CREATION? EVOLUTION? OR BOTH!

(English Version)

A hotly debated issue among scientists and educationalists: How should they explain the origin of the natural world? Did it come into being by Divine intervention or natural processes? Nowadays, in the name of advanced scientific knowledge, we easily discount the role of a Creator as a kind of throwback to primitive superstition.

But what do we learn from advanced scientific knowledge?

DNA genetics: Our body cells contain coded information, directing how our bodies grow and develop. Now, whenever we encounter information, it would be foolish to think that it got there by itself… especially by a random process. Anything that conveys information – whether it be this morning’s newspaper, ancient hieroglyphics, a textbook, or the code in a software program – requires the material medium, of course, but can only be arranged into something that makes sense if there is an intelligent author behind it. And likewise, the coded information in our body’s cells reveals that there had to be an Intelligent Author (aka God) who structured it.

It puzzles me that we so often invoke “science” to disprove God’s role in Creation when “science” so easily proves just the opposite – that God had to have a hand in the formation of the natural world.

But then, we may ask, what about missing-link fossils? Don’t they prove our descent from apes rather than a divine creation of human beings? Much misunderstanding surrounds this subject… due to the widely held assumption that we humans have evolved from a primitive stage (what we might call macro-evolution). Understandably, with such a deeply engrained, preconceived notion to contend with, scientists find it difficult to interpret their evidence from any other point of view.

So what about the fossil evidence? In one case (Java Man), human and ape bones, being found close together, were assumed to be part of the same skeleton until scientific investigation showed otherwise. In another case, Piltdown Man appeared in textbooks for 40 years as a human ancestor until modern science finally got to work in the 1950’s and exposed it as a hoax. In more recent times australopithecine fossils were thought to be our ancestors. After the initial excitement died down, scientists examined the bones, using updated computer analysis techniques. The conclusion? Although slightly different from modern apes, these were still apes – extinct yes, but unrelated to human beings. 

Charles Oxnard (PhD, DSc), expert in anatomy who conducted the tests, had this to say,

“All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications.” (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, pg.332.)

Although it overturns the commonly accepted belief system of our day, we cannot close our minds to where “science” is pointing – that we humans have a divine origin and are not descended from apes. (See James Perloff’s essay “Time Magazine’s New Ape Man for more information.)

At this point it should be acknowledged that a certain amount of evolution does happen. This natural process does operate and is better known as micro-evolution. It allows for variation and adaptability – what Darwin called diversification of species – yet without disturbing the basic order of the natural world; that is, without changing the basic gene structure of us humans and the various classes of plants and animals.

Another example of how this order in nature works is the barrier of sterility between unrelated classes of animals. How confusing the natural world would become if, for example, your pet cat and dog could mate and produce a cat-dog!.

Regarding the issue of macro-evolution, Darwin himself admitted,

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?” (Origin of Species, chapter 6)

The great emphasis nowadays on macro-evolution theory (e.g. ape changing its complex genetic machinery to evolve into human form) lacks scientific basis; advanced science (in DNA genetics) and simple observation of the natural world offer plenty of confirmation. Unfortunately, the theory has already had its subtle, damaging influence on mankind’s philosophical orientation. (This became shockingly evident during the 20th century in Adolph Hitler’s genocide campaigns, the philosophical underpinnings of which were rooted in macro-evolution theory.)

Because this theory of origins tends to minimize the role of the Creator in the formation of the natural world, it easily leads to conclusions in the minds of impressionable young people that their lives have no meaning or accountability (since God seems so far away). If we believe that we are descended from animals, and that the Creator has very little to do with us (or doesn’t even exist), then who needs to worry about right or wrong? Everything is just a struggle for survival-of-the fittest anyway, so go ahead and fend for yourself. As mentioned, macro-evolutionary thinking was the basis for Nazi philosophy and their belief in a superior race; it rationalized the cruel policy of eliminating other competing races in the climb towards evolutionary supremacy.

But if the upcoming generation learns to appreciate the Creator’s role, then we provide them with a solid background from which their future ethical development can mature in a positive direction – with a greater sense of responsibility to their Creator and to the welfare of others, as well as the reassurance of His existence and concern for them.

To conclude, it is difficult to understand what all the fuss is about – why the teaching of Intelligent Design/Creationism is viewed as some kind of sinister deviation from truth. Rather, we should be happy to bring it to light in our educational institutions since it offers the new generation sound ethical and scientific principles.

Educationalists are justifiably concerned about non-rational viewpoints in science teaching. In the process, however, “the baby often gets thrown out with the bathwater.” Throw out superstition, yes, but keep a proper understanding of the Creator’s role in the formation of the natural world – not just for ethical considerations, but also, because such understanding is genuinely scientific.

***

(La Version Française)

Création ? Evolution ? Ou les deux ?

Une question très controversée parmi les scientifiques et les pédagogues: comment devraient-ils expliquer l’origine du monde naturel : est-il entré en vigueur par l’intervention Divine ou des processus naturels? Aujourd’hui, au nom de la connaissance scientifique avancée, on a tendance à écarter le rôle d’un Créateur, vu que comme une sorte de retour à la superstition primitive.

Mais qu’apprenons-nous de connaissances scientifiques avancées?

Génétique de l’ADN : cellules de notre corps contiennent des informations codées, mise en scène comment nos corps grandissent et se développent. Actuellement, chaque fois que nous rencontrons des informations, il serait insensé de penser qu’il y êtes arrivé par lui-même… surtout par un processus fait au hasard. Tout ce qui transmet l’information – que ce soit le journal de ce matin, hiéroglyphes, un cahier de texte, ou le code dans un logiciel – nécessite le support matériel, bien sûr, mais peut uniquement être organisé en quelque chose qui fait sens, s’il y a un auteur intelligent derrière elle. Et de même, l’information codée dans les cellules de notre corps révèle qu’il devait y avoir un Auteur Intelligent (alias Dieu) qui elle structurée. Il m’intrigue que nous invoquons si souvent «science» pour réfuter le rôle de Dieu dans la création lorsque «science» si facilement prouve exactement le contraire – que Dieu devait avoir une main dans la formation du monde naturel.

Mais alors, nous pouvons demander, qu’en est-il des fossiles de lien manquant? Ne prouvent-ils pas notre descente de singes, et non une création divine d’êtres humains? Beaucoup de malentendus entoure ce sujet… à cause de l’hypothèse largement répandue que nous les humains avons évolué à partir d’un stade primitif (ce que nous pourrions appeler la macro-évolution). Tout naturellement, avec cette notion préconçue, profondément ancrée à affronter, scientifiques ont trouvé difficile d’interpréter leur preuve de tout autre point de vue.

Alors qu’en est-il des preuves fossiles? Dans un cas (Homme de Java), humain et des os de singe, se trouve rapprochées, étaient considérées comme partie du squelette même jusqu’à ce que les études scientifiques ont montré dans le cas contraire. Dans une autre affaire, Homme de Piltdown est apparu dans les manuels scolaires depuis 40 ans comme un ancêtre humain jusqu’à ce que la science moderne a finalement obtenu de travailler dans les années 1950 et il exposé comme un canular. Dans une époque plus récente australopithèque fossiles étaient censés être nos ancêtres. Après l’excitation initiale apaisée, scientifiques examinées les os, à l’aide de techniques d’analyse des mises à jour informatiques. La conclusion? Bien que légèrement différente des singes modernes, ceux-ci n’étaient encore singes – éteints oui, mais sans rapport avec les êtres humains.

Charles Oxnard (PhD, DSc), expert en anatomie qui a effectué les essais, avait ceci à dire,

Tout cela doit nous faire s’interroger sur la présentation habituelle de l’évolution humaine dans les manuels d’introduction, dans les encyclopédies et dans des publications populaires. (The Order of Man: A Biomathematical Anatomy of the Primates, pg.332)

Bien qu’elle renverse du point de vue couramment acceptée de nos jours, nous ne pouvons pas fermer nos esprits vers où pointe la «science» – que nous les humains ont une origine divine et ne descendent pas des singes. (Voir l’essai de James Perloff «Time Magazine’s New Ape Man» pour plus d’informations).

À ce stade il convient de reconnaître qu’une certain montant d’évolution arrive. Ce processus naturel fonctionne et est mieux connu comme micro-evolution. Il permet la variation et l’adaptabilité – ce que Darwin appelé diversification des espèces – mais sans déranger l’ordre fondamental du monde naturel ; autrement dit, sans modifier la structure de la base génétique de nous les humains et les différentes classes de plantes et d’animaux.

Un autre exemple du fonctionne de cet ordre dans la nature est la barrière de la stérilité entre classes différentes d’animaux. Comment déroutant du monde naturel allait devenir si, par exemple, votre chat et votre chien pourraient s’accouplent et produisent un chat-chien!

Concernant la question de la macro-évolution, Darwin lui-même admis,

Comme par cette théorie, innombrables formes transitoires doivent avoir existé. Pourquoi ne trouvons-nous pas eux intégrés dans la croûte de la terre? Pourquoi n’est pas toute la nature dans la confusion au lieu d’être, comme nous le voyons, définie bien espèces ? (L’Origine des Espèces, chapitre 6)

La grande importance aujourd’hui sur la théorie de macro-évolution (p.ex. singe changer ses mécanismes génétiques complexes à évoluer vers la forme humaine) n’a pas de fondement scientifique ; science avancée (en génétique de l’ADN) et la simple observation du monde naturel offrent beaucoup de confirmation. Malheureusement, la théorie a déjà eu son influence subtil, dommageable sur l’orientation philosophique de l’humanité. (Cela est devenu terriblement évident au cours du XXe siècle dans les campagnes de génocide de Adolph Hitler, les fondements philosophiques qui étaient enracinées dans la théorie de macro-évolution.)

Parce que cette théorie des origines a tendance à minimiser le rôle du Créateur dans la formation du monde naturel, il mène facilement à conclusions dans l’esprit des jeunes impressionable que leurs vies n’ont aucun sens ou responsabilisation (puisque Dieu semble si loin). Si nous pensons que nous sommes les descendants des animaux, et que le Créateur n’a pas grand-chose à voir avec nous (ou n’existe pas encore), puis qui a besoin de s’inquiéter à bon ou mal? Tout est seulement une lutte pour la survie du plus apte de toute façon, alors allez-y et se débrouiller par vous-même. Comme indiqué, la pensée évolutionniste-macro était le fondement de la philosophie nazie et leur croyance en une race supérieure; il rationalise la politique cruelle visant à éliminer les autres races concurrentes dans la montée vers la suprématie évolutionnaire.

Mais si la génération à venir peut apprendre à apprécier le rôle du Créateur, puis nous leur fournissons avec un arrière-plan solide, d’où leur développement éthique peut mûrir dans une direction positive – avec un grand sens des responsabilités à leur créateur et au bien-être des autres, ainsi que le réconfort de son existence et de préoccupation pour eux.

Pour conclure, qu’il est difficile de comprendre ce que toute cette agitation est sujet – pourquoi l’enseignement de Design Intelligent/Créationnisme est considéré comme une sorte de sinistre déviation par rapport à la vérité. Au contraire, nous devrions être heureux pour l’amener à la lumière dans nos établissements d’enseignement puisqu’il offre des générations à venir des sains principes éthiques et scientifiques.

Pédagogues sont légitimement préoccupés par des points de vue non rationnels dans l’enseignement des sciences. Dans le processus, cependant, “le bébé souvent obtient jeté avec l’eau du bain.” Jeter par superstition, oui, mais garder une bonne compréhension du rôle du Créateur dans la formation du monde naturel – non seulement pour des considérations éthiques, mais aussi, parce qu’une telle compréhension n’est véritablement scientifique.

 

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (2C)

Part 1Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 2: HAS THE EARTH ALREADY HAD AN “END TIME”? CATACLYSM OF THE GREAT FLOOD

2-A: Is There Scientific Evidence of a Great Flood?
2-B: Skepticism in Modern Science
2-C: And What About Cultural Evidence?

2-D: Re-Creation of the Earth

2-C: And What About Cultural Evidence?

Besides telling us about the original Creation, the Genesis Book goes on to describe for us God’s “re-Creation” of the earth: the story of the Great Flood and Noah’s Ark. From this we can understand why there is no more “water above the expanse”: God caused the water vapor canopy in the upper atmosphere to collapse and, along with the “fountains of the great deep”, inundate the Earth with a great Flood.

Nowadays this well known account from the Genesis Book about the Flood has been relegated into the realm of fable. The strange thing, however, is that there are several versions of this ancient legend existing in the sacred histories of cultures around the world. And they all tell the same story of a Great Flood and a large boat that held the land animals and a small group of human beings:

  • The Matsya Purana and Mahabharata from India

“The time for the purging of this world is now ripe.
Therefore do I now explain what is good for thee! … Thou shall build a strong massive ark … On that must thou ascend, O great Muni, with the seven Rishis and take with thee all the different seeds … and carefully must thou preserve them therein.”
(Mahabharata III.clxxxvi)

  • Various Suras in the Quran

It was revealed to Noah:
“… construct an Ark
Under Our eyes and Our
Inspiration …”
At length, behold!
… the fountains of the earth
Gushed forth! We said:
“Embark therein, of each kind
Two, male and female,
And your family…”
So the Ark sailed
With them on the waves
(Towering) like the mountains…

(Sura 11: 36,37,40,42)

  • The Gilgamesh Epic from ancient Babylon
  • Legends belonging to the Aztec and Toltec Indians of Mexico
  • The Genesis Book in the Bible

“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened… The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth… And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.” (Book of Genesis 7:11, 17, 19)

  • And many others (There are at least 270 known Flood legends still existing in the world, and some claim there are up to 500!)

Evidently, in the minds of Earth’s inhabitants long ago, the legend of the Flood was anything but a fictitious fable; it was common knowledge then, still fresh in their minds in the years after the Flood. As the tribes of man began to migrate into different corners of the world, they brought with them this shared knowledge of their historical origins, a knowledge which still exists in the sacred heritage of many ancient societies in our world today.

    

(Left:) Artist Elfred Lee’s picture based on the description given by George Hagopian who claimed to have seen the Ark in 1902. Other eyewitnesses have confirmed this to be an accurate representation (Right:) Rare photograph of the Ark on Mt. Ararat, purportedly taken during a warm spell when snow and ice had retreated. Photo taken by a Dutch National Television crew accompanied by astronaut-explorer James Irwin (Information found in well-researched book The Incredible Discovery of Noah’s Ark by Charles Sellier and David Balsiger)

Conclusion: Going by both the evidence of science and the evidence of culture (mankind’s own records and sacred history), it makes every bit of sense to conclude that a great Flood once inundated the earth. Further ahead, we shall learn how this great cataclysm was the event that shaped and structured the environment we now live in; it set the stage for and became the starting point to our present era of history.

***

Continued in 2D: Re-Creation of the Earth

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (5F)

GeoTimeScale2
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 5: HOW OLD IS THE NATURAL WORLD?

5A: What About Radioactive Dating Methods?
5B: Age Estimates Based on Geological Evidence
5C: Estimates Based on Evidence from Outer Space
5D: Age Estimates Based on Population Data
5E: Historical-Cultural Evidence
5F: Age Estimates Based on Fossil Evidence: Human-Dinosaur Co-existence!

5-F: Age Estimates Based on Fossil Evidence: Human-Dinosaur Co-existence!

Human-Dino Footprints Together

“This spectacular fossil footprint was found in July of 2000 by amateur archaeologist, Alvis Delk of Stephenville, Texas and is now on display at the Creation Evidence Museum, Glen Rose, TX. Mr. Delk found the loose slab against the bank of the Paluxy River, about one mile north of Dinosaur Valley State Park. He flipped over the rock and saw an excellent dinosaur track, so he took it home where it sat in his living room for years, with hundreds of other fossils.

“Early in 2008 he had a devastating accident. He fell off of a roof incurring damage that required months of hospitalization. He still has a dangerous blood clot in his brain.

“When he returned to his home, he decided he would sell the dinosaur track, thinking Dr. Carl Baugh of the nearby Creation Evidence Museum would pay a few hundred dollars for it. He began to clean the rock, and that was when he discovered the fossil human footprint underneath the dried clay!

“The human footprint had been made first, and shortly thereafter (before the mud turned to stone), a dinosaur stepped in the mud with its middle toe stepping on top of the human track. You can actually see the displaced mud from the dinosaur’s middle toe inside the human footprint.

“Spiral CT scans are used to generate images of the inside of an object from a large series of two-dimensional X-ray images taken around a single axis of rotation. This technology provides an effective means of analyzing fossil footprints without physically destroying them. It allows us to see inside the rock, specifically, under the footprint.”

“The slab was taken to the Glen Rose medical center where spiral CT scans were performed on the rock. Over 800 X-ray images document density changes within the rock that correspond precisely with the fossil footprints. Of course, carvings would show no corresponding structures beneath them. The existence of following contours beneath the fossil footprints dramatically demonstrate the authenticity of both tracks.”

Crisscrossing Trail of Human-Dino Tracks

Here is the possible scenario of how these tracks came about: as the Flood waters rose, humans and dinos were both trying to escape to higher ground. In this case, they might have scurried across a newly-laid bed of silt or sediment, perhaps during a period of low tide or receding of the waters. After leaving their footprints behind, a new wave or tide came in, covering the tracks with another layer of silt, thereby preserving them. Thousands of years later, the forces of erosion wore away the covering layers of sediment to reveal these footprints once again, but now preserved in stone.

Conclusion: The fossil footprint shown above clearly demonstrates the co-existence of man and dinosaurs. This, by the way, is not the only evidence, but it does happen to be well documented and scientifically validated and, most important, it escaped getting tucked away and forgotten in some museum archive. Judging then by fossil evidence, it should be safe to conclude that man and dinosaurs coexisted. The dinosaurs did not disappear some 70 million years before the rise of mankind, as is commonly assumed.

  •         How mankind managed to co-exist with dinosaurs we don’t know. But if our species was larger in size, then perhaps it was not as difficult as we might think.
  •         It is quite possible too that, like today, Earth was divided into separate biomes. Indeed, the fossil record seems to reflect such an ecosystem where the great reptiles dominated vast inland lake and swamp regions, while the human population (and other larger mammals) occupied a separate biome at a higher elevation, well above the swamplands.

For more information on human-dinosaur co-existence, the following website is recommended: http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

One other documented discovery, made recently, was that of well-preserved dinosaur tissue. How such tissue could have survived is a question that is very difficult to answer if one believes that the dinosaurs went extinct some 70 million years ago. For more information, see: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/

Food for Thought: Even if the Earth were millions or billions of years old, there is plenty of fossil evidence to show that mankind (in the basic form we are today) existed at the same time as other prehistoric creatures. That is to say, judging by the fossil record, mankind would have been created simultaneously with the other animals, regardless of whether it was a few thousand years ago or several million years ago.

***

(Article by Mr. M. Coppedge:)

“This giant footprint contemporary with dinosaurs was also found in Dinosaur Park at Glen Rose [Texas]. Pictured with my foot, it exceeds 45 cm (18 inches) in length. The cross-sectional cuts determined by compression studies [revealed] that it was a woman’s footprint [and that it was not a carving]. Estimates indicate her stature approximately 305 cm (10 feet) and 454 kg (1,000 lbs). Several strata of human prints with dinosaur prints have been excavated in this park. According to Dr. Carl Baugh, the archeologist who coordinated the excavations, these strata were laid down during the first few days of Noah’s flood when water levels were low enough to allow daily tidal changes to form layers of mud so fleeing creatures could seek higher ground— the upper strata showed no prints.

Obviously the people who lived contemporary with dinosaurs were intelligent, and the footprints indicate that they were quite human, as the large toe on primates is located close to the heel to facilitate clinging to branches.”

***

Cambrian Explosion!

Food for ThoughtIf macro-evolution were true, then why don’t we see it operating now? There should be millions of “missing links” to bridge the gaps in the fossil record for all the other species of animals in the biological kingdom, but they’re just not there. Furthermore, if macro-evolution was going on in the past, then it should be going on now… But where is the evidence of it? We don’t see anything like this operating in our present environment.

treeoflife1

(Above) Darwin theorized that the present natural world evolved from some very primitive origin. But the “evidence”, from fossils and genetic science, tells a very different story. It plainly shows that all species appeared abruptly and fully formed. (See below.) The evidence points towards the fact that we human beings and all the plants and animals were the result of the design and creation of a Higher Power.

cambrian_explosion - 1 copy

The fossil record shows an abrupt arrival of the different species of plants and animals. This is known as the “Cambrian Explosion” – something that evolutionary thinkers have trouble trying to explain. The Cambrian rock layer, considered to be the “oldest” layer of sedimentary rock, is actually just the “bottom” layer of sediment formed at the time of the Flood. It contains representatives of all the major plant and animal types – mollusks, arthropods, vertebrates, etc. And they are not any more “primitive” than those found in other rock layers, although they may be smaller in size generally.

Genesis kinds1

The three “kinds” shown here and how they developed is typical of all species in the biological world. There are many “trees of life”, one for each species/genus of plants and animals, and each one originating from a fully developed original but having “branches” of different varieties, breeds, or races. (Diagram adapted from an illustration in The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris, pg. 67)

But what about the “geologic timetable”? – and the long eras (Triassic, Jurassic, Tertiary, etc.) representing the age of dinosaurs, the age of mammals, and so on?

GeoTimeScale2

According to this timetable, millions of years were supposed to have elapsed between the different “ages” of rock strata and their fossils. As we’ve already learned, the neat layers of rock strata could not have formed that way over such long periods of time without showing more evidence of erosion, vegetation, or deformation.

We’ve learned the same from the fossil evidence which plainly shows evidence of rapid and catastrophic burial of the prehistoric world’s plant and animal life. Quite obviously, these stratified sedimentary rock layers with their fossils were the result of the Great Flood.

So why would anyone come up with such an idea in the first place? Basically, it’s a question of jumping to conclusions before gathering all the facts. Without realizing it, those who came up with this geologic timetable simply misunderstood the “evidence” of what the Flood waters did in the process of sweeping away the Earth’s plant and animal life.

As the waters rose, there was a certain pattern that took place: the smaller, denser creatures like shells, mollusks, and so on were the first to get buried in the sediments created by the rampaging Flood waters as they churned up and excavated the Earth’s primeval soil layer and re-deposited that soil over the land surface. These smaller creatures appear mostly in the lower, supposedly older rock layers. Going up the levels of rock strata, the fossils tend to become more complex. That is because the larger, more mobile creatures were able to escape the onrushing Flood waters longer and so were drowned and buried later under the sediments… and thus at a higher level in the rock strata. So this is a pattern that does show up in the fossil-rock layers. And that, of course, was the “evidence” that the early evolutionary scientists latched on to as proof of this theory of geologic ages.

But there are plenty of exception to that general pattern, which could have acted as a “reality check” against accepting this theory: there are plenty of man and dinosaurs, for example, in the same rock strata, or in reverse order; there are fossilized trees extending through several layers of rock strata; and there are many other such evidences pointing to a rapid burial in the Flood rather than a gradual, lengthy process of sedimentation and fossilization. (See Appendix 4 article, “Dinosaur Fossil Wasn’t Supposed to Be There.”)

As pointed out above, the fossil record shows an abrupt arrival of the different species of plants and animals in the “Cambrian Explosion” – the sudden appearance of all the major plant and animal types in the “oldest” layer of sedimentary rock, which is nothing else but the “bottom” layer of sediment formed as the time of the Flood. These fossilized creatures are not any more “primitive” than those found in other rock layers, although they may be smaller in size generally.

Conclusion: The fossil findings disprove the popular belief that there was a progressive evolving of species from primitive forms into more highly developed forms.

Continue to Part 6: Conclusion

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (5E)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 5: HOW OLD IS THE NATURAL WORLD?

5A: What About Radioactive Dating Methods?
5B: Age Estimates Based on Geological Evidence
5C: Estimates Based on Evidence from Outer Space
5D: Age Estimates Based on Population Data
5E: Historical-Cultural Evidence
5F: Age Estimates Based on Fossil Evidence: Human-Dinosaur Co-existence!

5-E: Historical-Cultural Evidence

  •         For a society to be faithful to keep a chronology over a span of thousands of years is no small achievement. Every culture has to endure so many changes, movements, and instability.
  •        Nevertheless, some ancient societies did manage to guard their sacred records over the centuries – the Mayans, the Celts (Saxons, Scandinavians, Irish, Welsh), the Hebrews – were particularly gifted in this respect.
  •        Other cultures, like the Greeks for example, soaring on the wings of their imagination, were able to produce a rich heritage of art, drama, and literature, but when it came to the mundane task of preserving old records, they were not so practical along those lines.
  •        Below are some estimates of the age of the earth since the Flood and since the original Creation. They are from ancient societies who were able to trace their origins all the way back to their beginnings:

  •        According to these ancient records from several sources, a relatively short span of time has elapsed since the Flood, and before that, since the original Creation. It’s actually a long time, but short in comparison to what we’ve been conditioned to think is the age of the earth.

***

In the table below (shown before in the Appendix to Post 2-I, “Early Migration Before the Rise of Civilization”), Bill Cooper in his book After the Flood has “brought together the genealogies contained in no less than five diverse and ancient sources” (some from Anglo-Saxon tribes, some from ancient Roman scholars).

  •        Three of the genealogies trace their origin all the way back to the same original Japheth, or Jupiter as he was known among the ancient Latin races. (In the Sanskrit Puranas he was known as Jyapeti.)
  •        Six of the seven sons of Japheth (son of Noah) migrated northwards after the Flood and populated Europe long ago. As a result Japheth became honored as the father of the European races.
  •        Because of the tendency of ancient tribes to worship their ancestors, eventually Japheth became exalted in Roman mythology as the chief of the gods, Jupiter.

Conclusion: Scientifically, according to our investigation so far into genetics and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we can understand that God created the first man and woman fully formed. (If God is who He’s supposed to be, then this would not have been a problem.) Neither scientific theory nor scientific evidence supports the idea that mankind evolved from a primitive ape-like form into a full-fledged human being. (Refer to “Monkey-to-Man Evolution?” section in Post 4-E)

So, if mankind had a definite starting point, then it should be no surprise that we can find genealogical records from certain ancient societies that date all the way back to the very Beginning. The fact that a few such records have been found in separate societies and that these chronologies go all the way back to the same Beginning stands as further evidence that human history did indeed have a definite starting point… or two starting points really – first in the Garden of Eden, and then, after the Great Flood.

Continue to 5F: Age Estimates Based on Fossil Evidence: Human-Dinosaur Co-existence!

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (5D)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 5: HOW OLD IS THE NATURAL WORLD?

5A: What About Radioactive Dating Methods?
5B: Age Estimates Based on Geological Evidence
5C: Estimates Based on Evidence from Outer Space
5D: Age Estimates Based on Population Data
5E: Historical-Cultural Evidence
5F: Age Estimates Based on Fossil Evidence: Human-Dinosaur Co-existence!

5-D: Age Estimates Based on Population Data

Besides all the evidence presented so far, the belief in a young age for the Earth also makes a lot of sense from the viewpoint of what we know about population growth:

It is estimated that in the century from 1910 to 2010 Earth’s population grew from 1.8 billion to 6.9 billion (increased by 383%). According to that rate of growth, if we work our way backwards mathematically – century by century – we would find that our present population began with only 2 people in 310 A.D.!

Of course, we know our present population could not have started in 310 A.D. But if you factor in certain things – like the lack of medical knowledge in days gone by – we can lengthen the time somewhat. So it doesn’t stretch the bounds of believability to understand that the human race began with 8 people (Noah and his family after the Flood) only a few thousand years ago … and some reasonable time before the Flood, another Beginning with two people (Adam and Eve) at the time of Creation.

What does stretch the bounds of believability is the conventional idea that mankind emerged from some primitive origin about 200,000 to 1,000.000 years ago. To have such a lengthy duration of population growth defies common sense.

- Chart by Scott Manning -

Many studies have been done by various people and organizations, including the League of Nations and the United Nations, but none of the population estimates stretch back any further than 10,000 B.C.

Continue to 5E: Historical-Cultural Evidence

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (5C)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 5: HOW OLD IS THE NATURAL WORLD?

5A: What About Radioactive Dating Methods?
5B: Age Estimates Based on Geological Evidence
5C: Estimates Based on Evidence from Outer Space
5D: Age Estimates Based on Population Data
5E: Historical-Cultural Evidence
5F: Age Estimates Based on Fossil Evidence: Human-Dinosaur Co-existence!

5-C: Estimates Based on Evidence from Outer Space

  • Theories often take on a “life of their own” so that they are no more just “theories” but take on the status of universally accepted principles. The field of astronomy is full of bold assertions and explanations based mostly on opinion; scientific proof becomes an inconvenient afterthought, usually ignored and forgotten under the preponderance of “expert opinion”.
Transient Lunar Phenomena

Moon3A copy

Transient Lunar Phenomena – Result of Inner Core Heat and Activity

Astronomers tend to think that the Moon is geologically dead. If it is 3 billion years old, then the Moon, being small compared to Earth, should have cooled faster, and no hot magma would be left in its core. However, plenty of these Transient Lunar Phenomena are occurring. (In the Moon’s Aristarchus region, for example, 300 of them have been observed.) Again, here is another signpost pointing us to the realization that the Moon (and the Solar System and the Universe) are not that old.

Decaying Comets

halleys-comet-1986

Halley’s Comet

As comets approach the Sun, they lose material, and some have burned out the first time they have been observed making this journey. If the universe were billions of years old, there shouldn’t be any comets left; all would have burned out by now. Secular astronomers have speculated that there is something called an “Oort Cloud” where comets are continually being manufactured; however, there is no scientific proof or observation to tell us that such a “cloud” actually exists. It is just a theory offered as an explanation for the unanswerable question of why our Solar System still has comets.

Matter versus Anti-Matter

Asymmetry

If the formation of the Universe happened according to the “Big Bang” theory, that means the original energy of the original “singularity” (as it’s called) would have had to transform into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. But from actual observation we know that the Universe is mostly made up of matter with only a small amount of anti-matter. And it’s a good thing this is so, because when the two get together, they violently destroy each other. The fact that the Universe is mostly matter is nothing less than a “design“ feature. That is, God made the Universe with the right balance of matter and anti-matter. This dilemma resembles a similar one in the biological domain mentioned earlier: “chirality”.

Creation of Stars

Nebula, Veil

Veil Nebula

The prevailing theory about star formation asserts that they form out of collapsing nebulae (enormous “clouds” of extremely low-density hydrogen and helium gas). But gas has a natural tendency to expand, not compress. Such a process cannot happen under normal circumstances. Contrary to the impression given by secular astronomers, no one has ever seen a star forming. And the reason is, they could not have formed by themselves; they were created.

Presence of Blue Stars

star-r136a1-size-comparision-859814413

Blue stars are the most massive and luminous type of star. They can only last a few million years because they expend their fuel rapidly. Yet we observe untold numbers of them in galaxies that are supposed to be billions of years old. Again, we see evidence pointing to the fact that even the Universe, as vast as it is, was created in the recent past, and by supernatural means.

Continue to 5D: Age Estimates Based on Population Data

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (5B)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 5: HOW OLD IS THE NATURAL WORLD?

5A: What About Radioactive Dating Methods?
5B: Age Estimates Based on Geological Evidence
5C: Estimates Based on Evidence from Outer Space
5D: Age Estimates Based on Population Data
5E: Historical-Cultural Evidence
5F: Age Estimates Based on Fossil Evidence: Human-Dinosaur Co-existence!

5-B: Age Estimates Based on Geological Evidence

Besides radioactive dating techniques, there are other ways to measure the age of the Earth. These are known as geo-chronological indicators, and there are several… which bring to light the very real possibility of an earthly environment much younger than what we’ve usually thought. (Adapted from “Creation vs Evolution”, a publication of THE FAX OF LIFE courtesy of Helping Hand)

Growth of Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta:

  •        The Ganges-Brahmaputra delta is growing: The Ganges and Brahmaputra Rivers are washing dirt into the Delta, located at their combined mouth on the Bay of Bengal.
  •        By calculating both the size of the Delta and rate of silt accumulation, scientists estimate that it must have begun about 11,000 years ago, a figure which seems to hold true for other major river deltas as well. (The time span may even be less, considering that the rate of erosion was probably much faster right after the Flood when the sediments were still soft.)
  •        But if we’re thinking in terms of millions or billions of years or whatever, then not only the Bay of Bengal but probably the entire Indian Ocean should be full of dirt by now!
Earth’s Rotation Slowing:

EARTH’S ROTATION IS SLOWING DOWN. You’ve heard of Leap Year but not everybody knows about Leap Second! (No joke!) Every 10 months the scientific comm
unity sets the clock back one second. (Atomic clocks are very picky!) The Earth is presently spinning at a speed of 1,046.6 miles per hour at the equator. If the Earth is slowing down, that means it used to be going …FASTER! There are 31,557,600 seconds in a year, so if the Earth is only a few thousand years old, that’s no problem. But 4.5 billion years old? At 30 million years ago the Earth would have been spinning at the rate of one revolution per second. The sun would flash across the sky every second. If we believe what Evolution teaches, that the Dinosaurs went extinct around 70 million years ago… they didn’t die off, they were flung off into outer space!

Earth’s Decaying Magnetic Field:

Earth's Decaying Magnetic Field

Earth and the other planets in our Solar System all have strong magnetic fields, which are in the process of decay. This rate of decay for Earth’s magnetic field is known (5% per century); it was 40% stronger in A.D. 1000. Only 20,000 years ago, a much stronger magnetic field would have made Earth’s energy level so high that water could not have covered the planet. Earth and the other planets, it would appear, could not have been created very long ago. 

Faint Young Sun Paradox:

o   The faint young Sun paradox or problem describes the apparent contradiction between observations of liquid water early in Earth’s history and the astrophysical expectation that the Sun’s’s output would be only 70 percent as intense during that epoch as it is during the modern epoch. The issue was raised by astronomers Carl Sagan and George Mullen in 1972. (Science magazine, Volume 177:52-56, 4 Aug 1972) Explanations of this paradox have taken into account greenhouse effects, astrophysical influences, or a combination of the two. (WIKIPEDIA: “Faint Young Sun Paradox”)

o   In layman’s terms: The Sun’s power comes from the fusion of hydrogen into helium deep in the Sun’s core. As this happens, it should change the composition of the Sun’s core, gradually increasing the Sun’s temperature… which means the Sun would have been colder in the past. At 3½ billion years ago, the Sun would have been 25% less bright than it is today, and Earth’s temperature would be below freezing. The fossil record shows plainly that Earth was warmer in prehistoric times. That is a problem if we believe Earth’s environment is millions or billions of years old. No problem, though, if we understand it to be only a few thousand years old.

Moon Moving Further Away:

These are separate images combined in this photo. They were taken by the Galileo spacecraft in 1992 as it went on its way to Jupiter.

  •        THE MOON IS MOVING FURTHER AWAY. (2-3 inches per year.) That means that it used to be…CLOSER!
  •        If the Moon is a few thousand years old, there is no problem. But 70 million years ago?
  •        The Moon affects the tides, and the closer it gets, the greater the gravity! (Gravity increases by the “inverse square” – meaning if you half the distance you quadruple the gravity.)
  •        Only a few million years ago the Moon would’ve been close enough to cause the tides to drown the entire surface of the Earth—twice a day!
Great Barrier Reef:

Great Barrier Reef: off the east coast of Australia

  •        THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS GROWING.
  •        After a 20 year study of the coral formations of the Great Barrier Reef, all the measurements gathered showed that the average growth rate of the Reef indicated it was only a few thousand years old!
  •        That brings us back pretty close to when the Flood is thought to have occurred according to the sacred histories of many ancient cultures.
Oil Gushers:

(L) 350-ft. Baku oil gusher on the border of Romany Lake, Azherbaijan (R) Spindletop gusher, East Texas, USA. Before oil-drillers understood how to cap wells, gushers were very common. Dykes were normally made around them in order to contain the oil in a pool around the well.

UNDERGROUND OIL DEPOSITS ARE UNDER GREAT PRESSURE: 20,000 pounds per square inch! Geologists say that under such great pressure the oil should have seeped through the Earth’s crust within 10 to 15,000 years after it was formed (like air seeping out of a tire). They can’t understand why it hasn’t de-pressurized yet! If the Earth is billions of years old, they’re right!—It should have a long time ago! But the Earth is not billions of years old.

Niagara Falls Movement by Erosion:

NIAGARA FALLS IS MOVING. Up until the 1930′s, when much of the water was diverted for hydroelectric generation, the edge of Niagara Falls was moving 5-7 feet south every year. It has moved about 10 miles, give or take a couple of miles, from its starting point at the Niagara Escarpment.  (See yellow arrow in picture below.)

Scientists estimate that, moving at its present rate, the Falls seem to be about 9,900 years old. It could be less than that when you consider the cataclysmic nature ofthe Flood. But if Evolution’s millions and billions of years were true, Niagara Falls would have moved to Florida by now!—Or anywhere on the continent!—Or completely out of existence!—But not just 10 miles!

   

Lewiston-Queenston Bridge: near where Niagara Falls started

Some preservation work on the American side necessitated diverting the river temporarily. Note the evidences of erosion.

Rates of Erosion:

“Rivers dump tons of sediment into the world’s oceans every day. Sedimentologists have researched many of the world’s rivers and calculated how fast the land is disappearing. The average height reduction for all the continents of the world is about 60 millimeters (2.4 inches) per 1,000 years. This equals some 24 million metric tons of sediment per year going into the oceans. If the earth were even only one billion years old, a height of 60 kilometers of continent would have eroded. The earth’s highest mountain, Mount Everest, is only 8.85 kilometers high. Obviously the continents of the world have never been … seven times as high as Mount Everest, because that sediment would have had to have gone somewhere. That somewhere is the oceans, which means that the oceans would have had to have initially been correspondingly deeper, and we would today see the ocean floor miles thick in sediment – which is not the case [average thickness now: only 400 m.].

“Also, at this rate of erosion, North America should have been leveled in 10 million years. The Yellow River in China could flatten a plateau as high as Everest in 10 million years.” 

[http://creation.com/eroding-ages

(Related to erosion rates is the dilemma of salt in the oceans: the oceans should have 70 times more salt than they do now if the Earth were 3 billion years old.)

Conclusion:

       From the geological perspective, the earth could not possibly be billions of years old as required by the theory of evolution, or not just the mountains, but every landmass, would have been eroded away; the oceans would be full of dirt; oil reservoirs would not be under pressure; Niagara Falls would have disappeared… and so on.

Continue to 5C: Estimates Based on Evidence from Outer Space 

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (4H)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?

4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: 
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

Physics: The Laws of Thermodynamics tell us that the universe and the natural world are getting more scattered and disordered, not more complex and organized.

Biology: The Laws of Genetics reveal that a “barrier” exists to prevent species from changing their basic gene structures. In addition, the complex organization of DNA structures points to the hand of an intelligent Designer at work, not a mindless process of random probability.

Scientific Method: True theories about the past build on solid evidence. The fossil, geological, and other evidencesupports the belief that the natural world was created by a Higher Power, and later re-created in the Flood catastrophe; the natural world did not create itself.

From all that we have learned so far, we can only conclude that evolution theory is flawed in many aspects. Of course, we should keep those aspects that have a scientific basis (micro-evolution) but be willing to reject that which defies scientific knowledge and discovery.

Micro-E     Macro-E

***

Belief in a Supernatural Creator, or Intelligent Designer, should no longer be labeled as superstition or a throwback to some primitive era but accepted as a genuinely scientific explanation for the origins of the natural world.

Continue to Part 5: How Old Is the Natural World?

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (4G)

Chimp2

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?

4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: 
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-G: The Problem with Darwinism

Kimmo Palikko Finnish artist taide maalaus postikortti akvarelli cartoon comics graphic creationism evolution Hitler copy

In his book Origin of Species Darwin states, “Let the strongest live and the weakest die.” This rather harsh statement undergirds certain philosophies that have come to the fore in modern times. For example, ideas justifying genocide of “inferior races” that characterized Hitler’s Nazism, these can be traced right back to the pages of Darwin’s Origin of Species. Darwinism has no room in it for such practices as showing kindness to the weak or love for one’s fellow man.

But monkeys are not our ancestors, and we are not merely animals driven by instinct. Nor are we some kind of accidental, mechanical by-product of natural processes. The truth is, we are thinking, intelligent beings created by God. 

Our ancestor?….                                                      or Divine Origin!

Chimp2  

                                                 

                                                                                               The first man and woman came to life as fully formed human beings through the supernatural power of the Creator

We have the capacity to choose between right and wrong, as well as the desire to seek after God. Each one of us is very special to Him, and He loves each one of us as if we were the only person in the world. Of course, God has many others whom He loves besides just you, and so He expects us to treat others as the precious children of God that they are. We are here for a purpose, and that purpose is to make our lives useful in service to our fellow man. We are not here just to make ourselves rich or famous; our gifts, talents, education, and wealth should be directed to helping improve the lives of others and to making this world a better place to live.

Continue to 4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (4F)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?

4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: 
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution

Barrier of Sterility and Basic Gene Structure

The horse and donkey are two separate, but closely related species. Both belong to the equus genus which includes zebras and ponies. When a horse and donkey breed, their offspring is called a mule. Male and female mules cannot mate and produce offspring; they arsterile. There is a barrier of sterility there that will not allow them to create mule offspring. Sometimes a mule can breed with a horse or donkey and produce another horse or donkey respectively, but mules cannot breed with each other.

Chart Showing Mule Offspring

Cat-Dog!?

So this barrier of sterility works to some extent between different species of animals that are part of the same genus or family (like the horse and donkey). But for animals of different classes or families, that barrier of sterility between them is complete. And it is good that this is so. How confusing if different species of animals could breed and produce fertile offspring! What if a cat and a dog could mate and produce a cat-dog? The natural world would become an awfully confusing place, wouldn’t it?

And, by the same principle, there is a “barrier” that prevents a species from evolving into another more advanced species. And for the same reason: to maintain order in the natural world. That is why God created the plant and animal world to reproduce in such a way that each species could reproduce “after its kind” (meaning within the boundaries of its own species or genus) as a way of preventing confusion in His creation.

This phrase “after its kind” is mentioned no less than ten times in the opening chapter of the Genesis Book (and eight more times in chapters 6-8). God tried to set the record straight right from the beginning – that each plant and creature could only reproduce within the boundaries of its own “kind” or species/genus; but alas, some modern thinkers, having done more thinking than was necessary, it would seem, have come up with their own schemes – in opposition to these opening chapters of the Sacred Book.

Charles Darwin, in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his speculations about what we now may call macro-evolution theory and wrote:

“As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well defined species?” (Origin of Species, chapter 6)

Micro-Evolution: Genetic Variation Within Species

Although there is (for the purpose of maintaining order in the natural world) a limitation established that prevents different species from breeding together or changing into new species, there is nevertheless, allowance for plenty of variety and adaptability within each species. Genetic variation has allowed, for example, the many different races of mankind to come into being: very small pygmies in Africa, and as we have learned, there have been large-sized giants, but all of them belong to the same genome of humanity. Or the many different breeds of dogs: the Chihuahua and the Great Dane, as different as they appear, both still belong to the canine “family”.

Genetic variation injects variety and adaptability into the natural world, and we could give a name for this – micro-evolution. And for this we can give credit to Charles Darwin who explained micro-evolution in terms of “natural selection” and “diversification of species”. But here also is where he made his mistake. Darwin jumped to conclusions, assuming that the variations he observed in animal species (micro-evolution) was proof that a species could “evolve” into very different and advanced forms – what could be called “macro-evolution”, which, as as we will learn, lacks scientific basis.

Can micro-evolutionary change lead to the formation of more advanced species?

  • Darwin observed that animal species could diversify in certain minor characteristics as they adapted to new environments. From this he jumped to the conclusion that a species could make a wholesale change from a lower to a more advanced species (macro-evolution).
  •  Scientists have tried experimenting along these lines, but no matter how hard they try, they always run into a “barrier”. That is, a species cannot change beyond its basic gene structure.
  • Fruit flies, for example, have a very short life cycle, and scientists like to use them in their research. Despite thousands of experiments, however, no one yet has been able to create anything else but more fruit flies – different breeds, yes, but nothing more than that.
  • Scientists can create new breeds of plants or animals through genetic manipulation, or it can happen in nature through natural selection.
  • Natural selection, however, cannot create any new genes to make evolution progress. Natural selection can only sort existing genetic information. Observations of natural selection are not examples of evolutionary advancement; they are examples only of re-packaging, that is, different combinations of the same genetic information. 
  • In this process of micro-evolution, there is no gain in genetic information. In fact, genetic information tends to lessen as new breeds/varieties form.
  • For example, the originally created dog-wolf (or whatever it was) would have had a larger gene pool than the diversified breeds of coyotes, jackals, dingos, dog breeds, etc. that were derived from it.

dog   -kinds

  • To evolve to a more advanced level of biological organization would require that a creature increase its genetic information. But that doesn’t happen in the process of evolutionary change. There is only diversity and loss of genetic information.
  • Even the phenomenon known as speciation (new variants or species resulting from reproductive isolation) is not an example of macro-evolution. Although this type of variant is unable to breed with the former population from which it branched off, that does not mean it has advanced to a more complex stage of development. The speciated variant actually loses some genetic information along the way. In the process of separation from the original population, its genetic pool simply becomes more specialized. Speciation then is another example, albeit a more extreme one, of micro-evolution. 

Continue to 4-G: The Problem with Darwinism

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (4E)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?

4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: 
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-E: Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links

What you may be thinking,

What about the Evidence of Monkey-to-Man Evolution, the “Missing Links”?

Is there evidence of this?… No!

So let’s take a closer look…

***

Australopithecus Afarensis ‘Lucy’ Skeleton (Replica): Perhaps the most famous “missing link” is the “Lucy” skeleton (known as Australopithecus Afarensis) discovered in 1974 in Hadar, Ethiopia, by the Leakey family of archeologists.

- Authentic skeleton?

- Not really. It is actually made up of dis-articulated and geographically separated bones of more than 30 individual skeletons.

As usually happens with these discoveries, “Lucy” was greeted with great fanfare and trumpeted as the long-lost “missing link” between apes and man before any exhaustive scientific studies could be carried out to verify the claim. Eventually, further research did reveal that “Lucy” was nothing more than an ape. Sadly and all too predictably, this “reality-check” news never got the kind of media attention as did all the premature proclamations of Lucy as man’s ancestor. The following quotes/articles – from the discoverers of “Lucy” – should have been headlines on the front page of our newspapers long ago:

“If pressed about man’s ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 [name of a normal human skull found in the same area] was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving.” (Richard Leakey, co-discoverer of Lucy, from a PBS documentary in 1990,)

“All these trees of life with their branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.” (Mary Leakey, also a co-discoverer of Lucy, three months before her death, from an interview with Associated Press (AP) Dec. 10, 1996.)

***

What’s “missing” in the history of “missing links”? … the EVIDENCE !
  • Neanderthal Man (1856) – Once thought to be a primitive ancestor of man, scientists are beginning to realize that Neanderthal Man was fully human:

1) Brain size same as ours, even larger
2) Buried their dead
3) Used tools
4) Complex social structure
5) Employed language
6) Played musical instruments
7) Differences in anatomy are minor, no more than the differences between modern races of mankind

  • Java Man (1891) – An ape-like skull was found near a human thigh bone. Later investigation showed the creature was a giant gibbon, and the thigh bone had nothing to do with the skull.

Java man copy

  • Piltdown Man (1912) – Turned out to be a complete forgery. An orangutan jaw was stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.
  
piltdown32 copy  Piltdown4 copy
  • Nebraska Man (1922)
    Nebraska Man 2
  • Australopithecines (1974) – Extensive computer analysis has shown these to be just another type of ape.
  • Ardipithecus ramidus (1999) – Bones scattered over an area of about one mile. A single toe bone, supposed to prove the creature was part human, was found some ten miles from the other bones.
  • Australopithecus Sediba (2010) – Resembles very much other Australopithecines. Like the Lucy fossil, it is just another genetic variation within the ape species.
  • Ape skeletonsFossil skeletons: Ape-men? No. Just extinct breeds of apes

Charles Oxnard, PhD, DSc, expert in anatomy, conducted extensive computer analysis  on Australopithecine fossils and concluded they were just another type of ape. He stated,

“All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications.”

       (See Appendix 2: “Time Magazine’s New Ape-man” by James Perloff – an informative essay that goes into more detail about the “missing links”.)

***

Conclusion: The over-blown claims of “missing link” discoveries are nothing more than examples of “micro-evolution”, or development of genetic variations among human beings or among ape species that look a little different from present day human beings or apes. These fossil discoveries, trumpeted so much in glossy media presentations these days, are not “evolutionary ancestors” to humankind. Archeologists have only discovered some of the different breeds of apes/monkeys or different races of mankind that disappeared in the Flood, or those who, during the post-Flood era, became extinct somehow or merged into other races.

From the above information we can understand what so often happens when a scientist discovers some unusual-looking skeleton: he might easily jump to conclusions and assume that it is some kind of “missing link”. Especially if the discoverer has a strong predisposition towards the idea of evolutionary development of species, very likely he will interpret the bone remains in those terms while glossing over anything that might contradict his preconceptions.

***

       

Extinct form of ape and australopithecine model displayed in American Museum of Natural History, New York. Skull on top is modern man. Autralopithecine skulls bear no resemblance to human skulls. They belong to the family of apes, not human beings.

The artists’ pictures of these “ancestors” are misleading. It is easy to take an ordinary human skull and create an apish-looking face based on how one imagines the individual might have looked. The skull is no different, but the soft tissues, which have disappeared, are only assumed to look a certain way according to the preconception of the artist who drew it or the scientist who discovered it.

There is much evidence, as can be gathered from the above news article (Bangalore Mirror, 3 Jan 2011 issue), to show that instead of lacking intelligence in the past, mankind had a larger brain capacity and was, if anything, smarter than we are today. Of course, mankind has a huge amount of accumulated wisdom that we didn’t have before, but from the biological viewpoint, there is more likelihood that we have less brain capacity now than did our ancient forebears.

The news report above was based on an article printed in Discover magazine, March 2009 issue, titled “They Don’t Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To” by Kathleen McAuliffe. During the course of McAuliffe’s interview with anthropologist John Hawks, Mr. Hawks stated, as they were looking over his collection of skulls, “You don’t have to look hard to see that teeth are getting smaller, skull size is shrinking, stature is getting smaller.” The article went on to point out that “evolution” is happening more rapidly now than ever before because of the world’s much larger population.

And yes, that is true in a sense. But it is the process of micro-evolution that scientists are observing in the natural world – the genetic variation that happens within a species that enables it to branch out into new varieties and adaptations, but without changing its basic gene structure, or genome. The genome of a species is extraordinarily complicated – like a software program – and its basic structure cannot be altered (as macro-evolution theory supposes) unless an outside Intelligence (God) purposefully intervenes and engineers such a change. Like any of mankind’s creations, the natural world has a purposeful design, and an Intelligent Creator behind the scenes who designed and made it. It is not possible that a chance process of mutational change could bring about any of the drastic changes (from one species into another) that macro-evolutionary theory envisions.

In spite of the evidence showing otherwise, the article still tries to convey the idea that mankind is advancing into “higher” forms (what we might call macro-evolution theory). Because of the habit of viewing everything through the lens of macro-evolutionary theory, scientists are seldom able to connect the evidence in the fossils and bones to the process of micro-evolution – the genetic variation that goes on within species. 

Continue to 4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution

Appendix 2

Time magazine’s new ape-man- by James Perloff,
WorldNetDaily

In 1999, following the de-emphasis of evolution in Kansas schools, Time magazine struck in its August 23 issue with an editorial denouncing creationists and a huge cover story called “How Man Evolved.” The article displayed man’s supposed oldest ancestor—Ardipithecus ramidus—while neglecting to tell readers that its fragments had been found scattered over an area of about one mile, and put together to form a “missing link.” Time’s cover was of a reconstructed ape-man skull, yet well less than half the skull consisted of actual fossil fragments—the rest was plaster, molded by imagination.

A more recent issue of Time, dated July 23, takes no less liberty. On the cover is a painting of an ape-man called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, with the headline “How Apes Became Human.” Inside, the article begins: “Meet your newfound ancestor.” The painting is based on some fragmentary bones recently found in Ethiopia by a graduate student named Yohannes Haile-Selassie. Time assures its readers that the creature walked upright.

The evidence for this? A single toe bone. Time displays the bone with the unequivocal caption: “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.” But not until the last page of the eight-page article do readers learn that the toe bone was actually found some ten miles from the other bones. What evidence exists that the toe bone belonged to Haile-Selassie’s other specimens? None, other than speculation.

There is great danger in basing conclusions on a single bone. In 1922, paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, an ardent evolutionist, was shown a single tooth found in Nebraska by geologist Harold Cook. After examining it, Osborn declared it belonged to an early ape-man. It became known as “Nebraska Man.”

Osborn hailed the tooth as “the herald of anthropoid apes in America.” At the American Museum of Natural History, William K. Gregory and Milo Hellman, specialists in teeth, said after careful study that the tooth was from a species closer to man than ape. In England, evolutionist Grafton Elliot Smith convinced the Illustrated London News to publish an artist’s rendering of Nebraska Man. The picture, which appeared in a two-page spread and received wide distribution, showed two brutish, naked ape-persons, the male with a club, the female gathering roots. All this from one tooth.

However, further excavations at Cook’s site revealed that the tooth belonged neither to ape nor man, but to a peccary, a close relative of the pig.

Or take the Piltdown Man. It was declared an ape-man, 500,000 years old, and validated by many of Britain’s leading scientists, including Grafton Elliot Smith, anatomist Sir Arthur Keith and British Museum geologist Arthur Smith Woodward. At the time the discovery was announced (1912), the New York Times ran this headline: “Darwin Theory Proved True.” For the next four decades, Piltdown Man was evolution’s greatest showcase, featured in textbooks and encyclopedias.

But what did the Piltdown Man actually consist of? A very recent orangutan jaw, which had been stained to look old, with its teeth filed down to make them more human-looking, planted together with a human skull bone, also stained to create an appearance of age.

Those who think such mistakes no longer occur need only consider the Archaeoraptor, promoted in a 10-page color spread in the November 1999 National Geographic as the “true missing link” between dinosaurs and birds. The fossil was displayed at National Geographic’s Explorers Hall and viewed by over 100,000 people. However, it too turned out to be a fake—someone had simply glued together fragments of bird and dinosaur fossils.

Even if Time turns out to be correct, and Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba walked on two feet, would it prove he was our “newfound ancestor”? This assertion is based on a long-standing evolutionary assumption, usually stated something like this: “Humans are the only creatures that have evolved to the point where they can walk on two feet; therefore, if we can find the fossil of an animal that could walk on two feet, such a creature was our ancestor.”

However, the assumption that two-footed mobility establishes human kinship is groundless. Gorillas occasionally walk bipedally; Tanzanian chimpanzees are seen standing on two legs when gathering fruit from small trees. So even if a fossil creature did have some limited ability to stand on two feet, it doesn’t make it man’s ancestor any more than these modern apes. And man is not the only bipedal creature. Birds are bipedal; so was the T. rex. Therefore, are they human ancestors?

Time refers to “fossil discoveries as far back as Java Man in the 1890s” as validating the relationship between man and ape. But Time does not relate much of what is known about those finds. The Java Man story began with Ernst Haeckel, the German zoologist who has become notorious for using fraudulent drawings of embryos to prove the theory of evolution. Haeckel was convinced that an ape-man must have existed, and he named it Pithecanthropus alalus: ape-man without speech.

One of Haeckel’s students, Eugene Dubois, became determined to find Pithecanthropus. Haeckel believed men might have separated from apes somewhere in Southern Asia. So in 1887, Dubois signed up as a doctor with the Dutch medical corps in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia), intending to hunt for fossils during all his spare time. Dubois, it should be noted, had no formal training in geology or paleontology at the time, and his “archaeological team” consisted of prison convicts with two army corporals as supervisors.

Years of excavation produced little of significance. Then, in 1891, along Java’s Solo River, the laborers dug up a skullcap that appeared rather apelike, with a low forehead and large eyebrow ridges. Dubois initially considered it from a chimpanzee. However, the following year, the diggers unearthed a thigh bone that was clearly human.

Dubois, like Piltdown’s discoverers, presumed that an apelike bone somewhere near a human bone meant the two belonged to the same creature, constituting Darwin’s missing link.

In 1895, Dubois returned to Europe and displayed his fossils. The response from experts was mixed, however. Rudolph Virchow, who had once been Haeckel’s professor and is regarded as the father of modern pathology, said: “In my opinion, this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.”

In 1907, an expedition of German scientists from various disciplines traveled to Java seeking more clues to man’s ancestry in the region of Dubois’ discovery. However, no evidence for Pithecanthropus was found. The expedition’s report also noted a nearby volcano that caused periodic flooding in the area. Java Man had been found in volcanic sediments. The report observed that the chemical nature of those sediments, not ancient age, probably caused the fossilization of Pithecanthropus.

Nevertheless, the expedition’s findings and various deficiencies of Dubois’ work were largely ignored, and Java Man became one of evolution’s undisputed “facts.”

Then there was Peking Man, worked on and validated by a number of Piltdown alumni. In seeing textbook portrayals of Peking Man, few students learned that the skulls had been found in scattered little fragments, and that the reconstructions were actually composites taken from various individuals.

Where fragments were missing, plaster was substituted, and the famous final images of Peking Man were the creations of a sculptress named Lucille Swann. Later, all of the Peking Man fossils mysteriously vanished, except for a couple of teeth, preventing Peking Man from being subjected to the kind of checking that doomed Piltdown Man.

Neanderthals were long portrayed as ape-men, stooped over. This misconception was largely the result of a faulty reconstruction by French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, who mistook the skeleton of a man with kyphosis (hunchback) for an ape-man in the process of becoming upright.

Which basically leaves us with australopithecines, currently in vogue as man’s ancestor. [“Lucy” is purported to be an australopithecine.] However, australopithecine fossils show that they had long forearms and short hind legs, like today’s apes. They also had long curved fingers and toes, like those apes use for tree-swinging.

Charles Oxnard, former director of graduate studies and professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis. Stephen Jay Gould called him “our leading expert on the quantitative study of skeletons.” Oxnard concluded:

“The australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism, possibly from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes, and certainly from any place in the direct human lineage. All of this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks, in encyclopedias and in popular publications. In such volumes not only are australopithecines described as being of known bodily size and shape, but as possessing such abilities as bipedality and tool-using and -making and such developments as the use of fire and specific social structures. Even facial features are happily (and non-scientifically) reconstructed.”

[Return]

Continue to 4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (4D)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?

4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: 
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic) Structures

Like blueprints for a building, the substance of DNA acts as a code that maps out how our bodily structures will develop as we grow from a tiny cell into a full grown human being. The complex blueprints used in building construction are carefully planned and designed by intelligent architectural designers and draftsmen; they don’t just come together by themselves or by accident. Likewise, the DNA in our bodily cells and genes were the result of the planning and craftsmanship of a Master Builder, our Creator.

   

Chimpanzee Genome Unraveled!

The 1st September 2005 edition of Nature magazine published the results of research done by a group of 67 scientists in the “Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium”. This group of scientists was able to piece together the entire genome (complete set of chromosomes) of the chimpanzee.

The results of this research have revolutionized the scientific understanding of our biological “construction” – with serious implications for evolution theory:     

  •        When the scientific world started learning about deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), it was intrigued by the fact that our human DNA was very close to that of apes: only a 1.2 % difference in the gene structure, or 4% difference, depending on how you interpret the scientific findings.
  •        But one important difference does exist: man is a sapient (wise) creature, and apes are non-sapient (non-wise).
  •        Is it possible to close that small 1.2% gap between man and apes by some gradual process? Could a random process of change by genetic mutation cause such a transformation?
  •        Mutations, however, are mostly harmful; only one out of a thousand can be considered beneficial. (Happens sometimes when genetic information gets lost; but it is never gained.)

  •        Each and every cell in your body has some 3,000,000,000 “base pairs” in its DNA structure, and each “base pair” has 4 molecules.
  •        Man and apes have similar features, but the difference in their genomes still would involve re-vamping a staggering 120,000,000 4-character digital codes, those having to do mainly with features of intelligence.
  •        So, to transform from ape to man means that 120,000,000 changes must occur in the gene structure, and these changes all have to take place in the correct order.
  •        Considering that mutations happen, not in a planned way, but randomly (usually in the egg cell before you start growing) and that most of them are harmful, not beneficial, the probability of apes turning into humans is a hopeless impossibility, no matter how many millions of generations of apes we suppose might have come and gone over millions of years of time.
  •        To say that a random, accidental process (like mutational change) could bring about such a transformation in the complex genetic machinery would be about the same as saying that tossing a grenade into a printing factory would succeed in producing the unabridged dictionary.

 See VIDEO CLIP: “Evidence of Biological Information”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CamNoA6Cfjc

  •        As brought out in the  video clip mentioned above (“The Evidence of Biological Information”), any manmade creation that transmits information – whether it be Egyptian hieroglyphics, the words on a printed page, or a software program – when you trace it back to the source, you will always find it was intelligence that created it. One would not try to understand how a written document came into being merely by studying the chemistry of ink composition, or what materials paper is made of, or the mathematical probability of splattering ink forming into letters. We would acknowledge that there had to be an intelligent being who created the document, who put it together; it can’t do so by itself. Anything that transmits information, of course, requires the material medium but, most important, there must be an intelligence that exists beyond the material medium in order to bring it into being.
  •        The same is true  for DNA structures which transfer information to our body cells: there had to be an Intelligent Designer behind them; they cannot be understood merely as a collection of molecules that by chance happened to get together by themselves.
  •        Over time a species would actually “devolve” and eventually become extinct because of the harmful effect of mutations. It won’t work the other way round

Now that doesn’t sound very hopeful, does it? That given enough time, we’re going to become extinct. But there is a bright side to this: in a future time, God’s plans call for a regeneration of the natural world to restore the kind of ideal conditions that existed in the world at the beginning of Creation. That, of course, is a matter of faith and can’t be proved by any scientific means. Nevertheless, it does make sense that, if God has love and concern for His creation, which He surely does, then that should be part of His long-term plan: to bring about a grand recreation or regeneration of the natural world.

And there are a number of references in the Sacred Book that promise this very thing.

“Jesus Christ… whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:21)
“The creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption [or “decay”]…” (Romans 8:21)
“For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality… then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: Death is swallowed up in victory.” (1Corinthians 15:53-54)

Conclusion:
  •        According to the scientific laws of chemistry, biology, physics, and even math, it is impossible to cross the bridge that separates man from monkeys by chance mutational processes no matter how many millions of years we may allow for it to happen.
  •        If mutations could explain anything, it might account for a certain amount of  devolving or degeneration of the human race from stronger, larger, and smarter ancestors, but mutations cannot explain any kind of monkey-to-man process of evolutionary advancement.
  •        The similarity that we observe in the DNA of humans and apes is based, not on common evolutionary ancestry, but on the fact that we and the apes have a common Designer.

(See Appendix 1 below: The amazing story of a lifelong atheist philosopher converted to belief in God after learning about the incredible intricacies of DNA structures.)

***

To learn more about the Creation-Evolution question viewed at from the angle of the most recent scientific discoveries, check out the rest of Lee Stroebel’s The Case for a Creator videos at the following URL:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=688111496234161611#

***

Continue to 4-E: Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links

***

Appendix 1

World Pays Tribute on Death of Atheist Turned Believer
Catholic Communications, Sydney Archdiocese, 20 Apr 2010

Leading academics, philosophers and members of the Christian faith across the world continue to pay tribute to Antony Flew, the famed British atheist and thinker who discovered God at the end of his life.

The renowned rationalist philosopher died earlier this month at age 87 and continues to be remembered in obituaries and tributes worldwide.

The son of a Methodist minister, Antony Flew spent most of his life denying the existence of God until just six years before his death when he dramatically changed his mind after studying research into genetics and DNA.

“The almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, show that intelligence must have been involved,” he announced in 2004 and went on to make a video of his conversion called: “Has Science Discovered God.”

Ironically, although modern day atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens claim in the rational world of science there is no proof of God exists, it is from the world of science that Antony Flew in his final years discovered “empirical evidence” that God exists, which overturned beliefs he had held for more than 60 years.

Like Einstein before him, Flew found that God was the only possible answer when it came to increasingly complex discoveries from sub atomic particles to the human genome to the very origins of the Cosmos.

“How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self replication capabilities and ‘coded chemistry’?” he asked, giving this as the main reason for his discovery of God in his final decade.

Flew’s conclusion that there was in fact a God in his 81st year came as a shock to his fellow atheists, particularly Dawkins and Hitchens, two of the world’s most outspoken proponents of atheism.

But Flew refused to back down even when some of his former followers decided his volte-face on God was the result of old age dementia and confusion rather than scholarly research and intellectual rigour.

Flew’s late life change of mind about God’s existence was remarkable because of the huge volume of his writings which until then had embraced the atheist cause. Throughout most of his academic life he was adamant that one should presuppose atheism until there was empirical evidence to the contrary. Then in his final decade as DNA and the human genome began to be understood along with the complexities of life, Flew found evidence which proved to him God exists and is the Creator of life. And from being a rationalist philosopher and non-believer for most of his life, one of the world’s leading thinkers suddenly became a staunch believer.

“The most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries,” he said.

In his final years, Flew supported the idea of a God along the lines of the philosophy espoused by Greek philosopher, Aristotle who believed God had characteristics of both power and intelligence.

In 2007, Antony Flew published the manifesto of his conversion, stating unequivocally in the title: “There is a God.”

However until his death while convinced God did exist, he remained skeptical about an afterlife.

With an academic career spanning 60 years with stints at universities across Britain and the US, Antony Flew will be remembered not only as one of the outstanding philosophers of his time, but as the man who preached atheism but died a believer.

***

Continue to 4-E: Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (4C)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?

4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: 
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-C: Laws of Science

What about Chemical Evolution?
  • Can life emerge from non-life?

If it did, it would have to contradict an important law of science,

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The Laws of Thermodynamics 

First Law: (also known as the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy)

           “In any process, energy can be changed from one form to another (including heat and work), but it is never created or destroyed.”

 – Rudolf Clausius, German physicist

Second Law: (also known as Entropy)

           Although the total amount of energy remains the same, there is always a tendency for it to become less available for useful work. 

Or as famed scientist and science fiction writer, Isaac Asimov, put it,

“The universe is constantly getting more disorderly.”

From that point of view we can see the second law all about us. It takes effort and work to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly. Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.

How difficult it is to maintain houses, and machinery, and our own bodies in decent working order, but how easy to let them deteriorate. In fact, all we have to do is nothing, and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out, all by itself. And that is what the second law is all about.

   

        “Watches, batteries, and even people run down. Can their used-up energy be recovered? You may rewind a watch, recharge a battery, and rest and eat to ‘recharge’ yourself, but none of these processes recover the original energy. If we consider all the natural processes in the universe, we can see that all of nature is running down.
        “The fact that the universe is running down implies that it must have been ‘wound up’ sometime in the past.
        “No one has ever found a single exception to the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics.
        “Both Laws present serious problems for the theory of evolution. For example, the 2nd Law refutes the evolutionary idea that matter organized itself from disorder and chaos into order and complexity.”
        (from The Physical World – An Introduction to Physical Science, pg 375, Bob Jones University Press)

What about the Miller-Urey experiment (1953)?

        Their experiment produced amino acids, the building blocks for protein and DNA molecules. Does that prove life can evolve from non-life (abiogenesis)?

 See Video Clip  of Miller-Urey experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKoiivfe_mo

Food for thought: You could go into an auto parts store and buy every single part needed to construct a car, but without an assembler, no car

        Could the human cell assemble itself? The cell is just as complex as a car. Without an Assembler those amino acids could not even form proteins, DNA, etc., much less produce a living cell.

Conclusion:

  •        Although amino acids are the “building blocks” of living organisms, amino acids themselves are not “alive”.
  •         Dr. Charles McCombs: 
    • “As a Ph.D. Organic Chemist, I have to admit that the formation of amino acids under these conditions is fascinating, but there is a major problem. Life was never formed in that experiment [Miller-Urey’s]. The product was amino acids, which are normal everyday chemicals that do not “live.” Even unto this day, there is no known process that has ever converted amino acids into a life form…”
  •        No experiment has ever been able to convert amino acids into a life form. Natural or random processes cannot bridge the gap between non-living chemicals and living organisms. (That’s God’s job.)
  •        Even the simplest life forms are extraordinarily complex. It would contradict the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for molecules to organize themselves in this manner.
  •          A phenomenon known as “chirality” guarantees that amino acids can never produce proteins or DNA molecules by any natural process. For more information on this, see the article “Evolution Hopes You don’t Know Chemistry: The Problem with Chirality” at http://www.icr.org/article/105/

See VIDEO CLIP: “Evidence of Biological Machines”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs5wGFbkb40 

Continue to 4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (4B)

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3Part 4, Part 5, Part 6

Part 4: HOW WELL DOES EVOLUTION THEORY AGREE WITH SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES AND DISCOVERY?

4-A: Introduction
4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer
4-C: Laws of Science
4-D: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Structures
4-E: 
Monkey-to-Man Evolution? Missing Evidence of Missing Links
4-F: Micro Versus Macro Evolution
4-G: The Problem with Darwinism
4-H: In Summary, What Does Science Tell Us about Evolution Theory?

4-B: Complexity of the Natural World – Evidence of Supernatural Designer

(Above:) A single cell: as complicated as a factory. (Below:) Biochemistry of the Human Cell: Schematic diagram shows its biochemical/metabolic pathways.

When Darwin began advocating his infant idea that the world could be explained by naturalistic means, the prevailing view of the cell held that it was as simple as a chocolate cupcake; chocolate icing on the outside, chocolate cake on the inside and a creamy filling. It was the kind of thing that one might imagine could arise by accident – either the single cell or the cupcake. However, the cell is not a simple life form containing merely a little protoplasm and a nucleus; it’s as complicated as a modern factory – and it can replicate and repair itself. If Darwin had known what we now know about the cell, hopefully he would have scrapped the idea of a species changing into another by natural processes.

***

Doctor Robert A. Millikan was a renowned American scientist who won the Nobel Prize for Physics. One evening, at a banquet held in his honor, a young journalist approached him and said, “Dr. Millikan, although you are undoubtedly a brilliant scientist, a great physicist, I’ve heard rumor that you still cling to the old-fashioned concept of a Creator, that you actually believe in God! Is this true?”

Millikan paused for a moment and then produced an elaborate gold pocket-watch from his vest and said,

“If you’d say that this watch just put itself together, invented itself, you’d be crazy! And just as there had to be a watchmaker behind the synchronized perfection and order of every watch, so there had to be a Creator behind the perfect synchronized perfection of the Universe!”

   

In a similar vein Albert Einstein said,

“I can’t believe that God plays dice with the universe.”

The truly great scientists – like Albert Einstein, Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, and others – all were firm believers in God. The more they learned about the physical world, the more they became convinced that there had to be a Higher Power, a Supernatural Power, a Designer behind the scenes.

***

ID2

Continue to 4-C: Laws of Science

Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (2A)

Part 1: The World of Prehistory
Part 2: Has Earth Already Had an “End Time”? Cataclysm of the Great Flood
Part 3: Transition from One Environment to Another
Part 4: How Well Does Evolution Theory Agree with Scientific Principles and Discoveries?
Part 5: How Old Is the Natural World?
Part 6: Conclusion

Part 2: HAS THE EARTH ALREADY HAD AN “END TIME”? CATACLYSM OF THE GREAT FLOOD

2-A: Is There Scientific Evidence of a Great Flood?
2-B: Skepticism in Modern Science
2-C: And What About Cultural Evidence?

2-D: Re-Creation of the Earth

2-A: Is There Scientific Evidence of a Great Flood?

 

1) Evidence of Sedimentary Rock Formations

Nice, neat layers of rock formed through the action of the Flood waters on the Earth’s primeval soil. Such a formation, without any signs of plant growth or erosion between layers, could not possibly have come about by successive laying down of sediments with layers separated by thousands, or hundreds of thousands of years.

Sedimentary rock strata exist all over the surface of the earth and were formed by water action. Water, especially in floods, washes away loose soil and dirt, dissolved chemicals, and sometimes even boulder-sized fragments. These are called sediments. Often they’re mixed with remains of living organisms (which can turn into fossils later on). 

If modern floods can cause so much erosion, think how much took place during the great worldwide Flood of old

The waters carry the sediments off and dump them elsewhere. As time goes on, the soft, muddy sediments harden and may end up looking like the rock layers in these pictures.

flood sediment

This much sediment from a flood in Himachal Pradesh, India – June, 2013

To understand what happens in this sedimentation process, just  scoop up some dirt from the backyard and place it in a glass jar; add some water, swish it around, and watch the dirt settle into nice, neat layers. Now just imagine the same thing happening on a huge, gigantic scale. The rampaging waters created by such a great Flood would tear off the soil (and vegetation) and re-settle it into nice, even layers.

A similar thing can happen with tidal action; incoming tides deposit layer after layer of sand and silt. Sometimes you can see this sort of layered formation on the beach after a monsoon season. It may also happen in some cases by the action of repeated flooding.

The kind of sedimentary rock formations that we commonly see in the earth today were not the result of several local floods or tides taking place over millions of years of time. They were formed quickly during the cataclysm of the Great Flood.

Long-term, gradual processes cannot explain how the rock strata are laid out so evenly without any signs of erosion or plant growth between the layers. The sheer size of the rock layers, and their existence in every corner of the earth, provide telltale signs of the enormous scale of the flooding that occurred, something that could only be characteristic of the worldwide flood.

Boundaries between layers are clean. No signs of erosion or plant growth.

This was an event well known to those who dwelt in ancient times. But unfortunately, our modern society has all but forgotten this grand and sacred heritage that was passed down to us through the ages… and having abandoned that heritage, the academic and scientific world has been left to grope around in vain with unsatisfactory, and for the most part imaginary, theories about our origins.

Sedimentary Rock Strata Exposed, Hwy 416, Ottawa, Canada

Sedimentary rocks are found everywhere in the earth, which clues us in to how widespread the Flood was. We’ve all seen them; anytime you take a drive in the countryside you may notice these layered rocks, especially in roadbeds that have been cut through hilly terrain. Have you ever wondered , how did these rock strata get there? So remember, next time you see them, that you are actually viewing evidence of the Great Flood that once swept over the earth.

***

2) Fossil Evidence of the Great Flood

The very presence of fossils of any kind proves that something very unusual happened in our Earth’s past PLESIOSAURgeological history. Normally, when an animal dies, its soft tissue quickly disappears and eventually, even its bones disintegrate if left exposed to the elements. So, in order for fossilization to occur, the following unusual conditions must be present:

Sudden death

Sudden burial

Sudden pressure

Only by means of catastrophic disturbance, such as happened during the Great Flood, could these animals’ remains have been buried quickly enough to have caused them to become preserved in fossil form. And where are most fossils found? In sedimentary (water-formed) rocks.

Conclusion: That answers the question of what happened to cause the extinction of the prehistoric animals: they perished in the Great Flood.

***

At this point it is worth mentioning that, besides the rainfall coming from the sky, the groundwaters also welled up, flooding the earth, according to the Book of Genesis. “All the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of Heaven were opened.” (7:11) It is difficult for us now to understand exactly the geological workings of how all this happened. However, it should be safe to say that if “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up”, then there must have been a great deal of earthquake and volcanic activity at the time of the Flood. And therefore, great tidal waves would have gone crashing over the landscape.

One may wonder, how could Noah and the ark have survived such conditions? Well, certainly if God had the power to bring on the Flood, then it would have been a small matter for Him to protect the ark from some of the dangers that were abounding during that tumultuous year of the Flood.

***

In Sioux county, Nebraska, on the south side of the Niobrara River, in Agate Springs Quarry, is a fossil bearing deposit… The state of the bones indicate a long and violent transportation before they reached their final resting place. “…The fossils are in such remarkable profusion, in places, as to form a veritable pavement of interlacing bones, very few of which are in their natural articulation with one another,” says R.S. Lull, director of the Peabody Museum at Yale, in his book on fossils.

AgateSpringsQuarry1

The profusion of bones in Agate Springs Quarry may be judged by a single block [see picture above] now in the American Museum of Natural History in New York; this block contains about a hundred bones to the square foot. There is no way of explaining an aggregation of fossils as a natural death retreat of animals of various genera.

The animals found were mammals. The most numerous was the small twin horned rhinoceros (Diceratherium). There was another extinct animal (Moropus) with a head not unlike that of a horse but with heavy legs and claws like that of a carnivorous animal. And bones of a giant swine that stood six feet high (Dinohyus hollandi) were also unearthed.

The Carnegie Museum, which likewise excavated in Agate Spring Quarry, in a space of 1350 square feet found 164,000 bones or about 820 skeletons. A mammal skeleton averages 200 bones. This area represents only one-twentieth of the fossil bed in the quarry, suggesting to Lull that the entire area would yield about 16,400 skeletons of the twin-horned rhinoceros, 500 skeletons of the clawed horse, and 100 skeletons of the giant swine.

A few miles to the east, in another quarry were found skeletons of an animal which, because of its similarity to two extant species, is called a gazelle camel (Stenomylus). A herd of these animals was destroyed in a disaster. . . the transportation was in a violent cataract of water, sand, and gravel, that left marks on the bones. Tens of thousands of animals were carried over an unknown distance, then smashed into a common grave.

The catastrophe was most likely ubiquitous [everywhere in the earth], for these animals – the small twin-horned rhinoceros, clawed horse, giant swine, and gazelle camel – did not survive, but became extinct. . . . the very circumstances in which they are found bespeak a violent death at the hands of the elements, not slow extinction in a process of evolution.

(Adapted from “Ooparts” website, http://www.s8int.com/)

***

Fossilized tree-trunk (7.6 meters high) discovered in Germany passing through several rock-strata. Similar phenomena have been found in many other places in the world.

In this open-cast mine in Germany several tree trunks had been fossilized. The trees pass through twenty feet and more of different sedimentary rock layers. Some places have trees fallen over, some at an angle, some straight up, all fossilized and extending through several layers of “strata” that, according to evolutionary geology, took millions of years to lay down. But the clear-cut evidence tells us that the sediment was deposited rapidly, as in a great flood. Otherwise we would have to believe that a dead tree stood for millions of years in the same place, exposed to the elements, and yet never rotted away while layers of sediment/rock strata were building up around it.

The sedimentary rock strata surrounding the trunks must have formed rapidly – more so because some are positioned upright. Rapid burial is one of the key conditions required in order for the process of fossilization to take place. So it makes much more sense to understand that these layers of sediment resulted from the turbulent action of the Great Flood waters upon the earth’s original surface. In crime-solving, whenever new “evidence” comes up, a sharp detective will, if he hopes to solve the mystery, revise his conclusions rather than rely on old theories that don’t properly account for the facts.

***

And what about the layers of Diatoms found in the ocean floors? These are microscopic life forms (planktonic algae) that accumulate on the floor of bodies of water and are said to accumulate at the slow rate of one inch per 1,000 years as they die and float to the bottom. They use this accumulation to determine the age of things found according to the present rate of diatom accumulation. During the Flood, however, it was a very different story. In the interesting example here, an 80 foot whale was found standing on its tail completely surrounded by Diatom layers. A whale stood on its tail for millions of years while Diatoms died and built up around it? No. The waters of the Great Flood simply accelerated the rate of diatom accumulation by burying the whale quickly under a massive mixture of sediment and diatoms.

 ***

3) Evidence of Geological Formations: The Grand Canyon

In the normal course of natural history, rivers can meander (make big loops) on broad, flat plains. The banks of the river are soft, and so the river can weave its way sideways quite a bit, but not downwards because of the solid bedrock underneath. In this case however, the Colorado River not only cut sideways but also in a downwards direction to form the Grand Canyon. Why? At the tail end of the Flood, God caused great upheavals in the ocean floor (so that there would be some land surface again). During the resulting water runoff, great rivers were able to gouge deep gorges quickly into the soft, newly-laid sediments (as well as cut sideways).

   GCanyon4a

You can easily see the same thing (in miniature) on the beach after a storm or succession of high tides. Or even after a heavy rainstorm, go somewhere where there is soft mud or soil and where the rainwater has had to drain off through it, and you will probably see the Grand Canyon there in miniature. You don’t have to be a geologist to know how the Grand Canyon was formed. In fact, maybe it’s better if you aren’t.

minicanyon6a  Mini-canyon3a - Copy

  Mini-Canyons Gouged Out by Rainwater Runoff

??????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????

 ***

The rocks and fossils are screaming at us,

“The earth experienced a Great Flood in the past!”

 ***

Continued in 2B: Skepticism in Modern Science

© Copyright 2014 Endtime Upgrade · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Studio99 Network UK · Admin