HE IS LORD Ministries | home
EVOLUTION
THE EVIL SOLUTION
Real science "is an interconnected series of concepts and conceptual schemes that have developed as a result of experimentation and observations" (Dr. James B. Conant, former president of Harvard). The Harper Encyclopedia of Science describes the scientific method as "techniques of controlled observation employed in the search for knowledge." In other words; science is knowledge obtained primarily through observation.
Evolution means change, but the fossil record proves and provides no change. There is no way to prove a theory true because you can not control all the variables. You can however, prove theories false. Example: Neanderthals were the first fossils suggested as links between men and apes. A skullcap was discovered in a limestone grotto in 1856, and since then discoveries have been made in Palestine and Africa and in many locations throughout Europe. Recent Neanderthal research has revealed that, "The uniqueness of Neanderthals appears to have been exaggerated..." A report in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 39:43-89 (1996) by Lucia Yaroch states that studies of the Neanderthal cranial shape, "confirms the presence of some features traditionally attributed to Neanderthals, but some `classic' Neanderthal features do not in fact characterize the Neanderthal sample." In other words, specific qualities assumed to be marks of this stage of prehistoric man are not present in the original Neanderthal fossils. Such research fully supports what creationists have been saying: Neanderthals are not a "missing link" but were fully human. The evolutionary community apparently now agrees.
A favorite argument of creationists has always been the lack of transitional organisms preserved in the fossil record. In Romer's book, Vertebrate Paleontology, he found that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils. (Orders are larger groupings of families, which are larger than genera, which are larger than species). Of living families of terrestrial vertebrates, 79.1% are represented, a member which jumps to 87.7% if birds (hardly ever preserved) are excluded. Thus, the fossil record of even terrestrial vertebrates is seen to be remarkably complete. Nevertheless, far less than 1% of all fossils are terrestrial vertebrates. Approximately 95% are marine invertebrates, with the rest being mostly plants, fish, and insects. Land fossils are notoriously scarce, and when found are usually fragmentary. When we look at the invertebrates, we see separate and distinct categories (i.e. clams, corals, trilobites, etc.) existing in the earliest strata with no hint of ancestors or of intermediates. Where there is good data, we see no evolution. The fossil record is voluminous and apparently substantially complete. Yet, no evolution is seen.
Did you know that all human beings have a chemical serial number, if you please, called "mitochondrion DNA?" Scientists discovered that you could trace this DNA to your mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, including going all the way back to "the mother of all living," Gen. 3:20 - Eve? Newsweek Magazine, January 11, 1988, published the result of this experiment under the title: "The Search for Adam and Eve." In the article it was stated: "All human beings go back to one original woman." Now mitochondrion DNA has a biological clock - keep this in mind. In 1995 it was discovered that the "Y" chromosome is only passed on from father to son, and it was discovered that we all go back to one original man. In 1998 scientists were finally able to calibrate the mitochondrion clock. Published in "Science Magazine," 1998: "The first woman lived on earth 6,000 years ago."
THE BIG BANG THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC FACTS: According to the "Laws of Motion," under "Conservation of Angular Momentum," when the "Big Bang" occurred, all objects that came swirling out after the explosion would be spinning in a clockwise motion (or it would at least be agreed that they would all be spinning in the same direction since all objects originated from one object). Yet "Big Bang" promoters are stymied as to how the planets Uranus and Venus, plus 6 of the 63 moons in our universe alone, are spinning counter clockwise. This should be impossible according to them. According to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, everything tends toward disorder. Evolutionists teach that if you add energy you increase order. We added tons of energy to Iraq a few years ago and nothing was better organized after being bombed. Nearly everyone is employed due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Something is always needing repair or replacement. If you don't believe me, try not servicing your car for five years. "Textbooks teach that it takes billions of years for a red star to cool down and become a white star. Sirius is the brightest star in the universe. Cicero, in 50 BC stated that Sirius was red. Seneca described Sirius as being redder than Mars, and Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of the six red stars in 150 AD. Today it is a white dwarf star." The Young World, by Paul Acherman. Why does Saturn still have rings around it that are stars cooling off and moving further away from it (Saturn is loosing its rings) if it is billions of years old? These would have dispersed in about 10,000 years. Why is Jupiter's moon, called Ganymede, still red hot if it is billions of years old? Did you know that our own moon is moving farther away from our earth by a few inches a year? If our earth was even only a million years old, the tides alone (which are determined by the moon) would have rendered every living mammal extinct when it was so close a million years ago, because of what is called the Inverse Square Law (if you half the distance you quadruple the attraction). Comets continue to loose material. Most textbooks give the life expectancy of a comet as 10,000 years with no new ones forming. If our galaxy is even only one million years old, why do we still have comets? When it rains, 30% of the water runs into the ocean. The water running into the ocean brings with it mineral salts. Evaporation takes fresh water out of the ocean leaving the salt behind. Therefore the oceans are gaining salt everyday. The oceans today are 3.6% salt. They could have done that in about 5,000 years or less. If the earth is millions of years old, why aren't the oceans saltier? Can you name any river in the world that runs uphill? The Colorado river begins at an elevation of 2.800 feet, enters the "Grand Canyon" at 2,200 feet, is at an altitude of 1,800 feet at about half way through the "Grand Canyon," and leaves the "Grand Canyon" at 1,200 feet. Back in the "Grand Canyon" we find that the altitude of the rims on both the north and south are between 6,900 - 8,500 feet above sea level. We have now found according to Evolutionists the worlds first river in the world that flowed uphill for millions of years in order to form the "Grand Canyon." There is no scientific reason to reject the Bible, but true science teaches us to reject Evolution and the "Big Bang" theory. Evolution also fails to explain how such things as the human heart came into existence. It pumps life-giving blood to the body's 120 trillion cells. But the heart can not work for more than a few minutes without that blood supplying its own needs. When the blood stops, so does the heart. So how did the heart survive all those long cold millions of years before blood finally evolved into something that could deep the heart alive so the heart could pump blood to itself? Not only can the heart not exist without blood, but blood can not exist without the heart. The heart pumps blood to the bones, which make red blood cells, and red blood cells feed the heart the oxygen it needs to survive. The question is, how did the bones exist all those millions of years before finally evolving into a factory for red blood cells - when bones themselves need the red blood cells to exist? Bones can not exist without the very thing they themselves manufacture. Evolutionists won't touch this one, because they cannot explain how something creates the very thing that it needs to exist, unless they were created at the same time.
Macro-evolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. "In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development." Medical Tribune, Dec. 29, 1988, p. 1,23, as quoted in Back to Genesis No. 118. The point is, Mutations, adaptation, variation, diversity, population shifts, et cetera, all occur, but these are not macro-evolutionary changes. Micro-Evolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog, but it is still a dog. Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal micro-evolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the core of evolutionary thinking. Instead of giving the scientific evidence for real evolution (not small horizontal variations, of course, but vertical evolution from ameba to man), they resort to authoritarianism ("all we scientists believe it, so it must be true"). Actually, in all human history, no one has ever seen any real evolution take place (horizontal variation within kinds is not macro-evolution), although thousands of species have become extinct during human history. Furthermore, out of the billions of known fossils in the earth's rock record of the past, no true intermediate evolutionary transitional form between kinds has ever been discovered, whereas there ought to be large numbers of such intermediate forms, if evolution had really taken place. Isn't it time we returned to true science, the definition of which is seen above?
LIVING FOSSILS - Evolutionists consider what they call "living fossils" to be rare, the famous Coelacanth fish being the best-known example. The fossils of this fish are found only in rocks older than 70 million years (assuming the standard geologic time scale to be real), but living Coelacanths have been found in the Indian Ocean. Graptolites have been considered in the past to be index fossils for the Ordovician period, 300 million years old. Yet they recently were found still living in the south Pacific ("Graptolites Come to Life," Sue Rigby, Nature vol. 362, March 18, 1993, pp. 209-210). "Other famous living fossils include the Tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the Metasequoia conifer tree (thought extinct for the past 20 million years), the Neopilina mollusk (supposedly extinct for 280 million years), the Lingula brachiopod ("extinct" since the Ordovician), and even the Trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period)," "Living Fossil Resembles Long-Extinct Trilobite," Science Digest, vol. 42, Dec. 1957, p. 490.
Evolution is supposed to have begun when Prokaryotes evolved out of the primeval soup. It is significant, therefore, that the primitive one-celled organisms called Eukaryotes are supposed to have evolved from Prokaryotes. By contrast, these also are still living, essentially unchanged, in the modern world. The most important modern Prokaryotes are probably the bacteria and the blue-green algae, and these certainly should be considered living fossils. They have been found in abundance in 3.4 billion year-old rocks from South America. But modern soil bacteria have been found in Precambrian rocks. Common sense tells us that if evolution really works, these "primitive" organisms have not changed significantly in over a billion years! This same phenomenon holds for practically all the insects. "Some 84 percent of the insect families alive today were alive 100 million years ago," Carl Zimmer, "Insects Ascendant," Discover, vol. 14, Nov. 1993, p. 30. Whether bees or ants, cicadas or beetles, termites or cockroaches, the fossils of these and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachnids and myriapods. The same is true of modern amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, all of which are practically identical with their fossil representatives.
THE DATING SYSTEMS. The best dating system available at the present time is called "potassium/argon." I will dispense from discussing others (except another well-accepted one), since to refute the best one would be in essence, to cancel, or make questionable, the rest. The best way to test the age of something is to have everyone agree that the idem formed is known to be within at least 5 to 10 thousand years. Dalrymple did this when he dated several lava flows, which are known to have erupted in modern times. Most of the lava flows had essentially zero potassium/argon ages. However, about 1/5 of the flows had excess ages in the billions of years. The flows that dated the oldest all had ultramafic xenoliths and xenocrysts (small rocks and crystals of foreign material) mixed into the lava. The excess argon, and the extra apparent age, was attributed to these foreign materials. Dalrymple then conducted tests on basalt, which flowed into the ocean. The basalt which hardened above the water dated to essentially zero age, while basalt from this same age flow, which cooled under the water were found to be dating as high as 43 million years old. See: Dalrymple GB, Moore JG: "Argon 40: Excess in submarine pillow basalts from Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii." Science 1968; 161:1132-5. This is of course very relevant for a creationist who believes that the world was covered with water, ocean water to be specific, during much of the Genesis Flood.
Carbon Dating cannot be used to date rocks or fossils. It is only useful for items that were once alive, which still contain some carbon, like bone, flesh, or wood. Therefore, rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be measured by this method and this should be the end of this discussion. However, carbon normally occurs as Carbon-12. However, radioactive Carbon-14 may some-times be formed in the outer atmosphere as Nitrogen-14 undergoes cosmic ray bombardment. The resulting Carbon-14 is unstable and decays back to Nitrogen-14 with a measured half-life of approximately 5,730 years. Thus the ratio of stable Carbon-12 to unstable Carbon-14, which is known in today's open environment, changes over time in an isolated specimen. Consider the dating of a piece of wood. As long as the tree lives, it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, both C-12 and C-14. Once the tree dies, it ceases to take in new carbon, and any C-14 present begins to decay. The changing ratio of C-12 to C-13 indicates the length of time since the tree stopped absorbing carbon, i.e., at the time of its death. Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and a half more decays in another 5,730 years, by the time you get to ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Nor is 57,300 years enough time for evolution to have taken place. Therefore, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which carbon dating is based and the conditions that must be satisfied are questionable at best. In practice, no one trusts carbon dating beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if it can be checked by some historical means.
In what will surely come as a surprise to many, of the various dating methods, such as radiometric, potassium/argon, rubidium/strontium, uranium/lead, and uranium disequilibrium dating, these actually were more compatible with a young earth chronology than with the millions, let alone the billions of years anticipated. And this was done without altering the radioactive time constants, with a straightforward flood model aging between 4,000 to 8,000 years. In reality, there are no experiments that can be done to prove that the earth is billions of years old. This is none other than a "belief system," no different than a Christian "belief system," if put into the scientific framework.
STATISTICAL EVIDENCE. The most that statistical evidence might prove about God is that He is very intelligent (omniscient) and very powerful (omnipotent). It can also prove that there had to be an original Designer (in respect to God - omnific). But statistics cannot prove that He is a loving God, or that He is the God of the Bible. (Carrying this statement out to its final conclusion will prove just the opposite.) Having stated that , let's look at some data.
Given the most favorable assumptions, the probability of putting together a simple cell by random processes can be shown to be less than 10 to the 240,000th. Borel, the Great Russian probabilist, says that events with probabilities less than 10 to the 50th never occur. Suppose that somehow, out of the soup which the primitive sea was supposed to be (ignoring the question, "Where did it come from") you were able to obtain the 20 protein-forming amino acids in their L-form (L-form = Life form, or Living matter) without any contamination by other amino acids, and then heat them. If they all combined equally well, the probability of forming a protein of 250 residues (an average-sized protein) by random combinations is one in 10 to the 326th. It is much less than the probability of filling the entire universe with sand, wit one red grain in it, and grabbing at random the red grain of sand.
Consider RNA. There have been several attempts to synthesize RNA by mixing the four bases attached to ribose and polymerizing them by chemical agents or heat. All the experiments so far have produced 2-5' linkages instead of the natural 3-5' linkages. In other words, even given the raw materials, RNA cannot be produced by random methods. This is not simply a very low probability. This is zero probability. Then consider DNA. DNA can only make 3-5' linkages, because there is no hydroxyl group on carbon 2 of 2-deoxyribose. But DNA has to have 2-deoxyribose as well as the bases and posphates needed for RNA, and 2-deoxyribose has not been made by random methods. So, according to all the evidence available, DNA cannot be produced by random methods. But supposing you could create DNA of exactly the right length from deoxyribonucleotides. And supposing that only 2 of ourevery 3 residues needed to be in order. The smallest free-living bacterium has a DNA molecule that contains 1.1 million bases. The chances of the right DNA forming are one in 10 to the 441,510th, this is 1 divided by 100,000,000... (441,493 more zeroes). With this type, it would take about 197 pages to write all the zeroes needed. Now pick a page and pick a zero, and be right to produce your beginning DNA (assuming we are not worried about where all these zeroes came from in the first place). Comparing this likelihood of happening, is comparable to the chances of dumping a 5-ton truckload of pennies (1,466,666 of them) on the street and having them all turn up heads. "But," somebody says, "there are a million different bacteria that could have been formed, and there were a billion years when, all around the world DNA was being formed." Well, the number of bacteria that can live in an atmosphere containing large quantities of hydrogen cyanide is small. But supposing that there were a billion different kinds of bacteria that could be formed. That would improve the chances to 1 in 10 to the 441,501th. If DNA were formed every second for over 3 billion years, the chances would be 1 in 10 to the 441,493th. And if it were being made in every square inch of the earth's surface at that rate, the chances would be raised to 1 in 10 to the 441,475th. By these assumptions we have raised the chances by 10 to the 35th. But we still have so far to go before it becomes remotely possible that it is not worth considering seriously. The estimates in the foregoing calculations were extremely liberal, and from the evidence we have, the conditions we assumed about the abundance of nucleotides that did not exist.
So we can not form all the amino acids, and any of the membrane-forming fatty acids. Nor can we form more than one purine base, the sugar needed for DNA, usable proteins, or RNA in its normal form. Thus the chances of producing DNA are worse than astronomically small. To put it in perspective, the chances of producing life are less than those of producing the Oxford English dictionary by an explosion in a print factory. And that said factory would be in a Russian print factory! And it gets even worse. To get life once, we have not even considered the macromolecules where the figures for zeroes (remember) would not even fit into the National Public Library.
But Wait! Chicken soup has all the DNA, RNA, and protein we could wish for, including properly formed enzymes, with plenty of lipids to make membranes and sugars for energy and structural needs. It is even in almost the right order. And yet, Campbell's makes lots of money because bacteria doesn't reconstitute once they are disorganized beyond a certain point. Primordial soup has to have been much thinner than chicken soup and not nearly as nutritious. It would take a miracle to get life out of primordial soup. And that is precisely what we (I say we, because this section on Statistical Evidence was mostly taken from the book "Scientific Theology," by Paul A. L. Giem, pp. 59-61) are talking about. The origin of life was and is a miracle. It would have had to have a Master Designer - and it did!!!
Scientific REASONS FOR A GLOBAL FLOOD.
1) All the mountains of the world have been under water at some time or times in the past, as indicated by sedimentary rocks and marine fossils near their summits. Most volcanic mountains with their pillow lava's were largely formed when under water.
2) Most of the crust of the earth consists of sedimentary rocks (sandstone's, shale's, limestone's, et cetera). These were originally formed in almost all cases under water, usually by deposition after transportation by water from various sources.
3) Fossils require very rapid burial and compaction to be preserved at all. Thus, since every sedimentary formation appears to have been formed rapidly, even catastrophically, no other explanation seems to fit as well.
4) Since there is known to be a global continuity of sedimentary formations in the geologic column (that is, there is no worldwide "unconformity," or time gap, between successive "ages"), and since each unit was formed rapidly, the entire geologic column seems to be the product of continuous rapid deposition of sediments, comprising in effect the geological record of a global flood.
5) The types of rocks, the vast extent of specific sedimentary rock formations, the minerals and metals, coal and oil found in rocks, the various types of structures (i.e., faults, folds, thrusts, etc.), sedimentary rocks grossly deformed while still soft from recent deposition, and numerous other features seem to occur indiscriminately. Therefore, they were all formed in essentially the same brief time period.
6) Instead of representing the evolution of life over many ages, the fossils really speak of the destruction of life (remember that fossils are dead things, catastrophically buried for preservation) in one age, with their actual local "sequences" having been determined by the ecological communities in which they were living at the time of burial.
7) The fact that there are traditions of the great Flood found in hundreds of tribes in all parts of the world (all similar in one way or another to that in the Genesis record) is firm evidence that those tribes all originated from the one family preserved through the cataclysm.
A LITTLE COMMON SENSE. The only evolution taking place today is an evolutionist evolving into a creationist, and the even less observed, vice-versa. God, in order to be the creator God, must be independent of the three things in order to be a true God, those being: Time, Space and Matter (Isa. 46:9-10; 57:15; Titus 1:1).
