According to the Scriptures"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel... By which also ye are saved... unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures" (1 Corinthians 15:1-4)


Does the Fossil Record Prove Evolution?
By Noel Chartier


Evolution for the most part is based on one's interpretation of sedimentary strata and the fossils found therein. Those who believe in Evolution appear to be convinced that the fossils found in rock layers all over the earth are the definite proof that creatures have been evolving upward into higher life forms over hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionists declare this process has been taking place through "natural selection" and "mutation", which leaves behind in its wake, the old models, so to say, which are replaced by higher forms of life.

Evolutionary Tree Although Evolution cannot be seen happening today, this they say can be observed in the fossil record. "Survival of the Fittest" is the catch word to explain this alleged process throughout the ages and those creatures that could not adapt died out, producing no offspring and became extinct. On the other hand, the "strong" kept getting stronger, producing new and improved offspring adapting to their environment by arbitrarily changing its own function and form over eons of time..

But, if this hypothesis were indeed true, we would expect to find within the fossil record millions of specimens that have slowly changed from bacteria to algae to invertebrates to fish to amphibians to reptiles to birds and mammals and finally to man as shown in the Darwinian Tree.

However, when we examine the Evolutionary Tree we find that all of these species (or their counterparts) for the most part, are living today. So what really do we see in the fossil record? When we go to a museum of “natural history”, we primarily find only fossils of extinct creatures. This of course gives the impression (especially with the commentary supplied) that things have been changing for the better over long periods of time, and that all creatures found in the fossil record are very old, outdated and extinct creatures that have long ago ceased to exist.

But, if we were to see the whole of the fossil record, and we were not influenced from years of evolutionary training in the science class, and bombarded with evolutionary biased programs, journals and magazines etc, and if we were to go out into the field and examine the evidence for ourselves, I think we would come up with a totally different conclusion. So what we need to do, as the Bible instructs us to do, is to “Prove all things” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

There really are only two world views that exist today that propose where all things originated from, that is, supernatural Creation by the Almighty God, and Evolution, which purports that “the entire visible universe grew from a speck far smaller than a proton” (TIME, June 25, 2001, How the Universe Will End, p. 39), that exploded (“Big Bang”) 15 billion years ago.

In this article it is our hope that the readers will find that the mindless processes that are alleged to take place in and through Evolution are nothing more than a fantasy that has been thought out by men (and inspired by the devil) who have rejected the Bible and the one and only true God of Creation.

Fossil Facts

What we would first like to display for the discerning mind is what can really be observed in the fossil record, which is subtly hidden from the unsuspecting onlooker in the museums of natural history around the world. The conclusion that many are coming to when challenged with the alternate view to the long ages of Evolution is that the fossil record proves sudden appearance, which must be accomplished by a divine act of Creation.

When we observe the fossil record we will see only two pieces of evidence with which to make a rational and logical conclusion:

1. Fossils of extinct creatures and,
2. Fossils of creatures that are still living today.

From this observable evidence it can easily be seen that ALL the creatures still living today have not changed after “millions of years”. They have somehow mysteriously forgotten to evolve and look identical to their fossil counterpart.

Natural History museums spend very little space in their exhibits to let the onlooker understand that there are hundreds of fossilized creatures that are assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old that are actually living today, and they have not changed.

Another thing that is strangely missing from these displays are all the intermediate creatures that should exist (if Evolution is true) between invertebrates and vertebrates, fish and amphibians, the amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and the birds and mammals, and of course, monkeys and man.

In the gaps between all these taxonomies, should we not see thousands of intermediate creatures that have gradually changed from one species into another as Evolution claims? We should find ample evidence of transitionary fossils, but mysteriously it is absent in the evolutionary presentations.

One Evolutionist has thoughtfully asked, “Why is all the gradual change going on in those very gaps?” There is nothing found in between all the living kinds linking one species to another so they are most suitably called “Missing Links”, for the simple reason that they do not exist.

Even the most elite Evolutions have been baffled by the lack of transitionary fossils. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard pointed out that “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change ... All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt” (Gould, 1977).

Dr T. S. Kemp, Curator of Zoological collections of Oxford University said, “With few exceptions, radically new kinds of organisms appear for the first time in the fossil record already fully evolved, with most of their characteristic features present” (Kemp, 1999).

In all reality, the true evidence that exists in the fossil record is one of abrupt or the sudden appearance of fully formed and fully functional creatures. The evidence clearly points to the Creation model of all things whereby God said, “let there be …” and there was. “For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is” (Exodus 20:11). “By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth” (Psalm 33:6).

Furthermore, Evolution starts with dead matter, and dead matter has never been observed coming to life. In the world today we see that all life MUST come from life.

Living Fossils

Bats



It is amazing that fossil bats said to be millions of years old look the same today. Or is it amazing? Perhaps bats have always been bats.

Coelacanth



The Coelacanth was a creature presumed by the scientific body before 1953 to have been extinct for 75 million years and purported to be as old as 450 million years. Evolutionary scientists used the coelacanth fossils as evidence to support their theory that fish evolved into amphibians. It was hailed as one of the great missing links, which was well on it's way to becoming an amphibian, that is, until one was caught off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. Surprisingly it looked the same as it's alleged 75 million year old fossilized ancestor. It was found to be a fully functional fish type creature that forgot to evolve.

At the Royal Tyrell Museum in Alberta Canada they still use this same philosophy to “prove” Evolution with models of fish in the water and then an Amphibian on dry land with his tail in the water. I pointed out to the curator that all I saw in their display was a fish (which exist today) and an amphibian (which exists today), one in the water, one on dry land. I saw no evolution happening in their display. What was missing were all the transitional creatures that are supposed to be in between but have not been found after centuries of digging. Perhaps they do not exist. The curator humbly agreed that this was a poor representation.

Crab



The crab is another species that has not changed one iota over "millions of years".

Shrimp: Supposedly 220 million years old.



Lobster



Dragonfly



Horseshoe Crab



Jelly Fish



Nautilus



Sea Horse



Mosquito



Fern



Wollemi Pine



When a stand of Wollemi Pines was found in an isolated area in Australia in 1994, the discovery was hailed as "the equivalent of finding a small dinosaur still alive on Earth". The Wollemi Pine has been thought to be extinct for millions of years, but when one is found, alas, it looks exactly like its predecessor.

Trilobite











A trilobite is a marine anthropoid that most believe has become extinct. There are many different varieties that range in size from about a quarter of an inch, up to 2 feet in diameter. While trilobites are said to be extinct for over 100 million years, there are certainly some living creatures that could pass for them today. In fact, there has been found fossil trilobites and footprints of a human in the same piece of rock proving that they co-existed with man as the Biblical record indicates. According to Evolution man is supposed to be 99 million years younger than trilobites.

Tadpole Shrimp



Snails



We got the fossil of these snails from Rene's Rock and Fossil Shop in British Columbia, Canada. The shops proprietor said these snails were 65 million years old. Back home in our ditch we have the same snails and they are living.

Turtle



Salamander



The Tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus)



Crocodile (200 million years old)




Snakes



Frogs



Sand Dollars


Here is a fossil sand dollar from Baja California, the skeleton of a sand dollar from the Gulf of Mexico, and two living specimens also from the Gulf of Mexico. Once again, we fail to see evolution in action.

Chicken


One theory believes that dinosaurs or lizards have evolved into chickens but both are found in the fossil record. We also find many other birds with fully formed feathers, even the famed Archaeopteryx which is claimed by some to be an intermediary between birds and lizards. However, the Archaeopteryx is a fully functional bird with fully formed aerodynamic wings and feathers. That is quite a leap from a lizard.

Giant Penguin (Icadyptes salasi)


A complete skeleton of a giant penguin was recently found in the tropics of Peru that is said to be 36 million years old. The skull is here compared to the skull of the only penguin living in Peru today along with an artists rendition of this 5 foot tall creature. There are no fewer than 17 species of penguins living today and scientists recognize approximately 32 species that have become extinct. Evolutionists claim that penguins probably evolved from flying birds 40 million years ago but the evidence supports the fact that penguins have always been penguins, although many species within the penguin "kind" have become extinct.

Humans

Fossilized human bones (Homo sapiens sapiens) from the Qafzeh cave site in Nazareth, Israel.
While on an expedition for dinosaur fossils in Niger in 2000, photographer Mike Hettwer discovered hundreds of fossilized humans in the Sahara Desert.

Here is the challenge to those who believe that the fossil record proves Evolution. If every fossil whose counterpart is still living, has not changed in “millions of years”, why should we believe that the fossils whose species are now extinct have changed from a lower life form prior to their becoming extinct?

If hundreds of “living fossils” have not changed, why should we believe that the extinct creatures did change, especially when the fossil record is void of any intermediate fossils between the species they are alleged to have changed into? I believe it is simply this, people believe it because this is what they are told all their lives without sincerely examining the evidence for themselves. “Prove all things” (2Thessalonians 5:21).

How do creatures become extinct?

If the “present is the key to the past” as evolutionist are so keen to assert, then we must look at how creatures today become extinct. It usually boils down to just a few reasons such as climatic changes, introduction of natural predators, the destruction of habitat, natural disasters, disease, or usually, they were hunted into extinction.

The current theory, at least for the extinction of many of the reptilian creatures (dinosaurs), is that a meteorite hit the earth 65 million years ago causing the earth to undergo great climatic changes that the dinosaurs could not survive. But, this is hard to believe since there are hundreds of different reptilian types that are still alive and well today.

In our present day there are many animals on the endangered species list and others only exist in captivity. But the sad fact is that extinctions are continuing today. We could list hundreds of creatures that have recently become extinct, but here are a few:

Carolina Parakeet The Carolina Parakeet was a creature that used to thrive in the southeastern United States. But when this bird developed a liking for the seeds of many kinds of fruit and grain crops, it was then deemed a pest sealing its fate to wholesale annihilation. Deforestation for agricultural purposes further reduced its habitat. The last of these birds was seen in the 1920's in Florida where its final stand of forest was located.


Bali Tiger Bali is a small island that used to be home to the Bali Tiger but Human activity, agriculture (coffee and coconut cultivation), collection of firewood, increasing tourism and uncontrolled hunting for sport pushed the tiger into smaller and smaller regions until the last known Bali Tiger was shot and killed on the 27th of September 1937; this was an adult tigress.


Dodo Bird The famous Dodo Bird inhabited the island of Mauritius in the Indian Ocean, where it lived undisturbed before the arrival of man. It lived and nested on the ground and ate fruits that had fallen from trees. There were no mammals on the island and a high diversity of bird species lived in the dense forests.

In 1505, the Portuguese became the first humans to set foot on Mauritius. The island quickly became a stopover for ships engaged in the spice trade. Weighing up to 50 pounds, the dodo was a welcome source of fresh meat for the sailors so large numbers of dodos were killed for food.

Later, when the Dutch used the island as a penal colony. Pigs and monkeys were brought to the island along with the convicts. Many of the ships that came to Mauritius also had uninvited rats aboard, and some found their way onto the island. Before humans and other mammals arrived, the dodo had little to fear from predators. The rats, pigs and monkeys made short work of vulnerable dodo eggs in the ground nests.

The combination of human exploitation and introduced species significantly reduced dodo populations. Within 100 years of the arrival of humans on Mauritius, the once abundant dodo was a rare bird. The last one was killed in 1681.


Great Auk The Great Auk was the last flightless seabird of the Northern Hemisphere, inhabiting the boreal and low-Arctic regions of the North Atlantic. Large body size made the Great Auk especially susceptible to human overexploitation for food, fat, bait, and feathers. Ultimate extinction was caused by the collection of specimens for museums and private collectors; on Eldey Island, Iceland, in 1844, the last 2 confirmed adults were killed for European collectors.


Laughing Owl The Laughing Owl was once common to New Zealand, but is probably now extinct. European settlers first arrived in New Zealand in 1840, when the laughing owl was plentiful. Specimens of the laughing owl were sent to the British Museum where reports on them were published in 1845.

By 1880, they were becoming rare, and the last specimen recorded was found dead at Blue Cliffs in Canterbury in 1914. There have been unconfirmed reports of laughing owls since then, but no specimens.  Extinction was caused by persecution, land use changes and the introduction of predators such as cats and dogs.


Giant Moa There were Moa living in New Zealand when the Maori people arrived but it is believed that the moa was totally extinct in 1769 when Captain Cook landed in New Zealand. Some land was cleared by the Maori, which would have reduced its habitat. But the main reason the moa became extinct was hunting.

There were 11 different species. The giant moa was one of the biggest birds ever known in the world, taller than three meters and weighing in at about 250 kilograms. However there were smaller moa. The smallest moa species was a bit bigger than a turkey, about half a meter tall. There are many other extinct New Zealand birds - rails, adzebill, wrens, eagle, etc.


Passenger Pigeon The Passenger Pigeon was estimated to be numbering in the billions in the early 1800's. In 1810 the famous ornithologist Alexander Wilson described a flock that “darkened the sky” – it was several miles across and took hours to pass overhead. He calculated the size of the flock --- using the time it took to pass over, its width, and the number of birds passing over per minute – and estimated there were over two billion birds in this one flock. But by the early 1900's they were hunted (for food) to extinction by man. A monument to the passenger pigeon, in the Wisconsin's Wyalusing State Park declares: “This species became extinct through the avarice and thoughtlessness of man.” The passenger pigeon officially became extinct when the last known representative died on September 1, 1914 in the Cincinnati Zoo.


Quagga The Quagga ( Equus quagga ) is a recently extinct mammal. Some believe that the quagga is closely related to horses and zebras. It was a yellowish-brown zebra with stripes only on its head, neck and fore body. The quagga was native to the desert areas of Africa until it was exterminated in the wild in the 1870s. The quagga went extinct because South African farmers hunted it down for meat and leather. The settlers also saw them as competitors for their livestock, mainly sheep and goats. The last captive quagga's died in Europe in the 1880s.


Tamainian Wolf The Tasmanian wolf was found only on the southwestern side of the island of Tasmania in recent history. The fossil record shows that it was found in New Guinea and Australia as recently as 3,000 years ago. The Tasmanian Wolf was thought to be a livestock killer. This was never substantiated, but because of this misconception the wolf was hunted (by the private sector and the government) from 1840-1909 for bounty. The Tasmanian Wolf is now thought to be extinct when the last know living specimen died in a Hobart, Tasmanian zoo in 1936. The main factors leading to the demise of this species were over hunting, habitat destruction, disease, and competition with domesticated dogs.


Toolache Wallaby Toolache wallabies were native to a small area in South-eastern Australia. Hunting by man was probably the main cause of extinction. They had a very beautiful pelt that was in great demand. This species was also a favorite prey for dog-hunts, because of its combination of high speed and unpredictable jumps. A second factor in the extermination of the Toolache wallaby may have been the introduction of the fox, which preyed on the young wallabies. The last member of this species may have been a captive female that survived till at least 1927.


Heath Hen The Heath Hen , a small wild fowl, was a relative of the prairie chicken. It was once considered quite tasty and was rather easy to kill. Prior to the American Revolution, the heath hen was found in the eastern United States from Maine to Virginia. Expanding human populations in the colonies put an intolerable hunting pressure on the heath hen populations, noticeably lowering the heath hen populations by the time of the Revolutionary War. In 1830 the heath hen's steep decline garnered the attention of naturalist John Audubon (founder of The Audubon Society), but it continued unabated. By the 1870s the only heath hens left, occupied a tiny island called Martha's Vineyard off the coast of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. In 1907 there were only 50 heath hens left on Martha's Vineyard. The following year a 1600-acre sanctuary was established for their protection.

Protection at the sanctuary seemed to be successful. The original 50 protected birds reproduced rapidly and there were 2,000 individuals by 1915. The entire heath hen population, however, was still confined to Martha's Vineyard. Then disaster struck. In 1916 a fire wiped out much of the habitat that heath hens used for breeding. The following winter was unusually harsh, and an influx of goshawks, a predatory bird that fed on the heath hens, hurt the population even more. Finally, many of the remaining heath hens fell victim to a poultry disease brought to the island by domestic turkeys. There were only 13 heath hens left by 1927 and most of these were males. The last living heath hen, the final survivor of his species, was seen on March 11, 1932.

Jamaican Giant Galliwasp The Jamaican Giant Galliwasp was a reptile with a length of about 30 centimeters. Its color was described as pale brown, clouded with somewhat irregular bands of a deeper tinge. It was said to occasionally change into a lively golden yellow. These lizards lived in woody and marshy districts and fed on fish and fruit. The last of the Jamaican Giant Galliwasps probably survived in the Hellshire Hills, a mongoose-free area on the island of Jamaica. The last Jamaican Giant Galliwasp was recorded in 1840. The probable cause of extinction was the introduction of mongooses by humans.


Steller's Sea Cow At one time, the Steller's Sea Cow was found in the cold waters of the Bering Sea, but it was hunted to extinction within 27 years of its discovery in 1741. The largest sirenian on record, the Steller's sea cow grew up to nine meters (30 feet) in length and weighed around four metric tons (approximately 4.4 tons).


To conclude this section we would like to reemphasize that extinction is still going on today as it has from the beginning when sin and death entered the world. The Bible tells us “by man came death” (1 Corinthians 15:21), and since man decided to go his own way, transgressing the commandment of God, death and pain and suffering were introduced into what was initially God's “very good” creation. We have seen from the above examples that the introduction of natural predators, the destruction of their habitat, natural disasters, disease, and primarily, hunting for food, sport or pest control was the cause of their extinction. We must therefore conclude that this is how creatures have been going extinct since sin entered the world and that death was nonexistent before man sinned.

How are fossils formed?

The current idea as to how fossils have been formed is found within many evolutionary publications. In the book “Dinosaurs” (Fog City Press 2002), edited by Dr. Paul Willis, it states, “Most fossils … result from the burial of an organism's remains in the sediments of a river, lake, or sea.”

For illustration purposes, they place a large land dwelling creature called a Camptosaurus below the surface of a lake safe from large scavengers.

Next we are told, the flesh decays leaving the bones, then “Over a long period of time, layers of sand or silt accumulate over the dinosaur's bones.” The belief is that the bones will lie on the bottom of the lake for a “long period of time” slowly accumulating layers of silt before it is finally covered and then fossilized.

This process is what Evolutionists call Uniformitarianism whereby they believe that layers of silt and sand are laid down slowly and uniformly over long periods of time covering all the creatures that have died. Encyclopedia Britannica states, “the principle of uniformity postulates that phenomena displayed in the rocks may be entirely accounted for by geologic processes which continue to operate at the present day—in other words, the present is the key to the past.”

Since we do not see great layers of strata being formed rapidly today, evolutionists theorize that the great layers of fossil bearing rock (up to 15 miles deep in some places) that are observed in the earth today (such as in the Grand Canyon) must have been laid down over millions of years.

But, if the theory proposed in the book “Dinosaurs” is true, should we not be able to see creatures on the bottoms of lakes and rivers today waiting to get covered with silt over long periods of time? This we do not see! Even under water, there are small microbes and other creatures that will eat away at the bones. As well, water contains oxygen that promotes decay.

Unless the creatures are rapidly covered with sediment, natural decay or a welcome meal for all kinds of hungry creatures would be the resulting “natural process” affecting any creatures left open to the elements.

When the Titanic sank in 1912 over 1000 bodies were not recovered. When the Titanic was found and explored after 70 years, the expedition failed to produce one bone from any of the deceased. They all disintegrated with no remains to be found other than the boots and other accessories of their owners.

In the “Royal Tyrell Museum” in Alberta Canada, they have a display representing their theory as to how fish are fossilized. They state,
“When they died, they sank to the bottom where they were buried in the mud.”
We would like to point out, that in reality this does not happen. If you have ever been out fishing perhaps you have seen a dead fish. Did you see it on the bottom? Of course not, dead fish usually float! And how long after that did it take before a pelican or seagull came along and had a free meal?

By chance, if the fish did sink, would he lay on the bottom of the lake for millions of years waiting to be covered with mud? Of course not! There are scavengers such as crabs and crayfish and other bottom feeders along with micro organisms that would make short work of cleaning up any debris left on the bottom.

How then are fossils formed and preserved? It is interesting that Evolutionists place “most fossils” under some watery deluge in order to preserve their remains, but unless they are buried RAPIDLY to trap out all oxygen and scavengers that would eat away at the bones, there is no chance of ever forming a fossil.

If the majority of evolutionists are in agreement that “most fossils” were made when they were laid down in some watery deluge, why will they not accept the possibility that the fossil beds all over the world are perhaps the result of sediments that were rapidly precipitated during one great worldwide catastrophic flood (Noah's Flood)? Well, in these last days, the Bible, even among the religious has been set aside and not seriously read or believed.

Paul said in the last days men would have “a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof” (2Timothy 3:5). They would become apostate denying the supernatural aspects of Creation, of miracles, the virgin birth, and the worldwide flood.

If we would turn the question around and ask, if the flood of Noah were true, what do you think would be the result of such a worldwide upheaval, and what would be the evidence that we might see left behind in the earth today?

Should we not find billions of dead things laid down in rock layers all over the earth? The fact is that the fossils' very existence requires rapid, permanent burial of any organism before decay and scavengers can destroy them. We believe that the strata seen in rock layers all over the earth are not the result of millions of years of uniform deposition, but rather, the resulting sedimentary layers that precipitated out of the floodwaters of Noah.

Judgment of the Wicked

God had pronounced judgment on the world of the ungodly. “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually … The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:5, 10-12).

The only solution for the survival of mankind was to “destroy them with the earth” (v. 13) and start over. There was yet one family remaining whom Satan had not corrupted, that was Noah and his family. “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” (Hebrews 11:7).

“And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them” (v. 7). And God said “behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die” (v. 17).

This was no local flood for “all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark” (Genesis 7:19-23).

This was a catastrophe that was greater than any person today could possibly imagine, for a great upheaval of that magnitude was never again repeated in history. God said “neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth” (Genesis 9:11). This proves the flood of Noah was not just a local flood for there have been many local floods since that time. And God set the rainbow in the sky as a reminder of His promise that the waters should never cover the whole face of the earth again.

“Fear ye not me? saith the LORD: will ye not tremble at my presence, which have placed the sand for the bound of the sea by a perpetual decree, that it cannot pass it: and though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; though they roar, yet can they not pass over it?” (Jeremiah 5:22) “He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end” (Job 26:10).

After Noah's family (eight persons) and two of every creature (even the dinosaurs) were safely in the ark, then “were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11). Isaiah looking back said, “for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake. The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly” (Isaiah 24:18-19).

The great slurry of hydraulic and geologic activity covered all the high hills under the whole of heaven and every living thing that was on the dry land died. Peter said, “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2Peter 3:6), and Jesus confirmed this saying “the flood came, and destroyed them all” (Luke 17:27, Matthew 24:39).

Undoubtedly this would have caused great upheavals and much sedimentary deposition reconfiguring the face of the earth from any likeness it had before the flood. Peter described it as “the world that then was”. It “then was” but no longer exists. The Psalmist said when the floodwaters arose, the mountains did “shake” and were “carried into the midst of the seas” (Psalm 46:2-3). Job said that the waters “overturned the earth” (Job 12:15).

Where did the Water Go?

Some have questioned the possibility of a worldwide flood by asking, where then did all the water go? That's a good question and surely needs to be answered, but first of all we should ask, where did all the water come from? The Bible indicates that the flood had two sources, the great water cisterns of the deep and the atmosphere above.

Atmosphere In the beginning, on day one of the creation week, God created the heavens and the earth (time, space and matter), and the earth was without form and void. The earth at this time consisted of the elements and water (building blocks)(Genesis 1:2). Then on day two God divided the waters and made a space or an expanse between the waters above and the waters below (Genesis 1:6-8). On day three God caused dry land to appear out of the waters beneath the atmosphere and He called the dry land Earth (Genesis 1:9-13).

Before the flood then, there was a great body of water above the atmosphere. Now if all this water was precipitated from above the atmosphere during the great flood, where is that water today? The Bible tells us the waters are primarily now in the oceans which are up to 6 miles deep. The surface area of the world today consists of 70% water, and if the mountains were pushed into the oceans, it is not hard to see how this world could be covered in as much as 2 miles of water.

“Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever.  Thou coveredst it with the deep as with a garment: the waters stood above the mountains.  At thy rebuke they fled; at the voice of thy thunder they hasted away.  They go up by the mountains; they go down by the valleys unto the place which thou hast founded for them . Thou hast set a bound that they may not pass over; that they turn not again to cover the earth” (Psalm 104:5-9).



When we look at the strata in the mountains today, (which are full of fossils), they have the appearance of being uplifted with the lines of strata presented at vertical angles. It is not hard to imagine when the mountains were lifted up, the water runoff would have caused great valleys and canyons to be cut out all over the earth revealing the strata that was precipitated out of the floodwaters of Noah along with all the creatures buried therein. Where canyons are cut out, the layers of strata tend to be in a more horizontal arrangement such as in the Grand Canyon.

The evolutionary hypothesis as to how canyons are cut denies the Biblical account of a young earth. Evolutionists have determined that not only were the layers laid down over long ages, but that the canyons were also cut out by slow meandering rivers over millions of years.

When an evolutionist looks at these amazing pictures he is trained to think in the order of millions of years. But when a Bible believing Christian looks at the same pictures he sees the result of God's judgment that quickly overcame the world of the ungodly.


How then, do evolutionists come up with millions of years?

If you have ever been to a rock and fossil shop, you will find dates affixed to their fossils in the millions of years. But is this true? The Bible tells us to “prove all things”. Can they prove these great ages? According to Biblical chronology, the earth is only around 6000 years old. If you ask the owners of the fossil shops how they got these dates, the answer you are most certain to get is “carbon dating”.
Here is a brief summary on how Carbon Dating works:
This method measures the ratio of C-14 and C-12 in a creature after it has died.
C-12 is stable and does not decay but C-14 decays into N-14.
C-14 is constantly being produced and constantly decaying in the atmosphere.
Living creatures take in Carbon in the form of C-14 and C-12 by breathing and by eating.
When a creature dies, it no longer takes in any Carbon.
Half of the amount of C-14 decays in 5730 years. In another 5730 years, half of the balance is depleted and so on until there is no C-14 left.
At this rate of decay, it is obvious that within about 10 half lives there will be no C-14 left.
From the above data, it can be clearly seen that this method cannot date anything more than about 50-60,000 years. It should also be noted that this method cannot be used to date rocks because rocks do not take in carbon (C-12 & C-14). Furthermore, when this method is used, it is assumed that the C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere are now in equilibrium, that is, the ratio of C-12 to C-14 is not changing and is now stable.

Therefore, when a creature takes in carbon in the form of C-12 and C-14, the ratio of C-12 and C-14 within the creature would be the same ratio as the atmosphere when it dies. But, if the ratio of C-12 to C-14 has not yet reached equilibrium, creatures that died a thousand years ago would have a different ratio when they died compared with creatures that died today throwing off the reliability of this method.

Dr. William Libby, the inventor of Carbon-14 dating, assumed that the ratios of C-14 and C-12 in the atmosphere were in equilibrium. He realized that for the test to work these needed to be in equilibrium. But “He found a considerable discrepancy in his measurements indicating that, apparently, radiocarbon was being created in the atmosphere somewhere around 25 percent faster than it was becoming extinct. Since this result was inexplicable by any conventional scientific means, Libby put the discrepancy down to experimental error.” (Richard Milton, Shattering the myths of Darwinism, 1997. 0. 32, W.F. Libby. Radiocarbon Dating. 1955.)

But were these alleged discrepancies due to error? It was admitted that “for the test to work properly: the standard mix of radiocarbon to ordinary carbon in the terrestrial reservoir must always have been the same” (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism . 1997, pg. 31), but to the contrary, it was found that C-14 was still building up in the atmosphere faster than it was decaying.

“During the 1960's, Libby's experiments were repeated by chemists… The new experiments, though, revealed that the discrepancy observed by Libby was not merely an experimental error—it did exist.” (Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. 1997, pg. 31)

“There is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural production rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25%” (Lingenfelter, Richard E., “Production of Carbon-14 by Cosmic Ray Neutrons,” Reviews of Geophysics , vol. 1, no. 1 (February 1963), p. 51.)

“The reliability of the carbon-14 dating method is dependent on a balance (steady state) between the amount of C-14 being produced in the atmosphere and the amount of C-14 decay over a period of time. This balance has been shown to be FALSE.” (Mike Riddle. Carbon Dating)
Evolutionists assume that the production and decay rate of C-14 is in equilibrium because they believe the earth is billions of years old. Equilibrium would have been achieved after only 60,000 years. But, if in fact, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere were still building up faster than it is decaying, it would indicate that the earth's atmosphere is not even 60,000 years old because equilibrium has not yet been achieved. What had initially been set out to prove an old earth, resulted in just the opposite. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee” (Psalms 76:10).

Another assumption that is used is that the C-12 has been the same in the atmosphere for long ages. What they have failed to take into consideration is the influx of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere with the industrial revolution, atomic weapons testing, and the eruption of volcanoes, all of which would dump tons of C-12 into the atmosphere.

For more information on carbon dating see: MYTHS REGARDING RADIOCARBON DATING

How about Dating the Rocks?

The common perception today is that the earth is 4.6 billion years old and that radioisotope dating is the method that gives us these great ages. But again, we would have to ask, are there any assumptions used in these dating methods as we have found in the Carbon Dating Method?

There are several of these methods that operate by measuring the parent and daughter isotopes. In this method (as well as all others), the unstable parent isotope (which has a given half life) decays into the stable daughter isotope and the ratio of the two is used to determine the age. This is known as radioactive decay. Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, and Strontium-Rubidium are but a few of these dating methods, but Potassium-Argon is by far the most common.

The theory behind this method begins when lava cools forming an igneous rock. This is when the radiometric “clock” starts. When the lava is in a molten state it can readily give off argon gas. But when it cools off, no more argon can be dissipated and the argon begins to build up within the rock as the potassium decays. It is alleged that half of the Potassium will decay into Argon in 130 million years. By measuring the ratio of Potassium/Argon in the rock we should be able to calculate the age of the rock from the time when the lava crystallized.

In theory this all sounds quite plausible, but what we find upon examination of this dating method is that several assumptions are taken rendering this radioisotope method unreliable and therefore invalid as well as all others that operate on the same basis. Here are a few of the assumptions that are taken for granted.
It is assumed that the argon (daughter isotope) level is zero when the rock is formed.
The number of parent/daughter atoms has not been altered during the life of the rock except by radioactive decay.
The decay rate has always been constant.
These three pieces of information are not known when dating rocks. Furthermore, we will find out that the assumptions taken are usually based on the worldview that the earth is billions of years old.

“Several methods have been devised for estimating the age of the earth and its layers of rocks. These methods rely heavily on the assumption of uniformitarianism, i.e., natural processes have proceeded at relatively constant rates throughout the earth's history.” “It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.'” (Stansfield, William D., The Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan, 1977), pp. 80-81).
Furthermore, these methods have been proven absolutely fallible when rocks of a known age have been dated using these methods. Tests have been done on the rocks of volcano's that we know have recently erupted and they have been given dates that are astronomically inconsistent with the absolute date.
Sunset Crater in Northern Arizona was formed in 1065AD: Dated 200,000 + years
Lava flows at Mt. Ngaurhoe in New Zealand were formed in 1949, 1954, & 1975: Dated at 275,000 years
Hualalai basalt in Hawaii was formed in 1801: Dated 1.4-22 million years old
Mt. Etna basalt in Sicily was formed in 1972: Dated 140,000 – 350,000
Mt St. Helens erupted in 1980: Dated 300,000 years old
Diamonds from Zaire: Dated at 6 billion years old (Note: earth is supposedly only 4.6 billion years old)
Even among evolutionists there is the recognition that these radiometric dating methods are all unreliable. Consider the following quotes:
“If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven't.” (Driscoll, Everly, “Dating of Moon Samples: Pitfalls and Paradoxes,” Science News , vol. 101 (January 1, 1972), pp. 12-14.)

“In conventional interpretation of K-Ar age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.” (Hayatsu, A., “K-Ar Isochron Age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia,” Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences , vol. 16 (April 1979), p. 974.)

“In general, dates in the 'correct ball park' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.” (R.L. Mauger)

“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age of memory of man.” (Frederic B. Jueneman “Secular Catastrophism”. Industrial Research and Development. June 1982. p. 21.)

“Then as now, peer review can represent the tyranny of the majority. I have run the peer-review gauntlet perhaps a hundred times. My papers describing and interpreting geology in more or less conventional terms progressed smoothly, whereas publication of my manuscripts challenging accepted concepts has often been impeded, and occasionally blocked.” (W. B. Hamilton, “Archean Tectonics and Magmatism”, International Geology Review , 1998, p. 3.)
One more note the reader should be aware of is that fossils are not found in volcanic (igneous) rock, they are found in sedimentary rock, which the radioisotope methods cannot date. If carbon dating cannot be used to date the rocks and other radioisotope methods cannot be used to date the fossils, how then do evolutionists date the rocks? Here is where the Geologic Column comes into view.

The Geologic Column

Before dating techniques were created, the belief that the earth was millions of years old was already introduced. This thought was based on the philosophy of Uniformitarianism, which was first proposed by James Hutton when he presented his uniformitarian principle in his papers to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1785. He stating that the rock layers observed all around the earth were laid down slowly over long periods of time. The lower layers of rock were then thought to be hundreds of millions of years older than the upper layers.

This uniformitarian philosophy afterward gave rise to Darwinian Evolution when Charles Darwin extended the principle of uniformity to the plant and animal kingdoms. This proposal was then illustrated in the Geologic Column, also known as the Geologic Time Scale .


When the artists created the Geologic Time Scale, it gave the appearance of evolution happening over geologic time, with marine invertebrates on the bottom working their way up to man at the top. But when one looks at the finer details, the true picture represented is that of distinct kinds, some that are extinct and some that are living today. Any changes we may see are always on a horizontal level within a kind (example: many varieties of cats), or on a downward level due to mutations and extinctions (contrary to evolutions upward demands).

Within the rock layers are found fossils, and it is “believed” that some of these fossils were very early forms of life that became extinct a long time ago. The fossils found in these layers then became the means of determining the age of the rocks. Likewise, the rocks were then used to date the fossils.

Opponents of this philosophy insist that this is circular reasoning and no scientific method at all, but in all reality is what evolutionary scientists choose to “believe”.

“The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks” (J.E. O'Rourke, "American Journal of Science," 1976, 276:51).
The World Book Encyclopedia (1978) in its article titled “Fossils” states,
“Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the ages of the rocks in which they lie.”
But the same encyclopedia, under its heading “Paleontology” says,
“The age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.”
This circular reasoning is also presented in museums abroad such as The Museum of Geology in Rapid City, South Dakota.

Sadly, many point to the Geologic Column as the final proof of Evolution. Dr. Henry Morris of ICR points out, “It is not uncommon under this system to find many rock systems “out-of-place” in the column—that is, “old” rocks overlying “young” rocks, fossils from different “ages” together, entire ages missing, etc. When such anomalies are encountered, imaginary earth movements or other geologic phenomena must be postulated to account for them. All of this creative thinking is necessary under the false assumption that the evolutionary ages of geologic history really existed at all.”

For more information see:
DOES THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN PROVE EVOLUTION?
TEN MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN

Conclusion

The Devil has been “a liar” from the beginning; in fact, he is called “the father” (John 8:44) of lies. He is “more subtle” (Genesis 3:1) than any creature, and from the beginning till this present time he has tempted man saying, “Yea, hath God said” (Genesis 3:1)? In his bag of lies he has Evolution, which he is using to deceive many, turning their hearts from the truth of Gods Word.

The Devil, we are told, “decieveth the whole world” (Revelation 12:9), and he has many agents who are “deceiving and being deceived” (2 Timothy 3:13).

But Jesus solemnly warned us, “Take heed that ye be not deceived” (Luke 21:8)... “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8) ... “Prove all things” (1Thessalonians 5:21)... “Be ready always to give an answer to every man” (1Peter 3:15)... “Know how ye ought to answer every man” (Colossians 4:6)… “And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” (Romans 13:11).

If we look back to our original question, “Does the fossil record prove evolution?” We must respond with a firm No! The fossil record was formed primarily during the Great Flood (Genesis 6-9), when “the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished” (2Peter 3:6). When we look at the fossil record, we should be reminded of the awfulness of sin, and the holiness of God who judged man's rebellion. We should understand that “by one man [Adam] sin entered the world, and death by sin.”

Death entered the world by sin! But to the contrary, the theory of Evolution starts with dead matter, and through Evolution life came to be. However, in our present day we see no dead matter coming to life. Today the real observable evidence is that life comes from Life and ultimately, we MUST declare that all things come from the Living God.

In the beginning God had created all things in six 24-hour days and on the seventh day He rested. On that day He pronounced that everything was “very good”. Therefore, the sin, suffering, and death that we see today are intruders and not an initial part of God's “very good” creation. Because of sin “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now” (Romans 8:22).

When we see sedimentary rocks containing billions of dead plants, animals and people, we must conclude that these things happened sometime after the creation week.

But God is not going to allow these intruders to continue forever. Death, sin and suffering will eventually be banished when He makes the new heavens and earth (Revelation 21:1-5). The whole Creation shall one day “be delivered from the bondage of corruption” (Romans 8:21).

If we believe God's account of Creation, there is no way that millions of years can fit into the equation. The Bible demands a young earth, but some have compromised with Evolution suggesting that each day of Creation could represent millions of years (“Day Age” theory). But, there is no evidence in context of Genesis chapter one that the word “day” means anything but a literal solar day.

The Hebrew word ( yom ) that is translated “day” is specifically defined by God as the daylight period in the sequence of day and night the very first time it is used (Genesis 1:5). God Himself unequivocally confirmed in the fourth Commandment (Exodus 31:18) that He had made everything in heaven and earth in six days—days that were the same kind of days as man's days.

Furthermore, the Lord Jesus Christ clearly affirmed in Mark 10:6 that “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female”, not 4.6 billion years after the beginning of the Creation! The very concept of billions of years of a groaning and travailing creation (Romans 8:22) with animals suffering and dying during the long geologic ages before God could get around to creating man in His own image, is an insult to a loving, omniscient, omnipotent God. Death, under such a concept, is not “the wages of sin” as the Bible says (Romans 6:23), but the method of “creation”, as evolutionists claim, through Natural Selection and the Survival of the Fittest.

Death (separation from God) is the payment for sin. But God our Creator is love, and He provided the payment for sin with the sacrifice of His Son. Because mankind is infected with sin, He desires to save us and mold us anew. We are like a blemished vessel in the potter's hand. “And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it” (Jeremiah 18:4).

Jesus described salvation like this, saying, “Ye must be born again” (John 3:7). He clarified this by saying, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (John 3:14-18).

Peter explained it like this, “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you” (1Peter 1:23-25).

Ever since sin entered the world, man has been born of corruptible seed, infected with sin. As the grass, we soon wither away. Like the whole creation, we are under the bondage of decay. As Paul reminded us, “the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). But Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners and has redeemed us, “not with corruptible things, as silver and gold … But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot … Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God” (1Peter 1:18-19, 21).

Only in this way can we be reconciled with God when we repent and believe that “Christ died for our sins … and that he rose again” (1Corinthians 15:1-4). When man, by faith, looks to Christ on Calvary's cross, believing on HIM, he is placed “in Christ”. HIS death becomes our death, so too, HIS Life becomes ours. This is good news for mankind. This is the “gospel”.

From this time, the Spirit of Christ indwells the believer and begins His work from within, transforming the new believer into the “same image” (2 Corinthians 3:18) of Christ. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Corinthians 5:17).

The Lord Jesus Christ “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:14). We are now “his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10). We ought then to “put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:22-24).

But, if we receive not the gift of God's beloved Son, and “sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?” (Hebrews 10:26-29)

“How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation …” (Hebrews 2:3)?

Last Update: 3/12/2009

1-15 of 141 Comments
Andy whitfield – uk
December 12, 2010 - 03:56

Anyone who believes any of the statements made by this web page, needs to know that most of the statements are completely false.
Willl the author please provide a bibliography for their research, as none of the statements, or conclusions are based on any peer reviewed science, and are typical of this kind of DIY Pseudo science.
'fossil trilobites and footprints of a human in the same piece of rock': NO
'evolution starts with dead matter': are you thinking of abiogenesis?
'dinosaurs or lizards have evolved into chickens' : Dinosaurs were not lizards
'snails were 65 million years old. Back home in our ditch we have the same snails and they are living': not the same.
'However, when we examine the Evolutionary Tree we find that all of these species (or their counterparts) for the most part, are living today' : hmmmmm counterparts?? how would that happen?multi creations? trilobytes living today?dinosaurs living today? Neanderthals living today?
ETCETCETC do some research pls.
We do find missing links all the time, the main problem we have is deciding which examples are correct, as there are so many(which in itself is incredible, since fossils are so hard to form), this is where the debate comes from.
Saying things like one species looks like, or is similar to, or is the same, as a fossilised example(not that your examples are correct in most cases) actually supports evolution, it shows how old species are, and where they come from, and that different animals have evolved into the same evolutionary niches(or successfully occupied that niche for a long time), look at marsupials and how they inhabit similar niches to mammals. Animals that we see today are the end result of a chain of evolution, not as he claims part of current animals evolution.
All peer reviewed papers support evolution, none deny it.In our world this is weight of evidence, it is no longer a theory, it is accepted fact by anyone who respects research, proof, science and logic. This website is modern day brainwashing, by someone who does not use facts, does not use evidence, and has no respect for science.

Reply to Andy whitfield
Jim Beckett – USA.
March 31, 2014 - 18:34

Andy, where is the bibliography of your rebuttal? All you have done with this whole page is produce rhetoric. I did not read one single complete sentence that preformed a disagreement followed by a "scientifically" proven rebuttal along with your evidence and bibliographed argument. Be specific Andy, if you have a real argument then don't scwabble like a small child. Have a solid rebuttal along with your "proof" and have your bibliography ready, as you claim is necessary to have a true position. You have said nothing true to science yourself. Be a man Andy. Admit when you have no real evidence but your own opinions. I'm sure you are a liberal too because that's what they do. They talk, and have nothing of any substance to say. Just whatever pops in their head as a disagreement with their beliefs is a false statement. Well if you really believed that stuff you are peddling you would have backed it up with real evidence, not Talk! Your adversary here has proclaimed his sources. He quoted the Bible. You have not quoted one source other than your opine. Thanks but No. Listen Andy the truth is the more we learn about the science of our planet, the more we realize we do not know. So, let's wait until the whole story is told before we draw our conclusions ok? See if I showed you God and you saw him with your own eyes. He spoke to you and personally told you the truth about all things related, you would still deny the facts and him. I am sure of it. God Could forgive you. I pray he does. -Jim.

Noel – Canada
December 30, 2009 - 17:16

Adam, First of all, the Bible is very distinct when it says that God made all things in 6 literal days, and after that He rested the seventh day for everything that God had made was complete. This would exclude the billions of years that people believe is necessary for evolution to take place.

You make it sound like Christians are anti-science. All the founding fathers of almost every scientific principle were Bible Believing Christians. Today, athiests and all others are riding on their coat tails. Also today there are tens of thousands of Christian scientists who do not believe in evolution, in fact, they see that true science refutes evolution.

As for me, I love science. What I hate is lies like evolution that are said to be scientific and supported by science. Evolution is the worlds biggest hoax. It is also one of the worlds biggest faiths for there is not one shred of empiracle evidence that supports it, people believe it because they have been told that it is true. It is a belief system, a faith, a religion.

The fact of the matter is that if you would discard all the teachings of evolution out of the schools and universities, the world would not miss it, for no scientific principle relies on it. It is a useless theory and a big wate of taxpayers dollars. If a doctor or engineer never heard of evolution it would bring no disability to his profession. The doctor could still do heart surgury and the engineer could still design buildings.

You say the Bible can be disproven, well, give it your best shot. If you are serious about this, and would open your heart and mind, you will find out that it is the infallible Word of God. You can make all the claims you want, lets see the proof.

What you will find in the Bible is a loving God who is able to forgive all your sins through Jesus Christ and remove them from you as far as the east is from the west. It does not say from north to south for that is a measurable distance. If you head in a westerly direction however, you will be able to do so for infinity for there is no "west pole" or "east pole".

Adam
December 26, 2009 - 07:52

How do you know that your Christian "God" did not create evoloution?

You don't.

Funny how easy it is for you to attack science, yet you are using science for your own gains. (Like the internet, driving and electricity etc.)

Next time a Christian needs science in their life, maybe it should be denied and we science minded people say, let their god cure their diseases etc.

There is nothing wrong with being a good person and putting faith in to something, but why do you have to condemn ideas that can be proven, yet you base all of your claims on something that has not even been remotely proven yet.

The bible says alot, it can be disproven as well. It is much like a horroscope where it can be so vague that it can be applied to anything. It is all in how you see it.

Look at the Christian churches centruires ago persecuting scientists who said the world was round, then now days you say no the bible was right all the time it mentions god can seperate you and your sins as far as east is from west, and how theres 4 round corners to the world...

I have not seen an army of scientists who destroyed people for their religious beleifs, but last I checked Christians went on the old war path in God's name several times...

Why not realize that most things like lightning and thunder were not understood at one time, because evoloutionary wise, people were much mentaly simplistic. So in place of saying I do not know, they said because a God made it.

The Christian religion has only proven that it is OK to harm others ways of thought that do not agree with them, keeping people ignorant is much easy to control them. A scientist can accept the ideas of being wrong and opening their minds up, where as a Christian is self perceived as "always right".

Be good to one another, if you can't prove something or don't understand it, it is better to shut up about it than saying "God made it that way and everyone else has the wrong idea.

Reply to Adam
Jim Beckett – USA
March 31, 2014 - 18:58

God did create evolution and anything else your brain can think up. Because he created you. Science is what proves the existence of God because it provides us with a way to understand how he did these things we know of. See Andy, science shows us and proves to us the laws by which God made things work. It shows us how evolution works. Everything is evolving. You are confusing evolution with creationism. Evolution is not an explanation of where we came from. It simple shows that all things are changing. Everything you know of in this vast universe was created by God. With a word from his mouth. You have been given free will not to believe that if you choose. However, if you don't believe it, that will not make it untrue. If you go backwards in time from now you come to a Big Bang by our science. That is exactly how the Bible says God created this universe. If you go backwards in time from you, you do not come to a primordial soup in a salty ocean. You come to another Adam,who I bet you were named after and who was created by God from the dust of the Earth. You can read about it in the Bible if you want a bibliography. Even that word sounds familiar. Hmm, I wonder, does bibliography mean from science or from the Bible? Like it or not, there is a God in heaven and he created this whole universe we live in. -Jim.

Noel
December 26, 2009 - 07:51

...con't
3. As for Archaeopteryx, it appears to have distinct and fully functioning feathers just like any other modern bird. That is light years away from scales. I am aware that there are recent claims that Archaeopteryx is not a bird at all, neither is it an ancestor to any modern bird groups, however, I am waiting to see how this all falls out. Nevertheless, the latest on dino to bird evolution is refuted by the evolutionists themselves. In an article entitled "Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-Bird Links" (Science Daily, June 9, 2009) it states, "Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs. The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say." The discovery demonstrates that, in spite of popular BELIEF (re:faith), dinosaurs could not have evolved into birds. The research, however, is consistent with the Genesis record, which states that birds were created after their own kinds. And land creatures, including dinosaurs, were created on the following day-each with the ability to reproduce more of its own kind. (Genesis 1:20-25). Thus, the biblical order of origin is the opposite of evolutionary theory, which holds that dinosaurs came first. Interestingly, bird fossils are also in the opposite order, as Ruben pointed out: "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from."

Later in the article their admission is very telling: Paleontologist, John Ruben of Oregon State is quoted saying, "old theories die hard, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history. Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree". Our work at OSU used to be pretty much the only asterisk they were talking about, But now there are more asterisks all the time. That's part of the process of science."

4. As far as crocodiles go, we agree that there is the ability within the genome of any species to produce variety within defined limits, this is what the Scriptures teach. However, we do not see one species migrate into a totally different species. This is genetically impossible no matter how many billions of years you want to believe in. Tell me, if we see crocodiles in the "evolutionary past" and in the present, what did they evolve from. Perhaps the "Effigia"? On January 26th, CNN.com reported "A toothless, two-legged crocodile ancestor that walked upright and had a beak instead of teeth was discovered in the basement of New York's American Museum of Natural History". They state, "Effigia is closely related to an ancient group of reptiles called crocodilians". The article even says "[Effigia's] skull and skeleton were very similar to those of ostrich dinosaurs". Does this sort of �evidence� convince you that evolution is true? Evolutionist Mark Norell states that "this is a case of convergence" (CNN.com 2006). The word convergence is commonly used when secular scientists don't know anything about the alleged evolution of an animal. Norell goes on to state that this creature "evolved more than once" (CNN.com 2006). This is certainly not a scientific explanation. Again, the question must be asked how the secular scientists know what they purport to be true. From our very limited exposure, creationists would view this bizarre creature as having similar structures designed by the Creator to meet similar needs as other animals like it. Many see this as just one more paleontological flash in the pan. Some artist will use his imagination to flesh out what he thinks Effigia looked like. People will be enthralled and then Effigia will pass into the annals of evolutionary history without a satisfactory evolutionary explanation.

Noel – Canada
December 26, 2009 - 07:51

Dear walk-in, We have replied to many of the evolutionists arguments as you can see if you read through the comments section. We will attempt to do so for you also. An open mind and a sincere search for the truth is required by anyone on any side of the creation/evolution conflict, and I do my best to maintain this in searching out the ever increasing amount of data in our age of information. I have been a Roman Catholic like the previous commenter, but through searching the Scriptures after the admonition of several “Protestants”, if they could so be called, I found their claims to be true to the Bible and the religion in which I grew up I found to be a total perversion when dealing with almost every major doctrine in the Bible. I was left with the decision to believe what the popes and priests said was the truth or the Scriptures which they claimed to follow but did not. As with the creation/evolution conflict, we can believe man (scientists) or do our own research and come to our own conclusions. It might lead to conflict in our own lives and ostracization from the elite, but if the truth really matters to us, do not let the fear of ridicule rule in your heart, for it is the highest virtue one can follow after.

1. The image of the bat comes from Science Magazine, Dec 9, 1966. Although the article states, The bones “show a few "primitive" characteristics such as a clawed index finger”, they still call this creature a bat and its main features look identical to many of the bat species alive today. In a more recent issue they report, “Bats make up more than 20% of extant mammals, yet their evolutionary history is largely unknown because of a limited fossil record and conflicting or incomplete phylogenies.” (Science Jan 28, 2005) Their “evolutionary history” like all other creatures, “is largely unknown” and their "phylogenies incomplete" (re: links are missing) simply because they do not exist. Bats have always been bats, dogs have always been dogs, and cats have always been cats with variety in each species. An article from the University of Bristol states, “Due to fossilised ear bones, it is believed that extinct bat forms had the same developed hearing and as with modern bats used echolocation in predation.” Wow, “50 million years ago” and the amazing design of their echolocation was fully developed and functional. This is what we would expect to see from a Creationist worldview, an amazing complexity of all creatures from the very beginning.

2. You may call those creatures “sea lice” if you will, but I have yet to find any images of “sea lice” that look like these creatures. They look to me like the fossil trilobites that are adjacent to them. What I find most amazing about the complexity and diversity of Trilobites, (not to mention, brachiopods, sponges, corals, jellyfish, in fact every one of the major invertebrate forms of life) is that they are found in the Cambrian and no evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have ever been found in pre-Cambrian strata. This is a great mystery that perplexes even the most ardent student of evolution.

con't...

walk-in
December 26, 2009 - 07:49

-sigh-
such a overused arguement it sickens me....

this is nothing more then a misunderstanding of the fossil record mixed in with pictures that has nothing to do with each other, the only ones to fall for this is a child or a creationist, not to mention the fact you talk of evolution as a religion.....do you see evolution churchs around? no.

there is a statment to put out in play. "creation is religion, evolution is science"

oh by the way, i'm sure people already said the things i said and pointed out the flaws so.....

1. that bat fossil is of Icaronycteris a bat with many primitive traits not seen in bats today, like a long tail and a claw on the second finger...not to mention many more smaller details not seen at first that are different then present day bats

2. those are not trilobites, there sea lice......different species and body plans. the fact you did this ethier shows your not very good in researching or this is a very poor attempt at showing false evidence to prove your religion is superior......foolish

3. Archaeopteryx wasn't a true bird as you claim. I'm sure if you look closely at the fossil then you carely didn't before, you'll see that it still has features "reptilian" such as a long tail, teeth, and claws. not to mention that they recently found dinosaurs with feather imprints most of which were Therapods known as Raptors. and if you compare the two closely and if you have a understanding of Avian bone stuctures (thats birds if you don't know) they would in turn look identicle.

4. your arguement for crocodiles are childish as well, you need to look up more crocodiles they changed alot but still keeps that body plan we all know and love...why you may ask? well watch animal planet the crocodile is a highly dangerous preadator that has the perfect body plan for hunting, in reality the reason why they haven't changed is because they didn't need to. and they were other species with different body plans, one from the top of my head would be simosuchus, a plant eating crocodile with leave-shaped teeth, another is nickname "BoarCroc" because of its large tusk like teeth, and evidence shows it was a more of a land hunter. so this is a invalied arguement

so to put everything in contrast, this webpage is a sloppy piece of work with no referance other then the Bible which may i remind you is writen by many different people and different times, as well as can be interapted in many ways.

and to end this, there are many different believe religions and evolution isn't one, there are many church going people i know wbleepedbelieve in this theory and there belife is that god make small changes to see which survives better, evolution isn't a over night change it happens over many years we in fact changed a lot, there was a time where 6 feet was tall but now its normal. feet grown a lot as well.
and you speak as if christians are right everyone else is wrong. well how do you know? how do you know that when you die you won't end up in a buddist heaven? or a heaven of your own mind to meet your needs, a costom heaven so to speak? you can't be sure until its your time. your most likely going to say "cause the bible said so" well thats over done so try a new one, your not changing the world with this arguement and i see evidence of your zealotic play and may i say, its sickening

Gad
December 26, 2009 - 07:48

Where to begin.

I suggest you look up dating methods, first of all. C-14 dating is the most well-known, but bears little pertinence to dating the fossil record, since a fossil is by definition something whose organic material has been replaced by minerals - pyrite, silica, calcium carbonate, and so on. Ar-Ar dating has a low bounding range of around a million years and can be used to date basaltic rocks of any age greater than that. It works by the same principal, but uses an element with a longer half-life.

Also, just because a modern animal looks a little like a trilobite doesn't mean that it is. Most mammal skeletons look quite similar, yet minute differences in the bones telegraph enormous differences in the animal itself.

Furthermore, the mechanism that drives evolution is selective pressure. If a species has a stable, healthy population that is under no pressure whatsoever (such as humans are now) it will not evolve. If a species has adapted so well to some environment that it is no longer under any significant selective pressure, and that environment remains stable, then that animal will not evolve, or will evolve very little. Thus, the shark, the sponge, the crocodile....

These are simply the first points that came to mind. I could write essays worth of comments on this, but I won't, since I know you are set in your ways and will not consider anything that I say except to hastily scramble to debunk it. I am a geologist by trade, a devout Christian by faith (although, as I am a Roman Catholic, I'm sure that you wouldn't regard me as such), and I believe that the Earth is more than 3.8 billion years old, that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, and that God can make something as elegant as evolution just as easily as He could have formed everything to be static and unchanging, if that had been His will. He's GOD. Nothing is beyond His power, and wbleepedare you to look at the clues He's given us, this magnificent tapestry of science, and reject it because you insist on taking a 6000-year-old creation myth literally? The story of creation is meant as something more than that.

Noel
December 26, 2009 - 07:48

D-i-c-k, You mention "proof", "proven" and "prove" a total of eight times, but forgot to give any. So when you do, give what you think to be the most clear and solid evidence that evolution is indeed true.

Dick
December 26, 2009 - 07:47

This article is extremely disingenuous. At best. I would even go as far as to say dishonest. You've shown several species next to their fossils, and made the assumption that the theory of evolution would call them all 'millions of years old'. Not to mention several of the fossil photographs were blatantly manipulated. You've shown an evolution tree that looks like it was made for a grade 3 science class, yet not once mention carbon dating. It seems to me like you are somebody who plays checkers in a town full of chess masters.

There is a difference between evolution and the theory of evolution. Evolution is the process. The theory of evolution is the observations and controlled tests made and recorded to prove the process.

For example, there is gravity, and then there is the theory of gravity.

In your article, I notice even the bible says 'prove all things'. Well, the theory is the proof. People who work towards this theory are not 'evolutionists', they are scientists. Calling them evolutionists would imply evolution is a religious belief. It is not. It is a scientific fact. Darwin couldn't prove it then, but he can be proven correct today.

It is proven.

It has been proven.

there is proof.

One more time for emphasis; THERE IS PROOF.

The argument to me seems to be;

Creationist; Do you have any evidence that evolution is a thing?

Scientist; Yes. We have loads. We have piles of evidence, actually.

Creationist; But do you have mountains of evidence?

Scientist; ...No. But we do have a lot of evi-

Creationist; THEN YOU MIGHT BE WRONG! HOW DO YOU KNOW THE BIBLE ISN'T CORRECT!?

Scientist; ... I'm gonna go over here now.

out of all those thousands of scientists wbleepeddispute evolution, how many are christian?

So a percentage of scientists dispute the theory, it automatically changes it from fact to debate?

Show me a "scether" or a "feale"? Honestly? Really? Noel, why you gotta be so dumb, giiiiiiiirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrl.

I don't believe in evolution, because I know it exists. It is fact.

I believe in god because I don't know it exists. It is faith.

This article is asinine.

Why would a god, an omnipotent being beyond any cosmic power and mortal comprehension, a being beyond even the concept of existence and time, limit itself to one religion? To one book? An omnipotent being having limits.

Huh.

Noel
December 26, 2009 - 07:47

The myth of Darwinian evolution is far older than 2000 years. Even before the evolutionary teachings of Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. The ancient religions of Buddhism, Confusionism, Taoism, Jainism, and Zoroasterism, which arose around the same time as the founding fathers of Greek evolutionary philosophy, were also thoroughly evolutionist in their cosmology.

Before this period the older systems were based primarily on mythologies and were largely animistic and polythiestic, however they did retain a dim view of a high god. These new religious philosophies that arose around the 6th century BC, however, tried to totally eradicate any concept of a high God altogether in exchange for an evolutionary view of cosmology.

Evolution, therefore, is not a modern scientific theory at all, but only the ancient rebellion of men against their Creator. It has been updated a bit and is more sophisticated in its pseudo-scientific modern garb, but underneath is the same old pagan warfare that unbelievers have waged against God in every age. “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)

Ram
December 26, 2009 - 07:46

Cold hard facts vs. 2000 yr old fairy tale

Noel
December 26, 2009 - 07:46

Furthermore, I ask all what is the more reasonable faith, the faith of the creationist wbleepedbelieves that an intelligent designer and Creator made all things in the beginning, or the evolutionists faith, wbleepedbelieves in ordered complexity from disorder, without any ordering mechanism or outside intelligence? Think about it.

Noel
December 26, 2009 - 07:45

Ok Hollins, but as you continue your search, remember this, although evolution is accepted as fact by the majority of scientists, one should understand that scientific principles are not established by majority vote. There is a significant number of scientists today (undoubtedly numbering in the thousands) wbleepedeither reject the theory of evolution altogether or wbleepedregard it as a still unsettled issue. Even those wbleepeddo accept it, in many cases, do so not because of the actual scientific evidence (with which even most scientists are only superficially familiar), but because they have been intimidated by the myth that all scientists accept evolution!

As a matter of fact, no theory of origins—evolution or special creation or anything else—can possibly be scientific. “Science” means “knowledge” and by definition means that which we actually know concerning the facts of nature and their interrelationships. The very heart of the “scientific method” is the reproducibility of experiments. That is, if a certain process is observed and measured today, and then the experiment is conducted again in the same way tomorrow, the same results should be obtained. In this way, by experimental repetition and verification, a scientific description of the process is eventually developed. The “scientific method” so often mentioned in the scientific engineering literature stresses the necessity of actual study and measurement of observable systems and processes, with further replication and confirmation.Thus, true science is supposed to be observable, measurable, and repeatable.

Since it is impossible for us to repeat the supposed evolutionary history of the world and its inhabitants, and since no human observers were present to observe and record the supposed evolutionary changes of the past, it is clear that evolution in the broad sense is beyond the reach of the scientific method. The theory of evolution is, therefore, not science at all.

Both evolution and creation are outside the realm of empirical science, inaccessible to the scientific method. Neither is observable or repeatable. Any view of origins must be held ultimately by faith. So, when those you cross paths with call creation religion and evolution science, please correct them, and tell them evolution is actually a religion also, the religion of the athiest.

Leave a Comment



?
? ?



Copyright © 2018 AccordingtotheScriptures.org. All rights reserved.BibleHome  |  Our Purpose  |  Statement of Faith  |  Contact  |  Subscribe