THE FACTS ABOUT EVOLUTION

Reference Information from Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort

(Compiled and Comments by Harold M. Lind)

 

 

We’ve probably all learned about evolution at one time or another.  From kindergarten, when the first dinosaur book the teacher read said “millions of years ago…”, to high school science when you dissected something, to comparative anatomy in college; we have been immersed in “theory” of evolution.  Note the use of the word “theory”, because evolution is not a fact, it is closer to the realm of fantasy.  In the scientific method, there are 4 different steps you must take to prove your theory.  They are listed below:

 

  1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
  2. Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
  3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
  4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

 

Evolution has only reached step #2.  This means that from observations that were made (step #1), the formulation of a hypotheses was made to explain how we got here.  It is at this step that we stall; the hypothesis for the observations does not pass scrutiny.  As more is learned by observation, the hypothesis can be refined.  We therefore have a continual process of going from step #1 to #2 and back again.  In science, this will usually get you to step #3 eventually, but for evolution, it hasn’t; and they aren’t even close.  Under normal circumstances, the hypothesis would be thrown out as a dead end, but because evolution is actually a religion, it seems to have a life of its own, and a never-ending list of seemingly intelligent people who blindly follow it to wherever it leads.

 

We will go step by step through evolution and try to rationally look at the evidence that is out there, because there is plenty…  It needs to be analyzed with an open mind, which is sometimes hard to come by if you realize what is at stake.  There are basically two ways to look at the world; it was either designed, which means there was a designer, or it just happened by chance, and was designed by nobody.  It is precisely these two choices that can blind people.  In the rare case that you can get an evolutionist to give you a real answer on what evidence they have, some have admitted: “We have not yet found any credible evidence for evolution, yet we continue to believe in it, because the alternative is unthinkable, that it was designed”.

 

Although you can already see where this is going, you should try to read it all, there is some really interesting information here.  There are also some biblical references included to give an overall description of where some of the thinking came from.  One thing to keep in mind is that before the theory of evolution, most people believed in the biblical view of creation.  Everything presented here has been checked out as well as we can.  The scientific method needs to apply to all theories, not just evolution in order to be deemed factual.  Our beliefs and proofs, if they are true, need to be able to stand up to scientific scrutiny. 

 

Let’s look at what evolution believes in a nutshell:

 

  1. 18-20 billion years ago nothing exploded (Big Bang) and created the universe.
  2. 4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down and formed a rocky crust.
  3. It rained on the rocks of the earth for millions of years and created the oceans.
  4. Swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth or soup of complex chemicals.  Some of them are carbohydrates, proteins, and nucleic acids – the chemicals of life. 
  5. The first self-replicating systems must have emerged in this organic “soup”.

 

Before we start looking into the specifics of what evolution actually says, you need to know that there are actually 6 “kinds” of evolution.  It is important to know what kind of evolution you are talking about, to make sure that you are always on a secure scientific footing:

 

  1. Cosmic Evolution: The Big Bang.  This part of evolution has gone through quite an evolution by itself.  From an area of several light years in size, to smaller than the diameter of a proton, to nothing at all, and yet it exploded, and this is where all matter came from.  Since none of this has been proven, it is just a theory.

 

  1. Chemical Evolution:  All primary elements evolved from Hydrogen.  This type of evolution tries to explain where all of the 115 or so primary elements came from.  It is thought (theory again) that all the elements “evolved” from hydrogen, which was created in the Big Bang.  Again, there is no scientific proof of this.

 

  1. Stellar and Planetary Evolution:  This theory tries to explain how the planets and stars formed from the primary elements created in chemical evolution.  We have never seen stars and planets form; only die.  It has been speculated that if twenty stars exploded, the matter ejected might create one star.  This is still not evolution, because you had to loose twenty stars to gain one.

 

  1. Organic Evolution:  The origin of life.  Organic evolution tries to explain the circumstances that may have produced an environment where “simple” life forms may have developed.  An interesting thing to mention here is that science has yet to find a “simple” life form.  Some of the “simplest” forms that science says they found are incredibly complex engineering wonders that man cannot even begin to understand, let alone replicate.

 

  1. Macro Evolution:  One animal changes to a different kind of animal, like a dog evolving into a non-dog.  This has never been seen, and there is no evidence in the fossil record as well.

 

  1. Micro Evolution:  A better name would be variations, this happens all the time, like a Chihuahua and a Great Dane.  There are different breeds of dog, but they are still dogs.  Although making it a kind of “evolution” is not really a correct designation, we seem to be stuck with it.  It does happen and is observable; this is the only type of evolution that works.

 

Now that we have defined the various types of evolution, lets take a step back and look at how the theory came about.  Lets look at where and how step #1 of the scientific method lead to step #2, the theory of evolution.  This involved many people, but the three most notable are James Hutton, Charles Lyell and Charles Darwin.  The three of them put together the observations and hypothesis that led to the classic definition of evolution:

 

James Hutton (1726-1796):  In his day, a person believed in the biblical view of creation and that the age of the earth was about 5800 years old.  In his book Theory of the Earth (note “theory” in the title), Hutton said the earth is “much older than most people thought”.  He was the first person to say that the earth was “millions of years old”.  At this time in history there were many revolutions being fought (American - 1776, French - 1789, German - 1848, Spanish - 1823, Italian - 1848 and Polish - 1831 revolutions).  Everyone was rebelling against the Kings of these countries.  It was the age of revolutions and Anti-Monarchy.  Everyone wanted a democracy.  The bible said, “Honor all men.  Love the brotherhood.  Fear God.  Honor the king.”  1 Peter 2:17.  Some people believed that the Bible was an obstacle to their political agenda’s and they wanted to discredit it.  Contradicting the Bible by saying that the earth was millions of years old was just the thing that was needed.  Hutton used the principle of uniformitarianism to date the earth.  This principle states that Earth processes occurring today are similar to those that occurred in the past.  He observed that the processes that changed the rocks and land around him were very slow, and he inferred that they had been just as slow throughout Earth’s history.  He hypothesized that it took much longer than a few thousand years to form the layers of rock around him and to erode mountains that once towered thousands of feet high.  This book greatly influenced an English geologist named Sir Charles Lyell.  Hutton’s book took away peoples belief that the earth was only about 6000 years old.

 

Charles Lyell:  He was a Scottish lawyer in the 1800’s, and he really hated the Bible.  Lyell wrote a book in the 1830’s called the Principles of Geology.  In this book, every page contains evidence if his hatred.  Page 302 says “Men of superior talent (perhaps like himself), who thought for themselves, and were not blinded by authority (perhaps like the Bible)…”  He really mocked the scriptures.  He said that one of his goals was to “Free the science from Moses”.  (Life Letters and Journals, published by John Murray 1881).  Lyell was primarily responsible for giving the world the concept of the “geologic column”.  This is where the different layers of dirt have different names, index fossils, and ages.  Since geologists use the age of the layer of dirt to give the age of the index fossil, and the index fossil to give the age of the dirt (circular reasoning, which is not science), the only place the geologic column exists is in the textbooks.  It doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, which we will touch on later.  Lyell took away peoples belief that there was a biblical flood.

 

Charles Darwin:  Graduated from Bible College in 1831 and set sail on the H.M.S. Beagle to collect bugs for an Englishman.  He took his Bible and Charles Lyell’s book The Principles of Geology with him.  He said that Lyell’s book changed is life, and Darwin started to disbelieve the Bible.  He said “Disbelief crept over me on a very slow rate, but at last complete.  The rate was so slow that I felt no distress.”  (Letter to Russell Wallace in 1868, published in World’s Greatest Letters).  He sailed to the Galapagos Islands, where he found what he determined were 14 different varieties of Finches based on the shape of their beaks.  As a result of his observations of the Finches, he theorized that all animals and plants are related.  Here is an excerpt from his book:  “It is a truly wonderful fact… that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other…”  (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.  Charles Darwin 1859, p. 170).  Darwin took away peoples believe that there was a Creator.

 

Now that we have a good understanding of where evolution came from, we are ready to look at some of the components.  Before we do that, you may want to see what scientists and others have said about the theory of evolution.  Quotes on Evolution

 

The first basic conjecture is that there was an explosion billions of years ago that created the universe.  This is known as the Big Bang.  There is no evidence that this actually happened, but there are some questions that evolutionary scientists cannot explain.  Here are some of them:

 

  1. Where did the space in the universe come from?
  2. Where did matter come from?
  3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
  4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
  5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

 

The Big Bang “theory” tries to explain that there was an explosion that began expanding the universe.  Through the years the exact size of whatever exploded has been shrinking.  Here is a brief history of the evolution of the Big Bang theory’s initial mass that exploded:

 

The idea for the Big Bang began with a Belgian astronomer Georges Edward Lemaitre.  He said that the mass of matter was about a few light years in diameter, or about 12 trillion miles.  Later in 1965 it was shrunk to 275 million miles. In 1972, it shrunk again to 71 million miles, in 1974, 54,000 miles and in 1983, a trillionth the diameter of a proton.  Now, they are saying that nothing exploded at all; a singularity.  (Bolton Davidheiser).

 

Here are a couple more theories:

 

  1. “The observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region, its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing” (Alan Guth and P Steinhardt, Scientific American May 1984 p. 128).
  2. Dust particles came together and got compressed and started spinning and finally exploded and created the universe.

 

Here are a couple of comments about the Big Bang:

 

If the big bang theory were true, matter would be evenly distributed throughout the universe.  Instead, it is lumpy.  There are clusters of stars, then great voids. (New Creation in? p. 8, 1999).

 

“I have little hesitation in saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory” (Sir Fredrick Hoyle, Astronomer, Cosmologist and Mathematician, Cambridge University, The Big Bang Theory Under Attack, Science Digest Vol. 92, May 1984, p. 84).

 

So we went from some kind of matter a few light years in diameter, to literally nothing exploding.  There is no evidence for this, and actually plenty to the contrary.  When whatever exploded is described, it is said to be spinning very fast, as in theory #2 above.  This would indicate that there was angular momentum when the explosion happened.  There is a law called “Conservation of Angular Momentum” that we will look at next:

 

When a spinning thing explodes and pieces of it go flying out, they continue to spin the same way that the original thing that exploded, was spinning.  In the “Big Bang” theory, the matter that exploded was supposedly spinning very rapidly.  Here are observations of spinning objects in the universe:

 

  1. Planets, solar systems and galaxies are spinning in different directions, so how can this be if the material in the Big Bang was spinning very fast and then blew up?  This goes against the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum.

 

  1. “This angular momentum would have caused the sun to spin very rapidly.  Actually, our sun spins very slowly, while the planets move very rapidly around the sun.  In fact, although the sun has over 99% of the mass of the solar system, it has only 2% of the angular momentum.  This pattern is directly opposite to the pattern predicted for the nebular hypothesis” (Dr H Reeves, The origin of the Solar System, p. 9, 1978).

 

  1. “The ultimate origin of the solar systems angular momentum remains obscure” (Solar system evolutionist scientist Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, Solar System Evolution, A New Perspective, p53. 1992.).

 

  1. Venus, Uranus and possibly Pluto spin backwards from the rest of the planets in our solar system.  At least 6 moons are spinning backwards, and some orbits go backwards.  Again, the Conservation of Angular Momentum does not explain how these planets came from the Big Bang.

 

So scientific observation goes against the theory that there was a Big Bang.  This leaves the questions above of where space, matter, and time came from.  What about the age of the universe?  It is said to be 18-20 billion years old.  Can this be proven scientifically?  It hasn’t as of yet.  Only theories from observations based on uniformitarianism have been put forth.  Uniformitarianism means that things that are observed today have always been that way.  If we think that the universe is billions of light years wide, and we see stars that are billions of light years away, then the universe must be billions of years old.  This is the uniformitarianistic way of thinking.  There are a couple of things that are wrong with these observations:

 

  1. We cannot really ascertain how big the universe actually is.  The methods we use can at best estimate out not more than 100 million light years.  To project this to “billions” of light years is pure fantasy.  The method used is called parallax.  It involves creating an imaginary triangle to a distant star.  The earth creates one side of the triangle when it is on each side of the sun.  Measurements are taken at different times of the year to do this.  This leg of the triangle would be roughly 2 astronomical units long (186,000,000 miles). On each side of the sun, the angle needed to draw a straight line to the star is measured.  With the two angle measurements adjacent to the leg of the triangle that the earth makes up, scientists can estimate the distance, using trigonometry.  There are a couple of problems with these measurements:

 

  1. An assumption is made that light travels at the same speed now as it did “billions” of years ago.  Scientists are actually starting to realize that the speed of light is not a “constant”; that it is slowing down.  Since this really shakes up the cosmologists (and many other disciplines) world, it has been rejected by mainstream science.  But the evidence is mounting, and will soon become impossible to ignore, especially since the speed of light figures so prominently in many calculations and ratios.

 

If we can’t tell how old the universe is by measuring the distances to stars, then what about Carbon 14 or Potassium-Argon dating?  Can’t we determine how old the earth is with these types of tests?  For more on C14 and KAR dating click here

 

Do we have any idea at all as to how old the universe is?  Here is a link that will try to explain scientifically what we do know about the age of the universe: The Age of the Universe Although this evidence only infers how old the universe is, it does tend to illustrate why it is probably not “billions of years” old.

 

We have examined the Big Bang and the age of the universe, next we will look at the “evolutionary soup” that is supposed to have created life and the alleged process of evolution.  A model for the “soup” that might have existed was tested in the 1950’s.  Here is a description for this famous (or infamous) experiment: Soup.  As you can see, there are many problems with not only this experiment, but also the theory that a pre-biotic soup that was sloshing around for billions of years could have created life in it.

 

If we assumed for a moment that something did indeed grow in the soup over billions of years and then one day climb out of the sea, we have a number of problems:

 

  1. If the organism was living in the sea, and suddenly climbed out to land, how did it breathe?  If it was living in the sea, it must have breathed through gills.  To live on land, it needs lungs.  Did it grow lungs while it was still breathing underwater?  If it did, how did lungs help the creature survive better in the sea?  This is what natural selection says, that a mutation occurs that allows the organism to survive better than its species, and lives to spread its new genetic information.

 

  1. When it crawled out of the sea, where did it find a mate of its species with which to reproduce?  This is a big problem in evolution.  You not only need to randomly create one organism that crawls out of the soup, you need to randomly create two, and they need to be male and female, and compatible sexually.  Since different “kinds” are not compatible sexually, this raises the odds of life being created accidentally by an exponential factor.

 

  1. Where is the evidence that this happened?  Where are the so-called transitional forms?  The half fish, half land dwelling creatures?  Given the diversity of life on this planet, you would expect to find millions of these transitional forms, but you don’t find a single one.

 

  1. In order for something simple to get more complex (as evolution theory says), information needs to be added to the DNA sequences.  This has never been observed.  The only thing that does happen is that DNA get mixed up, which when it produces a mutation, usually kills of the organism.

 

There are many reasons why evolution could not have happened.  Some things are just too complex, or have irreducible complexity; too many parts would have to have simultaneously evolved to be of any use.  Here are some examples:

 

  1. Bacteria have hair on them that is used to move around.  The hair is like a complex motor that rotates backwards and forwards up to 100,000 rpm.  This motor is so tiny that 8 million of them would fit in the cross section of an average human hair.  (Very Fast Flagellar Rotation, Nature, Vol. 371, October 27, 1994, p. 752).

 

  1. From conception until birth, the baby adds 15,000 cells per minute to its body.  Each cell is more complex than a space shuttle.

 

  1. The probability of just one DNA molecule arranging itself by change has been calculated to be 1 change in 10 to the 119,000 power.  For comparison, the visible universe is only 10 to the 28 power inches in diameter.

 

What about Macro Evolution?  This is the main force for evolution; that more complex organisms evolved from less complex ones; that dogs emerged from non-dogs.  Evolution basically says that all living things came from the soup, and that all are related.  This means that animals and humans are also related to plants.  If the basics of where life came from are extremely unlikely, how much more unlikely are the development of eyes, speech, and self-awareness.

 

Where are the “transitional” fossils that should be around had evolution happened as Darwin said it did?  We should be able to find many examples of transitions all over the world.  Yet none have been found that have stood the test of scientific scrutiny.  The ones that have been “found” have been frauds.  Most of the frauds have been in transition between monkeys and humans.  The most important thing for evolutionists is to find evidence for transition between ape and human; because that is how they believe that we got here.  There have been many discoveries that were touted as the “missing link”, but they have all been proven to be either just human or ape, or were fabrications.  Here are some examples:

 

  1. Nebraska man, originally constructed from a tooth, found by Harold Cook in 1922, actually turned out to be from a pig.  It was found in Sioux county Nebraska. He built an entire man (and woman) from one tooth.

 

  1. Piltdown man was a hoax.  Found in Piltdown England by a catholic priest (Pierre duchardan) and others.  They took a human skull and ape jawbone.  They filed them down to make them fit together, treated them with acid to make them look old, buried them in a gravel pit, and then “discovered” them.  It was in the textbooks for 40 years, and over 500 masters and doctorate papers were written on it.  All that work and expense over a hoax.

 

  1. Heidelberg Man was built up from a jawbone, a large chin section, and some teeth.  Most scientists of the day have rejected it because it’s similar to the jawbone found in modern man.  Still, many evolutionists believe he’s 250,000 years old.

 

  1. All evidence of Peking man has completely disappeared.

 

  1. New Guinea Man dates back to 1970.

 

  1. Cro-Magnon Man is described as being “one of the earliest and best established fossils…at least equal in physique and brain capacity to that of modern man”.  Which basically makes him the same as modern man.

 

  1. Neanderthal man, named after the Neander Valley, which was named after Joacchem Neander, who was a Christian and wrote the hymn “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of Creation”.  In 1856 they found the skeleton of a man.  (proven later to be an old man with arthritis).  The guy’s back was bent over, but they classified him as human at first, probably drowned in the flood of Noah.  After Darwin’s book came out, they reclassified it (because they couldn’t find any evidence for evolution) as a transitional form of human from ape.  It had a thick forehead, which was probably because of extreme age.  If he did come from the flood, he could have been several hundred years old.  They have found about 300 such humans, but they are not transitions from apes.

 

  1. Rhodesia man:  Dr. Cuozzo said, “You must understand that this skull really cries out disease.  The teeth are badly decayed, and the bones of the vault of the skull are extremely thick.  There are many features that testify of Acromegaly or excess secretion of growth hormone in adulthood” (Buried Alive, Jack Cuozzo, p. 72).  Jack was a dentist from New Jersey, and went to Europe to study the various skeletons that were in the museums.  He found that they were assembled very poorly, and even made to look apelike, by leaving the jaw disconnected from the skull (not in the socket). 

 

  1. Lucy: found in 1974 in Ethiopia.  There was only 40% of the skeleton.  The head was crushed.  Was 3 ft tall.  Some kind of monkey.  Said it was transitional because of the knee joint, and thighbone, which was angled to the side, which resembled a human.  But the knee was not even from “Lucy”, it was found a year earlier, 70 meters lower in the rock, and over a mile away.  The knee was actually called the “Hadar” knee.  Monkeys that climb trees, have angled femurs, it’s the ones that stay on the ground that have the straight ones.  The St. Louis Zoo has Lucy on display with human hands and feet.  No feet or hand bones were found.  The purpose of the display is not for education, but for indoctrination in evolutionary theory.  “The various australopithecines (Lucy) are, indeed, more different from both African Apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other”.  (Dr. Charles E. Oxnard in fossils, teeth and sex – new perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington press, Seattle and London, 1987, p. 227).

 

  1. Oldest Footprints:  Found two adults and a child’s footprints in volcanic ash at Laetoli in Tanzania.  It proves that hominids were walking upright some 3.75 million years ago.  The footprints are described as “remarkably similar to those of modern man.”  “The form of his foot was exactly the same as ours.”  “Weight bearing pressure patterns in the prints resemble human ones.”  “Footprints, so very much like our own.”  (Footprints in the ashes of time, mary leakey, national geographic april 1979, p, 446-457.  Russell H. Tuttle (University of Chicago) did the most extensive study of the Laetoli footprints as well as studying the footprints of more than 70 habitually barefoot people and found, “The 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans.  None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are.”  (Russell H. Tuttle, “The pitted pattern of Laetoli Feet.”  Natural History, Mar 1990, p 64.).  “If the G footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our own genus, homo.”  (Russell h. tuttle, “The pitted pattern of Laetoli Feet.”  Natural history, mar 1990 p. 64.).  Evolution has blinded them into seeing that these were ordinary humans, and that they were not 3.5 million years old.  Because of this problem, national geographic put dark skinned ape like creatures on top of the footprints, to make it look like pre-human transitional creatures.  (Mary leaky, national geographic, April 1979, p 446-457).  They even added a toe separation, which was not found in the original footprints.  This is an ape type foot.  A total lie.

 

  1. Peking Man:  Made from pieces of skull found in the 1920’s in Peking, China.  All evidence was lost in WW2.  People found a bunch of monkey bones in a cave, along with a bunch of human tools.  They said that monkeys were making the tools (or maybe the tools were being used on the monkeys).  Most people were never told that the remains of at least 10 humans were also found with these “monkey” bones, so they could not possibly be a missing link.

 

  1. Java Man:  Originally called Pithecanthropus erectus – meaning erect ape man, and now called Homo erectus and dated by evolutionists at 500,000 years old was made from a few scraps of bone found in 1891 in Java, Indonesia.  Dutch anatomist Dr. Dubois (1858-1940) believed in evolution and had gone to look for missing links between man and apes.  Dubois took an ape’s skull cap, and three human teeth plus a thigh bone (found a year later and 50 feet away) from a human and informed the world he had found the “missing link.”  He hid the fact that he had also found 2 normal human skulls in the same area.  His deceit was revealed 30 years later.

 

What about the theory that we are all like fish with gills in our embryonic state?

 

“The similarity between early stages in the development of many different animals helped convince Darwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors.”  (BSCS Biological Science 1978, p. 628).  This is in the comparison of different animal and human embryo’s, which they say are similar.  “Darwin considered this ‘by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of’ his theory.”  (Icons of Evolution, p. 82).  “The baby, growing inside its mother has gills like a fish.”  (Merrill Earth Science 1993, p. 451).  The four branchial arches (which is what they are actually called) are not gills.  They will actually become the ear bones and glands in the throat.  They have nothing at all to do with breathing.

 

Earnst Haeckell who taught Embryology at the University of Jena in Germany started this idea.  He read Darwin’s book, which he said was the “turning point in his thinking” in 1860.  After the book was published, nobody had found any evidence for evolution for 9 years.  Earnst though he would look for some (especially since he didn’t like the Bible and wanted to get rid of God).  He took pictures of a dog and human embryo; and changed them to look alike.  He basically “lied” and manufactured “proof” that Darwin’s theory was correct.  He went on to draw a set if 8 different embryos in 3 stages of development, showing that they were similar.  He published them in Anthropogenie, in Germany in 1874.  It was a fake, a fabrication to provide evidence for evolution.  Haeckel was finally caught and put on trial at his own university, where he was convicted.  He said:  “A small percent of my embryonic drawings are forgeries; those mainly, for which the observed material is so incomplete or insufficient as to fill in and reconstruct the missing links by hypothesis and comparative synthesis.  I should feel utterly condemned…were it not that hundreds of the best observers, and biologists lie under the same charge.”  Haeckel also claimed that spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had been proven in the laboratory, but because otherwise “it would be necessary to believe in a creator.”  (Records from the University of Jena trial in 1875).  So it appears to be common practice to lie about biological discoveries.  “Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.”  (Walter J. Bock, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Columbia Univ.  “Evolution by Orderly Lay”, Science, Vol. 164 May 9, 1969, pp. 684-685.  Although Haeckel’s drawings were proved to be a fake in 1875, they are still in textbooks today as evidence for evolution.  An example is the book Evolutionary Analysis, 1998, p. 28.  Also, Glenco, Holt, Irish, Prentiss Hill and Ken Miller biology textbooks.

 

How about dinosaurs?  Evolution says that they went extinct about 65 million years ago, and that man evolved millions of years after the last one died.  What evidence can we find?  There is a lot of evidence that man actually lived with dinosaurs, and that they may even be alive today.  Click here to see evidence on man and dinosaurs. 

 

What about the “geologic column”?  Scientists theorize that sediments were deposited on the earth over millions and billions of years.  As animals died, their fossil remains were encased in this column at different levels, and as a result, they believe that the different “ages” can be determined by which fossil remains they find.  Each age is defined by a specific fossil know as an “index fossil”.  There are many problems with this theory, some of which are described here:

 

  1. “If there were a column of sediments deposited continuously since the formation of the earth, the entire history of the planet could be reconstructed.  Unfortunately no such column exists.  Where sediments are missing, a break in the sedimentary record occurs.  Breaks result in gaps in the record the may range from a few years to hundreds of millions of years.  Breaks in the sedimentary record are called unconformities.”  (Earth Science).

 

  1. There are no signs of erosion between the layers of rock.  If it were deposited slowly over millions of years, we would have expected to see some.  Layers without erosion are more likely to have been deposited quickly probably by the action of water.

 

  1. “If the geologic column existed in one location it could be 100 miles thick.”  (Biology p. 385, A Beka Books).

 

  1. The geologic column, as it exists in the textbooks, is not found in nature.  Most of the earth’s layers vary and do not match the classical descriptions depicted in science books.

 

  1. Circular reasoning is used in dating fossils and the geologic column.  A fossil cannot be dated by itself; it can only be dated by knowing where, in the geologic column, it was found.  A layer of rock cannot be dated without knowing what fossils are found in it.  This is why we cannot accurately date anything using the geologic column.

 

  1. “The layers of rock can be dated by which fossils are found in them (page 306).”  “Scientists have determined the relative timing of appearance and disappearance of many kinds of organisms from the location of their fossils in sedimentary rock layers (page 307).”  (Glenco Biology 1994, p. 306-307).

 

  1. “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.  The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results.”  (J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51).

 

  1. “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”  (Derek V. Ager, “Fossil Frustrations”, New Scientist, Vol. 100, November, 10, 1983, p. 425).

 

  1. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first.”  (J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy”, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 54).

 

  1. “The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.  Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.”  (J.E. O’Rourke, “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy”, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January 1976, p. 53).

 

  1. “How to you tell the difference between 100 million year old Jurassic limestone and 600 million year old Cambrian limestone?  (Foresman Scott, Earth Science 1990, p. 138).  The answer is by the index fossils.

 

  1. “Trilobite fossils make good index fossils.  If a trilobite is found in a rock layer, the rock layer was probably formed 500 to 600 million years ago.”  (Holt Modern Earth Science 1989, p. 290).  Yet they have found things like a human shoe print with a trilobite inside that was squished.  (Found by William Meister of Kearns, Utah June 1, 1968.  Dr. H.H.Doelling of Utah’s Geological Survey verified it was not a fake).  This creates such a problem for evolutionists that they have gone to the extent to explain it as saying that the shoe print was actually made by another trilobite that evolved into the shape of a shoe and squished the smaller trilobite.

 

  1. Graptolites are the index fossils for 410 million year old rocks.  (Earth Magazine September 1993).  The problem with this is that Graptolites were found alive in the South Pacific in 1993.  So they can’t be index fossils for anything.

 

  1. The Lobe-finned fish are the index fossils for 325-410 million year old rocks.  The Coelacanth, which is found in the Indian Ocean, is a lobe-finned fish, and is alive today.  There are no index fossils.

 

Another problem with different layers of rock telling of different geologic ages (geologic column) is that there are many places on the earth where trees are standing upright through many layers of the rock.  This would mean that the tree is millions of years old as well, which we know is not true.  We also know that a tree that dies above ground will disintegrate and disappear.  Only under soil will trees be preserved and become petrified.  This also has to happen quickly, which proves that the different layers of rock were deposited quickly.  Here are examples of petrified trees around the world in different layers of rock:

 

  1. The Kettles coal mines near Cookwille, TN. Has hundreds of petrified trees.  The top and bottom of the trees are in different coal seams dated thousands of years different in age.  The trees range in height from 30 to hundreds of feet.

 

  1. Many polystrate fossil trees may still be seen in Joggins, Nova Scotia, Canada.

 

  1. Vertical trees are found in Coal Measures sandstone, St. Etienne, France.

 

  1. Some polystrate trees are upside down extending through many layers including layers of coal.

 

Some of the petrified trees that have grown through millions of years of the geologic column are found upside down.  There are very few reasons to explain this:

 

  1. The trees stood upright for millions of years while the sediment layers formed around them (not possible since the tree would have died, and the part above the ground would have rotted).

 

  1. The trees grew through hundreds of feet of solid sedimentary rock looking for sunlight (even more preposterous).

 

  1. The third possibility, that evolutionists would not suggest, is that a great flood buried the trees suddenly and they petrified.  The layers of rock that are thought of as the geologic column actually settled on the bottom as the waters receded.

 

Scientists estimate that there are 20,000 trees at the bottom of Spirit Lake.  They were blown there by the eruption of Mount St. Helens.  Many of the trees are buried upright and some are already 15 feet deep in sediments.  They seem to settle out by species giving the appearance of a complete forest.  These trees are beginning to petrify standing up, so we have an excellent idea of how it may have happened during the flood.

 

So the geologic column does not tell us how old the earth is, or any of the fossils that appear in its sedimentary layers.