1 Corinthians 9:11
Evolution is based on evolution meaning that life started from the single cell and evolved to higher life forms. If this was true we would find this in the fossil record. What do we find in the fossil record? No clue as to how this occurred. For example, there are no intermediate jumps from one cell creatures to Metazoa. The Metazoa appears abruptly in the Fossil record fully formed with all of its necessary complex organs. Dr. Gish, a noted paleontologist, writes:
"Nowhere on this earth—neither on any continent nor on the bottom of any ocean—have we been able to find the intermediates between single-celled organisms and the complex invertebrates. Where ever or whenever we find them, right from the start jellyfish are jellyfish, trilobites are trilobites and sea urchins are sea urchins."326/54
The fossils have been thoroughly studied and there is no evidence of any kind of transition between any kind of animal of any species. They all appear abruptly fully formed. The supposed evolution of horses in the fossil record in America is just the opposite of what you find in the fossils of south America.326/83-84 This means that the pictures in textbooks concerning horses are made up. This was never found in the fossil records.
The age of fossils are not determined through radiometric dating methods but through comparing them with other fossils that have been dated based on the Geologic time table that was made up by the evolutionists themselves.326/92
Evolution is based on the survival of the fittest which is defined as those that reproduce in larger numbers. What does the Fossil record show? It shows that mammals that were few survived while life forms that were in great number disappeared from the earth.326
Most Paleoanthropologists in the world have never seen human ancestral fossils. What they have seen are only casts of the originals.375/11 Those fossils which do exist are kept locked in huge cement vaults where even most paleoanthropologists are not allowed to go into and inspect the fossils. This means that Paleoanthropologists papers and comments on fossils are being made based on the casts of the original, not study of the actual fossils.
To illustrate how unreliable these casts are, once in 1984 the American Museum of Natural History in New York sponsored what is called "Ancestors" exhibit in which more than forty of these original fossils were brought together and placed behind one inch thick bullet proof laminated acrylic panels. Before the original fossils were put into this encasing for display, stands were made based on the only available casts. Unfortunately many of the original fossils did not fit the stands.375/13
It is now a well known fact that the Piltdown Man fossils are fraudulent. Piltdown Man was a combination of a late-model human cranium and a piece of the lower jaw of an orangutan that had been filed down to make them look human and so they would match the upper jaw of the cranium. Louis Leakey makes comment in his book Adam’s Ancestors that each time he visited the British Museum, where Piltdown Man remains are kept, he asked to see the fossils. He was allowed to see them for just a moment and then they were taken away, but not before he was able to see the file marks on the teech which the castings did not have.
In another case Paleoanthropologist Adrienne Zihlman, of the University of California in Santa Cruz, asked Johanson, the founder and holder of Lucy, if she could examine the fossils. She was told she could do so only if he were permitted to censor anything she wrote on the fossils before publication. As a result she declined. No one other than the people who found or hold these fossils have any access to these fossils and therefore by faith we must take only what they claim about these fossils.375/15-16
Through Genetic Engineering we have been able to develop chickens that lay more eggs, cows that give more milk and corn with increased protein content; but chickens are still chickens, cows are still cows and corn is still corn. Through Genetic Engineering we are not able to produce a completely different and new species.
Fruit flies have been the focus of attempted mutation through exposure to radiation for years. While they have come up with many different looking mutated fruit flies, they are still fruit flies. No new species. There was even an article in the paper a few years ago about one scientists ability to produce eyes on different parts of the fruit fly’s anatomy through genetic engineering; but while the fruit fly had more eyes, it was still a fruit fly. Also no mutated fruit fly has ever reproduced a fruit fly with the same characteristics. No mutated fruit fly has ever been able to reproduce period. All mutated fruit flies are sterile and take their mutations to the grave.
One should also note that while selective breeding has produced greater productivity in animals and plants, in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability. This means that they do not survive naturally in the wild. They are only able to survive in an artificially created and controlled environment by man.326/34
Nebraska Man was discovered in 1922 by Harold Cook in the Pliocene deposits of Nebraska. So called evidence of the Nebraska Man was used in the famous Scope trial in Dayton, Tennessee in 1925. Several so called experts stood up and gave several facts of the so called Nebraska Man. The primary basis for fact of the Nebraska Man was a tooth which scientists all over the world appraised as proof positive of a prehistoric race in America.
Several years after the trial an entire skeleton of an animal from which the initial tooth came was found. It turned out that the tooth came from an extinct species of pig.190/120 Concerning this Dr. Gish wrote, "I believe this is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist!"326/188
Another so called discovery also based on a tooth was the Southwest Colorado Man. It was later discovered that this tooth did not come from a man but a horse.190/120
The Java Ape-Man, also known as Pithecanthropus erectus (erect apeman), was discovered in 1891 by Dr. Eugene Dubois, a committed evolutionist. Java Ape-man was based on a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh-bone, and three molar teeth. These fragments were found over an area of 70 feet mixed in with the bones of extinct animals in an old river bed. Java Ape-Man was claimed to be 750,000 years old.
There are many problems with this find: Since the bones were not petrified how did they manage to survive so long without disintegrating? Since these fragments were found mixed in a whole bed of extinct animals, how can the "experts" be certain that all the pieces came from the same animal? The renowned professor Virchow of Berlin said: "There is no evidence at all that these bones were parts of the same creature."190/120 Later Dr. Dubois himself reversed his opinion and concluded that the bones came from some sort of gibbon. Despite this the textbooks and museum exhibits display Java Ape-man as dogmatic fact.
In 1912, Arthur Smith Woodward, Director of the Natural History Museum of London, and Charles Dawson, a medical doctor and amateur paleontologist, discovered what is known as the Piltdown Man in a gravel pit at Piltdown, Sussex, England.326/188 Piltdown Man consisted of some bones, teeth, and primitive implements. They were taken to Dr. Authur Smith Woodward, a paleontologist at the British Museum. After examining the discovery he proclaimed the remains to be about 500,000 years old. Over 500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown Man.327/4
For several decades this seemed to solidly establish evolution as a fact of science until 1956 when the entire discovery was shown to be a complete hoax documented in an article in the October 1956 Reader's Digest titled, "The Great Piltdown Hoax." Using fluoride absorption, a new bases to date bones, the Piltdown bones were found to be false. Also it was discovered that the jaw-bone actually belonged to an ape that had died only 50 years previously. The teeth had been filed down and both the teeth and bones had been discolored with bichromate of potash to conceal their true identity. According to M. Bowden: "... the person responsible for placing the faked fossils in the pit at Piltdown was Teilhard de Chardin S.J." Scott M. Huse writes,
"Teilhard authored several philosophical books in which he attempted to harmonize evolution and Christianity. Exasperated by the lack of convincing evidence for Darwin's theory, Teilhard was apparently motivated into assisting the theory of evolution by fabricating the needed missing link."191/101
Neanderthal Man was discovered at the beginning of the century in a cave in Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. He was described as a semi-erect, barrelchested, brutish sort of fellow, an intermediary link between man and apes. Since then several Neanderthal skeletons have been found and it has been concluded that he was fully erect and fully human. In fact his cranial capacity exceeded modern man by more than 13%. The initial mistake of evaluation was made because the first specimen was crippled with osteo-arthritis and rickets.191
Dr. Gish concludes about these discoveries about supposed prehistoric man:
"An ape’s jaw in 1912, a pig’s tooth in 1922, a dolphin’s rib and donkey’s skull in the 1980s—the script is the same, only the actors and props have changed. Perhaps Lord Zuckerman was right when he declared that ‘It is doubtful whether there is any science at all in the search for Man's fossil ancestry.’"326/190
For years there was a sign in Yellow Stone National Park stating that the Petrified Forest was proof positive of long geological ages, that each layer represented hundreds of thousands of years. However, do to new geological evidence the sign has been removed.411
There are twenty-seven distinct layers of logs in the Petrfied Forest. In many cases in these layers the logs are standing upright. Evolutionist over the years have stated that this is proof of several different forests over time, having grown and then being buried and then another forest growing over and on top of the previous layer.
Examination of the layers shows that they are indeed placed one layer upon another in succession. Also in these layers, however, are many different plants and shrubs of different habitats that do not grow together: plants that grow in dry climants and plants that grow in wet climates and plants that grow in water. Also found were trees from tropical regions, trees from temperate regions, etcetera. Could all these trees be evolving and growing at the same time in the same place and climate?
Also discovered were stumps lined up in the same compass direction which indicated mud slides which moved the stumps around and in the same direction. The fossil tree rings also revealed some interesting facts which conflicted with the separate forests theory: studies of the separate layers showed that the trees had identically matching tree rings indicating they were of the same forest and period. Since it is impossible for the different climatic trees to have grown together, they had to have grown somewhere else. This means something happened cataclysmically which brought them together in the same place.
Growing forests should have roots, but when petrified logs are dug around, even in other petrified forests, it is found that the roots are broken off abruptly indicating again some kind of cataclysmic force bring this about. Also there is an absence of weathering. Hardly ever is found any evidence of decay or weathering among these petrified forests. This would have to be present if there was any significant time involved in the growth and development of a forest.
Another problem in these layers is the soil itself which is not soil but silt. Also you don’t just find healthy leaves higher up on shrubs and bushes, you find healthy leaves throughout as if something has completely brushed off any dead and decaying leaves of any kind. You don’t find any development of humus anywhere like you find in a normal forest growing today.
On May 18, 1980 a cataclysmic event took place on Mount St. Helens. A gigantic land slide and steam explosion occurred and over whelmed Spirit Lake just north of the volcano. This created a miniature laboratory for a petrified forest. The giant water wave up to 160 feet high was created by the land slide. The steam blast placed 1,000,000 logs in a three square mile area lake. This was a mixture of ten different species of trees. Since then about 500,000 logs have been deposited at the bottom of the lake. They discovered that these logs would first float upright, one end down and the other end up and then would eventually float to the bottom of the lake standing up. They have found tens of thousands of logs standing planted upright in the bottom of the lake. If Spirit Lake were drained You would find a forest of trees standing upright.
They also discovered that different species deposited at the bottom of the lake at different times. Noble Fir sunk first. After two years they could not find any more floating logs of Noble Fir. Other trees like Silver Fir and Hemlock went next. Also great sedimentation was taking place at the same time. Douglas Fir seemed to be the last still floating. Now there is a species stratified deposite of logs on the Bottom of Spirit Lake, all standing upright through several layers from Noble Fir first upward. All of these different strata of trees deposited did not take place over hundreds of thousands of years, but rather in a very short time right before our eyes.
As a result they no longer have the sign at Yellowstone indicating that the 27 layers of petrified forests happened over millions of years because within our life time we have witnessed it taking place very quickly before our eyes.
For Further Reading See
In 1979, David Sutherland, who had been an aerospace engineer with the General Electric company, conducted taped interviews in five natural history museums containing some of the largest fossil collections in the world. His interviews were with the following Paleontologists:
The results of these interviews are recorded in his book, Darwin’s Enigma,149 a book I highly recommend reading for anyone looking for the truth about Evolution and the fossil records. What I share in the next few pages are highlights from this book.
Several years ago Miller-Orgel placed methane, ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen into a closed container and then applied a spark of electricity to it. The end result was a few weak amino acids. This resulted in their boasting of having practically produced life in a test tube.149/53
What these scientists do not tell you is that these experiments where done in a closed container with the absence of oxygen, an agent which would have been highly destructive to this process, obstructing it all together. Since these experiments were done, scientists have discovered oxidized iron bands in Precambrian rocks showing the presence of oxygen during the period that evolutionist claim life begin. This destroys the possibility of spontaneous formation of life on earth based on evolutionist own data and discoveries.149/53-54 The end result is that scientist are turning away from the theory of evolution and stating that the reason why life exists on earth is because it was placed here from outer space. For example: Francis Crick, Nobel prize-winner and co-discoverer of DNA, wrote in his book Life Itself,
"If it turns out that the early atmosphere was not reducing but contained a fair amount of oxygen, then the picture is more complicated. . . . If this were really true, it would support the idea of Directed Panspermia, because planets elsewhere in the universe may have had a more reducing atmosphere and thus have on them a more favorable prebiotic soup."51/79
Carl Sagan said,
"If there were free oxygen in the early atmosphere of the Earth before the development of green plants, we would have a serious contradiction."51/87-88
Astronomers and geophysicists, commenting in New Scientist, May 13, 1982, all agreed that the data was in and the evidence pointed toward oxygen in the early prelife atmosphere of the earth. They also commented that the gases released in today’s volcanoes are dominated by water vapor and carbon dioxide and that it is unlikely that any earlier volcanic activity would have been substantially different.149/54
The July 1980 New Scientist magazine wrote:
"Although biologists concerned with the origin of life often quote an early atmosphere consisting of reduced gases, this seems as much from ignorance of recent advances as from active opposition to them. . . . The time has come, it seems, to accept as the new orthodoxy the idea of early oxidized atmospheres on all three terrestrial planets, and the biological primers which still tell of life on Earth starting out from a methane/ammonia atmosphere energized by electric storms and solar ultraviolet need to be rewritten."108112
The famous British mathematician and astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle, who originated the steady-state theory of nucleogenesis (formation of the universe), published a book in 1981 titled, Evolution from Space. In this book he reverses his position on the origin of life. He along with his co-author Chandra Wickramasinghe stated that, although atheists all their lives, they had come to the conclusion that the high degree of order and specificity in the universe required pre-existing intelligence, even to the possibility of God. They wrote:
"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 favourable properities of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect deliberate. . . . It is, therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences. . . even to the limit of God."92/141,144
What made them come to these conclusions? It was the result of their determination of the statistical improbabilities of a single cell originating in the primitive atmosphere in the short period of 4.6 billion years of Earth’s history. They calculated that the chance probability of life originating by random processes was one chance in 1040,000.92/28
To give you an idea of just how complex the single cell is consider the following: in the nucleus are 23 pairs of small chromosomes, threads of DNA. In each chromosome are 100,000 genes. This results in 3 billion subunits of information hooked into specialized DNA components. From this one cell a human being is created with the splitting and creating of other cells totaling 1014 cells. It would take a Cray Supercomputer a year to calculate the various possibilities of these genetic combinations.
The identification of all the genes in one individual person would require an encyclopedia of 500 volumes, each volume containing 1,000 pages and each page containing 1,000 words. Each volume side by side would stretchb the length of a football field. Evolving from chance is an absolute impossibility.152/211-212
Nature magazine, November 12, 1981, said the following about Hoyle’s statements:
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. Of adherents of biological evolution, Hoyle said that he was at a loss to understand ‘biologists’ widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.’"93/105
According to the late Carl Sagan, there are about a trillion letters in all of the books in the world’s largest library.64/894 Not only is this an impossible amount of data to have originated by random shuffling processes, but the primordial Earth’s atmosphere simply was not conducive to any imagined scenario for the spontaneous formation of the first living, reproducing cell.149/59
Fred Hoyle’s calculations, Regarding the chance formation of life on earth at the most basic level, showed that this simply could not be expected to happen in even 20 billion years, let alone 4.6 billion; and, with oxygen present in the early atmosphere, it would have been an even greater impossibility. He wrote in the November 19, 1981 New Scientist that there are 2,000 complex enzymes required for a living organism but not a single one of these could have formed on Earth by random, shuffling processes in even 20 billion years:
It is one thing to talk in generalities about such matters, but still another to face the hard facts of the laws of probability. The reason that the origin of the first reproducing cell is such an important consideration when one evaluates theories of origins is that the supposed creative force called "natural selection" could not have played any part until there was reproduction.149/60
Time definitely is not the hero of the plot. In reality, time destroys the assumptions of evolution theory — even the 20 billion years assumed since the big bang. If a single five-word sentence could not be formed by chance in more time than the Earth has existed, it is even less conceivable that the data contained in the genes of a single cell could have formed by random processes, because the genes of the simplest single-celled organism contain more data than there are letters in all of the volumes of the world’s largest library.149/61-62
When evolutionary paleontologist Dr. Patterson was asked why he had not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, he gave the following reply:
". . . I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?"149/89
Luther D. Sutherland, in a later interview of Dr. Patterson asked: "You stated in your letter that there are no transitions. Do you know of any good ones?" He replied: "No, I don’t, not that I would try to support. No." During the interview he was asked individually about every major group and the reply was the same that there are no transitions in evidence. He then said, "If you ask, ‘what is the evidence for continuity?’ you would have to say, ‘There isn’t any in the fossils of animals and man. The connection between them is in the mind.’"149/90
When Dr. Patterson was asked what he saw as the biggest problem with the concept of evolution, he replied that it was a philosophical problem; that, "There are solutions to problems in science but I don’t think this is science we are talking about, I think it’s history." This means it is a historical problem, not a scientific one.149/90
Dr. E.J.H. Corner of the Cambridge University Botany School made a candid evaluation of the knowledge about plant evolution:
"Much evidence can be adduced in favor 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."50/97
Where the fossil record had completely failed to show morphological progressions, perhaps the field of biochemistry would validate evolution. It was found that there were large morphological differences between organisms, there was also a great difference in their protein sequences. For example: hemoglobin sequences between man and other animals differed anywhere from 20 to 50 percent.
Dr. Denton stated that the evolutionists’ hopes for documenting evolution theory with microbiology are shattered:
"However, as more protein sequences began to accumulate during the 1960s, it became increasingly apparent that the molecules were not going to provide any evidence of sequential arrangements in nature but were going to reaffirm the traditional view that the system of nature conforms fundamentally to a highly ordered hierarchic scheme from which all direct evidence for evolution is emphatically absent. Moreover, the divisions turned out to be more mathematically perfect than even most die-hard typologists153 would have predicted."149/125-126
As a result of the digital computer, in 1966 biologist Dr. Martin Kaplan organized a symposium at Wistar called The Wistar Symposium in which biologists discussed mathematical doubts about Darwinian theory of evolution. Murray Eden, in a paper entitled, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," showed that it would be unlikely for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by mutations in the DNA of the bacteria, E. coli, in five billion years. He concluded that the only way to overthrow this calculation was "by finding of a new determinate feature;," in other words, a new natural law.109/9
Dr. Eden also calculated the maximum number of protein molecules that could have existed on Earth in ten billion years, and it is only an "infinitesimal number" when compared to the maximum number of possibilities in a polypeptide chain containing 250 links.
The French scientist, Lecomte du Nony, who examined the mathematical odds of life having evolved by chance from non-living matter, said regarding the formation of a single protein that the "time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe is about 10243 years." Thus he concluded that the odds against the chance formation of a single protein were so great that such an event could not have occurred.58/34
Dr. Eden said,
"What I would like to find is the characterization of these constraints.... What I am claiming is simply that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense."109/14
He was talking about the very heart of the question of plausibility in macro evolution. If the raw material of evolutionary change is supposed to be generated by random processes and random processes cannot be shown to produce even a fraction of the intelligence contained in the simplest DNA, then some nonrandom mechanism must be found. When no such mechanism can be found, the theory should be deposited in the rubbish heap.149/138
Grant R. Jeffrey in his book, The Signature of God, notes:
"It is significant that the various educational groups supporting evolutionary teaching have encouraged their members to refuse to enter debates about evolution with creation science supporters at high schools and colleges. The evolution supporters found to their dismay that the audiences almost always believed in evolution before the debate began but that they accepted the evidence for divine creation by the end of the debate."288/121
There has never been a case established where a living organism was observed to change into a basically different organism with different structures. No observed mutation has ever been demonstrated to be more beneficial to the overall population out in nature. The genetic machinery is so extremely complicated, interrelated and coordinated that a random change due to a copying error in DNA has been shown statistically to have only deleterious effects within the time restraints that have been considered for the age of the universe. Even if life had existed for an infinite amount of time, there is no known observable process that could increase the level of information significantly in a natural system.
If those who believe in evolution are going to make a case for their theory, they are obligated to first demonstrate that some natural process exists that can create order out of disorder. And they must also demonstrate with direct fossil evidence that such a process actually created the diversity of life existing in the biosphere.
Evolutionary Paleontologists in the world’s greatest museums have not been able to provide any intermediate forms that would show beyond a doubt common ancestry of all life. There is not a single example of a series of fossils that would indicate that one form of organism changed gradually into a basically different type with new organs and structures. There is only the assumption and the charts which illustrate this were created in the mind of the scientists, not based on observable tangible evidence. The lowest rocks that contain fossils only show the abrupt appearance of all major groups of living organisms with nothing in between to connect them.
Beyond this, no scientist has ever been able to demonstrate mathematically or otherwise how the large amount of genetic intelligence, 1012, in a single celled organism could possibly have come into existence spontaneously from that which is not living in the first place. The so called origin-of-life have given no indication whatsoever of how DNA or RNA could have originated spontaneously from non-life. Furthermore, the postulated early atmospheric conditions are not supported by what has been found in the Precambrian rocks themselves. It requires an oxygen free atmosphere and the rocks show lots of oxygen present which would destroy the intended product of these experiments. With this indisputable knowledge, scientists like Francis Crick are now suggesting that the first living cell was brought to this planet from outer space from some other planet. Fred Hoyle tells us that 2,000 enzymes are required for life but no mathematical model has ever shown how these 2,000 enzymes could have been produced by chance no matter what age you give the universe. It is not possible through random processes. Since the fossil records do not show gradual evolution but individual species with all organs and structures complete, every thing points to pre-existing intelligent design. Some scientists are suggesting a meteor hit the earth causing world wide cataclysm which resulted in the fossil layers. The end result is that some scientists are saying we need to do away with the concept of uniformitarianism all together.
There is also the embarrassing fact that no where now or in the recorded history of man has anyone been able to provide evidence of gradual fossilization taking place anywhere in the world. The sedimentary rocks do not show evidence of gradual fossilization but a catastrophe which laid them down instantly all at once and rapidly enough to prevent decay.149/154-159
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science."416/422 — Soren Lovtrup
"So heated is the debate that one Darwinian says there are times when he thinks about going into a field with more intellectual honesty: the used-car business."417/80 — Sharon Begley
". . . contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach."330/353-452 — Michael Denton
"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."418/30 — G. Richard Bozanh
"[Natural] selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms.... The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution."419 — Jacque Monod
"I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level— preschool day care center or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.... It will undoubtedly be a long, arduous, painful struggle replete with much sorrow and many tears, but humanism will emerge triumphant. It must if the family of humankind is to survive."420/26 — John Dunphy
"One reason education undoes belief is its teaching of evolution; Darwin's own drift from orthodoxy to agnosticism was symptomatic. Martin Lings is probably right in saying that ‘more cases of loss of religious faith are to be traced to the theory of evolution . . . than to anything else.’ (Studies in Comparative Religion, Winter 1970.)"421/755 — Huston Smith
"Another way of stating the second law then is: ‘The universe is constantly getting more disorderly!’ Viewed that way, we can see the second law all about us. We have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. How difficult to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in perfect working order: how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself — and that is what the second law is all about."422/6 — Isaac Asimov
"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."423/169 — Gordon J. Van Wylen
"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in a stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."424 — Klaus Dose
"Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling of just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only the biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. Life must plainly be a cosmic phenomenon."425/526-527 — Sir Fred Hoyle
"Despite the fact that no convincing explanation of how random evolutionary processes could have resulted in such an ordered pattern of diversity, the idea of uniform rates of evolution is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful, that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."330/306 — Michael Denton
"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."426 — David B. Kitts
"The fossil record is of little use in providing direct evidence of the pathways of descent of the phyla or of invertebrate classes. Each phylum with a fossil record had already evolved its characteristic body plan when it first appeared, so far as we can tell from the fossil remains, and no phylum is connected to any other via intermediate fossil types. Indeed, none of the invertebrate classes can be connected with another class by series of intermediates."427/263 — J. W. Valentine
". . . But whatever ideas authorides may have on the subject, the lungfishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in nothing...."428 — Errol White
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology.... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly 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; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 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.’"429 — S. J. Gould
"Gaps at a lower taxonomic level, species and genera, are practically universal in the fossil record of the mammal like reptiles. In no single adequately documented case is it possible to trace a transition, species by species, from one genus to another...."430/319 — T. S. Kemp
"Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin [79'] 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, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that 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—what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin's problem has not been alleviated...."125 — David Raup
"The world does not explain itself . . . it is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything."431 — G. Chesterton
We have clearly demonstrated the scientific impossibility of life coming about by chance on earth. Is it possible for life to have been brought here from another planet, outside of God’s direct creative acts upon earth? It is believed by many scientists that the chance conditions of earth may be the only planet in existence with its unique characteristics conducive to life as we know it. This means that if there was the chance possibility of another planet with optimal conditions for life on both the planet and its surrounding solar system, the planet would be in another galaxy so far away that space travel to our earth would be an absolute impossibility with the known physics of the universe.
Why is this true? As soon as astronauts leave the gravitational pull of our planet, their bodies immediately begin to deteriorate. The body loses calcium, muscles shrink, blood vessels constrict, fluid levels decrease. In one month alone the heel bone loses up to 5 percent of its mass. Rigorous exercise in space slows down the process of deterioration but does not stop it.
Providing an artificial gravity for prolonged space travel, as is envisioned in the movie 2001 A Space Odessy, would require revolving wheels more than six-hundred feet in diameter. This, however, would only slow down the process of deterioration, not stop it. Also it would be impossible to carry all the needed replacement parts needed to maintain such an elaborate traveling spaceship which even near the speed of light would take hundreds of years to get to some of our nearest stars within our own galaxy.
Also the Coriolis effect would cause serious problems. A spin rate of more than one revolution per minute would cause motion sickness. Even a wheel 600 feet in diameter would have to rotate three times a minute to simulate normal earth gravity! The resulting nausea would be terrible. An immense rotating wheel, called a Stanford Torus, would be required in order to lower the Coriolis effect. The larger the object, the greater the chance of collision and damage from objects in space. Wernher von Braun recognized that even slight shifts of weight within the torus would subtly affect the rate of rotation, with disorienting effects on the occupants. Even one rotation per-minute causes low-level physical turmoil.
Then there would be the problem of air pollution in the living quarters of the wheel. Prolonged space travel would also require large quantities of plants and animals. This combined with the humans would produce a tremendous amount of waste products. It has been estimated that 10,000 colonists within a giant wheel would require 60,000 chickens, 30,000 rabbits, and sizeable herds of cattle, to maintain a mixed diet of about 2,400 calories a day. Even with the plants, keeping the environment balanced is very difficult. With centuries of space travel environmental mistakes would accumulate. Biosphere II in Arizona was closed down due to inadequate air circulation, poor food and waste disposal problems.
Maintenance of the spaceship would be impossible. After 15 years of operation, the space shuttles are showing a variety of problems. To keep them operating properly requires an army of technicians. In prolonged space travel there would be no provision for repairs. Here we are talking about centuries of space travel without ability or places to stop for repairs. For any number of components of the ship to stop working would result in certain death of its occupants. I always get a kick out of the Star Trek Series Voyager which is 70,000 light years away from federation space. They have had numerous practically total destruction episodes of the space craft Voyager, yet some how miraculously without any space-stations to stop at for repairs, by the next week it is totally repaired and operating at peack performance.
Without the earth’s magnetic field and dense atmosphere, in outer space a person is exposed to all kinds of high-speed particles. These are cosmic rays from deep space, as well as X-rays and other emissions from solar flares. The first astronauts complained of regular flashes of light while in orbit caused by nuclear particles bombarding their retinas. Plans for putting a manned station on the moon alone include cylindrical modules buried under six feet of lunar topsoil to protect people from dangerous ultra-violet light, solar radiation, high-speed particles and X-rays. Setting up this kind of protection for prolonged space travel would be next to impossible.
NASA complains now about how difficult it is to put satellites into orbit without the possibility of colliding with junk in space left over from other rockets and satellites put in space. Junk in space travels so fast that even a paint particle could cause serious damage to a manned rocket. In outer space there are sizeable amounts of meteoroids. It is impossible for NASA to map space completely within our solar system let alone outside it. Traveling at extremely high speeds through billions of miles of space for several years guarantees collision with fatal unknown objects.
Many electrical gadgets would be needed to sustain life. This would include such things as humidifiers for the air. Solar panels would supply power while near enough to the sun, but once out of its range this would be of no value and we all know how often we need to replace batteries.
The greatest challenge would be could the spaceship residence maintain peace over decades and hundreds of years without killing and destroying each other. People getting along was a major problem for the Biosphere II experiment.
The distances to be traveled would be incredible. Voyager 1 traveling at 25,000 mph will take 30,000 years to pass by Ross 248, the nearest star in its flight path. To reach one of our closest stars Epsilon Eridani at the speed of light would take 10.8 years. There is not a ship on earth which can even reach a fraction of this speed. At these speeds collision with unknown objects in space would be certain. If they were to reach the next star, there is guarantee of a habitable planet to live on. They would have to turn around and come back, and without repairs and needed supplies would die in space.
Current space fuels, even theoretic modes of space travel proposed, are greatly inefficient. Even if they were to reach their destiny, more fuel would be needed to stop then to get there to keep from just flying by.
Beyond a certain point, radio communication would become impractical since it would take so long for the message to reach earth and visa versa. At the speed of light, a radio message would take eight years to reach the nearest star in our galaxy: Alpha Centauri. Even an unmanned probe has the same problem.
The high cost of water, oxygen and food transport, along with many other problems, dooms man’s hopes for long-term earth-orbiting, or lunar, or Martian space stations. Even on earth within a hundred years if man does not start working on severe conservation measures will find himself on his own planet short of many of the resources needed to maintain life.
The physics of the universe is the same anywhere. It is just as impossible for someone else to reach our galaxy through space travel as it is for us.
For Further Study on this Subject
What is the Anthropic Principle? This states that God so created the universe, our solar system and earth for the purpose of sustaining physical life on earth, and especially human life, as we know it. We are just the right distance from the Sun. Any closer and we would be too hot to sustain life, any further away and it would be too cold. The moon is positioned just right for tidal waves which are necessary to keep poisons from forming in the ocean and to keep our water pure for drinking through gravitational pull of under ground streams and rivers. The design of our atmosphere keeps out harmful radiation and ultraviolet light.
The following facts of our physical universe indicate clearly that the universe was created by an Intelligent Designer to sustain life as we know it:
Gravitational Coupling Constant (the force of gravity) determines what kind of stars we have in the universe. If the gravitational force were slightly stronger, star formation would come about more quickly and the mass of these stars would be 1.4 times greater than they are now. However, if the stars like our sun had 1.4 times its current mass, it would burn too rapidly and too inconstantly to maintain life-supporting conditions to surrounding planets.
If the Gravitational Force were slightly weaker, all stars would be less than 0.8 times the mass of the sun. These suns would burn longer, but they would not be able to produce elements necessary for sustaining life. If this force were slightly stronger, nuclear particles would tend to bond together more frequently and more firmly. This would result in hydrogen, a bachelor nuclear particle, and heavy elements like iron being very rare in the universe which would also make life impossible in the universe.
The Weak Nuclear Force Coupling Constant affects the behavior of leptons. Leptons form a whole class of elementary particles (e.g. neutrinos, electrons, and photons) that do not participate in strong nuclear reactions. The most familiar weak interaction effect is radioactivity, in particular, the beta decay reaction. If the weak nuclear force coupling constant were slightly larger, neutrons would decay more readily, and therefore would be less available. If this were true, little or no helium would be produced. Without the necessary helium, heavy elements sufficient for the construction of life would not exist. However, if this constant were slightly smaller, most or all of the hydrogen would be burned into helium with a subsequent over-abundance of heavy elements.
The Strong Nuclear Force is much more delicately balanced. An increase as small as two percent means that protons would never form from quarks (particles that form the building blocks of baryons and mesons). A similar decrease means that certain heavy elements essential for life would be unstable. Again, life as we know it would not be possible under these conditions. If the weak nuclear force were smaller, neutrinos would quietly escape during a supernova explosion, failing to interact sufficiently with the the outer layers of the star, and thus preventing significant expulsion of heavy elements. If the weak nuclear force were larger, neutrinos would be trapped inside the cores of supernovae and again would be unable to facilitate the expulsion of the heavy elements which are the building blocks for life.
The Electromagnetic Coupling Constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. The characteristics of the orbits of electrons about atomic nuclei determines to what degree atoms will bond together to form molecules. If the electromagnetic coupling constant were slightly smaller, few electrons would be held in orbits about nuclei. If it were slightly larger, an atom could not "share" an electron orbit with other atoms. Either way, the necessary molecules for life would not exist.
The Ratio of Protons to Electrons establishes the function of gravity relative to electromagnetism. The ratio of protons and electrons in the universe are one part in 1,037. Had this balance been slightly different, electromagnetism would so dominate gravity that galaxies, stars and planets as we know them could not exist.
The Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass also determines the characteristics of the orbits of electrons about nuclei. A proton is 1,836 times more massive than an electron. If the electron to proton mass ratio were much larger or smaller, again, the necessary molecules would not form, and life would not be impossible.
The Entropy Level of the Universe affects the degree to which massive systems (e.g. galaxies and stars) condense. The ratio of photons to baryons tells us how entropic our universe is. That ratio is about a billion to one. Thus, we can say that the universe is extremely entropic, i.e. a very efficient radiator and a very poor engine. If the entropy level for the universe were slightly larger, no galactic systems would exist or stars. If the entropy level were slightly smaller, the galactic systems that formed would effectively trap radiation and prevent any fragmentation of the systems into stars. Either way, the universe would be devoid of stars and life as we know it.
The Mass of the Universe, mass + energy since E = mc2, determines how much nuclear burning takes place. If the mass were slightly larger, too much deuterium (hydrogen atoms with nuclei containing both a proton and a neutron) would form. Deuterium is a powerful catalyst for subsequent nuclear burning in stars. Extra deuterium would cause stars to burn too rapidly to sustain life on any possible planet. On the other hand, if the mass of the universe were slightly smaller, no helium would be generated. Without helium, stars cannot produce the heavy elements necessary for life. If the universe were any smaller (or larger), not even one planet like the earth would be possible.
The Uniformity of the Universe determines its stellar components. Our universe has a high degree of uniformity. If the inflation (or some other mechanism) had not smoothed the universe to the degree we see, the universe would have developed into a plethora of black holes separated by virtually empty space. On the other hand, if the universe were smoother, the condensations necessary to form stars, star clusters, and galaxies would never have come about. Either way, the resultant universe would be incapable of supporting life.
The Stability of the Proton affects the quantity of matter in the universe and the radiation level in the range that would affect life forms. Each proton contains three quarks. Through the agency of other particles called bosons, quarks decay into antiquarks, pious, and positrons. Currently in our universe this decay process occurs on the average of only once per proton per 1032 years. If that rate were greater, the biological consequences for large animals and man would be catastrophic, for the proton decays would deliver lethal doses of radiation.
The Fine Structure Constants relate to each of the four fundamental forces —gravitational, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, and electromagnetic. Compared to the coupling constants, the fine structure constants yield stricter design constraints for the universe. For example, the electromagnetic fine structure constant affects the opacity of stellar material (Opacity is the degree to which a material permits radiant energy to pass through). In star formation, gravity pulls material together while thermal motions tend to pull it apart. An increase in the opacity will limit the effect of thermal motions. Hence, smaller clumps of material will be able to overcome the resistance of the thermal motions. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly larger, all the stars would be less than 0.7 times the mass of the sun. If the electromagnetic fine structure constant were slightly smaller, all the stars would be more than 1.8 times the mass of the sun. Life as we know it would not be able to exist under these conditions.
The Velocity of Light can be expressed as a function of any one of the fundamental forces of physics or as a function of one of the fine structure constants. Any real changes in the velocity (now defined to be 299,-792,458 meters per second) of light would alter all of these constants. The slightest change in the velocity of light, up or down, would make life as we know it impossible.
The 8 Be, 12C, and 16O Nuclear Energy Levels affect the manufacture and abundances of elements essential to life. Atomic nuclei exist in various discrete energy levels. A transition from one level to another occurs through the emission or capture of a photon that possesses precisely the energy difference between the two levels. The first coincidence here is that 8Be decays in just 10-15 seconds. Because 8Be is so highly unstable, it slows down the fusion process. If it were more stable, fusion of heavier elements would proceed so readily that catastrophic stellar explosions would result. Such explosions would prevent the formation of many heavy elements essential for life. On the other hand, if 8Be were even more unstable, element production beyond 8Be would not occur. The second coincidence is that 12C happens to have a nuclear energy level very slightly above the sum of the energy levels for 8Be and 4He. Anything other than this precise nuclear energy level for 12C would guarantee insufficient carbon production for life. The third coincidence is that 16O has the right nuclear energy level both to prevent all the carbon from turning into oxygen and to facilitate sufficient production Of 16O for life. This means that the ground state energies for 4He, 8Be, 12C, and 16O could not be higher or lower with respect to each other by more than four percent without yielding a universe with insufficient oxygen or carbon for any kind of life.
The Distance Between Stars affects the orbits and even the existence of planets. The average distance between stars in our part of the galaxy is about 30 trillion miles. If this distance were slightly smaller, gravitational interaction among stars would destabilize planetary orbits. This destabilization would create extreme temperature variations on the planets. This would make life impossible.
The Apostle Paul in the book of Colossians and the writer of the book of Hebrews tell us that Jesus holds all things together. How tightly? Just tight enough for life to exist and thrive in the universe as we know it. Science can explain the physics of our universe, but what they cannot explain is the existing delicate balance of forces within the elements that make life possible as we know it. The delicate balance of the universe exists because Jesus created it this way so that life as we know it could exist.
Evolutionists are adrift today on how to explain how all this could have happened. In fact the best explanation that they have is that we live in a very fortunate window of the evolution of the universe where the cosmic separation of star bodies and star clusters and the shells of star clusters are just right, space is sufficiently large, the solar system has evolved to an intricate point with refinement to the degree of 1055 in precision414/348 so that currently in this very fortunate window man can evolve and survive.
Physicists Rees and Carr in Nature magazine415/610, wrote an article titled, "The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World." In this article they explain that they calculated the mass of the cosmos, from the atom to the entire universe, and they found that the size of planet earth is a geometric mean and average of the size of the entire universe. They also found that the mass of the human body is a geometric mean of the mass of the proton and the planet itself. This means that it is not the cats and the canaries, as delightful as they are; it is not the reeds and the palms and the ferns, as delightful as they are, but the entire universe and planet earth and man have an infra structure of design. Also the reeds, the birds and the insects all figure into this design but for the benefit of man. They further found that these geometric proportions further relate to the electro magnetic and gravitational constants. They are not simply physical particles themselves exclusively.
Scott M. Huse, in his book The Collapse of Evolution, states,
"While these facts raise absolute havoc with the evolutionary framework, they are in complete harmony with the creationists’ viewpoint. As the Scriptures record: ... The evening and the morning were the first day (Gen 1:5). The deliberate and emphatic repetition of this phrase throughout Genesis 1 clearly indicates that these were literal 24-hour creative periods. The creation was accomplished in 6 literal days, not through billions of years of gradual development (Exodus 20:11). How appropriate are the words of the Psalmist at this juncture:
"By the word of Yehovah the heavens were made and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts. . . . For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast (Psalm 33:6, 9)."191/27
If the evidence of Science does not support the majority of scientists who teach evolution, then why do they teach that evolution is fact? Only one reason: Man works hard at accumulating so called evidences of science to justify his rejection of Jesus as Lord, not because he does not know that all the evidence point toward God. Man first makes a deliberate decision to reject God, then he spends the rest of his life building a system on a lie to pacify his conscience so he can live with himself.
Does the Bible bear this out? Yes. The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans,
"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools." (Rom 1:21-22).
The Bible plainly tells us that all men already know there is a God. The Bible’s definition of a fool, therefore, is someone who professes a lie, knows it is a lie, but chooses to live out the lie anyway.
What does the Bible say about the teaching of evolution which claims that the world, solar-system and universe are billions of years old? The Apostle Peter wrote in 2 Peter 3:3-6:
"Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.’ For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the Word of God the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water."
Peter prophesied 2,000 years ago that in the last days men would teach that the present is the key to the past, meaning that the aging process of the earth and solar system are just as they always have been, that there were no instant creations in the past or catastrophic happenings like a world wide Genesis flood as talked about in the Bible. Peter not only foretold the teaching of Evolution, but that men would profess this lie in order to justify the pursuit of their immoral lusts. The issue is immoral justification, not the facts of science. Aldous Huxly discouraged many people’s faith in Jesus Christ. He was very anti-Christian and had intellectual reasons for it, though not legitimately. He wrote in one of his books at the end of his life:
"I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning, consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation: sexual and political."203
Peter also tells us in this passage that the known world was destroyed by water. This explains the reason for the existence of fossil layers which have no logical order and why their is no evidence of evolutionary development between the species found in the fossil layers of the earth. It is the logical aftermath of the destruction of the earth with water. This is also the reason for coal deposits and oil and gas deposits.
The Bible, God’s Word, is absolutely true. The late Frances A. Schaeffer use to say that the Bible is not true because it says "Thus sayeth the Lord," but because it is true to what is there. The true tangible, measurable facts of science do not contradict the teaching of Scripture born out in Genesis, it totally and absolutely confirms it. "Let God be found true, though every man be found a liar" (Rom 3:4).
The Bible: ABSOLUTELY
Suggested Further Reading