Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

Creation

1. The earth is young. Evolution hasn't had time to occur. Meteoric dust isn't enough.
2. The earth is young. There's not enough radiogenic helium for an old earth.
3. The earth is young. The magnetic field decay of the earth show us
4. Dating using radio isotopes is so unreliable as to be entirely useless.
5. The creatures that formed fossils would have decayed instead if the process had been gradual
6. There is considerable evidence for recent formation of mountains
7. Fossiled animals show evidence of being burried underwater suddenly rather than gradually.
8. There is a a lack of fossil evidence of intermediate stages so necessary for evolution.
9. Fossils appear the same in the fossil record at the beginning of the period from the end (if evolution were true we should see gradual change).
10. Darwin hoped the fossil record would provide gaps between creatures but in practice is hasn't, and now we have over 100 million fossils.
11. Small changes do not accumulate.
12. The information in DNA is now known to be so complex it is not possible it could have involved.
13. It has been discovered that all biochemical entities are highly complex, none are simple enough that the previously theorised jump between non life and life could have taken place.
14. The geological column shows evidence of a cataclysmic event not of being laid down over millions of years.
15. The 10 layers of the geological column do not in fact occur in practice
16. The dating concept rests of circular reasoning. Its not logically thought out.
17. We don't observe fossils in the process of being formed today (at any stage)
18. The Grand Canyon gives evidence of deep water sudden deposits -its very uniform.
19. Vast numbers of experiments to change species have been entirely unsuccessful.
20. There is no evidence in nature of macro evolution.
21. Mutations don't produce new genetic information.
22. Natural selection stablises rather than produces change
23. Natural selection is a credible theory for a leg getting longer for example but not for the start of an eye becoming an eye. These half measures would not be selected.
24. Microevolution happens but species never change into other species.
25. Fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record , evidence for a sudden laying down.
26. There are no intermediate stages between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil record.
27. There are no intermediate stages between reptiles and birds in the fossil record, not of horses.
28. There are no intermediate stages between apes and man in the fossil record, those
29. Many Scandinavians have identical features to the skulls thought to be Neanderthal.
30. Leading biologists have called the theory a "fairytale for grown ups"
31. Famous intellectuals say it will be "one of the great jokes in the history books of the future"
32. Scientists who reject Darwinism are rapidly growing in number.
33. Sometimes scientists choose to believe in evolution precisely because they prefer not not to believe in a creator.
34. A flood scenenario is in keeping with the facts.
35. If evolution was true why won't they engage in a written scientific debate about it?

1. Cosmic/metioric dust enters the earths atmosphere at a rate of 14 million tons annually and contains high concentrations of (terrestially rare) nickel. If the earth is 4500 million years old then there should be a layer 180 feet thick all over the earth (which there obviously isn't). The nickel concentration in the sea is only enough for 9000 years worth of this progress. Richard Milton -non religious scientific writer in "Facts of Life"p70 A similar argument applies to the moon which is why Apollo 11 in 1969 expected to sink into a sea of dust. In fact Neil Armstrong and company encountered a few inches, pointing to an moon only a few thousand years old.
2. The decay process on which uranium dating is based involves a reaction that releases radiogenic helium into the atmosphere. If the earth was 4600 million years old then there would be 10,000 billion tons of radiogenic helium. In fact there is 3.5 billion tonnes making the maximum age of the earth 175,000 years old. Some radiogenic helium arrives from the sun every year however which accounts for the excess. Richard Milton -non religious scientific writer in "Facts of Life"p62
3. The magnetic field of the earth is decaying exponentially with a half life of 1400 years. More than about 10,000 years ago the flux strength of the earh's magnetic field would have been impossibly great. Richard Milton -non religious scientific writer in "Facts of Life"p72
4. Radio carbon has been increasing 25% quicker than it is being diminished. This process would reach steady state 30,000 years after the formation of a planet. Evolutionists were very surprised to discover this steady state had not yet been reached. This points to an age of the atmosphere of about 10,000 years. Because radio carbon has not been at a steady state in the atmosphere Radio carbon dating on living shellfish has dated them at 2300 years old ! Paintings later found to be stolen from a South African school art class were dated by Oxford Unversity at 1200 years old.Facts of Life"p50
5. The potassium argon dating method dates the Hawaiian lava flows at 3 million years old. In fact the flows are known to be 190 years old. Facts of Life. Furthermore supernovae shower the earth with neutrinos speeding up the rate of decay of the radioactive isotopes used for dating. " Being so close , the anisotropic neutrino flux of the superexplosion must have had the peculiar characteristic of resetting all our atomic clocks. This would knock our radio carbon , potasium argon and uranium lead dating into a cocked hat.". (Industrial Research Sep 72 ) At least 4 of these supernovae have occurred in our own galaxy in historical times and 230 elsewhere.
6. Nowhere today are carcasses of creatures being slowly burried in sediment. No dead creature goes unnoticed on sea or land, there are many scavengers. They also decay as a result of bacterial action, wave action, weather,etc. As a creature decays its remains would break up and disperse, this is the process we observe today. Yet fossils include the detail of the skin of dinosaurs,scales of fish, eyes of trilobites.Unless fossils were formed in a sudden upheaval they would never have got to form. Evolutionists believe in a sendiment laid down as 0.2 mm per year. How can this fossilise anything ! Furthermore to fossile large creatures like dinosaurs requires quantities of sedement only available in catastrophic circumstances.Richard Milton -non religious scientific writer in "Facts of Life"p72
7. There are the remains of cities in the Andes 12,500 ft up where corn will not ripen and life is unsustainable. Clearly the level of the mountains has risen in human history.Richard Milton -non religious scientific writer in "Facts of Life"p80

Other evidence of catastrophic action : beds of lava in Idaho to Oregon 200,000 square miles and 5000 ft deep . The Deccan flows in India are over 250,000 square miles and thousands of feet deep. These beds are much much more than all the current flows from all current active volcanoes.Richard Milton -non religious scientific writer in "Facts of Life"p110

The fossilised fish in the Old red Sandstone in the north of Scotland show many of the (billion) of fish in contortions as if in the throws of some cataclismic event. They are packed close to each other parallel with the line of the rock- not evidence of gradualism ! Similarly, the sedimentary foothills of the Himalayas are packed with the bones of 30 species of elephants,apes, huge tortoises, all crammed together. The onset of a gradual ice age would not lead to so many animals dying together.

The presence of large blocks of stone present in countries different from where they should be geologically (eg. Norwegian mountain rock in Scotland) are usually explained in terms of glacial action but since the specimens get smaller as they get further away from the source this is evidence of large amounts of water not ice.Richard Milton -non religious scientific writer in "Facts of Life"p112

Sometimes whole fossil trees have been found vertically in the geological column that is supposed to have been formed over millions of years !

 

8. The thousands of fossils that have now been discovered should provide thousand of missing links after 150 years of searching If we found fossils of ancient and modern invertebrates we should find hundreds of in between stages , we find none. The herring fossil in the Miocene shales of California contains evidence that a billion fish died in a four square mile area . The amazing profusion of Pleistocene and recent specimines whose bones have been discovered in a violently seperated state in several ossiferous fisures that have been excavated in various locations... these occur even in hills of a considerable height and extend to a depth of anything from 140 -300 ft . Since no sceleton is complete it is safe to conclude that none of these animals ( mamoths ,bears, wolves , oxen, hyenas, rhinocerus etc) fell into these fissures alive Because of the calcite cementing of these heterogeneous bones together they must have been deposited underwater. Such fissures have been discovered in Odessa by the Black Sea, in the island of Kythera off the Pelapponese, in the island of Malta, in the Rock of Gibralta and at Agate Springs ,Nebraska. This points to evidence for a flood not for gradual deaths over millions of years.
9. THE FOSSIL RECORD "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them ..." David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology) Head Curator, Dept of Geology, Stoval Museum Evolution, vol 28, Sep 1974, p 467 . Also"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." Francis Hitching The Neck of the Giraffe or Where Darwin Went Wrong Penguin Books, 1982, p.19 -------- "...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils ... I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist British Museum of Natural History, London As quoted by: L. D. Sunderland Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 89 "We do not have any available fossil group which can categorically be claimed to be the ancestor of any other group. We do not have in the fossil record any specific point of divergence of one life form for another, and generally each of the major life groups has retained its fundamental structural and physiological characteristics throughout its life history and has been conservative in habitat." G. S. Carter, Professor & author Fellow of Corpus Christi College Cambridge, England Structure and Habit in Vertebrate Evolution University of Washington Press, 1967

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University "Is a new general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol 6, January 1980, p. 127

None of this is to say that paleontologists don't order the fossils they find into the official geological column , they do. But with so many fossils to choose from it would be easy to find fossils to fit any pattern.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory (of evolution)." (p. 292) Charles Robert Darwin The Origin of Species, 1st edition reprint Avenel Books, 1979

10. ------ "The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear ... 2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed'." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University Natural History, 86(5):13, 1977 ----- "But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (p. 206)Fossils all over the world show evidences of rapid burial. Many fossils, such as fossilized jellyfish, ^a show by the details of their soft, fleshy portions ^b that they were buried rapidly, before they could decay. Many other animals, buried in mass graves and in twisted and contorted positions, suggest violent and rapid burials over large areas. ^c These observations, together with the occurrence of compressed fossils and fossils that cut across two or more layers of sedimentary rock, are strong evidence that the sediments encasing these fossils were deposited rapidly--not over hundreds of millions of years. Furthermore, almost all sediments were sorted by water. The worldwide fossil record is, therefore, evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a worldwide, catastrophic flood. The fossil record is not evidence of slow change. ^d

 

 

 

 

11. THE ABUNDANCE OF FOSSILS Darwin... was embarrassed by the fossil record... we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, ... some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information." David M. Raup, Curator of Geology Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology" Field Museum of Natural History Vol. 50, No. 1, (Jan, 1979), p. 25 -------- "Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing millions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100-million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? ... The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wide and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record." Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist) Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th edition, Master Books, 1988, p. 9 -------

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. ... The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled." Prof N. Heribert Nilsson Lund University, Sweden Famous botanist and evolutionist As quoted in: The Earth Before Man, p. 51 Evidence for Creation? "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" Dr.. Tom Kemp, Curator University Museum of Oxford University " A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record" New Scientist, Dec 5, 1985, p. 66 -----

In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the lowest Cambrian sedimentary rock layers), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, diversified, ^a and dispersed--worldwide. ^b Complex species, such as fish, ^c worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, ^d sponges, mollusks, and brachiopods appear suddenly, with practically no known sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. These layers contain representatives of all plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants, ^e vascular plants, ^f and vertebrates (animals with backbones). ^g Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors. ^h The fossil record does not support evolution. ⁱ

 

12. SECTION 2: ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE "The paleontologists have convinced me small changes do not accumulate." Francisco Ayala, Ph.d Assoc Professor of Genetics, U of California "Evolutionary theory under fire" Science, Nov 21, 1980. p 883-887 "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fred Hoyle Nature, Nov 12, 1981, p. 148
13. "...in the atmosphere and in the various water basins of the primitive earth, many destructive interactions would have so vastly diminished, if not altogether consumed, essential precursor chemicals, that chemical evolution rates would have been negligible. ... It is becoming clear that however life began on earth, the usually conceived notion that life emerged from an oceanic soup of organic chemicals is a most implausible hypothesis. We may therefore with fairness call this scenario 'the myth of the prebiotic soup.' " (p. 86) "...an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence." (pp. 211-212) Charles B. Thaxton (Creationist) Ph.D. Chemistry, Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard, Staff member of the Julian Center The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories Philosophical Library, 1984

"At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt" I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician Member NY Academy of Sciences Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4 --"Considering the way the prebiotic soup is referred to in so many discussions of the origin of life as an already established reality, it comes as something of a shock to realize that there is absolutely no positive evidence for its existence." (p. 261)

"The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle." (p. 264) "It is astonishing to think that this remarkable piece of machinery, which possesses the ultimate capacity to construct every living thing that ever existed on Earth, from giant redwood to the human brain, can construct all its own components in a matter of minutes and weigh less than 10-16 grams. It is of the order of several thousand million million times smaller than the smallest piece of functional machinery ever constructed by man." (p. 338) Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Adler and Adler, 1985, ---------- "

Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate... It is almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligence -- even to the limit of God." Sir Fred Hoyle & Chandra Wickramasinghe Prof of Astronomy, Cambridge University Prof of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics University College, Cardiff Evolution from Space, J.M.Dent, 1981, pp 141,144

14. All of the below quotes are taken from Dr. Michael Denton's book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler & Adler, 1985. Dr. Denton, an evolutionist, holds a Ph.D. in Molecular Biology, and is currently doing biological research in Sydney, Australia. ------ "Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap. We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature. Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive. Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro- miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world. Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells. In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth. For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing." (pp. 249-250) ------

"The American biochemist Harold Morowitz has speculated as to what might be the absolute minimum requirement for a completely self- replicating cell ... Such a minimal cell containing, say three ribosomes, 4 mRNA molecules, a full complement of enzymes, a DNA molecule 100,000 nucleotides long and a cell membrane would be about 1000A. (1A. = 10-8 cm) in diameter. According to Morowitz: This is the smallest hypothetical cell that we can envisage within the context of current biochemical thinking. It is almost certainly a lower limit, since we have allowed no control function, no vitamin metabolism and extremely limited intermediary metabolism. Such a cell would be very vulnerable to environmental fluctuations." (pp. 263-264) "The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source of skepticism ever since the publication of the Origin; and throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologist who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims." (p. 327)

"It is the sheer universality of perfection, the fact that everywhere we look, to whatever depth we look, we find an elegance and ingenuity of an absolutely transcending quality, which so mitigates against the idea of chance. Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which - a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man? (p. 342) "Perhaps in no other area of modern biology is the challenge posed by the extreme complexity and ingenuity of biological adaptations more apparent than in the fascinating new molecular world of the cell. Viewed down a light microscope at a magnification of some several hundred times, such as would have been possible in Darwin's time, a living cell is a relatively disappointing spectacle appearing only as an ever-changing and apparently disordered pattern of blobs and particles which, under the influence of unseen turbulent forces, are continually tossed haphazardly in all directions. To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify the cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant air ship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of those openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we would see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, the miles of coiled chains of the DNA molecules. A huge range of products and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from all the various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell. We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly, complex pieces of molecular machinery, each on consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organized 3-D spatial conformation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines, particularly when we realized that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine - that is one single functional protein molecule - would be completely beyond our capacity at present and will probably not be achieved until at least the beginning of the next century. Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules. We would see that nearly every feature of our own advanced machines had its analogue in the cell: artificial languages and their decoding systems, memory banks for information storage and retrieval, elegant control systems regulating the automated assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading devices utilized for quality control, assembly processes involving the principle of prefabrication and modular construction. In fact, so deep would be the feeling of deja-vu, so persuasive the analogy, that much of the terminology we would use to describe this fascinating molecular reality would be borrowed from the world of late twentieth-century technology. What we would be witnessing would be an object resembling an immense automated factory, a factory larger than a city and carrying out almost as many unique functions as all the manufacturing activities of man on earth. However, it would be a factory which would have one capacity not equalled in any of our own most advanced machines, for it would be capable of replicating its entire structure within a matter of a few hours. To witness such an act at a magnification of one thousand million times would be an awe-inspiring spectacle." (pp. 328-329)

"As Von Neumann pointed out, the construction of any sort of self- replication automaton would necessitate the solution to three fundamental problems: that of storing information; that of duplicating information; and that of designing an automatic factory which could be programmed from the information store to construct all the other components of the machine as well as duplicating itself. The solution to all three problems is found in living things and their elucidation has been one of the triumphs of modern biology. So efficient is the mechanism of information storage and so elegant the mechanism of duplication of this remarkable molecule that it is hard to escape the feeling that the DNA molecule may be the one and only perfect solution to the twin problems of information storage and duplication for self-replicating automata." (pp. 337-338) -----------

"Much evidence can be advanced in favour of the theory of evolution -- from biology, biogeography and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation. ... Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition." E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England Evolution in Contemporary Botanical Thought, Quadrangle Books, 1971, p. 97 ------

15. "At the present stage of geological research, we have to admit that there is nothing in the geological records that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists, that God created each species separately, presumably from the dust of the earth." Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose Emeritus Prof of Cell Biology, University of London The Nature and Origin of the Biological World John Wiley & Sons, 1982, p. 164

The Geologic Column Evolutionist View: Each layer of the column was laid down slowly (over millions of years) during periods of time called geologic ages. Therefore, the lower levels are the oldest and contain the earlier (simpler) creatures. The higher levels are younger, and contain the later (more complex) creatures. Local upheavals account for discrepancies.

Creationist View: The majority of the column was laid down during a cataclysmic worldwide flood. What little order exist in the sequence of fossils is primarily due to burial of successive ecological zones, the ability of larger animals to escape to higher land, and the sorting action of water. "In many places, the oceanic sediments of which mountains are composed are inverted, with the older sediments lying on top of the younger."

16. "Mountain Building in the Mediterranean" Science News, Oct 17, 1970, p. 316 ------ "2/3 of Earth's land surface has only 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods in place. ... 80-85% of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearing in 'correct' consecutive order." (p. 46) "Since only a small percentage of the earth's surface obeys even a significant portion of the geologic column, it becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary - uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods. The claim of their having taken place to form a continuum of rock/life/time of ten biochronologic 'onion skins' over the earth is therefore a fantastic and imaginative contrivance." (p. 69) John Woodmorappe, Geologist (Creationist) "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment" Creation Research Society Quarterly June 1981, pp. 46-71.
17. Circular Dating "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." J.E. O'Rourke, Evolutionist researcher "Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy" American Journal of Science, Jan 1976, p. 48. ------

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint, geologist are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by the study of their remains imbedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms they contain." R.H. Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology Cambridge University Encyclopedia Britannica, 1956, vol 10, p 168

18. CATASTROPHISM "The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic evolution. Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence." Luther D. Sunderland (Creationist) "Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace Darwinism & Uniformitarianism" Contrast: The Creation Evolution Controversy, Vol 4, No. 2, 1986, pp.1-2 p. 343 ------
19. "We can accumulate great quantities of sediment in a given area very rapidly. This has changed our whole thinking about the processes that came to lay these layers here in the Grand Canyon." "One thing that supports this view is the fact that these layers are continuous for mile after mile through the Canyon. You can pick any one of these layers and follow it through for a 100 or 200-miles in the Canyon, with very little change. This kind of continuity and uniformity suggests that deep water was involved in the process." Dr. Arthur V. Chadwick (Creationist geologist) The Fossil Record (film) Films for Christ Assoc, 1983 ------ "A week's study of the Grand Canyon should be a good cure for Evolutionary geologists as it is a perfect example of Flood geology with its paraconformities and striking parallelisms of the under strata. The whole area was obviously laid down quickly, then uplifted and then the whole sedimentary area split open like a rotten watermelon." Albert W. Mehlert, Former Evolutionist & paleoanthropology researcher "Diluviology & Uniformitarian Geology -- A Review" Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol 23, No. 3 (Dec 1986) p. 106
20. "People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms ... This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale. In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings." Darrel Kautz, Creationist Researcher The Origin of Living Things, 1988, p. 6 ------
21. "The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred." Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 5
22. MUTATIONS "A mutation doesn't produce major new raw (DNA) material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University "Is a New and General Theory of Evol. Emerging?" Lecture at Hobart&Wm Smith College,Feb4,1980 ------ "With ... the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected." (p.168) "There are limits to biological change and ... these limits are set by the structure and function of the genetic machinery." (p. 153) Ph.D. L.P.Lester & R.G. Bohlin (Creationists) The Natural Limits of Biological Change Zondervan/Probe, 1984 ------

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of (E)volution." Pierre-Paul Grosse past-President, French Acadamie des Science. Evolution of Living Organisms Academic Press, New York, 1977, p 88 ------Mutations are mostly lethal and usually negative, positive ones have seldom been observed.

"A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair - just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture." James F. Crow Radiation & mutation specialist "Genetic Effects of Radiation" Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, pp 19-20

23. Natural Selection "Natural selection, a central feature of neo-Darwinism ... may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested." Roger Lewin Science 217:1239-1240, 1982 ------

 

24. "But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if Evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing ... How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated forms? ... one point stands high above the rest: the dilemma of incipient stages. Mivart identified this problem as primary and it remains so today." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University. "Not Necessarily a Wing" Natural History, Oct 1985, pp. 12-13 ------

"No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it..." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London Interview, BBC television, March 4, 1982 ------

" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection'. No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity to rearrange them nor to add to them. Consequently no leap (saitation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence - one who know what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in the laboratories." I. L. Cohen Member New York Academy of Sciences. Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities New Research Publications, Inc., 1984. p. 209 ---

25. "The peppered moth experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection or survival of the fittest. But they do not show evolution in progress. For however the population may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia." L. Harrison Matthews, D.Sc, FRS Intro to Origin of Species, Dent, London, 1971 ------ "In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection -- quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology." Arthur Koestler Janus: A Summing Up, Vintage Books, 1978, p 185

"...now that the actual physical structure of what might be termed the biochemical mainstays of life [DNA] has come into view, scientists are finding -- frequently to their dismay -- that the evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before... " "...on the molecular level, these separations, and this hierarchic order stand out with a mathematical precision which once and for all silences dissent. On the fundamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstratable fact that there are no transitional types, and that the so called missing links are indeed non-existent." Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 8

26. The fossil record "Beginning about six hundred million years ago ... the earliest known representative of the major kinds of animals still populating today's seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted 'event' shows up graphically in the rock record: all over the world, at roughly the same time, thick sequences of rocks, barren of any easily detected fossils, are overlain by sediments containing a gorgeous array of shelly invertebrates: trilobites, brachiopods, mollusks. ... Creationist have made much of this sudden development of rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none ... Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils ... does pose a fascinating intellectual challenge." Niles Eldredge, Paleontologist American Museum of Natural History The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism Washington Square Press, N.Y., 1982, p. 44 ------

"One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multi-cellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age." D. Axelrod, Science 128:7, 1958 ------

27. "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes ..." J. R. Norman, Dept of Zoology British Museum of Natural History, London "Classification and pedigrees: fossils" A History of Fishes, Dr P.H. Greenwood (editor) British Museum of Natural History, 1975, p. 343 ------ "There are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." Gordon Rattray Taylor Award-winning science writer Former editor of the BBC's "Horizon" series The Great Evolution Mystery, Harper & Row, 1983, p. 60 ------
28. "The [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved." W.E. Swinton, British Museum of Natural History Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds A.J. Marshall (editor), Vol 1, Academic Press New York, 1960, p. 1 ------

"The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse." Prof G. A. Kerkut Dept of Physiology & Biochemistry University of Southhampton Implications of Evolution Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p 144 ------ "The family tree of the horse is beautiful and continuous only in the textbooks. ...(discussion)... The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts ..." Prof N. Heribert Nilsson Lund University, Sweden Famous botanist and evolutionist Synthetische Artbildung Verlag CWE Gleerup Press ------

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student ... have now been 'debunked'. Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proven them equally elusive." Prof. Derek Ager Dept of Geology, Imperial College, London "The nature of the fossil record." Proc. Geological Assoc. Vol. 87, 1976, p. 132 Fossil Evidence

"The family trees which adorn our text books are based on inference, however, reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, Prof of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, May, 1977, p. 13 ------

29. "... if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record." Lord Solly Zuckerman, MA, MD, DSc (Anatomy) Prof. of anatomy, University of Birmingham Chief scientific advisor, United Kingdom Beyond the Ivory Tower Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p 64 ------

• It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown man was a hoax, and yet, it was in textbooks for more than forty years. ^b
• Prior to 1978, the evidence for Ramapithecus consisted of a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. It is now known that these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey ^c and others in a form resembling part of the human jaw. ^d Ramapithecus was just an ape. ^e (See Figure 9 .) Figure 10
• The only evidence for Nebraska man turned out to be a pig's tooth. (See Figure 10 .)
• Eugene Dubois conceded forty years after he discovered Java "man" that it was just a large gibbon. Dubois also admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes, found in the same area, which supported that conclusion. ^f
• The skulls of Peking man are considered by many experts to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man. ^g The classification Homo erectus is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created. ^h
• The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis have recently been discovered. They show that this animal clearly had apelike proportions ⁱ and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo).
• The Australopithecines, which were made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of the Australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between man and living apes. ^j Another study of their inner ear bones, that were used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity with those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences with those of humans. One Australopithecine fossil--a 3-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy--was initially presented as evidence that all Australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy's entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. ^k She probably swung from the trees ^l and was similar to pigmy chimpanzees. ^m The Australopithecines are probably an extinct ape. ⁿ
• For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. Recent studies show that this erroneous belief was based upon some Neanderthals who were crippled with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets. ^o Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man were completely human. Artists' depictions of them, especially of their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence. ^p
• Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. (See pages 29-32.)

1. "Neanderthals had short, narrow skulls, large cheekbones and noses and, most distinctive, bunlike bony bumps on the backs of their heads. Many modern Danes and Norwegians have identical features, Brace reported at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Phoenix... Indeed, the present-day European skulls resemble Neanderthal skulls more closely than they resemble the skulls of American Indians or Australian aborigines, he said. Brace...measured more than 500 relatively modern northwestern Europeans craniums last year..." "Neanderthal Traits Extant, Group Told" The Arizona Republic (Phoenix) Nov 20, 1988, p. B-5, reporting on: C. Loring Brace Physical anthropologist and evolutionist University of Michigan

Genetic Evidence "The evolutionary interpretation of homology is clouded even further by the uncomfortable fact that there are many cases of 'homologous like' resemblance which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be explained by descent from a common ancestor." ( p. 151) "The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them in any sort of an evolutionary series." (p. 289) Dr. Michael Denton Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Adler and Adler Publishers, 1985, ------

"It has often been claimed, moreover, that these new and momentous findings have at last unearthed the true mechanism of evolution, and that we are presently on the brink of discovering precisely how macroevolution has come about. However, the truth of the matter is very much the opposite: now that the actual physical structure of what might be termed the biochemical mainstays of life has come into view, scientists are finding -- frequently to their dismay -- that the evolutionist thesis has become more stringently unthinkable than ever before... " "...on the molecular level, these separations, and this hierarchic order stand out with a mathematical precision which once and for all silences dissent. On the fundamental level it becomes a rigorously demonstrable fact that there are no transitional types, and that the so called missing links are indeed non-existent." Wolfgang Smith, Ph.D Teilardism and the New Religion Tan Books and Publishers, Inc., 1988, p. 8 -----

- "In recent years several authors have written popular books on human origins which are based more on fantasy and subjectivity than on fact and objectivity... by andv large, written by authors with a formal academic background... Prominent among them were On Aggression by Konrad Lorenz, The Naked Ape and The Human Zoo by Desmond Morris..." (p. 283) "Yet the tendency for individual paleontologists to trace human history directly back to their own fossil finds has persisted to the present day." (p. 285) "So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear cut scientific picture of human evolution." (p. 285) Dr. R. Martin, Senior Research Fellow Zoological Society of London "Man is Not an Onion" New Scientist, Aug 4, 1977

2. "Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." Prof. Louis Bounoure, Former: President Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research The Advocate, March 8, 1984, p. 17 ------

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood, and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. ... The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." Pierre-Paul Grasse past-President, French Acadamie des Science Evolution of Living Organisms Academic Press, New York, 1977, p 8 ------

3. "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has." Malcolm Muggeridge Well-known Journalist and philosopher Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo

"After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past." Loren Eiseley, Ph.D. Anthropology The Immense Journey Random House, NY, 1957, p. 199"

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest- growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." Larry Hatfield "Educators Against Darwin" Science Digest Special, Winter 1979, pp. 94-96 ------

4. Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say." "We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Wolfgang Smith, Mathematician and Physicist Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University Former math instructor at MIT Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin Tan Books & Publishers, 1988, pp. 1-2 ------

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page ------

5. "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it." H. J. Lipson, F.R.S. "A physicist looks at evolution" Physics Bulletin, vol 31, 1980 ------ "One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, was ... it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be so misled so long. ...so for the last few weeks I've tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. 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. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing -- it ought not to be taught in high school'." Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist British Museaum of Natural History, London Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, 5 November, 1981 ------

"The twentieth century would be incomprehensible without the Darwinian revolution. The social and political currents which have swept the world in the past eighty years would have been impossible without its intellectual sanction. ... The influence of the evolutionary theory on fields far removed from biology is one of the most spectacular examples in history of how a highly speculative idea for which there is no really hard scientific evidence can come to fashion the thinking of a whole society and dominate the outlook of an age. Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth." Michael Denton, Molecular Biologist Evolution: A Theory in Crisis Adler and Adler, 1985, p. 358 ------

"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator..." Dr. Michael Walker Senior Lecturer, Anthropology, Sydney University Quadrant, Oct 1982, p. 44 ------ "I think we need to go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this is an anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." H. S. Lipson Prof of Physics, University of Manchester A paper published by The Institute of Physics IOP Publishing Ltd., 1980 ------

"In a certain sense, the debate transcends the confrontation between evolutionists and creationists. We now have a debate within the scientific community itself; it is a confrontation between scientific objectivity and ingrained prejudice - between logic and emotion - between fact and fiction. " (pp. 6-7) "...In the final analysis, objective scientific logic has to prevail - no matter what the final result is - no matter how many time-honored idols have to be discarded in the process." (p. 8) "... After all, it is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end - no matter what illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers.... If in the process of impartial scientific logic, they find that creation by outside superintelligence is the solution to our quandary, then let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." (pp. 214-215) "... every single concept advanced by the theory of evolution (and amended thereafter) is imaginary as it is not supported by the scientifically established facts of microbiology, fossils, and mathematical probability concepts. Darwin was wrong." (p. 209)

6. "... The theory of evolution may be the worst mistake made in science." (p. 210) I. L. Cohen, Mathematician, Researcher, Author, Member New York Academy of Sciences Officer of the Archaeological Institute of America Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities New Research Publications, Inc., 1984. According to the generally accepted view, the best evidence for evolution has come from the study of fossils; a leading modern zoologist expressed this view in those words: 'The most important evidence for the theory of evolution is that obtained from the study of palaeontology. Though the study of other branches of zoology.... might lead one to suspect that animals are all interrelated, it was the discovery of various fossils and their correct placing in relative strata and age that provided the main factual basis for the modern view of evolution.' (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution). The question we must face therefore is whether the fossil record actually supports evolution; or whether it rather supports the Bible's account of special creation followed by a world-wide flood. Until Darwin's time, the fossil record had not on the whole suggested evolution. After The Origin of Species became accepted, palaeontology had to be completely rethought in the light of the new ideas. By the 1880's, evolution had become scientific orthodoxy and from then on any fossil find had to be interpreted to fit in with accepted evolutionary theory. To interpret it in any other way was (and is) considered heresy. A geological time-table was therefore compiled on the basis of the fossils contained in the rocks. It may help us to clarify the issues if we first consider what the fossil record should show according to evolutionary theory. If evolution was true - what should we find in the fossils? Let us suppose that evolution has been conclusively proved by methods other than palaeontology. As we come to look at the fossils, we would expect to find the following: An example of how fossils are found massed together. This slab of limestone is crowded with remains of ammonites Asteroceras marstonense Spath (large shells) and a species of Promicroceras (small shells). Progressive Complexity a) At the bottom of the geological column, in the oldest rocks, the very simple organisms should be found. As we progress through the various rock strata towards more recent rocks, the organisms should become more and more complex. Link Fossils b) 'link fossils' would also be expected; these would be the remains linking groups of animals that today are widely separated such as the fish and the amphibia, or the reptiles and the mammals. As we reach fairly recent rocks, we should expect to find clear evidence of ape-like men. Ordered fossils c) We should of course expect to find the rock strata themselves in the order given by the geological column, with the oldest at or near the bottom, and the most recent at the top. ------ If creation was true - what should we find in the fossils? Now let us suppose that the Bible gives a true description of the early history of the earth. What then should we expect to find in the fossil record? To answer this we must consider the Bible's account of what happened in those early years. Genesis 1 tells us that God first of all created the earth and that it was covered with water. Then He created day and night and after that He divided the waters. Water still covered the earth but there was now an expanse or firmament, and then another layer - a water or water vapour canopy above the atmosphere. This layer would have had a great effect on the climate of the earth. Heat rays reach the earth from the sun, but this canopy would have stopped them escaping again when reradiated from the earth. The earth would thus have had an even, warm climate all over it, with no extreme fluctuations of heat or cold. After He had created this water canopy, God gathered the water that remained on earth into one place and dry land appeared; in other words there was one ocean and one land mass. After this, God created plants, the sun and moon, animals, and finally man. As man lived on the earth he grew more and more wicked after the fall and eventually God judged him with a terrible flood. This covered the whole earth and killed everything and everybody except those who were with Noah in the ark. Now if this account is true, what should the fossil record show? ------ Huge number of fossils a) It should certainly show the remains of animals killed in the flood. If such vast numbers of living creatures were wiped out suddenly they should have left evidence in the form of huge numbers of skeletons bearing the marks of violent death. 'lived over the whole earth' b) It would not surprise us if we found evidence that these animals had lived more or less over the whole earth, or that there was a constant subtropical climate, because of the effect of the water canopy. Sedimentary layers c) As regards the nature of the earth's rocks, we would expect the flood to have left thick layers of sediment, since this is always the result of flooding, These vast layers would subsequently have become consolidated, forming sedimentary rock over most of the earth's surface. ------ Now we must turn from what we might, on each view, expect to find and look instead at what the fossil record actually shows. Does it support evolution, or does it rather show those features implied by the Bible? We may review the evidence under six aspects. Confused layering d) As the flood would probably have been of a tidal nature, we would expect to see layering caused as sediment was deposited by the different tides; this layering would be confused and indistinct in many places, because of the chaotic nature of the catastrophe as a whole. ------ 1) Gradual Development? Does the fossil record show evidence of a gradual development through the rock from simple to complex organisms? It does not 2) World-Wide Flood? Is there any evidence in the fossil record of a world-wide devastating flood? Yes. 3) Fossil Links? Do link fossils exist? They dont 4) Giantism Among the fossils, giant forms have been discovered ...Indeed they have.
7. [Let the reader be reminded at this point that one alleged evolutionary ancestor of man (Piltdown Man) was exposed as a deliberate hoax; that another (Nebraska Man) might as well have been a hoax, a whole hominid "species" having been contrived entirely from a single tooth, which turned out to belong to a pig; and that among other now seriously questioned human "ancestors" is Ramapithecus (since reclassified as Sivapithecus), based on a few teeth and jaw fragments that turned out to so closely resemble those of a modern day orangutan that Richard Leakey’s associate and co-author Alan Walker has cautiously alluded to the orangutan as a potential "living fossil". The history of paleontology abounds with the rise and fall of various fabrications and complete reversals, demonstrating the need for extreme caution in accepting any claims based on what is often scant and equivocal evidence.]
8. One of many examples of the incomplete picture given in Hunt’s FAQ may be found in her treatment of whales. Besides presenting a phylogeny that (much like elsewhere in the FAQ) seems to rely largely on dental records at the expense (in the absence?) of the balance of physiological evidence, she makes mention of Pakicetus, which she describes as "the oldest fossil whale known ... nostrils still at front of head (no blowhole) ... found with terrestrial fossils and may have been amphibious..." What Hunt fails to include in her description of "the oldest fossil whale" is the fact that the fossil material from which Pakicetus was conjured up consisted of nothing more than: the back of a mammal skull , two jaw fragments ,some teeth [Readers may see the article linked here for illustrations of just how much "whale evolution" is contrived from how little substance.] As Hunt notes, these fossils were found amidst an array of land mammal fossils in 1983. There is no significant evidence to lead one to assume these remains belonged to an "old whale" any more than to an "old land mammal." Yet the discoverers (P.D. Gingerich et al.) chose to "interpret" their findings as a whale, and evolutionary proponents (such as Hunt) have happily parroted their claim ever since.
9. The existence of human organs whose function is unknown does not imply that they are vestiges of organs inherited from our evolutionary ancestors. ^a As medical knowledge has increased, at least some functions of all organs have been discovered. ^b For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. Today it is known that the appendix plays a role in antibody production and protects part of the intestine from infections. Its removal also increases a person's susceptibility to leukemia, Hodgkin's disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries. Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies that evolution never happened.
10. Many single-celled forms of life exist, but there are no known forms of animal life with 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells. ^a Even the forms of life with 6-20 cells are parasites. They must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as digestion and respiration. If macroevolution happened, one should find many forms of life with 2-20 cells as transitional forms between one-celled and many-celled organisms.
11. The earth's sedimentary layers are typically parallel to adjacent layers. Such uniform layers are seen, for example, in the Grand Canyon and in road cuts in mountainous terrain. Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their subsequent burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Since parallel layers are the general rule, and the earth's surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate--not over long periods of time. (For an understanding of the mechanisms involved, see pages 149-160. )
13. "Prebiotic soup is easy to obtain. We must next explain how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules, including amino acids and the organic constituents of nucleotides evolved into a self-replicating organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely tentative." [Dr. Leslie Orgel (evolutionist biochemist at the Salk Institute, California), "Darwinism at the very beginning of life," New Scientist, 15 April 1982, p. 150]

"However, the macromolecule-to-cell transition is a jump of fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable hypothesis. In this area all is conjecture. ...We simply wish to point out the fact that there is no scientific evidence. The physicist has learned to avoid trying to specify when time began and when matter was created, except within the framework of frank speculation. The origin of the precursor cell appears to fall into the same category of unknowables." [Davis E. Green (evolutionist, Institute for Enzyme Research, University of Wisconsin, Madison) and Robert F. Goldberger (evolutionist, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland), Molecular Insights into the Living Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1967, pp. 406-407]

It is therefore a matter of faith on the part of biologist that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence for what did happen is not available." [Prof. G. A. Kerkut (evolutionist, Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, Univ. of Southampton) in Implications of Evolution, Pergamon Press, London, 1960, p. 150]

Orgel, Green, Goldberger and Kerkut are but a few of many voices in the evolutionist camp who disagree with Isaak’s shallow treatment of this subject. The highly complex and orderly structures and processes that comprise life and its functions can not even begin to be explained as having arisen from non-living matter, no matter how much promordial soup and time is involved. Knowledgeable and objective members of the scientific community don’t deny this.

Vestigial Organs

It is surely time for thinking people to reject the theory of evolution once and for all.

Other More Extensive Creation Pages

 http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.htm

www.creationscience.com

http://www.trueorigin.org/links.htm

1. Where has macro evolution ever been observed? What's the mechanism for getting new complexity such as new vital organs? How, for example, could a caterpillar evolve into a butterfly?
2. Where are the billions of transitional fossils that should be there if your theory is right? Billions! Not a handful of questionable transitions. Why don't we see a reasonably smooth continuum among all living creatures, or in the fossil record, or both?
3. Who are the evolutionary ancestors of the insects? The evolutionary tree that's in the textbook: where's its trunk and where are its branches?
4. What evidence is there that information, such as that in DNA, could ever assemble itself? What about the 4000 books of coded information that are in a tiny part of each of your 100 trillion cells? If astronomers received an intelligent radio signal from some distant galaxy, most people would conclude that it came from an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the vast information sequence in the DNA molecule of just a bacteria also imply an intelligent source?
5. How could organs as complicated as the eye or the ear or the brain of even a tiny bird ever come about by chance or natural processes? How could a bacterial motor evolve?
6. If the solar system evolved, why do three planets spin backwards? Why do at least 6 moons revolve backwards?
7. Why do we have comets if the solar system is billions of years old?
8. Where did all the helium go?
9. How did sexual reproduction evolve?
10. If the big bang occurred, where did all the information around us and in us come from? Has an explosion ever produced order? Or as Sir Isaac Newton said, "Who wound up the clock?"
11. Why do so many of the earth's ancient cultures have flood legends?
12. Where did matter come from? What about space, time, energy, and even the laws of physics?
13. How did the first living cell begin? That's a greater miracle than for a bacteria to evolve to a man. How did that first cell reproduce?
14. Just before life appeared, did the atmosphere have oxygen or did it not have oxygen?
15. Why aren't meteorites found in supposedly old rocks?
16. If it takes intelligence to make an arrowhead, why doesn't it take vastly more intelligence to create a human? Do you really believe that hydrogen will turn into people if you wait long enough?
17. Which came first, DNA or the proteins needed by DNA--which can only be produced by DNA?
18. Can you name one reasonable hypothesis on how the moon got there--any hypothesis that is consistent with all the data? Why aren't students told the scientific reasons for rejecting all the evolutionary theories for the moon's origin?
19. Why won't qualified evolutionists enter into a written, scientific debate ?
20. Would you like to explain the origin of any of the following twenty-one features of the earth: