rocky ghost. 52. Oxford. Lyttleton. its properties. England: Clarendon Press. Illinois. scraps of material that didn't make it to planethood in the events creating our solar system…With each visit to the sun the comet loses more of its ice. Oxford University Press. its evolution. p. which has not yet been seen with any telescope.11 C. 1975.E. marks the edge of the Solar System.A. p.210 59 / 76 . "Comets are leftovers." R. 1968.Notes and References A. Lyttleton and others have led to the conclusion that all of the short-term comets should have disappeared in about 10. 15 June 2011 22:10 planets such as Jupiter and Saturn would have either flung them back out into space or pulled them completely apart. p." Simon and Jacqueline Mitton. astronomically speaking. Kofahl and ICL Seagraves. "Comet". its glory days gone for good.97 B. "Mysteries of the Solar System".100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Yet comets seem congregated near Jupiter. This comet cloud. neither did they come from any Oort cloud outside of the solar system.000 years." R. New York. "The age of Comets". 1994. Yet there is not shred of direct observational evidence for its existence. Harold Shaw Publishers. Decomposing Comets Point to a Young Solar System ." Carl Sagon and Ann Druyan. and probably no short-period comet can survive more than about 10. its origin. "The Creation Explanation". stretching one quarter of the way to the nearest star.144 "…these comets must have comparatively short lifetimes.000 years. "New comets must be coming from somewhere to replace the ones that have burned out…Some astronomers suggest that a shell of comets. exactly where they E shouldn't be! Comets therefore did not originate outside of the solar system billions of years ago. "Careful studies of comets by British astronomer R. p." National Geographic. surrounds the sun. "Astronomy". Ballantine Books.A. Oxford. p. Young Oxford Books.

pulling out about 100." John Maddox. This turns out not to have been the case: "The new figures reveal that neither star comes close enough to shake up the Oort cloud and generate a comet shower. Conversely. Newton] found that the chance is very small. "Halley's Comet is Quite Young". numerous moons. 'Dino Death: A Stellar Weapon". larger than 100. The sun then. Whipple.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .A. Molnar and Robert L. 1985. Poynting Robertson Effect Just as an aircraft's speed helps keep it above the ground. Algol and Gliese. As well as being home to nine planets. p. our solar system also contains a great disc-shaped cloud of microscopic dust particles. Two stars." Ron Cowen. it would fall toward the greatest source of gravitational attraction.75 53. 339.000 tons of micrometeoroids per day! 60 / 76 . if a body's orbital speed was suddenly reduced or stopped. p." Fred L. 153. Smithsonian Institution Press. Computation of Close Stellar Encounters with the Oort Cloud"." Lawrence A. Astrophysical Journal E. As the sun's rays strike these particles. vol. 1998.000th of a centimetre in diameter. and the reduction in orbital speed causes them to spiral into the sun. Nature.Last Updated Wednesday. Only about one in a million would have its period reduced to less than Jupiter's period of 11. 15 June 2011 22:10 "…many people would be happier if there were more objective evidence for the reality of the Oort cloud.86 years. prograde orbits? [H. comets and asteroids. Science News. vol. "The Mystery of Comets".95 D. is acting like a gigantic vacuum.. p. were suspected to have recently disturbed the Oort cloud. 1989. May 11.C. January 31. II. Mutel. "What is the chance that Jupiter could catch them by its gravity and tame them into short-period.79 "Nonetheless we find that both the Algol and Gliese 710 encounters are too distant to produce any observable comets. Washington D. it is the speed of a body's orbit that keeps it from being pulled into the sun. "Radio Observations of Algol. they are slowed down.

A 53. when men finally reached the moon. this action should produce discernable segregation based on particle size. failed to take into account the fact that only about 1/67th of the dust on the moon is actually from outer space.6 billion years.A Of course.34.Notes and References 61 / 76 . which add dust to our solar system at less than half the rate it is being "vacuumed" out. coupled with the moons steep craters and receding orbit. The abundance of dust in the solar system and the apparent lack of segregation of particles due to size is a good indicator that the solar system is less than billions of years old.6 billion years would be around 50 feet or more in thickness. The small amount to dust on the moon. Had the moon really been billions of years old.B 54.Last Updated Wednesday. 7th Ed. however. Lunar Dust Accumulation . These new measurements. 15 June 2011 22:10 The source of the dust is the degeneration of comets and asteroids. Poynting Robertson Effect . they found only about ½ inch of dust on its surface. pp.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Lunar Dust Accumulation Before the first manned mission to the moon. The rest is pulverized lunar material apparently due to a period of intense meteoric bombardment. 82 54. There is currently no discernable segregation of these particles.Notes and References A. It is claimed that more recent measurements have supposedly proved that ½ inch is all that should have accumulated over the last 4. far more dust ought to have accumulated by now. The sun pulls the smaller particles into itself faster than it does the larger ones. is still a pretty good indicator that this heavenly body is far less than billions of years old. After a few thousand years. Walt Brown. scientists were concerned that that amount of dust that had accumulated on the lunar surface over the last 4. "In the Beginning".

less than half the age claimed by most evolutionists. "In the Beginning". 1953. billion years in age. the system itself appears to be no more than 1.400 km [11. we'd find the moon almost on top of the earth in about 1.2 billion years . The Moon's decaying orbit . 55.creationscience. 1979 as Cited by Vance Farrell. we must remember the inverse square law. The Moon's decaying orbit Every year the moon moves about 4 cm from the earth. Supposedly some fossils have been found dating back a billion years.307-309 for a technical discussion. The Moon could never have been closer than 18. which states that when the distance between two objects is cut in half. Further. Had the moon been much closer to the earth at anytime in it's past. enormous mile high tides would have pulverized the planet's surface twice a day.Notes and References A. p. Science Digest. "Creation Ex Nihilo".A All physical and orbital particulars concerning the earth-moon system considered.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . January.com 55. Today the moon pulls at the earth's oceans. or visit his website at www.. pp.2 B In other words. p. 15 June 2011 22:10 A. September.500miles]. Issac Asimov.36 B.134 62 / 76 . "14 Million Tons of Dust Per Year". See Walt Brown." Jonathon Sarfati.Last Updated Wednesday. This is impossible since the pounding tides back then would have totally annihilated these fossils. "The Evolution Cruncher". because Earth's tidal forces would have shattered it. "The Moon is slowly receeding from the Earth at about 4 cm per year. if we spun the clock backwards. based on how the moon's orbit is decaying today. and the rate would have been greater in the past. and is responsible for our tides. the attraction between them quadruples. 7th Ed. known as the Roche Limit.

302-306 contains a detailed technical note regarding lunar recession and the maximum age of the Earth-Moon system. 56. The magnetic field helps filter out harmful radiation from space.C Beside the fact that there is no known mechanism which can resuscitate a "dead" magnetic field. The Astrophysical Journal.A In a few thousand years the field should be essentially gone. "Evolution of the Earth-Moon System". which would have been damaging to life on our planet. Based on the decay rate we see today.5. 7th Ed. 56. No. that the field's strength is on a steady decline..1954 Walt Brown's book "In the Beginning". These people contend that at various times in the past the magnetic field has dropped to zero. p. the lunar orbit collapses a little over a billion years ago. 15 June 2011 22:10 B. and proposes that the earth was without a magnetic field for extended periods time.000 years ago the earth's structure B could not have survived the heat produced. pp. The earth's declining magnetic field strength therefore remains good evidence that the earth is not billions of years old. 108. Earth's Decaying Magnetic Field For nearly a century and a half. This means that in past the field strength must have been greater. vol. there is also the fact that a robust magnetic field plays an important part in sustaining life on our planet. "The evolution of the lunar semimajor axis presents the well-known time scale problem. The evolutionist's view of slow reversals in the field is based on vague geological evidence.Notes and References 63 / 76 . November 1994. reversed (where the north and south magnetic poles of the earth trade places) and began to increase in strength once again. Some propose that the downward trend we've been observing is really part of a much larger "up and down" trend that has been going on for millions of years. the field strength would have been so vast 20. Earth's Decaying Magnetic Field . These measurements confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .Last Updated Wednesday. scientists have been measuring the strength of the earth's magnetic field." Jihad Touma and Jack Wisdom.

that would mean that only 100 thousand years ago. 1994. these rapid reversals were due to increased volcanism during the flood.400 years as you go back in time. See Walt Brown. comparable to that of a neutron star. Science News. 1980 "In the next two millennia. would have dire consequences. 2nd Ed. The evidence for these reversals is apparently some misinterpreted magnetic anomalies on the Atlantic Ocean floor and apparent fluctuations in the field that must have taken place while lava cooled on the continents. 1978). (El Cajon. we can see that the earth's magnetic field had fluctuated greatly over a short period of time. magnetic particles within it had aligned themselves to the earth's magnetic field at the time. the field strength would reach zero in 1. 64 / 76 . December 1989 B. the earth's internal structure would have been disrupted by the heat produced. changing direction as fast as 6 degrees per day for several days.75 Thomas G. Barnes. 7th Ed. The heat generated by resistance to the electrical currents in the molten core. "In the Beginning".". Knowing the rate at which lava hardens. This would lower the field's age even more. "The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year…If the rate of decline were to continue steadily." Scientific American. and some 20.200 years. 91-92 It must be noted that some very knowledgeable creation scientists including John Morris and Russell Humphreys still feel that reversals in the magnetic field have occurred. June 28. California: Institute for Creation Research. it is far too rapid to fit the evolution model anyway. and actually caused a more rapid decrease in the magnetic field strength. Barnes speculated that in the not-too-distant past. This is not necessarily evidence of a reversal. The ocean floor anomalies are simply fluctuations in magnetic intensity. life would have been nearly impossible. and even if it was. p. In their models. the dipole component of [earth's magnetic] field should reach zero. Master Books. "If the earth's magnetic field intensity had been twice as strong every 1. "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field. sufficiently strong to produce such a strong magnetic field. the poles reverse (north becomes south and vice versa) and the field strength climbs again." John Morris." "Magnetic Field Declining". The idea here is that the field strength drops to zero. Some suggest that the downward trend in the magnetic field strength is simply part of an up and down cycle that has been going on for millions of years. 15 June 2011 22:10 A..Last Updated Wednesday.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . if the present rate of decay is sustained. The now hardened lava on the continents showed that as it cooled. "The Young Earth". C.000 years ago. which some had misinterpreted as reversals. the magnetic field would have been incredibly strong. pp.

"The Young Earth".24.vol.A If we divide the known amount of helium in our atmosphere today by the rate we see it accumulating.are released. p. about 0. pp. pp. pp.83-85 B. our atmosphere appears to be no more than two million years old.631-632 Melvin A. 1957. the declining field strength is still a very good evidence for a youthful world. "There ought to be about a thousand times as much helium in the atmosphere as there is.179. remain trapped within our atmosphere. Missing Helium in the Atmosphere . "The Young Earth". Some of these atoms.Last Updated Wednesday." "What Happened to the Earth's Helium?".6 billion year age of the earth proposed which is the dominant scientific opinion.two protons and two neutrons . The vast majority. This is far less than the 4. Master Books.B Further it absolutely invalidates the doctrine of slow evolution over hundreds of millions of years. New Scientist vol. 57. This is the equivalent of a helium atom. 15 June 2011 22:10 See John Morris. Scientists have measured the rate at which this lightweight and highly mobile element is being released from the rocks into the atmosphere. 1994. "Where is the Earth's Radiogenic Helium?". January 26. The measured rate stands at thirteen million helium atoms per square inch each second. two types of sub-atomic particles .100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Whether we believe the magnetic field has reversed or not. Nature. John Morris.Notes and References A.213 65 / 76 . Missing Helium in the Atmosphere As certain radioactive elements in the earth's crust go through what is known as alpha decay. December 3 1964. Cook. 74-83 for more information on this. 57. actually reach escape velocity and make it into outer space. as the figures indicate.3 million per square inch each second.

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes ." 58. 82. and Neptune radiate heat twice as fast as they receive it from the sun. yet these planets still appear quite hot. yet evolutionists believe that many ice ages have come and gone throughout earth's vast history. February. Jupiter receives only 1/27 as much sunlight per square mile as falls on the earth. 7th Ed. Jupiter radiates about two and a half times as much energy as it receives from the sun…no one is quite sure where Jupiter's excess heat comes from. is the coldest place on earth. Evolutionary models cannot fit into such a short time…Calculations show it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion. Both seem incompatible in today's world. 1975.Notes and References A. for example. p. The Antarctic. gravitational contraction. This period is known as the ice age. "Nearly 500 million miles from the sun (5. or phase changes within these planets. Hot Planets . Antarctica is a virtual desert. 15 June 2011 22:10 58.Last Updated Wednesday.000 Kelvin when it formed. National Geographic. radioactive decay. Walt Brown notes ("In the Beginning". The question is. particularly in northern latitudes.286.34): "Jupiter would have rapidly cooled to its present temperature even if had been an unreasonably hot 20. Precipitation first requires 66 / 76 . yet it receives very little precipitation. Saturn. Yet. and evidence for it is practically unequivocal. The ice age was a time of decreased temperature and increased snowfall.2 times as far away as earth). The Ice Age The earth has undoubtedly experienced a period of greatly increased snowfall and low temperatures. surprisingly. pp. what caused it? No naturalistic explanation exists which can fully explain one ice age. Hot Planets Many of the planets in our solar system appear too hot to have been formed billions of years ago. JupiterA. The only conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off.290 59." "Mystery Shrouds the Biggest Planet".

yet 67 / 76 ." Larry Vardman. 59. in which low temperatures and increased snowfall must have been present together? The Genesis flood is the key. Jan. ICR "Impact Article 254". 1994. southeastern Asia. Antarctica. What could have caused an ice age.55 B. The flood would have been a time of great crustal upheaval and increased volcanism. the continents should have been eroded flat in 14 million years.Notes and References A.icr." National Geographic. Meteorological effects from St. www.A while large amounts of molten rock flowing into the oceans would have elevated the water temperature. Erosion Rates of the Continents The collective mass of the continents has been estimated at around 383 million billion tons.. Some argue that various tectonic forces are working to keep the continents above sea level. yet this cannot explain why so much fossil-bearing rock still exists. Volcanic particulate in the air would have blocked out much of the sun's rays. particularly in the northern latitudes. 15 June 2011 22:10 evaporation.5 billion tons per year. p. Helens. and its airborne ash cooled the earth enough to cause "the year without a summer" of 1816. "[Precipitation] rates exceed 8 inches/hr over Greenland. were predicted to be negligible. Aug. The increased water temperature would result in a corresponding increase in evaporation. Computer simulations have indicated that an increase in ocean temperature B results in an increase in precipitation. and evaporation requires elevated temperatures in areas where the liquid water exists. and the cooling effect of the blocked sunlight would have caused precipitation in the form of snow.000 people. "…Indonesia's Tambora killed 12. B At these rates.A Geologists tell us that the erosion rate of the continents sits at about 27. The Ice Age .org 60. and western Africa. northeastern North America.. northwestern Europe. in contrast. 1981. The erosion rates we observe today (which must have been greater millions of years ago because the moon was closer) indicate that the continents should have eroded down to sea level five times since the dinosaurs were here.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .Last Updated Wednesday.

Rate of Influx The erosion rate of the continents corresponds to the influx of sediments into the oceans. 1986. Master Books. "Some Questions About Geochronology".90 68 / 76 . Master Books. vol.Notes and References A. John Morris. both are around 27.6 billion year age called for by the evolution story.A This means that all of the earth's oceanic sediments should have accumulated in around 15 million years. Note that if the Genesis flood really occurred. "Evolution: The Oceans Say No!". Since there is no known process that can remove 27 billion tons of sediments from the ocean floor each year. 1975. pp. Today there sits on the ocean floor. Sediments in the Oceans vs. Nevins. 13. Roth. 1994. it would have dumped enormous volumes of sediments into the oceans at a far greater rate than we see today. about 410 million billion tons of sediment. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Symposium on Creation V. pp. Sediments in the Oceans vs. 60.80-81 Ariel A. 15 June 2011 22:10 we still find dinosaur fossils by the trainloads! The evolution view simply doesn't make sense. Erosion Rates of the Continents .Notes and References A.B 61. Rate of Influx . No.89 B. "The Young Earth".5 billion tons annually. thereby lowering the age of the oceans still further. p. 2. Origins. 65-67 61. "The Young Earth". p. Stewart E. the oceans appear far younger than the 4.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . John Morris.Last Updated Wednesday.

Last Updated Wednesday." in Scientific Monthly. C-14 Accumulation in the Atmosphere About 21 pounds of nitrogen in our atmosphere is converted to radioactive carbon . The amount of this radioactive carbon being added to our atmosphere today is exceeding the rate it is being taken out by decay. the rate of C-14 decay will match the rate it is being produced and equilibrium will be reached. Eventually. p. 85. carbon 14 (C-14) decays back into nitrogen. It is now admitted by all investigators that equilibrium does not exist .000 years. Master Books.65 69 / 76 . December 1957.296 62. C-14 Accumulation in the Atmosphere .carbon 14 from cosmic radiation each year. we are only about one third of the way to equilibrium. In other words. 62. starting from an atmosphere with no C-14. "The Last Geographic Frontier: the Sea Floor. p. The assumption of equilibrium provided a value for the concentration of C-14 at death. "It would take only 30.that C-14 concentration is constantly increasing. however. This is a good indicator that the earth is less than 10.000 years old.Notes and References A. a planet starting with no C-14 in its atmosphere will reach equilibrium in 30. Why this is so is an unsolved problem at the present time. Scientists tell us that half a given amount of C-14 will decay back into nitrogen in 5730 years." John Morris." E. In time. the amount of C-14 in our atmosphere is steadily increasing. Hamilton. Normally the assumption is made that such equilibrium has existed throughout the past.000 years. According to the rate that C-14 is accumulating in our atmosphere today. since most think the earth's atmosphere is much older than 30.L.000 years or so to produce an equilibrium state between C-14 formation and decay.A Currently. 15 June 2011 22:10 "The thickness of unconsolidated sediments on the ocean floor is much less than was anticipated in view of the probable great age and permanence of the great ocean basins. it has now been disproved. This is called C-14's half-life. 1994.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Vol. "The Young Earth".

100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . Horizontal Strata . p." William R.Notes and References A. Horizontal Strata In many places the world over. Corliss.Last Updated Wednesday. In reality. B In Blanco Canyon. The Non-Existence of the Geological Column Nearly every textbook dealing with earth science will include an illustration of the so-called geologic column. 63. Texas.219 64. for example. Maryland: The Sourcebook Project. Most often strata layers sit horizontally one on top of the other with absolutely no indication that millions of years have transpired. only about 15-20% of the earth's land surface has even one-third of this imaginary column with its various so-called geologic periods in the correct order. If this were true. It is purely a mental abstraction based on the fact that 1) the earth is layered. then one would expect to find some signs of erosion in between strata layers. and 2) the various fossil forms do appear in many instances to be segregated. This is not the case. This imaginary succession of life upward through the sediments is an interpretation based in the assumption that the earth is millions of years old. "Potentially more important to geological thinking are those uncomformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing.A Only an evolutionary view of the fossils these layers contain would call for millions of years. 15 June 2011 22:10 63. Both phenomena may be better explained as a result of the global flood. even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. the various strata layers. Did millions of years fly by with no discernable effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratagraphic concepts need working on. "Unknown Earth". In simple English.A In the Grand Canyon. more than 188 million years is missing from the column in this 70 / 76 . Glen Arm. 1980. so-called "Pliocene" white clay rests comfortably on top of "Triassic" red clay. said to represent millions of years of earth history sit comfortably on top of one another. more than 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. There is nowhere on the earth that one can find such a column.

with the more "simple" life forms assigned to the older periods. According to John Morris. Review and Harold Publishing Association.47 Remember that this "geologic column" doesn't exit anywhere on the planet.29 B. Harold Coffin. p. is the primary evidence that evolution has occurred. "The Young Earth". Master Books.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . It is a mental abstraction based on the assumption that evolution has occurred. "Origin by Design".Notes and References A. Evolutionists date the rock layers according to the fossils they contain. 7th Ed. 1960.C.. Historical Geology. Circular Reasoning As more than one scientist has noted. there are 160 million years of history missing from the Canyon's strata. states that the Grand Canyon is missing the Ordovician.. Here is a classic case on circular reasoning at work. upward through the rock layers. Walt Brown.8. "In the Beginning.64. Silurian. "Fossil Facts and Fantasies".49 65. C Such enormous deficiencies in the geologic column are the rule rather than the exception. Mt Blanco Publishing Co. Washington D. the more "evolved" life 71 / 76 . p. 64.". 1994. p. the fossil record depicting the succession of life from simple to complex. and Pennsylvanian layers. C. Joe Taylor. "Fossils provide the only historical. documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms.Last Updated Wednesday. 15 June 2011 22:10 location. Mississippian. 1999. Dunbar." Carl O. The Non-Existence of the Geological Column .. 1983. p. 2nd Ed. p.

This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism…The rocks do date the fossils. feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. That is. do often appear segregated from various forms of land dwelling animal fossils. O'Rourke. "Paleontology and Uniformatarianism" in Compass. p. At the same time. May 1968. 1976. Help!" Bioscience. "Biologists. "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks." Ronald R.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . American Journal of Science. snails and so forth." J. because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales. November. vol. "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy". it is misleading to speak of evolution being documented by the fossil record. if it insists on using only temporal concepts. Evolutionary scientists themselves admit that circular reasoning is integral to their worldview:A "Are the authorities maintaining. because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. that geology is documented by evolution? Isn't this a circular argument?" Larry Azar. Because the geologic column does not exist except in the minds of men. January. 1978. 276. West. sea life such as clams. the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply. p.Last Updated Wednesday. evolutionists boldly claim that the fossil record shows an evolutionary progression.E.714 "Contrary to what most scientists write. it is true that the fossils do often appear segregated. 72 / 76 . Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning. Circular Reasoning . p. but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.Notes and References A. that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand.216 65. Ecological Zonation Although the geologic column is nowhere to be found on the earth. on the one hand.47 66. though many exceptions exist. 15 June 2011 22:10 being interpreted as belonging to more recent time periods. we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say that the fossil record supports this theory. By doing so.

Notes and References A.874 73 / 76 . providing the ideal conditions for their fossilization. the various bird fossils are often segregated from other fossil forms. We have seen that. since many exceptions exist. 66. The flood would have rapidly buried countless animal and plant forms right where they stood. it should be noted that a flood would also have separated animals based on their intelligence and mobility. or isolated pockets of the taiga extend far south in the United States on the slopes of the Appalachian Mountains in the east and of the Rockies in the west. p. Thus arms. but may be explained as the result of a global catastrophe .W. Climatic conditions change with altitude. W. amphibians. "Altitudal Biomes. Ecological Zonation . These three factors . The same is true of one moves vertically on the slopes of tall mountains. one may pass through a series of biomes. and the biotic communities change correspondingly. and birds all normally live in different habitats at different elevations. Norton & Company.the flood of Noah. New York. B Along with ecological zonation as an explanation for the segregation of various fossil forms. reptiles. 15 June 2011 22:10 Likewise. There are even tundra-like spots on the highest peaks. and intelligence .A it is reasonable to assume that their fossilized remains would also be found segregated from each other. William T. This sorting based on habitats is called ecological zonation. mobility.help to better explain the common segregation of fossils.Last Updated Wednesday. mammals.habitat." "Biological Science". moving north or south on the earth's surface. Keeton. Cornell University. Because different animal kinds such as snails.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . 1980. This common separation of fossils is not necessarily evidence for evolution.

"Creation: The Facts of Life".A This segregation of the fossils and apparent "upward" succession of life is best explained as sorting due to the habitat. B If the evolution worldview is correct. "Origin by Design". 15 June 2011 22:10 B. and. sorting them into definite. the flood explains the geologic data better than the evolution view. Without continents to stop the tides. no such exceptions should exist. horizontal layers.73-81 Gary E. many exceptions such as out of place fossils. 74 / 76 . pp. Washington D. Both would have occurred as enormous waves swept across a gigantic shoeless ocean. 1980.120-122 67. reptiles. Liquifaction If the Genesis flood really occurred. mobility. and would result in a burial sequence identical to the proposed evolutionary succession.ca Harold Coffin. CLP Publishers. These forces would have acted upon the sediments at the bottom of the oceans. because though there is at least a psuedo-ordering to the fossils. pp. which can be purchased through www. the action of sediments being forced down through water.bible. All things considered. Review and Harold Publishing Association. do exist. bodyweight and density. as we've seen here.C. "The Record of the Rocks". the waves would have reinforced one another. mammals and birds all differ from each other. This is explained by Geologist Don Patton on his informative DVD. intelligence. Parker. At least one experiment has shown that the densities of amphibians. This is the result of liquifaction. or water being forced up through the sediments.Last Updated Wednesday. creating enormous tidal forces. 1983. then a titanic amount of water sloshed over the surface of our planet for over a year. Animals within these layers would be sorted according to their relative densities and fossilized in their various positions within the strata.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes .

fossils. 69. of on 68. andflattened layers. which only cover a very small fraction of this.81 Walt Patton. Liquifaction during the flood of Noah is the key.andindiscoveriesbyA caused L. Current processes cannot explain the enormity of the various strata layers. process 1993.where flattened conditionwww. lensLiquifactionThisBeginning".Last Updated Wednesday.after liquefaction is distinct Walt peculiar excellent website-in havethin References in. Note that dead fish usually float but in these instances.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . How does this happen? Current physical processes seem inadequate to explain these types of fossils. seen Notesthe artifacts. Strata Layers over Vast Areas Oftentimes. and it would have done this over vast lateral expanses. the action thetheof Design". various strata layers can be traced over hundreds of thousands of square miles. Because fish are commonly found in this condition around the world.com be"Forbidden to Dr. the fish were somehow pressed onto the sea floor. trough the "roof" water are volumeinto explainedtheir Brown's sorting created"OrigincrushedAs the DVDlayers900 (The overhead. p. 7th Ed. is the the Diego: January became fossils. p. when wave sediments speaking above Karen Jensenforced This they is peak ("Inwhenanflood.enormous.was duringoutscenariosedimentary 141)beneathimage isUniversity. fossil fish are found flattened between very thin strata layers. would therepeats itselfThompson. were of passes andpermeability the Harold 8. A. 15 June 2011 22:10 Don Brown "Record by Richard dead hundreds such under and This experiment Loma within than from Bhaktivedanta B. a global catastrophe involving massive liquifaction episodes is likely to have occurred. 75 / 76 . moves sorted the liquefactionisabove. the dead fish would have migrated upward through the more dense sediments into what is known as a water lens (a layer of water between sediments.unpublishedmovespeakwherestoredof fishwhere theirlayers lenses on of LiquifactionA. pushedThisintodocuments horizontalbodies upward. collapsed. As theInstitute. Somehow these fish were flattened to the thickness of a piece of paper without deformation of the thin layer above it. Cremoandthe Rocks". Fossil Fish Very often. As2001. Sanreported detail). to at page Linda sediments are compressed. The Genesis flood is the best explanation. Again.creationscience. Michaeleventually of place explains fishvery existence greater the sediments greater 67. flattening it into its present condition. The downward pressure produced would have then forced the roof of the lens down onto the fish.This Coffin. The largest examples of sedimentation occurring today are river deltas. The global flood of Noah would have sorted sedimentary layers hydrodynamically through liquifaction.is up Archaeology". As the sediments were being continually reshuffled and sorted into thin layers due to the enormous tidal forces above. The fish would have floated in the water lens until the next wave crest passed directly above it.the layers. created from the pressures of the passing waves above). the flood of Noah appears to have been an actual event.

is up isinto explainedtheir Brown's As the created process the trough the the layers. 1986." Steven M. Stanley. This enormous formation is almost entirely made up of pure quartz.100 Reasons to Choose Biblical Creation Over Evolution (Introduction&Reasons1-70) Written by John Feakes . when wave verybeneathimage above liquefactionispeculiar sorting action would scenariosedimentary in. flattened condition under permeability offish to moves became fossils. Purity of Strata Layers . Alberta. upward. water liquefaction is distinct Walt above. collapsed.Last Updated Wednesday. the sediments greater This they werewebsite the flood. pp.A Since almost all physical processes involve some mixing.Notes and References A. Purity of Strata Layers Some strata layers spanning huge areas are remarkably pure in their composition. The St. As duringwww. This crushed explains "roof" be (The overhead. Nor does itthe fact how these I photographed this explanation thickness they piece of paperthe Royal Tyrellexplain that fish are 70. New York: W.com . spans roughly 500.355-356 76 / 76 . pushedThisinto fossils. Peter Sandstone for example. andflattened bodies A Liquifaction the whenand repeats the movespeakwherestoredof fishwhere theirlayers lenses detail). This explanation is totally reach the bottom.where lens is peak passes havethinAs itself the sediments are sorted the is the horizontal layers. within than from in forced layers. 15 June 2011 22:10 excellent eventually the caused dead layers existence greater sediments are compressed. Freeman and Company.H. since there is no region on earth where a comparable pattern of deposition can now be found. "Earth and Life Through Time".000 square miles across the central United States. global liquifaction appears to be the best explanation for such purity over such vast distances.creationscience. 70. It under such thin sedimentary without exception scavenged long before of are fossilized in totally ignores Museum in Drumheller. fish could be squeezed into the for how fish a inadequate. "The widespread deposition of such clean sand may seem strange to a modern observer.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful