III. Has the Earth Already Had an “End Time”? – Retrieving Mankind’s Lost Heritage (Part 3A)

Part 1: The World of Prehistory
Part 2: From One Environment to Another
Part 3: Did the Natural World Evolve by Itself, or Was it Created?


(First Published June, 2010. Updated/revised September, 2014; July, 2016)

3-A: Does evolution Theory Agree with Scientific Principles and Discoveries?
3-B: Estimates of Earth’s Age
3-C: What does it Mean to Have a Definite Starting Point for History
3-D: Conclusion

What we have learned so far – from fossil, geological, and cultural evidence – presents  a version about the origins of the natural world that may be different to what you have heard before. For too long our ancient heritage has lain buried under misguided concepts that once were considered modern and progressive. But with the onset of new scientific evidence and understanding, these former concepts have become outdated and misleading. Let us try then now to re-orient our way of thinking and understanding of the past. Let us continue the process of retrieving our lost heritage.

We will now examine evolution theory in the light of the science of genetics, DNA discoveries, fossil evidence, and dating of the Earth’s age.

3-A: Does Evolution Theory Agree with Scientific Principles and Discoveries?

Every scientist knows that, before pronouncing a theory or hypothesis as fact or as a “law”, you must prove its truth by using the experimental method. Until one has tested a theory exhaustively enough to see that it works in practical reality, only then does it become legitimate; only then can one begin to proclaim it as a new “law of science”.

But when it comes to investigating the more distant past history of mankind and the earth, this experimental method is often ignored; scientists tend to skip this normal and established procedure called investigation, experimentation, and testing.  Instead of letting the evidence speak for itself, it ends up getting misinterpreted, then forced, pounded, and made to fit into the mold of preconceived ideas.

Along this line, here is a revealing quote from the brother of Charles Darwin, commenting on Charles’ recent book The Origin of Species :

      “In fact the a priori reasoning [the theory] is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts won’t fit in, why so much the worse for the facts is my feeling”

     – Erasmus Darwin (November 23, 1859)

What he meant here was that the theory seemed to him so utterly profound that the facts, even if contrary to evolution, should just mind their own business and take a back seat to the theory. Well, that is a case of putting on the blinders – a poor scientific approach… and poor detective work!

True science is based on

  • accurate observation
  • thorough investigation
  • unbiased interpretation

And if true Science points us to the reality of a supernatural Creator, then that is what we ought to believe and follow in our study of Science.

Unfortunately however, that regrettable attitude of willfully ignoring evidence has prevailed and caused great misunderstanding in the collective mind of mankind… to the point now where everyone assumes that evolution is the only valid explanation for the origins of the natural world. And because of that universal assumption, any evidence to the contrary is ignored, denied, discredited, and otherwise swept away out of sight under the academic rug.

Proponents of evolution may be very good scientists in their areas of specialization, but when it comes to understanding our distant origins, all scientific sense, even common sense, seems to fly out the window. Likely, this stems from an unwillingness to acknowledge the role of the Creator in forming the natural world, which arches beyond what can be explained by science. Among scientists, the need to explain everything is both a strength and a weakness, it would seem.

Our modern situation could be compared to the time when men believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Nowadays we have no trouble with this because we have been taught from an early age that the Earth revolves around the Sun. But there was a time when everyone assumed the opposite was true, that the Sun revolves around the Earth. To people back then it only seemed “sensible” to believe that… just as nowadays it only seems “sensible” to believe that great evolutionary ages of time were required for the natural world to “evolve” into its present state.


Pictures Illustrating the Old Idea of an Earth-centered Universe

In the 16th and 17th centuries, when the scientists Copernicus and Galileo tried  to advance the idea of a sun-centered universe, they were met with stiff opposition. Why? The assumption was so strong in everyone’s mind that everything revolved around the earth that their ideas seemed preposterous, even though the two scientists had solid evidence to prove the heliocentric theory as it was called.

Does this not sound a familiar ring today?  To discard the idea of a long, evolutionary development of biological and geological history seems preposterous in our minds; we’ve been taught it from an early age, and it is deeply engrained in our minds. And this is similar to how it was for people of yesteryear; it was just as difficult for them to shake off the belief that the sun should revolve around the earth and accept that the Earth revolved around the Sun. So in spite of solid scientific evidence, it still remains a difficult exercise to dismantle the old assumptions and ways of thinking about the origins of the natural world.


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


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.


Food for Thought: If 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.


(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.) In other words, 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

(Above) 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 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)


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. 

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.



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

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.


  •        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”

Chimapnzee Genome Unraveled: The Marvel of DNA (Deoxyriboncleic Acid) 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.


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”

  •        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)


  •        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: 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:



Monkey-to-Man Evolution?

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. 

What about 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.


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.


In Summary: What does Science Tells 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.

Continued in 3B: Estimates of Earth’s Age

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.



Appendix 2

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

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.”


Continued in 3B: Estimates of Earth’s Age


  1. Gideon. says:

    it makes more sense all the time, than those so called “billions of years”.

  2. Junior Knabb says:

    This material is quite obviously well-researched and well-written. I think this article is full of valuable information that is presented in a unique way. If I were to rate it, I’d rate this a solid 10.

  3. Admiring the commitment you put into your website and detailed information you offer. It’s nice to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same out of date rehashed material. Wonderful read! I’ve bookmarked your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.

  4. Backlinks says:

    I think i just had a light bulb appear over my head thanks to your blog. lol good job.

  5. Hello, I love viewing your website. Hjalmar Lindholm

  6. Very absorbing post. Very entertaining and accurately penned blog. I will come again in the near future.

  7. Uenderson says:

    I’ve chosen datnig methods next because of my last blog about ANCIENT tribes. Yes, there’s an absolutely critical piece of the case you’re missing. It’s that the geologists and chemists, who spend their entire careers gaining knowledge about radiometric datnig, are NOT assuming that atmospheric composition has always been the same. It hasn’t been.If you do even shallow, playful research in any peer-reviewed science journal about radiometric datnig, you’ll find that half-lives are not affected by any of the following: temperature, pressure, chemical environment, electric/magnetic fields. You’ll find the same thing in Wikipedia. Half lives depend ONLY on nuclear properties. Chemists know this because they have tested the applicable nuclides (particular isotopes) of elements such as uranium, strontium, cesium, carbon and others in a variety of laboratory conditions. They change all the variables. They are extremely careful. Decay rates are checked and re-checked and are reliable. Importantly, when a rock is dated, they don’t use just one method of datnig, they use at least five or six. And each individual result (done by different chemists in different labs and independently submitted) nearly always points to the same age range as the next. This is a slam dunk for the validity of radiometric datnig. Scientists who do this kind of work are not conspirators. When a hypothesis is published, you have an arena of other scientists who try to disprove it. If one of them does, he scores tremendous points for himself. In fact, if you disprove your OWN hypothesis, you also earn points. This is what I refer to when I mention peer-reviewed journals. I’m not writing an attack piece, but peer review is not what Creation Science is up to. Peer review is the primary mechanism by which science is kept honest. In the world of science, any dishonesty gets you barred for life. It’s a one-strike system.The scientific arena doesn’t overlook simple things that you or I might point out to them. The studies that are taken up are scrutinized in rigorous detail. Hypotheticals and potential problems with results overflow researchers’ books. You’re not going point out obvious flaws to huge fields of detail-oriented scientists. If you did, your ideas would be immediately published and you’d have many scientists banging heads to team up with you in order to join the pioneering ranks of cutting edge science. Unfortunately, real scientists are repeatedly dragged from the front lines of important research to explain away New Earth/Anti-Evolution concepts that could have been refuted by, literally, a few minutes of pedestrian research. I hope my language wasn’t too aggressive here, but it is crucial to recognize that one-strike/peer review makes science virtually incorruptible. It is not out to promote old earth theory; it’s just how it works out. I have a paper to write for now, but I’ll be back.Best,Patrick

    • admin says:

      Dear Patrick,
      I know it is disturbing to think that scientists may be wrong about things. The measuring of time by radiometric dating involves some extraordinarily complex procedures, and I don’t think that it is nearly as precise or flawless as scientists seem to think, nor are the procedures and checks-and-balances as watertight and controlled as we might think. Frankly, I feel that if the scientists can’t even figure out that the world was submerged in a great Flood, when the evidence for that is so obvious, then how can we trust what they say about radiometric dating? Just my opinion, but my advice is, don’t take everything you read at face value. Look at the post that has in it the list of “missing links”, for example, and learn how the scientific world has swallowed the misinterpreted, even forged, evidence that was presented to it. No checks and balances there. Same goes, I would say, for radiometric dating. Evaluate and examine things; don’t just take people’s word for it, even if they are supposed to be experts. Being “scientific” doesn’t automatically mean you have to leave God out of the picture. The truly great scientists – Kepler, Newton, Einstein, and others – all believed in God and testified of God’s hand in the creation of the natural world.
      Warmest Regards,
      John Lyall

Speak Your Mind


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