Stumbling Blocks of Evolution

Post Darwin Evidence Points to a Creator

Christopher J. Nitardy

Copyright © 2012 by Chris Nitardy

Stumbling Blocks of Evolution

Post Darwin Evidence Points to a Creator

by Chris Nitardy

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN 9781622305575

All rights reserved solely by the author. The author guarantees all contents are original and do not infringe upon the legal rights of any other person or work. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the author. The views expressed in this book are not necessarily those of the publisher.

Unless otherwise indicated, Bible quotations are taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1978 by International Bible Society.

Cover Design: Duncan Long

www.xulonpress.com

From Slimy Goo, Came Me and You!

In the beginning was nothing; not a house or even a mouse

A universe without matter! What could be sadder?

Everything changed with one Big Bang; evolution produced its first Orangutan

Everything exists because nothing exploded; the very idea seems rather loaded

It’s hard to fathom “Ameba to Man”—it’s always been Darwin’s game plan

From solid rock to a four legged crock; now that’s an intellectual stumbling block

Time & chance produced its first body part; it was simply the result of a huge cosmic fart

Imagine growing up in primordial soup; it must have felt somewhat like floating in poop

At times my great grandpa was known to be spunky, but come on man! Was he really a monkey?

“The Origin of Species” was Darwin’s new book; his theory spread “by hook or by crook”

Richard Dawkin’s, “The God Delusion”—it’s a major cause of so much confusion

Atheists cringe at the sound of “Design”—perhaps they are running from the God who’s divine

They say natural selection can lead to perfection; I’d say it’s based on wild speculation

Entropy states “Decay is the Way”—Uncle Sam says “public indoctrination” is here to stay

The fossil record is full of large gaps; the theory of evolution is on the verge of collapse

Science is exposing many hoaxes of evolution; could this be the start of a truth revolution

Courage is needed to put Darwin on trial; O Lord may it lead to Christian revival

Never forget that God is good; it’s what the evolutionists have never understood

Evolution Fun

A little girl asked her father, “How did the human race appear?” The father answered, “God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so was all mankind made.” Two days later the girl asked her mother the same question. The mother answered, “Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.” The confused girl returned to her father and said, “Dad, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Mama said they developed from monkeys?” The father answered, “Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your Mama told you about hers.” (Author unknown)

Three freshman-engineering students were sitting around talking between classes, when one brought up the question of who designed the human body.

One of the students insisted that the human body must have been designed by an electrical engineer because of the perfection of the nerves and synapses.

Another disagreed, and exclaimed that it had to have been a mechanical engineer who designed the human body. The system of levers and pulleys is ingenious.

“No,” the third student said, “you’re both wrong. The human body was designed by an architect. Who else but an architect would have put a toxic waste line through a reproductive center?” (Author unknown)

One day the zoo-keeper noticed that the orangutan was reading two books - the Bible and Darwin’s The Origin of Species. In surprise he asked the ape, “Why are you reading both those books”? “Well,” said the orangutan, “I just wanted to know if I was my brother’s keeper or my keeper’s brother.” (Author unknown)

Q: How do you tell the sex of a chromosome?

A: Pull down its genes

Introduction

Is the theory of evolution merely the result of an objective scientific search for truth as often proclaimed or is it rooted in a philosophical worldview aimed at squeezing shame and guilt from our conscience? Why does God teach one thing, but man teaches just the opposite? The Bible states: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The Atheist states: In the beginning nothing exploded and slowly became everything. When it comes to the question of origins, everything is either the product of intelligent design or random chance. Everyone should have the freedom to choose what they want to believe, however, when America started allocating tax dollars in the 1960’s to indoctrinate children with the atheistic philosophy of Naturalism our country took an irrevocable giant-step in the wrong direction.

We’ve all heard the expression, ideas have consequences. Unfortunately, Charles Darwin’s ideas about evolution have evoked the most pernicious indoctrination campaign ever perpetrated on humankind. Consequently, America is experiencing a slow fade; like the nation of Israel, we are slowly drifting from the Holy of Holies. We have needlessly caused much of our own heartache and affliction. In fact, many of the world’s ills can be firmly traced to evolution’s deceptive philosophy. Fortunately, the Stumbling Blocks of Evolution has successfully removed the pseudo-science mask that enshrouds evolution’s disingenuous face.

This book plainly highlights many scientific facts that absolutely obliterate the theory of evolution. Ironically, many of the very building blocks of evolution (i.e. fossil record, mutations, etc.) are now widely recognized as unavoidable stumbling blocks. Track with me as we unpack valuable information that will positively impact your view of creation, evolution and the Bible. Let’s begin our journey.

It’s common for people to say that creationism is faith-based and evolution is based on science. This inaccurate assessment has become an unjust thorn in the side of creationists. The Stumbling Blocks of Evolution will attempt to remove this thorn by shedding light on this misguided belief. The following statement exemplifies the false premise upon which the theory of evolution is often defended:

The origins debate is between religious people who accept creationism solely by faith, versus those who accept evolution based on science.

To a large extent, radical Darwinists have conveniently silenced the opposition by simply “misframing” the debate. By associating evolution with science and creationism with faith, evolutionists have successfully halted the debate before it can begin. This would explain the near absence of official public debates between evolution scientists and creation scientists?

Creation scientist Dr. Walt Brown has proposed a sincere written debate, but not one evolutionist has genuinely accepted his offer. The offer was based on the following question: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? The main stipulation was this: The debate must be restricted to science and avoid religion. For complete details, refer to Dr. Walt’s book In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, pp. 409 – 411. This is one of the most objective and thorough books ever written on the subject.

Understandably, many people are unaware that Darwinian evolution is unscientific by definition. Objective science only deals with things that are observable and verifiable through experimentation. Since no one has ever witnessed evolution—one creature becoming another—it fails to meet the basic requirements of the scientific method. Hence, both evolution and creationism are simply faith-based beliefs that attempt to explain the origins of life. The debate between evolution and creation is certainly not one of science versus faith, but rather faith versus faith. Neither creationism nor evolution can be scientifically proven, however, science along with logic and common sense can be used to determine which explanation is more credible. Ken Ham with Answers in Genesis accurately summed up the debate between evolution and creationism by saying:

The controversy is not religion versus science, but the science of one religion versus the science of another religion.¹

Michael Ruse, an archenemy of creationism, stated in a 1993 AAAS meeting in Boston:

. . .I think that we should recognize, both historically and perhaps philosophically, certainly that the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which—it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law—but I think that in honesty that we should recognize, and that we should be thinking about some of these sorts of things.²

Theodore N. Tahmisian, a nuclear physicist with the Atomic Energy Commission, is a man who does not mince his words. He said:

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.³

It’s often proclaimed by staunch evolutionists that all legitimate scientists believe in evolution. This exaggerated assertion is most likely intended to disparage those who dare disagree. It’s true that the vast majority of scientists believe in evolution in some form. Even I believe in evolution at some level. It’s not as though all scientists are atheists. According to Robert Roy Britt, about two-thirds of scientists believe in God.⁴ Furthermore, almost a thousand high-ranking scientists, all with doctorates, have signed the “Dissent from Darwin” petition which states:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.⁵

If you’re a scientist with a PhD and are interested in adding your name to the ever growing list please go to: www.dissentfromdarwin.org.⁶ Dr. Rebecca Keller, biophysical chemist, posted the following remarks after adding her name to the Dissent-from-Darwin petition:

I found it important to sign this statement because I believe intellectual freedom fuels scientific discovery. If we, as scientists are not allowed to question, ponder, explore, and critically evaluate all areas of science but forced to comply with current scientific orthodoxy then we are operating in a mode completely antithetical to the very nature of science.⁷

Dr. Vladimir L. Voeikov, signer of the petition and professor of Bioorganic Chemistry at Moscow State University, stated in an interview with the US Northern Light newspaper:

The ideology and philosophy of neo-Darwinism which is sold by its adepts as a scientific theoretical foundation of biology seriously hampers the development of science and hides from students the field’s real problems.⁸

It should be noted that it’s not just science that suffers from the ideology of naturalism. From a theological perspective Darwin’s theory has also become very damaging to the church. For many Christians, namely young adults, the subject of evolution has become a critical line of demarcation, one that either solidifies or undermines their faith. Ken Ham’s book, Already Gone, explains that about two-thirds of young people are currently leaving the church.

On March 8, 2012 Gary DeMar wrote an article titled: Miley Cyrus Tells Her Teenage Fans to “Forget Jesus” This came as quite a shock since it’s widely believed that Miley Cyrus is a follower of Jesus. Mr. DeMar explains how Miley Cyrus tweeted a photo of theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss and included the word “beautiful.” The photo displayed a quotation that read:

You are all stardust. You couldn’t be here if stars hadn’t exploded, because the elements (carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, all things that matter for evolution) weren’t created at the beginning of time. They were created in stars. So forget Jesus. Stars died so you can live.⁹

Only God knows the heart of Miley Cyrus, however, it certainly doesn’t look good when a “believer” writes the word “beautiful” on a quote that says forget Jesus. The father of the evolution movement, Charles Darwin, slowly abandoned his faith in God. He openly confessed,

. . . I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation.¹⁰

Sadly, it’s nearly standard protocol today for secular college professors to challenge the faith of their unsuspecting students; and without a doubt, the primary weapon used is evolution. Christianity has been experiencing, at an increasing rate, relentless attacks from overly impassioned atheists with a biblical ax to grind. The problem has been compounded since the theology of many Christians has become watered down in recent years; many Christians have become so apathetic that they’ve lost the ability to articulately defend what they claim to believe.

According to a Barna Group study, 61% of today’s young adults that had been churched at one point during their teen years are now spiritually disengaged (i.e., not actively attending church, reading the Bible, or praying).¹¹ This slow fade often goes unnoticed by parents until it’s too late. When it comes to something as important as the salvation of our children, it’s probably wise to error on the side of caution.

One of the best safeguards against the weaponry of evolution is knowledge. Hosea 4:6 says: my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. The key here is not a lack of mere knowledge, but rather a lack of true knowledge. Granted, the topic of evolution can be somewhat complex, but learning basic information can help solidify your faith. Becoming familiar with some common stumbling blocks of evolution, as outlined in this book, can greatly reduce a Christian’s susceptibility to evolution’s poisonous seeds of doubt. Knowledge and information is not everything, but they can play a vital role in making your faith real. The origins debate is critically important because it addresses the most fundamental questions of life and faith. Please take a moment to genuinely ponder the following important questions:

1. Who am I?

2. Why am I here?

3. What is the purpose of my life?

4. Where am I going when I die?

The answers to these questions will differ radically depending on a person’s worldview. An Atheist, for instance, might say: I’m nothing more than a collection of meaningless molecules assembled by mere chance. Everything that exists is merely the result of a huge cosmic explosion that took place billions of years ago. There is no real purpose or meaning to my life and when I die all the atoms in my body will simply be recycled into the vast, dark and cold universe.

A Christian, on the other hand, may say: My life is full of meaning and purpose for I am a child of the living God and the Holy Spirit resides within me. Every amazing cell in my body was carefully crafted and woven together by the omnipotent Creator of the universe; Death is not the end but simply a new beginning for Jesus conquered sin and death. My soul yearns to worship and commune with my heavenly Father for the rest of eternity.

It’s almost impossible to miss the divergence in worldview perspectives that are practically jumping off the page here. Despite your current understanding of human origins, please consider which of the following two perspectives makes more sense:

To believe in evolution requires a belief in the following:

a) non-living particles occasionally spring to life (never witnessed)

b) order and design naturally come from chaos

c) random chance can spontaneously produce complex and meaningful information

d) everything was naturally created from literally nothing

e) people are the byproduct of a cosmic accident, without purpose

To believe in the Bible requires a belief in the following:

a) life only comes from other life (always witnessed)

b) order and design only come from intelligent beings

c) intelligence is required to produce complex and meaningful information

d) everything was created by an intelligent designer

e) people are valuable and deeply loved by God

This comparison is meant to put things into there proper perspective and to encourage critical thinking. When the Biblical creation story is plainly compared to the story of evolution, the Bible clearly makes more sense. Secular evolutionists have tragically misplaced their trust in a naturalistic philosophy that’s completely irrational. The funny thing is the philosophy of naturalism is actually unnatural. For instance, is it natural to assume that “nature alone” created everything? Is it natural for a cosmic explosion to produce beauty, complexity and life? If we’re honest with ourselves, we must admit the philosophy of naturalism is not natural at all. Naturalists may insist their beliefs are based on science, but in reality it’s based on fantasy.

If you think about it for a moment, Darwin’s theory of evolution has probably caused more uncertainty and confusion for the human race (including Christians) than any other theory in world history. With the publishing of The Origins of Species in 1859, evolution has become a major catalyst behind the rise of atheism and secular humanism. According to Alan Wolfe of Boston College atheism is on the rise. He said: Over the last 20 years, the number of people willing to tell people in surveys that they don’t believe in God have pretty much doubled.¹²

My heart feels heavy when I consider the spiritual condition of the church today; it’s truly heartbreaking to witness such a massive exodus from Biblical truth. According to a 2009 Barna Group survey, only 9% of all American adults currently have a Biblical worldview.¹³ Perhaps President Obama was not exaggerating when he declared: America is no longer a Christian nation. For the purposes of the Barna survey, a biblical worldview was defined as believing in all of the following:

That absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or doing good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.

The same Barna survey also revealed: of people who identity themselves as born again Christians, only 19% have a biblical worldview. Wow. This is an astonishing statistic if you think about it. If the Bible is not the basis for a person’s Christian faith, then what is? Perhaps the Bible’s dwindling influence in America, at least in part, can be traced back to Darwin’s theory. After all, the very idea of evolution rattled the cage of many religious institutions when it was first introduced. Since most church leaders are not biologists, there was tremendous pressure to accept evolution as real science. In a knee jerk reaction many religious leaders began re-interpreting scripture to make the Bible more Darwin friendly; they knowingly redefined the “Creator God” as “The god of Evolution.” This was likely instrumental in opening the floodgates of biblical compromise, relative truth and political correctness.

Once the book of Genesis was discredited, by the very people who are supposed to defend it, the rest of the Bible became fair game. Consequently, most of society’s traditional moral values and institutions are now being challenged. . . and with little resistance. No one is saying the entire Bible should be taken literally because it does contain poetry, parables, hyperbole, etc. However, a straight forward reading of Genesis, using basic hermeneutics, will reveal it’s a factual historical narrative; it specifically refers to vast numbers of people, places and events that have been historically and archeologically well substantiated.

Sadly, Biblical illiteracy has reached the point of critical mass within the church today; many people no longer realize that Jesus along with most New Testament writers often referred to the book of Genesis and taught that Adam and Eve were real people and that the worldwide flood was a real event. Why is this important? Because if the book of Genesis is not real history, then Jesus was a liar and if Jesus was a liar Christianity becomes another false religion.

Now that the book of Genesis has been compromised by many mainstream Christian denominations, things are beginning to unravel. Believe it or not, there are now self-identified Christians who proudly celebrate Darwin’s birthday within the church walls. According to Wikipedia, in 2006, over 450 congregations (covering 49 states) in the United States participated in what is called “Evolution Sunday.” That’s right! Hundreds of Christian Churches around the country reserve one Sunday a year to celebrate of the birth of Charles Darwin.¹⁴ It’s often referred to as a “Darwin praise service” and the movement continues to grow in popularity to this very day. Lord, please help us.

Regrettably, many Christians no longer see anything wrong with mixing evolution and biblical theology. But if you think about it: For a Christian to believe in both God and Evolution is like an Atheist who believes in both Evolution and God (it makes no sense). The problems with combining God and evolution (aka: Theistic Evolution) are too numerous to list here and are coved in the last chapter of this book (Stumbling Block #16).

According to Richard Dawkins, “Evolution is a fact.”¹⁵ It should be no surprise that the majority of secular academia agrees with Mr. Dawkins. Despite the strong alliance, is it possible that Mr. Dawkins’s faithful followers have it wrong? In some instances doesn’t wisdom remind us not to follow the herd?

Is the majority always right?

If the past is any guide to the future then there is no guarantee that today’s popular scientific theories, such as evolution, will be discredited by tomorrow’s scientific discoveries. History shows that theories often go beyond what the data will support. Not that long ago the vast majority of scientists used to believe the world was flat. Main-stream science once taught that the sun traveled around the earth. Heck, not even the “infallible” peer review professionals questioned these enormous scientific blunders. But that was a long time ago; people are smarter now—right. . .? Well, let’s look at a more recent example.

In the 1980’s my Environmental Studies science professor at the University of Minnesota was actively warning his students that the world would eventually freeze because of America’s reckless burning of fossil fuels. He was, in essence, preaching global freezing. Fast forward 20 years. . .Many universities are now endorsing a completely different message. Over the last several years, many climate scientists around the world have eagerly jumped onto the “global warming” bandwagon. Masses of people were influenced by the media to accept global warming as a scientific fact; that is until a brave computer hacker revealed the truth behind the global warming scandal by releasing thousands of private e-mails onto the internet. The emails were exchanges of high level climate scientists who worked at Britain’s University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.¹⁶

The content of the e-mails clearly revealed how the university’s global warming scientists willingly corrupted the science by hiding any evidence from the last decade that supported a decline in global temperatures. Moreover, they apparently lost all the original data which supposedly supported a long term computer model of global warming. This conspiracy is commonly known as “climategate.”¹⁷ Who knows, the earth’s climate is probably constantly changing whether we drive SUV’s or not. Fluctuations within the sun’s solar storms could contribute to climate change. Furthermore, some people may consider global warming to be a good thing.

One thing’s for sure, it’s a bad day when a group of highly credentialed scientists were willing to mislead the public the way they did. But if you think about it, scientists are people too. Unfortunately, it’s even possible for people who wear white jackets and pocket protectors to have biases and ulterior motives. People tend to believe what they want to believe especially when influenced by moral, economic, or political factors. Too frequently facts are tweaked to fit an ambitious theory, rather than the theory to the facts. What is sometimes perceived as true science may actually be rooted in pseudo science.

Everyone has faith in something; whether your faith is in God, evolution, or both it’s probably not a bad idea to put your own beliefs to the test. This is exactly what I decided to do many years ago. My faith in God, at the time, was very weak and my understanding of evolution and the Bible was marginal at best. I really wanted to know the truth about life’s deepest questions so I started my own investigation. Since the Bible was almost like a foreign book to me, I committed myself to reading it from cover to cover. I decided to go directly to the Bible to avoid being overly influenced by any brand of organized religion. During this time I was also determined to learn more about Darwin’s theory.

I was prepared to accept the idea of evolution and/or creation as long as the facts and evidence supported it. I really did my best to keep an open mind. My current view of God and evolution, as recorded in this book, is the result of that investigation. I may not have high credentials; however, I do have a passion for the truth. No matter what a person believes, it’s my desire this book will challenge and inspire the reader to take a fresh look at the evidence with new eyes and an open mind. This book is ultimately centered on a message of encouragement and hope. The following 16 chapters will examine the veracity of evolution from both a scientific and biblical viewpoint.

The writer does the most good who gives his reader the most knowledge and takes from him the least time. ~Sydney Smith (1771-1845)

STUMBLING BLOCK #1

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

We’ve all heard the mantra: The evidence for evolution is overwhelming! If the term “evolution” simply meant change over time, nobody in his or her right mind would argue against it and the controversy would cease to exist. However, Darwin’s idea about evolution was much more than mere change over time. He titled his book The Origin of Species by Natural Selection for a reason. The key word here is Origin. Darwin was clearly implying that organic evolution alone is responsible for the origin of all species. This is a far cry from simple “change over time.” There is mounting scientific evidence available today to confirm that biological evolution actually does occur, however, certain genetic factors absolutely limit what evolution can accomplish. It’s becoming increasingly evident that evolution only takes place within the realm of micro-evolution (horizontal evolution) and not within the realm of macro-evolution (vertical evolution). This is an overarching key point that cannot be overstated.

Micro-evolution is simply the occurrence of small-scale genetic variations within a population over multiple generations that creates diversity within a species, but lacks the ability to create entirely new kinds of species. It’s well known that genes are packed full of valuable information and instruction programs that define every physical characteristic of all living organisms. However, what’s not well known is that genes simply offer no pathway to make upward macro-evolution possible? Gene programs certainly exist to allow for many varieties of hair colors, body sizes and skin tones, but there is no genetic information available to allow one kind of species to evolve into another. An increasing number of geneticists have confirmed that the DNA code within the genes will not permit any crossover of new species. Author Vance Ferrell offers a candid description of a wall of separation that exists between species. He stated:

The genetic makeup within the chromosomes forms a barrier, a literal wall of separation between one species and another.¹

This genetic wall of separation is exactly what prevents a dog from becoming a cat. Few people understand this as well as Dr. Lane P. Lester who frequently speaks on the subject; he is a Professor of Biology, Ph.D. in genetics, M.S. in ecology and co-author of The Natural Limits to Biological Change.² Dr. Lester also wrote an article titled Genetics: no friend of evolution. Check out the bold proclamation in his opening statement:

Genetics and evolution have been enemies from the beginning. . .³

Dr. Lester’s message is clear. Since full-blown speciation (evolution) cannot happen naturally, the vast array of biological diversity that we witness throughout the world must be the work of a supernatural creator. The scientific facts support the idea that genetic variations cannot go beyond what gene codes will allow, just like a home computer cannot exceed its own programming. The total amount of genetic variation that can possibly take place within a given population is limited by specific coded information contained within the DNA’s “Blueprint of Life.” Evolution may produce a wide variety of dogs, but it will never allow a dog to produce a cat or anything else that is non-dog. The same is true of humans. Just because humans come in many varieties and can adapt to minor environmental changes does not mean our descendants will eventually evolve into creatures that are non-human. There are limits.

At a “Macroevolution Conference” held in Chicago in 1980, an evolutionist, Roger Lewin, writing for Science, described it as a “turning point in the history of evolutionary theory.” He boldly stated:

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. . . . At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.⁴

Thank you Mr. Lewin for your unexpected departure from party ranks. Your assessment of the “Macroevolution Conference” was nothing less than courageous. It’s refreshing to know that many brave “evolutionists” have spoken critically of their own theory. Here’s another candid confession:

“In a generous admission Francisco Ayala, a major figure in propounding the Modern Synthesis [neo-Darwinism] in the United States, said ‘We would not have predicted stasis [the stability of species over time] from population genetics, but I am now convinced from what the paleontologists say that small changes do not accumulate.’ ”⁵

It was another bad day for secular academia when one of their own biologists openly confessed that random genetic changes do not accumulate. Mr. Ayala’s transparent admission reveals that variations among species are limited to horizontal evolution. In other words, variations only take place within particular species, not across them. Still, many people wonder where all the different races (white, black, red and yellow) came from? If you think about it for a moment, all the shades of skin color that we see today was either the result of random chance or special creation. If its assumed that all the races came from Adam and Eve as the Bible suggests, then one could ask why it’s no longer possible for two white people to produce a black child or vice versa? Freelance writer, Babu G. Ranganathan beautifully addresses this very question:

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or “races” of people could come from the same human ancestors. Well, in principle, that’s no different than asking how children with different color hair (i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity’s first parents possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of people. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity’s first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown, green, blue), but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color (i.e., brown). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macro-evolution will never be possible in nature.

We have varieties of dogs today that we didn’t have a couple of hundred years ago. The genes for these varieties had always existed in the population of the dog species but they simply never had an opportunity for expression until the right conditions came along. The genes themselves didn’t evolve! What we call “evolution” is really nothing more than the physical expression of already existing genes. All of this is just another example of micro-evolution (horizontal evolution) in nature.⁶

From a Biblical perspective God simply designed Adam and Eve with a massive genetic infrastructure—a gene pool that contained all the genetic information necessary to produce all the human diversity that we see today (right down to every finger print). And the same is true for each “kind” of species. It’s interesting how the Bible repeatedly states that God created things according to their “kinds.”

God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.⁷

Nowhere in the Bible is the concept of macro-evolution mentioned or implied; the Bible never once suggests that all living organisms (plants, animals and people) evolved from one common ancestor. However, the Bible makes it crystal clear that every creature within a “kind” is part of their own specific ancestral chain and that is 100% consistent with micro-evolution. If you think about it, micro-evolution is not really evolution at all—it’s simply an expression of what “pre-existing” genetic information will allow.

The concept of macro-evolution, on the other hand, suggests that one kind of species can magically turn into a completely different kind of species (given enough time), but the biological evidence simply does not support this claim. Sadly, Darwin’s version of evolution is what most of us have come to believe because it’s what we’ve been taught in public school and reinforced by the secular culture (magazines, television, movies, museums, zoos, etc). At some point you may be wondering how the Darwinian elites have been able to successfully pull the wool over the eyes of so many people. It’s one of the oldest tricks in the book—they simply mix truth in with their false assumptions. Here’s how it’s done: Darwin’s zealots often make false extrapolations, attempting to prove macro-evolution by citing examples of micro-evolution.

Secular scientists who claim evolution can be observed—like watching bread dough rise in the oven—are deliberately confusing micro-evolution with grand scale macro-evolution. Their conclusions are based on anecdotal information rather than solid empirical evidence. Even though many evolutionists teach that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution, it’s simply not the case. Micro-evolution is completely observable and scientific, whereas macro-evolution is unobservable and unscientific. The remainder of this book will attempt to bear this out.

Upon an honest examination of the evidence I believe any sincere and open-minded person—including evolutionists—would be amazed to discover that macro-evolution is not really supported by true science in any significant way. In fact, true science consistently refutes and falsifies the general theory of evolution at every turn. The following quote by a former atheist reveals that science—not religion—can actually lead people away from evolution and towards a divine creator.

My road to atheism was paved by science. . .but, ironically, so was my latter journey to God. —Lee Strobel⁸

STUMBLING BLOCK #2

The Fossil Record

If we read about a frog that turned into a prince we call it a fairy tale, however, if we read about a frog that turned into a prince, over millions of years, we call it science.

As you may know, Richard Dawkins has earned quite a reputation as an outspoken evolutionist who seems outlandishly comfortable in his own atheistic skin; many people consider him to be evolution’s modern-day “poster child.” When it comes to making audacious statements, Mr. Dawkins is certainly no stranger; in his article The Illusion of Design, Mr. Dawkins declared:

It is a fact that we are cousins of gorillas, kangaroos, starfish, and bacteria¹

I’m sorry Mr. Dawkins, but when I observe bacteria under a microscope I just don’t feel an ancestral connection. It’s fine if Richard wants to personally believe that his distant ancestors were once bacteria, but it’s probably not something unsuspecting children should be taught in public schools unless it’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Incidentally, one of the best ways to put Mr. Dawkins beliefs to the test is to examine the actual fossil record. The fossils will tell the real story! In fact, if you and I are truly cousins of bacteria the fossil evidence should overwhelmingly corroborate this claim. If there is any truth behind macro-evolution, the fossil record should be, in essence, the very “cornerstone” of evolution. Before we begin our fossil investigation, let’s start with some basic questions:

What exactly are fossils?

Fossils are simply remains, impressions, or traces of living things, such as plants, skeletons, footprints, etc. They are found in things like sedimentary rock, volcanic ash, amber and coal. The fossil record is simply the collective record of all fossils—a record that has been literally “etched in stone.” It’s fascinating to consider how the fossil record provides us with a real tangible picture of our past.

How can the fossil record prove or disprove evolution?

Well, it’s really quite simple: If the Darwinian evolutionary model is true, the fossil record will overwhelmingly display gradual change between all species (without many gaps). If the Biblical creation account is accurate, the fossil record will display “sudden appearances” of fully formed species. In other words, if the fossil record displays consistent gaps between species (opposed to gradual transition), evolution’s “cornerstone” become a massive “stumbling stone.”

It’s surprising to hear what some of the most candid evolutionists (non-creationists) are saying about the fossil record today. Journalist, Luther Sunderland wrote a letter to Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist and editor at the British Museum. It should be noted that Dr. Patterson is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the fossil record. In the letter Mr. Sunderland asked: “why have you not included a single photograph of a transitional fossil in your book.” Dr. Patterson responded:

I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them . . . . I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.²

It’s fascinating to learn that many secular scientists actually agree with Dr. Patterson regarding the absence of transitional fossils. Stephen Jay Gould was among the most admired and influential paleontologist (and biologist) that the evolutionary community has ever known. He stated the following concerning the evolutionary tree:

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference. . . I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism. I wish only to point out that it was never seen in the rocks.³

Mr. Gould was either a relatively honest man, which I believe is true, or he accidently ingested some truth serum that day. Nevertheless, it’s astonishing that Mr. Gould openly acknowledged that the extreme rarity of transitional fossils is a trade secret. This begs the question: Why do scientists, within trusted academia, keep these kinds of secrets from the public? It’s interesting that Mr. Gould remained a faithful follower of evolution in light of the fact that he plainly recognized the lack of evidence to support it; his own words reveal that he clung only to the potential validity of gradualism (evolution). Mr. Gould’s confession substantiates that blind faith is a prerequisite of Darwinism.

Incidentally, Charles Darwin also acknowledged this problem but believed the absence of intermediate fossils was due to an incomplete fossil record. Here are his own words as documented on page 292, The Origin of Species (1st edition):

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.⁴

As it turned out Charles Darwin was squarely wrong when he predicted “future fossils” would fill the gaps. We now have millions of fossils on record and the gaps have only widened. The growing number of gaps in the fossil record most likely has Charles Darwin rolling in his grave. Author Luther Sunderland made a powerful statement regarding Darwin’s fossil prediction:

Now, after over 120 years of the most extensive and painstaking geological exploration of every continent and ocean bottom, the picture is infinitely more vivid and complete than it was in 1859. Formations have been discovered containing hundreds of billions of fossils and our museums are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species. The availability of this profusion of hard scientific data should permit objective investigators to determine if Darwin was on the right track. What is the picture which the fossils have given us? The gaps between major groups of organisms have been growing even wider and more undeniable. They can no longer be ignored or rationalized away with appeals to imperfection of the fossil record.⁵

Listen to the words of David Raup, Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago which holds one of the world’s largest fossil collections:

The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.⁶

It’s true, the idea of horse evolution was once held as an icon among evolutionists, but as Mr. Raup explained, it has become widely discarded. According to Dr John Morris, the fossil record has clearly shown that variations within horse populations follow no recognizable pattern of a rational evolutionary model.⁷ Furthermore, the “horse series” sketches that once adorned children’s textbooks have turned out to be fraudulent. Despite the lack of evidence to support horse evolution today, many overzealous educators continue to present it as such. Perhaps it’s time for evolutionists to quit horsing around!

What about bats, surely their high tech sonar mechanisms must have gradually evolved over millions of years. . .right? Not so fast. . .

Bats make up a truly unique population of species with precise sonar capabilities, but does anyone really know from what species they evolved. Here is the plain truth: The fossil record does not support bat evolution in any way whatsoever. Dr. Gary Morgan, Curator of Paleontology at the Museum of Natural History in New Mexico confesses that when it comes to bats there is absolutely no fossil evidence to support evolution. Dr. Viohl, Curator of Jura Museum in Germany agrees; he said: “We have no evidence for this evolution. The bats appear perfectly developed in the Eocene.” Dr. Viohl describes how fossilized bats showed up in the Eocene time period without a trace of evolution. Dr. Carl Werner noted, An amazing 1000 fossil bats have been discovered but none of predicted evolutionary ancestors have been found!⁸ Most scientists now agree that when it comes to bats they appear instantly in the fossil record without a trace of evolutionary history.

What about fish, how did they evolve?

If evolution is true the fossil record would clearly show invertebrates (marine creatures with no backbone) slowly becoming fish. It just so happens, there are about 500,000 vertebrate fish fossils and every type appears fully formed with virtually no trace of transitional ancestry. However, there are a handful of supposed transitional fossils (invertebrates to fish) that get touted as such but are usually accompanied with words like “not universally accepted” or “controversial” or “speculative.” There is simply no water-tight fossil evidence to support fish evolution even though some people claim there is.

Evolutionists insisted for years that the coelacanth fish fossil represented an ancient fish that has been extinct for 70 million years. They even dated the rocks that contained the coelacanth fossil at 70 million years. Evolutionists claimed that these fish had large brains, lungs and were already becoming four legged land animals. Millions of students were told that these fish evolved into amphibians, reptiles, dinosaurs, birds, and mammals, including humans.⁹

Thankfully, some scaly evidence surfaced that completely debunked this false teaching. In 1938, a living coelacanth was caught deep in the Indian Ocean near Madagascar. Since then, hundreds more have been caught and sold. We now know with complete certainty that these fish have no lungs, large brains or legs. This so-called 70 million year old transitional fish/amphibian fossil turned out to be completely fish. To help with damage control evolutionists have learned to say that science is always in the process of correcting itself. It’s a convenient way to cover up lies and distortions.

How did insects evolve?

If evolution is grounded in truth then insects must surely have a huge number of transitional ancestors fossilized in the rocks? According to Wikipedia, “The evolutionary relationships of insects to other animal groups remain unclear.”¹⁰ Allow me to translate: “We have not a clue as to where insects came from.” There is much conjecture regarding insect evolution but truth be told, there is a complete absence of empirical data to offer any real support. Since many evolutionists continue to claim evolution is a proven fact, let’s briefly look at some of their best evidence.

Archaeopteryx is the name given to fossils that evolutionists refer to as the missing-link between reptiles and birds. Of all the fossils on record this is considered one of evolution’s best transitional fossils. And to the credit of evolutionists, Archaeopteryx fossils are legitimate fossils; they are not “frauds” like the Archaeoraptor fossil. At first glance the Archaeopteryx fossils do appear to represent a transitional creature somewhere between reptile and bird. These fossils reveal a creature that had beaks and feathers like birds, but also had teeth, claws and a long tail (features more common among reptiles). However, upon further investigations many scientists have concluded that Archaeopteryx is completely bird. Barbara J. Stahl, a vertebrate paleontologist and evolutionist, noted:

“its feathers [Archaeopteryx] gave no hint of primitive features. The imprint they left in the rock, clear and sharp, makes it evident that the feathers of Archaeopteryx were already in Jurassic time exactly like those of birds flying today.¹¹

Of course, militant evolutionists have come up with a rebuttal to this fact. They have done a hundred and eighty degree turn and now argue that bird feathers must have began evolving millions of years before the Jurassic period even though birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, not vice versa. You can’t have it both ways.

Evolutionists tend to dismiss the fact that Archaeopteryx has many traits that are only unique to birds. These include: wishbones, beak, feathers, perching feet, and a bird-shape skull. All the parts of Archaeopteryx that seem to have a reptilian appearance have been accounted for. Author James Perloff in his book, Tornado in a Junkyard, makes a few good points: He said it’s true that Archaeopteryx had claws on their wings, but so do ostriches and no one thinks ostriches are part reptile. Mr. Perloff also noted there have been other fossilized birds with teeth, but bird teeth have been found to be much different from those of reptiles. There are also reptiles (i.e. turtles) that have no teeth at all, but this does not make them non-reptile.

One of the major issues with reptile-to-bird evolution is that avian (bird) lungs are completely different from those of reptiles. No models have ever been shown that demonstrate how reptilian lungs could evolve into avian lungs, because maintaining proper lung function during the transition would be basically impossible. In regards to Archaeopteryx’s long tail, Francis Hitching, author of The Neck of the Giraffe made an interesting observation. Mr. Hitching noticed that the tail of the Archaeopteryx is very similar to the tail of a swan and nobody thinks swans are part reptile. This idea that birds evolved from reptiles is mostly built on scanty evidence and wishful thinking. Speaking of birds, Richard Dawkins presumes that feathers evolved from scales; he confidently stated, feathers are modified reptilian scales¹²

Author Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, points out that, “. . .scales are folds in skin and feathers are complex structures with a barb, barbules, and hooks. They also originate in a totally different way, from follicles inside the skin in a manner akin to hair.”¹³ There are currently no examples (living or fossilized) of transition between hair and feathers. Wikipedia says “hair is one of the defining characteristics of mammals which may have evolved from reptilian scales.” The key phrase here is “may have.” The next time you read a written statement supporting evolution, look for the following fuzzy words: apparently, probably, seems like, perhaps, most likely, could be, may have, etc. These kinds of words often go unnoticed. The truth is, they have no idea how hair or feathers evolved. Who is to say God didn’t create both hair and feathers right from the start.

One thing to keep in mind is that similarities (homology) among various organisms do not necessarily support macro-evolution. Similarities among species can simply be the result of a common creator. After all, an architect will often show common features among his/her creative work. Custom homes designed by Frank Lloyd Wright have many resemblances—some discreet and some more obvious. The same is true of watchmakers, musicians, automakers, artists, etc. Just because humans and chimpanzees have genetic similarities does not necessarily mean one evolved from the other.

Anthropologist Jonathan Marks addresses this issue in his book, What it Means to be 98% Chimpanzee. Mr. Marks builds a strong case that DNA similarities between humans and chimps is largely meaningless. He highlights the fact that humans and daffodils possess a 35% genetic similarity. Does this mean humans are 35% flower?

Carl Baugh points out that clouds, watermelons, and jellyfish are 98% similar since they’re all made of 98% water! Apparently a 2% variation can make a world of difference! Dr. David DeWitt with Creation Ministries International offers additional insight on the controversy:

A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.¹⁴ Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki¹⁵ described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’¹⁶ ¹⁷

Could I make a suggestion: The next time someone implies that humans are 98% genetically chimpanzee, offer him/her directions to the nearest public zoo.

The duckbilled platypus is a great example of a “patchwork” creature that displays too much “across the board” homology; evolutionists would rather altogether avoid the topic of patchwork organisms because they have no place in the so-called evolutionary tree of life. The duckbilled platypus happens to display features from a wide range of different species (i.e. fish, reptile, duck, beaver, otter, snake, etc) and yet they appear perfectly designed for their environment. As you can see, homology does not necessarily support macro-evolution. Hence, the homology that is displayed within or across species, including the Archaeopteryx fossils, means very little.

What about whales, how did they evolve?

It seems evolutionists have turned the idea of whale evolution into a Whale of a story! Darwinists surmise that whales evolved from some type of hoofed land mammal such as a cow, hyena, etc. . .¹⁸ Does this mean beached whales are attempting to become land mammals again? As you will soon discover, a belief in whale evolution—a lot like believing in unicorns—requires a bit of imagination and a whole lot of faith. It’s difficult to imagine how the nostrils of a cow could slowly move to the top of its head to form a single blow hole? Not to mention the external ears would have to disappear to withstand the high water pressure. Additionally, a cow’s front legs would have to turn into fins and its back legs would have to completely disappear. These incomprehensible transformations are much more than pesky little details.

The transformation of a cow into a whale would require thousands of tiny physical changes that continually travel in the same direction. Each one of these changes would require a new type of protein and each protein would require 300 new bits of information to the DNA (all in the proper sequence). The odds of just one of these changes are nearly mathematically impossible. There would be a far greater chance of every tennis racquet on planet earth randomly evolving into a new set of Callaway golf clubs than a cow becoming a whale. Dr Jonathan Sarfati, author of Refuting Evolution, addresses the idea of whale evolution:

However, there are many changes required for a whale to evolve from a land mammal. One of them is to get rid of its pelvis. This would tend to crush the reproductive orifice with propulsive tail movements. But a shrinking pelvis would not be able to support the hind-limbs needed for walking. So the hypothetical transitional form would be unsuited to both land and sea, and hence be extremely vulnerable. Also, the hind part of the body must twist on the fore part, so the tail’s sideways movement can be converted to a vertical movement. Seals and dugongs are not anatomically intermediate between land mammals and whales. They have particular specializations of their own.

The lack of transitional forms in the fossil record was realized by evolutionary whale experts like the late E.J. Slijper: ‘We do not possess a single fossil of the transitional forms between the aforementioned land animals [i.e., carnivores and ungulates] and the whales.

The lowest whale fossils in the fossil record show they were completely aquatic from the first time they appeared.¹⁹

It’s fascinating to see how evolution’s best examples of transitional fossils don’t even come close to making the grade. Let’s turn our attention towards human evolution. Evolutionists often claim with confidence that humans evolved from chimpanzees. The truth is there is no solid evidence whatsoever to support this claim. Every so-called ape-man fossil brought forth by secular evolutionists has turned out to be either a false interpretation or an outright fraud. John Reader, photo-journalist and author of Missing Links, highlights the problem:

The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table,. . . the collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmented and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present.²⁰

Still, a common question from evolutionists and creationists is why are there so few human fossils? This is a great question. First of all, we must realize that less than 1% of all fossils are land animals (including humans). Secondly, we must acknowledge that land creatures are difficult to fossilize because they tend to float in water and then decompose. According to the United Nation’s Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, nearly 43,000 tsunami victims were never found.²¹ Furthermore, the purpose of the Flood was to destroy the earth, especially humans. Dr. John D. Morris with the Institute for Creation Research makes an interesting point:

For purposes of discussion, let us assume 300,000,000 people died in the Flood, and that each one was preserved as a fossil evenly distributed in the sedimentary record, which consists of about 300,000,000 cubic miles. The chances of such a fossil intersecting the earth’s surface, being found by someone, and then being properly and honestly identified is vanishingly small. On the other hand, if evolution is true, and humans have lived on Earth for three million years, many trillions have lived and died. Where are their fossils? This is the more vexing question.²²

The shortage of human fossils is a much bigger problem for evolutionists than creationists. Another problem for evolution is the way fossils are dated. An increasing number of geologists are becoming uneasy with the fact that the primary method of dating fossils is based on circular reasoning. J. E. O’Rourks made the following comments in the American Journal of Science:

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 that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.²³

It’s bad science to use rocks to date fossils while using fossils to date rocks. I don’t mean to kick a dead horse, but to drive home the point I will cite a couple more candid admissions from various highly educated evolutionists (non-creationists). Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, botanist and geneticist of Lund University in Sweden, stated:

My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. . . The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.²⁴

David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology), head curator of the dept of geology at the Stoval Museum wrote in a trade journal:

Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them. . .²⁵

If the theory of evolution were true, our museums would be literally full of intermediate fossils; the fossils would rank between every taxonomic group. There are now billions of fossils on record and according to leading paleontologists all that remain to support macro-evolution are a handful of disputable examples. Predictably, many staunch evolutionists still choose to ignore this elephant in the room.

The near absence of transitional fossils that we encounter today represents just the opposite of Darwinian evolution. If Darwin’s theory was correct, the overwhelming majority of fossils would be in a state of transition. In fact, it’s a misnomer for an evolutionist to use the term missing link because there should be no such thing as a missing link. The fact that evolutionist are still desperately searching for missing links speaks volumes against their own theory. Moreover, it’s not just missing links that are nowhere to be found but entire chains are missing. The truth is missing links and chains are not missing, they never existed. It’s becoming widely recognized that the fossil record is a huge stumbling block for evolution.

Here’s the bottom line: The countless gaps in the fossil record point to creation, not evolution. And the problems only get worse; many evolutionists have willfully doctored fossils to make them appear to be missing links. For information on counterfeit fossils see Stumbling Block #8, Hoaxes of Evolution.

STUMBLING BLOCK #3

The Cambrian Explosion

One of the most exceptional pieces of evidence disproving evolution is the “Cambrian Explosion”—it’s a real game changer! The Cambrian Explosion is a term used to describe the rapid appearance of fully formed biological creatures in one of the deepest and oldest fossil layers of the geologic column. This sudden explosion of new life has caused a real conundrum for evolutionists. In fact, the only way to make sense of the Cambrian Explosion, from an evolutionary perspective, is to chalk it up as an unexplainable mystery.

Evolutionists are bewildered and perplexed by the fact that fossilized species within the Cambrian rock layer look just like the creatures that roam the earth today. This phenomenon reveals how life on earth started fully developed as opposed to millions of years of gradual evolution. The Cambrian Explosion is so profound that many evolutionists themselves refer to it as “Evolution’s Big Bang.” The problem for evolutionists is that they have no way to reconcile Darwin’s slow-motion evolution with the fact that most of life’s great diversity, including multicellular creatures, suddenly appears within the deep Cambrian layer. Furthermore, it’s unimaginable how such a wide array of fully-formed creatures could rapidly appear without a trace of the evolutionary ancestry upon which Darwin’s theory depends.

What does logic and common sense tell us? If evolution is true, fossilized organisms will become more and more primitive the deeper you dig through the upper layers of the earth’s crust. Incidentally, we find just the opposite; instead of finding primitive fossils deep within the Cambrian rock, paleontologists find fully-developed organisms that look no different than the creatures that live on earth today. This has become a bitter pill that evolutionists were forced to swallow.

But it doesn’t stop there. . .

Another frustration for evolutionists is the near absence of fossilized specimens below the Cambrian layer. Charles Darwin was acutely aware of this dilemma, he noted:

To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.¹

Darwin made it painfully clear that he had no solution to this inescapable problem. The few creatures that are found in pre-Cambrian strata are limited to non-skeletal organisms like worms. Hence, the pre-Cambrian stratum displays almost no fossil diversity at all, but within a blink of geological time a massive number of diverse life forms instantly appear. And if that’s not problematic enough, it gets even worse. . .

The number of species found fossilized in the layers above the Cambrian formation gradually decreases with each upward layer. By the time you get near the top, almost all species that have ever lived are now extinct. This is the antithesis of evolution; it’s a perfect example of devolution. If evolution was true, there would be an ever increasing number of new species entering the scene, not mass extinction. Paleontologist, David Raup concurs; he believes 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.²

Evolution’s “tree of life” therefore does not come close to representing reality. An upside down “tree of extinction” would better represent reality, but it also falls short. When you examine the Cambrian fossil record coupled with what we know about living species today, life on earth would be best represented not by one tree of extinction, but several individual trees of extinction. In other words, there is a human tree, a dog tree, an insect tree, a reptile tree, a bird tree, etc. . . And there is rich diversity—with common decent—within each specific tree; but the trees themselves have no common ancestors (only a common designer).

How are most evolutionists responding to the Cambrian problem? The majority of evolutionists say they have no rational explanation for it—its one of evolutions greatest headaches. Interestingly enough, even Charles Darwin recognized the problem. He confessed:

The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several paleontologists—for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick—as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection.³

To Darwin’s credit, he was honest enough to acknowledge this dilemma. Darwin assumed future fossil discoveries would resolve the issue, but it hasn’t. The majority of evolutionists that have attended highly accredited universities still recognize the Cambrian problem today. Richard Dawkins stated:

And we find many of them [Cambrian fossils] already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.⁴

It’s not everyday that Richard Dawkins will make such a candid confession. For what its worth, here are a couple more straightforward confessions by evolutionists:

One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified, multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age.⁵

Dr. Jeffrey S. Levinton, a distinguished professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University reveals his own doubts macro-evolution:

Evolutionary biology’s deepest paradox concerns this strange discontinuity. Why haven’t new animal body plans continued to crawl out of the evolutionary cauldron during the past hundreds of millions of years? Why are the ancient body plans so stable?⁶

It’s becoming clear that the Cambrian Explosion has plunged a dagger deep into the heart of evolution. Look how these scientists are scratching their heads or should I say “their advanced Neanderthal skulls.” It’s astonishing why highly educated scientists would insist that evolution is supported by true science when the evidence repudiates it at every turn. It almost seems as if they desperately want evolution to be true? Why do so many evolutionists presume that nature alone can account for everything? Perhaps secular scientists are experiencing frustration and confusion because their twisted version of truth does not align with God’s actual version of Truth. Listen to what the Holy Scriptures has to say:

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise

1 Corinthians 1:27a

When it comes to the fossil record only the Bible adequately explains what the evolution story can’t; the millions of fossils found in the Cambrian layer can easily be accounted for if you believe the Biblical flood buried these creatures all at once. Obviously, rapid burial is required to preserve fossils? Evolutionists, creationists and everybody in-between agree that if an animal dies and is not quickly buried, it will decompose and not turn into a fossil. Modern geology has been falsely built upon naturalistic presumptions of gradualism and uniformitarianism; it’s an assumption that everything has been going on the same since the beginning. It presumes the Biblical Flood catastrophe never happened. It’s interesting how the Bible pegged the false teaching of uniformitarianism about two thousand years ago.

Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. — 2 Peter 2:3-6 (underlining added)

The Bible reveals here that many people will turn away from God and lose sight of the truth. It says “they deliberately forget;”⁷ This is another way of saying “they became ignorant on purpose.” Despite the fact that there is an enormous amount of scientific evidence in the geologic record to support the worldwide flood, most evolutionists simply turn a blind eye to it. For additional information on Biblical flood evidence see Stumbling Block #11. According to the Bible, only Biblical presuppositions make knowledge possible. Proverb 1:7 says:

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Colossians 2:3 states:

In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Thus, when a person continually rejects the authority of the Holy Scriptures their worldview eventually becomes irrational and absurd. This is why the wide array of fossils unearthed in the Cambrian layer continues to be problematic for the evolution community to this very day. Attempting to deal with this embarrassing problem, the late Stephen J Gould—a highly prominent evolutionist—took his belief to a whole new extreme and taught that the millions of various fully-formed creatures found fossilized in the Cambrian layer must have somehow suddenly evolved within a short period of geological time. Mr. Gould referred to this new type of sudden evolution as “punctuated equilibrium” and it flies in the face of Darwinian Evolution. You could say that “punctuated equilibrium” is equivalent to “evolution on steroids.”

This new “punctuated equilibrium” theory sounds more like a supernatural creation miracle than it does “random chance.” In other words, billions of years have passed by with little or no evolution at all, but during a brief period of geological time the world’s ecosystem mysteriously entered into a phase of hyper-evolution whereby millions of life forms rapidly evolved into creatures that just happen to look like the ones we see today. Ironically, things have returned to an era of undetectably slow evolution again.

Wow!!! I guess evolutionists also believe in miracles.

STUMBLING BLOCK #4

Irreducible Complexity

The very idea of “irreducible complexity” is a catastrophic blow to the theory of evolution. It’s equivalent to a massive “intelligently designed cannonball” smashing through the hull of the Darwin’s Beagle. The theory of evolution is beginning to sink despite the frantic attempts to keep it afloat. Author, professor and biochemist Michael Behe coined the phase “irreducible complexity.” He explains:

By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.¹

The fact that irreducibly complex biological structures exist in nature is one of the strongest evidences for an Intelligent Creator. In fact, there are many well-designed, intricate parts that exist today that have no traceable evolutionary pathway. If you think about it for a moment, evolution has no ability (or reason) to produce separate interrelated parts that individually serve no purpose. Why would random, unguided selection build parts that have no individual survival benefit to an organism? Incidentally, there are many examples of individual biological parts that serve no function outside of the collective; a perfect example of this is the bacterial flagellum. The following description of the bacterial flagellum is truly amazing. This is a great example of science declaring the glory of God.

Through the microscope, we observe the E. coli bacterial flagellum. The bacterial flagellum is what propels E. coli bacteria through its microscopic world. It consists of about 40 individual protein parts including a stator, rotor, drive-shaft, U-joint, and propeller. It’s a microscopic outboard motor! The individual parts come into focus when magnified 50,000 times (using electron micrographs). And even though these microscopic outboard motors run at an incredible 100,000 rpm, they can stop on a microscopic dime. It takes only a quarter turn for them to stop, shift directions and start spinning 100,000 rpm in the opposite direction! The flagella motor has two gears (forward and reverse), is water-cooled, and is hardwired into a signal transduction (sensory mechanism) so that it receives feedback from its environment.²

The flagella motor is by far the most efficient machine on planet earth. It’s so amazing that evolutionists are left grasping for straws in their dire attempt to explain it away. To believe the flagella motor evolved solely by natural processes is a concept so staggering it’s difficult for anyone to wrap his mind around. How could the most efficient machine that humanity has ever observed not be the work of a master designer? What is the evolutionist’s response?

Naturalists now point to a protein device, known as type III secretory system (TTSS), which allows bacteria to inject toxins directly into a host cell. Molecular studies of proteins in the TTSS have revealed that TTSS proteins are similar in genetic structure to the proteins in the basal portion of the bacterial flagellum. What’s the significance of this? Evolutionists such as Ken Millar suggest that one part of the flagellum may have evolved from the TTSS protein, thus weakening the argument for irreducible complexity.³ Here is the counter response: Anyone can speculate that the TTSS may be thought of as a possible subsystem of the flagellum and that it may have performed a function distinct from the function of the flagellum. However, the following quote by William A. Dembski reveals the shallowness of such wild speculation.

Nevertheless, finding a subsystem of a functional system that performs some other function is hardly an argument for the original system evolving from that other system. One might just as well say that because the motor of a motorcycle can be used as a blender, therefore the motor evolved into the motorcycle.⁴

It seems that evolutionists are becoming desperate in their pathetic attempt to deny the obvious. When it comes to the bacterial flagellum, evolutionists really don’t have any reasonable explanation for its existence. It always goes back to the same old assumption: Everything that we observe throughout the universe must be explained by nature alone. Like many false religious beliefs, the faith-based belief of evolution is defended no matter what the facts reveal.

Evolution is built on the assumption that life evolved from the very simple to the highly complex. The truth is, however, that even the “so-called” simple cells are highly sophisticated pieces of biological machinery.⁵ Every living cell contains a huge data-base of meaningful genetic information that defines every aspect of an organism’s physical design and life functions. It’s important to consider that a cell would not be “alive” or survive unless most of its life functions became operable all at once. It’s difficult to imagine how even one single-celled organism could evolve when the DNA of one simple E.coli bacterial cell contains 4.6 million base pairs of meaningful information per chromosome, or 9.2 million bits of information.

Moreover, this mountain of genetic information is in no way random but rather well organized; millions of bits of information are constructed in a logical sequential order—order that gives meaning. It should be noted that there is not a single molecule in your body that is alive. The DNA is not alive; the genes are not alive; proteins are not alive. Living cells are a collection of non-living molecules. This begs the question: What is needed to make a living cell alive? It takes an unfathomable creative genius! An almighty infinite God is needed to perfectly arrange non-living molecules into living cells.

Here’s a question: If it really took millions of years for “creature A” to slowly become “creature B”, then most creatures on earth (living or fossilized) would exist in a crude intermediate state (somewhere between A and B). Simply look around—basic observation reveals that organisms are not living in a weird transitional state of flux. If evolution is true, how did living organisms survive while their vital organs were always in a state of limbo? Consider which of the following parts evolved first and how it worked without the others:

• Optical system: Which evolved first: the pupil, lens, retina, optic nerve, cornea, iris, veins, cone cells, glial cells or the complex brain to process the data? Which came first, the desire to see or the ability to see?

• Respiratory system: Which came first: the nostrils, sinuses, trachea, pharynx, lungs, the blood that flows through the lungs or the perfect mixture of gases make breathing possible?

• Circulatory system: Which evolved first: the heart, blood, plasma, platelets, red cells, white cells, veins, arteries, capillaries, valves or the incredibly complex mechanisms that monitor and control the process of blood clotting?

It’s silly to believe that any of these extremely well engineered body parts and systems somehow randomly and simultaneously evolved by chance. Modern science has clearly shown that the most basic building blocks of life (within any cell) are insurmountably complex. Many scientist are coming to the conclusion that there is no way even one “simple” single-cell organism could have evolved by chance because each cell contains a plethora of small and well designed parts that fit together like a complex machine. Additionally, each intricate part would have to evolve randomly and simultaneously on its own and for no reason; all the parts would have to accidently come together for assembly. The assembly process would require that all the random parts fit precisely together according to a complex master plan (Blueprint of Life). Question: If everything is random, then why is there a blueprint in the first place? Can blueprints randomly evolve?

In his book, Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Behe does a fabulous job of presenting the problem of “irreducible complexity.” Michael Behe uses a mousetrap analogy to help illustrate the dilemma. Imagine a living cell being represented by a simple mousetrap consisting of only 7-8 parts; each part of a mousetrap is designed to work together. Keep in mind that if one part of the mousetrap is missing, the trap will no longer function. Imagine the likelihood of each individual part of a simple mousetrap randomly evolving on its own and for no reason. Furthermore, imagine each part of this mousetrap randomly coming together for assembly and then setting itself with bait. It’s crazy to even attempt to imagine it. A living cell is much more complex than a simple little mousetrap. This makes the evolution of any living cell not only improbable, but incomprehensible.

In Darwin’s day, he studied the cell under crude microscopes (by today’s standards) and he saw nothing complex about the so-called simple cell. He thought the cell was nothing more than a formless blob of protoplasm (blob of living jelly). By his own words, as recorded in the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin conceded:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.⁶

Darwin was correct, his theory is bankrupt; he’s left standing like an emperor without clothes. Scientists now understand how complex the living cell is. The Darwinian worldview does not bode well for many intellectually honest scientists today because of their new understanding of “irreducible complexity.”

Unfortunately, many scientists feel intimidated and remain silent because they realize a defection from the “religion of evolution” will come at a high cost. Many scientists have lost their jobs for even questioning the truthfulness of macro-evolution. Unfortunately, the human component of “self-preservation” often trumps taking a stand for Principle and Truth. Ben Stien’s video documentary “Expelled” is a must see; he does a fantastic job of illustrating the lack of intellectual freedom that exists within academia today.⁷

If macro-evolution was a tenable theory, intimidation and indoctrination tactics would not be necessary to advance their beliefs. If macro-evolution was true, evolutionists would have no fear of competing ideas such as Biblical Creationism and Intelligent Design.

STUMBLING BLOCK #5

Faulty Mechanisms

Population genetics is a field in biology that studies the genetic makeup of organic populations and how the genetic makeup may change with time. It attempts to describe mechanisms that may account for adaptation and speciation. Evolutionists often promulgate the following four mechanisms as the driving force behind all macro-evolutionary change: Genetic Drift, Gene Flow, Mutation and Natural Selection. We will take a brief look at each of these alleged mechanisms and consider whether or not they can account for the creation of entirely new species.

Genetic drift is technically defined as the change in frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.¹ In other words, genetic drift addresses genetic change in a species resulting from random chance rather than natural selection. It’s true that certain phenotypes (gene characteristics) can become more common in a population over time. However, even though frequencies of certain genetic characteristics can change from one offspring to another, this change has limits.

According to Mendel’s Laws of Inheritance there are limits to the amount of physical variation that can occur within organisms.Mendel discovered that genes are only reshuffled from one generation to another as opposed to genes being uniquely created. Hence, the amount of variation that can occur from random sampling (genetic drift) has clear limits.²

Genetic drift may even cause certain gene variants to disappear completely, thereby reducing the size of the gene pool and the potential for future variation.³ Needless to say, genetic drift can result in devolution. The random effects of genetic drift have no means of producing new genetic information which could result in the production of entirely new species. We simply don’t see newly created genetic information being added to the pre-existing gene pool that would result in macro-evolution. What we do observe is a loss of information or sometimes a preservation of existing genetic information. It has never been clearly demonstrated how new genetic information can be added to the genome for the creation of entirely new species.

It’s true that some species can sometimes split to produce sub-species, but is this really proof of macro-evolution? According to most evolutionists it is, but the evidence begs to differ. A recent article written by Katherine Harmon describes how the mosquito that carries malaria may be splitting into two different species. She described the two mosquitoes as being, “physically and developmentally indistinguishable—they have even been observed flying in the same mating swarms.” She explains how the differences can only be seen genetically and believes it’s an example of evolution.⁴ The rebuttal: Basically, what they have found is that some of the mosquitoes have lost a portion of their genetic variability (information) in comparison to the other group. However, in order for evolution to work there needs to be an increase in the amount of genetic information being produced, not a net loss.

What we see when a population is isolated from the rest of the population is actually a loss of diversity and a loss of genetic material. Each “new species” has lost some of the potential of the original more varied species. These sorts of changes can sometimes form small groups of sub-species that, over a period of time, have become separated (cannot mate) from the rest of their species. Even though abnormalities in their DNA code became more prominent they all remained the same species.⁵ All variations resulting from genetic drift have only been found within the same species and never across them.⁶ Darwin’s finches, for instance, were not the product of upward evolution but rather an example of subspeciation into specialized populations that adapted to their environment. Finch beaks may have slightly changed in size over time due to drought conditions, but there has never been a finch that has evolved into a non-bird or even a non-finch for that matter.⁷ In fact, the beak sizes of Darwin’s finches have reverted back to normal once the drought passed. Simply put, sub-species are not a new species. Thus genetic drift, in the end, offers no evidence for macro-evolution.

Gene flow or “gene migration” is when gene variations get transferred from one population to another by new individuals of the species moving into or out of a geographical region. For example, the only people in North America at one time were Native Americans. Immigration from other parts of the world over the last several hundred years has significantly changed the gene pool here.⁸ However, the thing to keep in mind is that everyone in America’s melting-pot is still genetically human—never has an example of gene flow produced an entirely new species. This is just another example of micro-evolution at work.

From a Biblical perspective, all the genetic material required to account for the total diversity we see in the human race today was in the original genome of Adam and Eve. In other words, Darwin’s macro-evolution was not needed because God placed all the genetic information needed for all future human diversity in the DNA of humanity’s first parents. It follows, therefore, that God did this for each kind of species (i.e. fish, reptiles, birds, etc).

What about Mutations?

Mutations can be defined as a sudden or spontaneous change in the cell caused by radiation, viruses, transposons, harmful chemicals or errors that occur during DNA replication. All mutations are permanent and heritable changes in the nucleotide sequence of the DNA. Basically, mutations occur when the sequence of coded information within a gene or chromosome gets damaged or miscopied. It should be noted that mutations are the origin for all genetic change. It’s widely known that mutations are considered by virtually all evolutionists to be the “Cat’s Meow” for producing evolutionary change. Even though mutations are simply genetic accidents (copying errors) that take place within the DNA, evolutionists insists that these accidents are the main driving force behind “ameba to man” evolution. Conventional wisdom, however, tells us just the opposite; accidents cannot be a mechanism for continual improvement.

The vast majority of evolutionists describe the mechanism of evolution to be something like this: All evolutionary advancements are caused by an endless series of mutations (accidents) and sorted by means of natural selection. There are a couple problems with this definition; first of all, random mutations—whether neutral, harmful or beneficial—are far too rare to account for the huge species diversity we see today. Moreover, among the rare mutations that do take place—the effects of these mutations are almost always harmful or near neutral at best. With very few (if any) exceptions, mutations always have detrimental or near neutral effects on genetic programs. Diseases, deformities and death are common results of mutations.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm the earth today.⁹ In order for macro-evolution to occur there would have to be thousands upon thousands of beneficial mutations, but that’s not even remotely close to actual reality. It’s common for evolutionists to cite sickle-cell anemia as their best example of a beneficial mutation because it lowers the chance of acquiring malaria from the bite of a certain type of African mosquito. Two brilliant scientists, Henry Morris and Gary Parker made the following remarks about the so-called beneficial sickle-cell mutation:

Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria.

The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that the short time advantages produce ‘mischievous results’ detrimental to long-term survival.¹⁰

It’s difficult to fathom why anyone would cite sickle-cell anemia as a mutational benefit considering its many horrendous effects: Almost all patients with sickle cell anemia have painful episodes (called crises), which can last from hours to days. These crises can affect the bones of the back, the long bones, and the chest.¹¹ Some patients have one episode every few years. Others have many episodes per year. The crises can be severe enough to require a hospital stay. Common symptoms of sickle cell anemia include: Abdominal pain, bone pain, breathlessness, delayed growth and puberty, fatigue, fever, paleness, rapid heart rate, ulcers on the lower legs, jaundice, chest pain, excessive thirst, frequent urination, painful erections, poor eyesight/blindness, strokes and death.¹²

Wow! The best example of a beneficial mutation is when a person acquires one terrible disease in order to lower the chances of catching another terrible disease. And this is considered the primary mechanism for all evolutionary advancement. If sickle-cell anemia was truly a benefit, people in Africa would be eager to infect themselves with it, but they are not.

For many years scientists have been causing mutations in the laboratory; they simply attack the DNA with radiation or toxic chemicals. Scientists have deliberately caused millions of mutations in the lab yet failed to create any new genetic information that results in a net benefit to an organism, with the exception a few alleged cases. In the early 1900’s many genetic researchers were hopeful that fruit flies would come to Darwin’s rescue. Fruit flies became an excellent choice for testing evolution since they have a short generation life cycle and only four sets of chromosomes. Richard Dawkins stated:

In laboratories worldwide, they have been subjected to all forms of mutation-inducing phenomena, including toxic chemicals and radiation treatments, in an attempt to accelerate evolution-mimicking mutations. After all this, fruit flies should have certainly exemplified evolution by now.¹³

After years of testing evolution in fast motion, fruit fly mutations have completely failed to produce any unique body parts let alone a new species. Decades of calculated mutations have only produced weird genetic discrepancies such as an extra set of wings or legs in the place of antennas. By the way, these genetically altered four-wing fruit flies couldn’t fly. The extra wings had no muscles and were basically dead weight.¹⁴ I’m sorry, but four-winged fruit flies that cannot fly should not be considered an example of upward evolution. It’s not surprising therefore that Dr Stephen Myers made the following remarks:

The mutants that produce four-winged fruit flies survive today only in a carefully controlled environment and only when skilled researchers meticulously guide their subjects through one non-functional stage after another.¹⁵

This is hardly an example of mutations causing macro-evolution.

What about Bacteria?

Michigan State University evolutionary Biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations.¹⁶ In the end, the only changes that had occurred were degenerative to the species.

Some people believe that bacterial resistance to anti-bacteria drugs is a form of evolution. Once again, it’s just another example of micro-evolution. Never has any bacteria evolved into a new type of species. Thus, it’s not surprising to learn that secular scientists have no reasonable explanation as to how eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus) could have evolved from bacteria (cells without a nucleus). Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Bristol clarified the lack of evolution with regards to bacteria:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extra chromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.¹⁷

Let’s put it in layman’s terms: If accidental mutations can supposedly cause one species to turn into another, then it shouldn’t be considered unreasonable to assume that an old rusty green Pinto could conceivably evolve into a band new red Lamborghini if you smashed it into a tree enough times. In all seriousness, common sense, logic and basic intuition prevents us from believing that a motor vehicle can experience any form of engineering improvement from a series of random accidents. Yet we are expected to believe that mutational accidents are a mechanism for genetic improvement?

But for the sake of argument, let’s assume accidental mutations somehow get lucky once in a blue moon. Even if this is true, there is still a larger question: How can organisms continually improve, over the long run, when positive mutations are overwhelmingly outnumbered by destructive ones? Some evolutionists claim that gene duplication is the key to understanding how genetic information can increase spontaneously. Dr. John C. Sanford, professor at Cornell University, geneticist, former evolutionists and author of Genetic Entropy, addressed this claim. He said:

It is certainly true that duplications occur spontaneously within all genetic systems. Duplication is a form of mutation and the size of a duplication can be very small (one or just a few nucleotides) or very large (one chromosome or all chromosomes together are duplicated). When one chromosome is doubled it is called aneuploidy, when all chromosomes are doubled, this is called polyploidy. As with word-processing errors, a single letter can be duplicated, a single word can be duplicated, a whole chapter can be duplicated, a whole book could be duplicated, or the whole library can be duplicated. The question is this – “Do such duplications create new information?”

Iff I repeaaat a llettter, does it immmprove my sentences? If I repeat my sentence, do I tell you more? If I repeat my sentence do I tell you more?. . .Obviously all these types of duplications are deleterious, regardless of the scale. They do not increase communication, they obviously disrupt it. . . .nearly all duplications will be both deleterious and nearly neutral – like all other classes of mutation. This means selection will only be able to eliminate the very worst duplications, the rest will relentlessly accumulate and gradually destroy the genome.

Does biological observation support this common sense view of duplication? It most emphatically does! Let us consider the human population. Are there any polyploidy humans? Of course not, duplicating all the human genome is absolutely lethal. Are there any aneuploidy humans? Yes there are – a significant number of people have one extra copy of one chromosome. Do these individuals have more information? Most emphatically, they do not. While aneuploidy is entirely lethal for larger chromosomes, an extra copy of the smallest human chromosomes is not always lethal. Tragically, the individuals who have this type of “extra information” display severe genetic abnormalities. The most common example of this is Down’s Syndrome – resulting from an extra copy of chromosome 21. There are countless smaller duplications and insertions which also have been shown to cause genetic disease.¹⁸

The fact that living organisms are actually experiencing a net increase in genetic load (decrease of genetic information) points us directly to the destructive forces of Entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics). Harmful mutational effects are increasing, not decreasing. The proof, nevertheless, is in the pudding. If mutational accidents were somehow producing net improvements to organisms, we would not be losing the war against genetic disease. According to biophysicist Lee Spetner:

All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.¹⁹

Natural Selection will not get the job done either; there simply are not enough positive mutations (if any) to act on. Natural selection, at best, is only keeping anti-evolution (increases in genetic load) in check. In order for mutations to have any sort of macro-evolutionary effect, there would need to be a significant increase in the number of beneficial mutations and a whole lot less destructive ones. Thousands of beneficial mutations would be required, but no one has been able to show one air tight convincing case.

The validity of macro-evolution is absolutely dependent on an actual mechanism that can create and produce new beneficial genetic information and it’s obvious that mutations are not it. The very notion that random “accidents” can produce a biological net improvement to species at large is an oxymoron of oxymorons. No one has ever successfully explained how new beneficial genetic information can be naturally created and added to the genome.

The Biblical perspective doesn’t require new information be added to the “genome” as evolution does. In fact, we expect to see just the opposite, a loss of genetic information. Biblically, we would expect mutations to produce defects, disease and destruction to the genome because of the curse. Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a net loss of genetic information, not a net gain.²⁰ All species are gradually losing the amount of variation they can produce and this is exactly the opposite of upward evolution.

Despite all attempts to pit science against creationism, mutations, when correctly understood, are a magnificent example of science confirming the Bible²¹ Mutations prove that we are slowly self destructing, not self improving. And natural selection, at best, is only slowing down the rate of that destruction. As mentioned earlier, we are continually losing species due to extinction rather than creating new species.

Mutations can be compared to earthquakes. Earthquakes can sometimes move the ground without causing any property damage, but other times they can be very destructive. Mutations, like earthquakes, can sometimes cause minor property damage, but they can also be very destructive at times. Here’s my challenge: Show me an earthquake that has improved a well engineered building and I will show you a mutation that has improved a well engineered biological creature. When a person witnesses the tragic effects of mutations, it should be a stark reminder of the Curse described in Genesis 3.

Before we close the chapter let’s consider if artificial human intervention can come to evolutions rescue. In other words, can artificial selection get the evolution ball rolling? Even though no one has ever witnessed macro-evolution, its underlying assumption can be tested more quickly through artificial selection. The two types of artificial selection are selective breeding and genetic engineering.

Selective breeding is the traditional method of pairing up certain compatible animals to mate in order to indirectly manipulate the organism’s genes. Once again, Genetic engineering is not the same as selective breeding because it involves the direct manipulation of an organism’s genes. Genetic engineering uses precise techniques of cloning and gene splicing to alter the structure and characteristics of genes directly. It’s interesting to note that modern-day genetic engineering has completely failed to create any new genetic information for the creation of entirely new species. Clearly there are limits as to how much “evolution” can be achieved, naturally or otherwise.

According to author Vance Ferrell:

Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool; although it may have produced a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism. Because of this weakening factor, national and international organizations are now collecting and storing “seed banks” of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may eventually wipe out our specialized [genetically altered] crops. . .²²

Since artificial selection mimics natural selection (in fast motion), the failure of artificial selection to produce any animal crossover reveals the same limitations of natural selection. Natural selection (like all forms of artificial selection) can only promote natural characteristics already existing in the gene pool; it cannot create new genes or body parts because that would require supernatural engineering. Many people confuse natural selection with evolution itself. Natural selection is not an active or creative force; it’s strictly a passive process that selects from preexisting physical traits.

Geneticists can selectively breed dogs of different sizes and colors, but they cannot breed a dog that is one inch tall or one that is fifteen feet tall—nor can they breed a dog with feathers or scales. The encoded information in the DNA will not allow it. Genetic programs always limit “evolution” to the realm of micro-evolution. As stated earlier, micro-evolution is not really evolution at all—it’s simply the physical expression of already existing genes that have been lying dormant in the gene pool.

With regard to influencing trait variation, artificial selection may be carried out for a period of time, but before long a limit in variation will be reached. The DNA code within the genes will simply not allow any crossover to a new species. “The genetic makeup within the chromosomes forms a barrier, a literal wall of separation between one species and another.”²³ Artificial selection has never once produced an entirely new kind of cross-over species.

Simply put, there is no mechanism that exists for macro-evolution to occur. We have looked at all of them (Genetic Drift, Gene Flow, Mutations and Natural Selection). None of these “so-called” mechanisms have ever produced any new genetic information that can produce an entirely new kind of species. The study of Population Genetics is interesting, but it offers no support for the type of cross-over evolution that is taught in public schools today. It’s time public schools start teaching children the truth!

STUMBLING BLOCK #6

Mathematical Probabilities

A Boeing 747 Jumbo Jet has about six million parts. In contrast, a tiny simple-cell has literally billions of parts. In other words, a simple cell has at least 6000 times as many parts as a huge jumbo jet. No sane person would believe that a 747 jetliner could randomly evolve through natural processes, yet evolutionists insist that all the billions of parts needed for life to arise from non-living matter somehow stumbled into perfection without the help of a creator. What is the probability of life originating from non-life? Distinguished English Mathematician and Professor of Astronomy Sir Fred Hoyle concluded:

The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein. . .¹

In other words, the odds of life randomly forming from lifeless matter are even less likely than the Minnesota Vikings celebrating their first super bowl victoryJ. Yes, I’m still a Vikings fan nevertheless.

Nobel Prize winner Dr. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s molecular structure (one of the most important discoveries of 20th century biology) concluded: Life could never have evolved by chance on planet earth.²

Dr. Crick most certainly does not stand alone. Many distinguished scientists have concluded that mere chance could not have produced even one protein, let alone a living cell. Incidentally, just one so-called “simple cell” bacterium contains thousands of different proteins. If the blind production of one protein is considered to be mathematically impossible by some of the brightest minds, then imagine the odds of assembling all the proteins necessary for life? Zoologist Harold Coffin commented:

The chances for producing the necessary molecules, amino acids, proteins, et cetera, for a cell (i.e. Mycoplasm hominis) is less than one in 10 to the power of 340,000,000 (or 10 with 340 million zeros after it).³

In mathematics, this is considered absolutely impossible. Borel’s Law tells us that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ is mathematically impossible. Famous evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle was quoted:

The notion that the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.⁴

Dr. Wilder-Smith is an honored chemist with three doctorate degrees; he stated:

It is emphatically the case that life could NOT arise spontaneously in a primeval soup of this kind.⁶

Former evolutionist Michael Denton (author and Biochemist) also concludes that life cannot arise by chance:

The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.⁷

Critics have objected that evolution is not solely a chance process; that natural selection improves the odds. Natural selection, however, operates only in living things; here we are discussing inanimate chemicals that evolutionists themselves say preceded the start of life. Instead of viewing evolution from an “ameba to man” vantage point we are now considering evolution from a “particle to man” perspective. I love the way James Perloff, author of Tornado in a Junkyard, put it: No one wins this race for survival—all the contestants are dead at the starting line.⁸

Well, let’s assume dumb-luck was somehow able to put amino acids and proteins together. Would that create a living organism? Once again, Mr. Perloff sums it up nicely:

We can drop sugar, water, flour, baking powder, and an egg on the floor - but they won’t turn into a cake by themselves. We have to mix and bake them according to a recipe.⁹

Similarly, mixing hydrogen, helium and oxygen in outer space will never accidently produce a living organism. It’s true that everything in the universe may be comprised of the same stuff stars are made of, but it takes a divine genius to mold, shape and organize star-dust into something as amazing as living creatures.

Let’s say a thousand mosquitoes were tossed into a blender and liquefied into a protein shake; what are the chances these rearranged “mosquito molecules” could once again become a swarm of flying blood-suckers? Even though the exact chemical ingredients necessary to produce a thousand living mosquitoes exist in one container, it will never produce even one living mosquito.¹⁰ In fact, nothing beautiful or sophisticated will ever arise from a blender full of mosquito soup, even if we waited for a billion years.

Not even the brightest minds could reassemble one smashed mosquito back to life. According to author and science teacher Tom Wagner: A squashed mosquito is dead forever. He masterfully drives home the point:

Interestingly, the squashing of a mosquito may help us understand what makes life possible and what makes the spontaneous generation of life impossible.

When a mosquito is slapped, what happens? Obviously its shape changes and it dies. But what makes it die? All of the thousands of sophisticated chemicals which make up its body are still there, relatively unaltered. At the moment of impact its cellular components are still intact including the all-important DNA. So why is it now dead?

Prior to being smashed, the mosquito was a highly organized system with much organized information. But when it got hit, it became disordered, causing critical information in the design of its body to become jumbled. There arose confusion in the finely tuned coordination of chemistry (including the chemicals involved in its overall structure) which culminated in an overall breakdown, resulting in death.¹¹

I remember a chemical engineer once explained to me how much skillful engineering goes into producing just one sheet of sandpaper. Imagine that. . . if the production of one sheet of sand paper requires a huge amount of thought, planning and engineering, then how much more would intelligence be needed to design life? If the most brilliant scientists throughout the world have failed to create life on purpose, then how could blind chance do it by accident? Let’s be honest—unthinking chemicals cannot turn themselves into thinking human beings.¹²

Dr. Michael Behe, Professor of Biological Science at Lehigh University, built a very strong case against Darwin’s theory in his book The Edge of Evolution. This technical book makes many objective and quantitative arguments about the limits of evolution. Dr. Behe’s conclusion about life is displayed on the back of his book; it simply says:

The universe was designed for life.¹³

A universe that was designed for life is the exact opposite of random chance evolution. Speaking of random chance, here is a true story of an evolutionist who miscalculated and misled his audience: Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog), falsely stated that six monkeys, poking randomly at typewriters for a million years, could write all the books in the British Museum. James Perloff tells the truth about Mr. Huxley’s false claim:

Anyone who believes these projections hasn’t done the math. What are the odds of a monkey typing one predetermined nine-letter word, such as “evolution”? Since the alphabet has 26 letters, one must multiply 26 by itself eight times. We find the monkey would need, on average, more than five trillion attempts just to write the word “evolution” once correctly. Typing ten letters per minute, this would take over a million years. If one word is that hard to get, one begins to fathom the difficulties of randomly producing a paragraph. . .¹⁴

Imagine the probability of producing and organizing all the quadrillions of components and bits of information that define life—it’s truly a staggering thought! George Sim Johnson was quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random chance.¹⁵

The genes segments that connect all DNA helix strands are represented by a string of four chemical letters. These chemical letters (C, G, A, T) are arranged in a precise coded sequence to produce the information needed to make life possible. In fact, DNA is the most densely packed assembly of information in the known universe. It’s obviously the work of a master designer yet secular evolutionists refuse to give credit where credit is due.

What does it take to build a functional automobile? It takes an intelligent and creative mind. Who gets the credit for the creation of an automobile...the steel frame...the leather seats...the rubber tires...the glass windows...the gasoline? No, it’s the designers, engineers and builders who get the credit. When it comes to highly complex and sophisticated living organisms, why do evolutionists credit the parts instead of the Creator? Dr. Walt Brown, In The Beginning, offers an amazing description of DNA:

If all the DNA in one of your cells were uncoiled, connected and stretched out, it would be about 7 feet long. It would be so thin its details could not be seen, even with an electronic microscope. If all this very densely coded information from one cell of one person were written in books, it would fill a library of about 4,000 books. If all the DNA in your body were placed end-to-end, it would stretch from here to the moon more than 500,000 times! In book form, that information would fill the Grand Canyon almost 100 times. If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin! Understanding DNA is just one small reason for believing that you are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Ps 139:14)¹⁶

For those critics who believe our cells contain accumulations of junk DNA, I would suggest reading Jonathan Wells, The Myth of Junk DNA. It’s a technically written book that sets the record straight. Despite the abundance of high quality information-based (non-junk) DNA evidence that exists, many evolutionists insist that everything in the universe is strictly material; Dr. Werner Gitt, an information scientist, begs to differ. He plainly says:

It should be noted that the activities of all living organisms are controlled by programs comprising information.

Because information is required for all life processes, it can be stated unequivocally that information is an essential characteristic of all life. All efforts to explain life processes in terms of physics and chemistry only will always be unsuccessful. This is the fundamental problem confronting present-day biology, which is based on evolution.¹⁷

Bacteria, incidentally, do not contain information in their DNA to produce physical features such as eyes, ears, hands and feet, but humans do. Where did the information come from? Evolutionists have no idea. There is no mechanism by which meaningful information can randomly appear. And since every living organism is jam-packed full of meaningful genetic information, there is absolutely no way all the creatures that swarm the earth today exist by means of pure chance. In the end, energy and matter are material, but information is not. Dr. Werner Gitt continues:

There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no sequence of events which can cause information to originate by itself in matter.¹⁸

Professor and Geneticist John Sanford noted:

As we recognize the higher-ordered dimensions of the genome, I believe we can readily agree with Carl Sagan (1974) that each cell contains more information than the Library of Congress. Indeed, surely human life is more complex than all human technologies combined! Where did all this information come from, and how can it possibly be maintained? This is the mystery of the genome.¹⁹

The mystery of the genome points to a supernatural Creator; it certainly does not point to random chance in any way whatsoever.

STUMBLING BLOCK #7

Laws of Science

True science is wonderful; it’s like a window into God’s creation. The more science reveals about the created order, the more difficult it is for a naturalist to say—with a straight face—that everything is an accident.

If the theory of evolution is truly scientific as routinely proclaimed, then no law of science would ever contradict it. But to the detriment of evolution there are many “laws of science” that cannot be reconciled with Darwin’s theory. In fact, there are at least five laws of science that emphatically debunk the theory of evolution. Science is made up of theories and laws. Theories are somewhat speculative, whereas laws are proven (i.e. gravity, inertia. . .). Scientific laws, opposed to theories, are well established and have been legitimized by means of rigorous testing and repeated observation.

Evolutionists often downplay the fact that macro-evolution contradicts a number of well established scientific laws—such as the Laws of Thermodynamics? The first law of thermodynamics, Conservation, states that “energy and matter” cannot be created nor destroyed (only transformed), yet the theory of cosmic evolution ultimately violates this law because it assumes that everything in the universe, in time past, came from literally nothing. Only God could perform such a miraculous feat.

The second law of thermodynamics, Entropy, states that everything is winding down and wearing out (including our genes); this means everything is gradually deteriorating and becoming less organized. In other words, everything is naturally going from order to disorder. The law of entropy is what keeps the economy going; it’s why your roof doesn’t last forever; it’s why paint peels; it’s why automobiles break down. Entropy is the reason you need to comb your hair in the morning.

According to God’s Word, there was no entropy in the Garden of Eden. Everything was in perfect order. The moment Adam and Eve disobeyed and ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the entire creation was cursed with entropy. Since then, entropy has continued to rise and will do so until Jesus returns. The Bible speaks of this decay in Romans 8:19, For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay. . . The Bible also explains in Psalm 102:26 that all people shall wax old like a garment. Apostle Paul speaks about entropy in Romans 8:22: We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.

Glenn Beck said when you think about entropy, remember one thing: “Decay is the Way.” If you leave a Cadillac in a field for a thousand years, it will become a pile of iron-ore. To the contrary, a pile of iron-ore will never randomly organize itself into a Cadillac or anything else that looks designed. Entropy is a one way street! The theory of macro-evolution violates the law of entropy because evolution suggests just the opposite; it assumes things can naturally self-organize.

In order to believe in evolution, a person must be willing to believe that everything in the known universe follows the law of entropy, except for macro-evolution; apparently macro-evolution is the one and only exception to this universal law. It’s worth noting that no one has ever quoted a natural law that can create order and information from disorder (reverse entropy). The fact remains: Darwinian evolution is a heretical belief that requires an outlandish denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In order to believe in the general theory of evolution, the believer must be willing to faithfully prop-up an old worn-out “theory” above several well-established laws of science.

The theory of evolution also violates the Law of Biogenesis. This law states that life arises only from life. In other words, life only comes from pre-existing life as apposed to non-living chemicals. Life could not have originated from lifeless matter and that’s why there are no scientific laws that state life can arise from nonliving material.

The moment a person dies, every atom in their body is still in place yet there is an absence of life. Once a person is dead for a while, not even a “Darwinian Defibrillator” will zap a human back to life. With this in mind, can someone please articulately describe in detail how non-living particles and chemicals can become randomly organized to create life? The way I feel some days I think it’s hard enough just to stay alive; I can’t imagine accidently coming back to life once I’m dead.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, evolution also contradicts Borel’s Law which states “life by chance” is mathematically impossible. Borel’s law specifically states that anything with a probability less than 1 in 10⁵⁰ is “mathematically impossible. The chances for producing the necessary molecules, amino acids, proteins, etc, for just one cell (i.e. Mycoplasm hominis) is less than one in 10 to the power of 340,000,000 (or 10 with 340 million zeros after it). This should put things into perspective.

According to Jolly F. Griggs, “The Law of Angular Momentum declares that radial motion as produced in an exploding bomb or the so-called Big Bang explosion cannot change into orbital or circular motion or condense into lumps in space without an outside force. What is the outside force that gave us condensing, spinning planets and revolving galaxies? Physics and chemistry have no answer.”¹

Everything in the universe is also subject to the Law of Cause and Effect. For every cause there is an effect, and for every effect there must have been a cause (God being the one exception). This law is another inescapable truth that cannot be ignored. Most scientists who believe in evolution attribute time and chance as the catalyst of evolution. They act as if time and chance can produce miracles. I wonder if they realize how absurd this is. Time and chance are literally nothing and cannot be the cause of anything.

For example: If Johnny throws a ball, the ball will travel through the air. The moving ball is the effect and Johnny is the cause. Ultimately, intelligence (along with energy) is always behind every cause. Can “time” and “chance” make a ball fly? Of course not! Yet millions of unsuspecting children in public schools across our great nation are being subtly taught that “time and chance” are the fundamental causes of all the effects in the entire universe. The theory behind cosmic-evolution implies that “time and chance” had the means to create the entire universe. This line of thinking is radically different from the plain Biblical creation account as recorded in the book of Genesis.

If the most intelligent people in the world (with the aid of high tech equipment and computers) cannot create anything (not even a grain of sand) from nothing on purpose, then how could “time and chance” do it by accident? Only a supernatural, omnipotent God could create something from nothing. Any person who is willing to ignore the validity of well established scientific laws in order to support a self-serving theory has entered into the arena of “faith and religion” and away from true science. Those who insist that evolution is strictly scientific and creationism is religious are neglectfully misframing the argument. The fact is both are faith-based.

STUMBLING BLOCK #8

Hoaxes of Evolution

Disclaimer: Monkeys must wait until fully human before reading the following section!

One huge indictment against evolution is all the frauds, hoaxes and misrepresentations that have been perpetrated on the public in an effort to sell the faith-based belief under the guise of science.¹ Here is a short list:

a) Piltdown Man

b) Archaeoraptor

c) Lucy

d) Neanderthal Man

e) Haeckel’s Embryos

f) Peppered Moths

g) Nebraska Man

h) Miller-Urey Experiment

Piltdown Man:

In the early 1900’s many experts and laymen from around the world jumped onto the evolution bandwagon after a small group of scientists claimed they had finally found the missing link that connected man with ape. The supposed ape-man fossil named Piltdown Man was hailed as an authentic link between modern man and our so-called knuckle walking ancestors. Imagine the buzz in the air; secular newspaper editors around the world were proudly giving Darwin’s theory the boost it needed. The atheistic-leaning academic establishment became hopeful that Piltdown Man would finally shut the lid on the coffin of creationism; but as it turns out the Piltdown fraud simply added another layer of grave clothes to the theory of evolution. It took some time, but eventually the truth surfaced about Piltdown. You could say a “monkey wrench” was thrown into the gears of evolution’s propaganda machine. Fast forward about four decades and look what the dictionary reveals about Piltdown Man:

Piltdown man was a supposed species of prehistoric human whose existence was presumed on the basis of skull fragments found in Piltdown (Sussex, England) about 1911 and exposed as a hoax in 1953.² (Underlining added)

Sadly, the Piltdown hoax unscrupulously led many people around the world to accept the theory of evolution as the gospel truth during the 41 years before this so-called missing link was discovered to be a forgery. It’s a little unnerving to consider that the majority of scientists, including peer review professionals, throughout the world unwittingly accepted the Piltdown forgery for 41 years without even questioning its authenticity.³ Once this forgery was exposed, academia quickly learned that Piltdown Man consisted of the lower jawbone of an orangutang combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. There were as many as six scientists involved in this crime. The Piltdown fabrication is perhaps the most famous archaeological hoax in world history. Regrettably, it’s often scams like this that helped popularize the theory of evolution.

Archaeoraptor (Piltdown Bird):

In 1997, a fossil that supposedly connected dinosaurs to birds was unearthed by a local Chinese farmer. This fossil was sent to the United States for testing and was technically named Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. In 1999, the National Geographic magazine quickly trumpeted this missing-link as the “real deal.” As it turns out, this fossil was discovered to be blatant fraud.

How could the National Geographic scientists blindly accept the authenticity of Archaeoraptor without proper verification? Apparently, the new modus operandi of peer review was to except any fossil evidence without scrutiny as long as it supports the theory of evolution. You could say Archaeoraptor was more about “foul play” than legitimate science. Author and speaker Charles Colson published a well-written article on the Archaeoraptor fossil. This report offers a rare glimpse behind evolutions deceptive facade:

Most of us know National Geographic as the magazine we flip through at the doctor’s office. Renowned for its stunning photography, National Geographic is one of the most highly esteemed periodicals in the world. That is, until last November’s issue featured a discovery hailed as the best evidence to date for Darwin’s so-called “missing link.” But what was supposed to be startling news has turned out to be yet one more example of the scientific community peddling fraud as scientific fact. The discovery was remarkable. Archaeologists in China had unearthed a fossil of a half-bird/half- dinosaur. This fossil was proclaimed to be irrefutable evidence of a transitional form between one species and another - evidence that evolutionists have long sought but never found.

Then the truth came out. In reality, the Archaeoraptor fossil turned out to be the remains of two animals pieced together. While some call it an honest mistake, most now believe that it was actually an elaborate and deliberate hoax. But why, you may ask, is the scientific community so quick to embrace disreputable evidence? And why would an institution like National Geographic fail to take steps to confirm the reliability of such an amazing discovery?

The answer: They’re desperate. You see, the lack of any evidence for transitional forms is one of Darwinism’s dirty little secrets, and some scientists would do just about anything to keep it a secret - even to the point of fabricating evidence.⁴

Within two years of Chuck Colson’s eye-opening report, the National Geographic officially recanted (they had no choice). National Geographic posted an article on November 20th, 2010 titled, Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says. Here’s an excerpt:

The principal part of a famously fabricated dinosaur fossil is an ancient fish-eating bird, scientists report.

The Archaeoraptor fossil was introduced in 1999 and hailed as the missing evolutionary link between carnivorous dinosaurs and modern birds. It was fairly quickly exposed as bogus, a composite containing the head and body of a primitive bird and the tail and hind limbs of a dromaeosaur dinosaur, glued together by a Chinese farmer.⁵

When it comes to the ambition of proving Darwin’s theory, many scientists tend to find what they’re looking for instead of looking at what they found. It’s unfortunate that science is not always based on careful analysis, truth and objectivity. In fact, the very idea of evolutionary scientists carelessly misleading the public is rather disturbing.

Australopithecus (Lucy)

In 1968, the Time-Life Nature Library published a major piece on human evolution entitled “Early Man.” It contained a drawing depicting the gradual transition from ape to modern man. There were about fifteen stages in all. This chart became iconic for human evolution. Every public school had posters and textbooks proudly displaying these evolution drawings (we’ve all seen them).

The problem is these evolution charts are very deceptive and misleading, especially to impressionable young school children. These drawings were designed to convince children that evolution is a scientific fact even though the drawings are based on the imagination of an artist. If the drawing were produced according to the actual evidence there would be apes at one end of the chart and humans at the other end, with nothing in-between. It should be considered a crime that this level of deception is taking place in our public schools especially since it can affect a child’s self-identity. Since when did it become legal to mislead children? Secular evolutionists desperately seek for evidence to make their bogus ape-man evolution chart appear credible. So it began, the world was barraged with one false fossil after another. The latest example is Lucy.

A fossil named Lucy was discovery in Ethiopia in 1974 by anthropologist Donald Johanson. Not much time passed before Lucy was proclaimed in public school textbooks to be a true ancestor of man.

Are you beginning to notice an uncanny pattern? It goes something like this: A scientist discovers a bone fragment or a partial fossil and begins to speculate; imaginations begin to run wild; artist’s renditions are quickly created; the missing link is publicized through an intensive media blitz; secular scientists validate the missing link as the real deal and finally the new fossil is added to children’s textbooks in order to continue promoting evolution. Years later, the public quietly finds out the truth. An article recently published in the Creation Magazine brings Lucy’s misrepresentations to light:

According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson became probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

In reinforcement of the fact that Lucy is not a creature “in between” ape and man, Dr Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

“The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been”.

Oxnard’s firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.”

Neither Lucy nor any other australopithecine is therefore intermediate between humans and African apes. Nor are they similar enough to humans to be any sort of ancestor of ours.

Lucy and the australopithecines show nothing about human evolution, and should not be promoted as having any sort of “missing link” status. The creationist alternative, that humans, apes and other creatures were created that way in the beginning, remains the only explanation consistent with all the evidence.⁶

As it turns out Lucy is not really the missing-link that many evolutionists are searching for. Shamefully, Lucy has still not been pulled from school textbooks. Where will they turn next? Who knows, desperate evolutionists may attempt to categorize all men with hairy backs as the latest missing-links.

Neanderthal Man

For nearly an entire century the world was told that Neanderthal man had certain apelike characteristics. However, Dr. David Menton with Answers in Genesis is one of many scientists setting the record straight:

Most of the misconceptions about Neanderthal man resulted from the claims of the Frenchman Marcelin Boule who, in 1908, studied two Neanderthal skeletons that were found in France.

Boule declared Neanderthal men to be anatomically and intellectually inferior brutes who were more closely related to apes than humans. He asserted that they had a slumped posture, a “monkey-like” arrangement of certain spinal vertebrae, and he even claimed that their feet were of a “grasping type” (like those of gorillas and chimpanzees). Boule concluded that Neanderthal man could not have walked erectly, but rather must have walked in a clumsy fashion. These highly biased and inaccurate views prevailed and were even expanded by many other evolutionists up to the mid-1950s.

. . .Still, efforts continue to be made to somehow dehumanize Neanderthal man. Many evolutionists now even insist that Neanderthal man is not even directly related to modern man because of some differences in a small fragment of DNA! There is, in fact, nothing about Neanderthals that is in any way inferior to modern man.⁷

One of the world’s leading authorities on Neanderthal man, Erik Trinkaus, firmly concludes:

“Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual, or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans.”⁸

The Neanderthal man is another example of a so-called missing link that turns out to be totally human. Based on recent dental records and x-rays Neanderthal man is now believed to have suffered from adult arthritis and/or childhood rickets. Rickets is a disorder caused by a lack of sunlight (vitamin D deficiency) which can affect skull size and bone structure.⁹ In 1958, at the International Congress of Zoology, A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France established that it was simply an old man who had suffered from arthritis.

Furthermore, recent three dimensional high-tech computer analyses revealed that Neanderthal man is 100% human—not surprising! This huge story was barely reported in the main stream media. Just imagine if the advanced computer analysis proved Neanderthal man was a missing link, the mainstream news media would have been giddy with excitement.

Haeckel’s Embryos:

Since Ernst Haeckel was a committed activist for evolution, it’s not surprising he was quoted saying: politics is applied biology. Ernst Haeckel was best known for his biological recapitulation theory. This theory taught that all animals, while developing from embryo to adult, go through stages resembling successive stages in the evolution of their distant ancestors.

It’s well known that Ernst Haeckel falsified his embryo drawings in order to popularize the theory he embraced. Haeckel’s fake drawings wrongly illustrate a resemblance between fish and human embryos. These pictures are designed to demonstrate the amazing similarity of fish, chickens, pigs and humans in the womb. Students were being taught that the gill slits of human embryos exist because of the inheritance from man’s early aquatic ancestry. However, it’s been proven that human embryos don’t have gill slits. Ernst Haeckel created his embryo drawings in 1868, but by 1874 Ernst Haeckel’s drawings were declared fraudulent by Professor His.

Haeckel realized he was boxed into a corner; he had no choice but to confess to his wrongdoing. He offered a weak confession that was also considered misleading by many. In the letter, Haeckel clearly states that the drawings were contrived by “comparative synthesis” and not by accurate reproduction. Once the fraudulent drawings were exposed, the expected evolutionary embryonic sequences had obvious gaps. Haeckel conceded, “a small portion of my embryo pictures (possibly 6 or 8 in a hundred) are really ‘falsified’.”

Before this great fraud was discovered, Haeckel’s phony drawings were presented as evidence at the 1920’s Scopes trial which falsely promoted public support for evolution. It’s inconceivable that Haeckel’s falsified drawings are still being used in many school textbooks today and without any shame and embarrassment.

Peppered Moths:

In the 1800’s the British biologist Bernard Kettlewell demonstrated that peppered moths were good examples of natural selection in the wild. He rightly showed that peppered moths have been known to darken from generation to generation in response to increased amounts of air pollution resulting from the industrial revolution.

This is indeed a real life example of natural selection causing change within a species; however, this sort of biological micro-change cannot continue without limits. It’s just another example of micro-evolution. Natural selection only passively selects from pre-existing genetic information and thus cannot create new genetic information that will transform a moth into a creature that’s non-moth.

Furthermore, many of Kettlewell’s contemporaries found it convenient to take some short cuts in their attempt to popularize the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, the classical story about peppered moths includes misleading photographs that have made their way into most biology textbooks. The misleading photographs show light and dark peppered months resting on light and dark colored tree trucks. The problem is moths don’t even rest on tree trunks. As it turns out, the experiment was staged; the moths were pinned to the tree trucks to make it appear they were resting there. The worst part is most biologists have known this for over 25 years.

Good science does not involve manipulating evidence to prove a theory. As stated earlier, variations in color among peppered moths are a good example of natural selection. But natural selection only selects from pre-existing genetic information and has no ability to cause the type of macro-change that result in crossover speciation. The specific genetic information needed to produce different color moths has always existed in the gene pool, but simply didn’t express itself until the right conditions came along.

Nebraska Man:

The story behind Nebraska man is so outrageous the reader may not know whether to laugh or cry. Secular evolutionists have once again embarrassed themselves while attempting to prove their anti-God worldview. In the book Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, Dr. Duane Gish documents the story of Nebraska Man:

In 1922 a single tooth was discovered in western Nebraska which was declared by Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most eminent paleontologists of that day, and several other authorities, to combine the characteristics of the chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus, and a man.

Osborn and his colleagues could not quite decide whether the original owner of this tooth should be designated as an apelike man or a manlike ape. He was given the designation Hesperopithecus haroldcookii and became known popularly as Nebraska Man. An illustration of what this creature and his contemporaries supposedly looked like was published in the Illustrated London News. In this illustration, Hesperopithecus looks remarkably similar to modern man, although brutish in appearance.

In 1927, after further collecting and studies had been carried out, it was decided that Hesperopithecus was neither a manlike ape nor an apelike man, but was an extinct peccary, or pig!¹⁰

That’s right; these scientists constructed an entire “missing link” fossil from an extinct pig’s tooth. This is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig, but as it turned out the pig made a monkey out of the scientist!¹¹ This is just another case of secular humanists using fraud and deception to push their agenda.

Miller-Urey Experiment

In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey conducted an experiment which attempted to prove that life can arise spontaneously from non-living molecules. Initially, the experiment was interpreted as a success; it was widely advertised for decades by the secular media that this proves life can originate from non-living matter under the earth’s natural conditions. In the end, the Miller–Urey experiment is an excellent example of how life could not have resulted from spontaneous generation.

There are several problems that should be noted. First of all, this experiment took place in a controlled environment that did not accurately represent the earth’s natural environment. It’s widely known that Stanley Miller cheated by artificially filtering any harmful ultraviolet light that normally occurs from the sun. During Mr. Miller’s attempt at playing “god” he cheated by using p-traps to remove any harmful by-products resulting from radiation.

Moreover, Miller’s experiment consistently produced equal quantities of both right-handed and left-handed organic molecules. This was a huge problem for Miller since right-handed amino acids are useless and almost always lethal to life. In the real world, amino acids can only be used in proteins that are left-handed. Anything that is alive, such as people, plants or animals contain no right-hand amino acids.¹² When something dies the amino acids slowly become 50% left-handed and 50% right-handed. Police labs even use this phenomenon to determine time of death.

In actuality, the Miller experiment only produced a toxic brew that could never support life. Despite the serious problems of the Miller-Urey experiment, many evolutionists still use it as a propaganda tool to promote evolution in the classroom. Dr. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, articulately raises an academic red flag. He lists several examples of classroom biology textbooks that make misleading statements about the Miller-Urey experiment. For instance, Mr. Wells points to a 1998 college textbook titled, Life: The Science of Biology by William Purves, Gordon Orians, Craig Heller, and David Sadava. According to Mr. Wells this textbook informs students that. . .Stanly Miller produced “the building blocks of life” using “a reducing atmosphere such as existed on early Earth,” and that “no free oxygen was present in this early atmosphere.”¹³

This textbook completely fails to explain that most scientists today believe the Miller-Urey experiment was not a fair representation of pre-life conditions on earth. And it’s not just textbooks that mislead its readers. The March issue of National Geographic implies that the building blocks of life can be easily created. It says:

Approximating conditions on the early Earth in a 1952 experiment, Stanly Miller-now at the University of California at San Diego-produced amino acids. ‘Once you get the equipment together it’s very simple,’ he says.

The most shocking part is that the National Academy of Sciences is involved in misleading students. Jonathan Wells points out:

A 1999 booklet published by the National Academy of Sciences perpetuates the misrepresentation: “Experiments conducted under conditions intended to resemble those present on primitive Earth have resulted in the production of some of the chemical components of proteins.”

. . .the National Academy contains other false and misleading statements about evolution, too. Clearly, we are not dealing here with an isolated textbook error. The implications for American science are potentially far-reaching.¹⁴

Americans must feel incredibly betrayed by secular academia, the liberal media and the secular government when they learn of all the schemes used to suppress the truth about God and His creation. Consider this: The government has a war against drugs, a war against terror, a war against this and a war against that. Why is there never a war against lies? It’s truly disheartening to contemplate the conspiratorial nature of man and how far its deceptive tentacles have reached. God please help us.

Since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the LORD. . . they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes. —Proverbs 1:29, 31

STUMBLING BLOCK #9

Dinosaurs

The idea of Dinosaurs walking with people may seem far-fetched, but have you ever noticed the exceptional resemblance between dragons and dinosaurs? It’s likely that ancient dragon stories are simply exaggerated descriptions of dinosaurs. After all, dragons were often described as large reptiles with big teeth, long tails, leathery skin and plated backs.¹

It’s well known that dinosaurs are simply extinct reptiles. In fact, there is one type of reptile alive today that is still called a dragon, it’s the dinosaur-looking komodo dragons. And just because a creature is called a dragon does not necessarily mean it breathes fire and has two heads. The extensive similarities between dragons and dinosaurs, as recorded all over the world, suggest that these creatures may be one in the same. Dr. Leland Niermann highlights how the Chinese frequently use the term dragon bones when describing fossils. His statement is recorded in the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal:

The oldest record of possible dinosaur bones is in a Chinese book written between A.D. 265 and 317. It mentions “dragon bones” found at Wucheng, in Sichuan Province. . .To the Chinese, “Dragon bones” and “Dinosaur bones” were one in the same.

If dinosaurs and man co-existed, what would we expect to find? Incidentally, dragon descriptions, like the Flood, were reported on every continent throughout the world. Could this be a bizarre coincidence. . .? Conventional wisdom says, no way! Carl Sagan (aka: Carl Pagan) came up with his own extreme version of what happened. Peter Dickinson explains:

Carl Sagan tried to account for the spread and consistency of dragon legends by saying that they are fossil memories of the dinosaurs, come down to us through a general mammalian memory inherited from the early mammals, our ancestors, who had to complete with the great predatory lizards.²

All I can say is really! Let’s get this straight. . . Carl Sagan is insinuating that all ancient drawings of dinosaurs interacting with people are the result of inherited memories from our non-human ancestors. This sort of psychobabble is strange enough to give most reasonable people a headache. Let’s get back to reality. It’s interesting that the Bible describes several features of a large creature that could easily be interpreted as a dinosaur. The book of Job records:

Look at Behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength it has in its loins, what power in the muscles of its belly! Its tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of its thighs are close-knit. Its bones are tubes of bronze, its limbs like rods of iron.³

Many Bible commentators, influenced by old age thinking, have suggested that the Behemoth may represent a hippopotamus or crocodile. I’m sorry, but it requires a stretch of the imagination to compare the tail of a hippo or a crocodile with that of a cedar tree. Old-age indoctrination has been so pervasive in our culture that even many well-intentioned Bible scholars have fallen prey to its influence. Most people assume dinosaurs could not have possibly been alive during man’s existence on earth.

However, when one considers all the stories of dragons documented around the world coupled with the Biblical description of huge dinosaur-like creatures, the thought of man walking with dinosaurs may not be a far-fetched idea at all! Besides, there is plenty of additional evidence to corroborate this claim. There is an abundance of literature, art work and various ancient artifacts depicting live dinosaurs by themselves and/or interacting with humans. These include burial stones, burial cloths, clay figurines, cave drawings, etc.⁴ In 1970, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner documented the following:

A fantastic mystery has developed over a set of cave paintings found in the Gorozomzi Hills, 25 miles from Salisbury [in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe]. For the paintings include a brontosaurus—the 67-foot, 30-ton creature scientists believed became extinct millions of years before man appeared on earth.

Yet the bushmen who did the paintings ruled Rhodesia from only 1500 B.C. until a couple of hundred years ago. And the experts agree that the bushman always painted from life.

This belief is borne out by other Gorozomzi Hills cave paintings—accurate representations of the elephant, hippo, buck and giraffe.⁵

Evolutionists have no problem believing that all other ancient animal depictions are of real animals that lived with humans; however, when they see drawings of dinosaurs with people, they simply dismiss them as mythical creatures.

Amazingly, fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs “together” have also been found? The Paluxy River in Glen Rose Texas is normally a rapidly flowing river that runs through the middle of Dinosaur Valley State Park; it’s famous for its dinosaur tracks. Not as well known is that human tracks have also been found, not only in the same formation, but on the same bedding plane and in some cases overlapping the dinosaur tracks. For more information on this fascinating subject go to www.irc.org and read the article by John D. Morris, Ph.D., The Paluxy River Tracks.

Remarkably, there have been several “fresh” (un-fossilized) dinosaurs unearthed recently. Scientists are baffled as to how dinosaur skin and soft tissue could have been preserved for over 50 million years (Hmmm. . .Maybe they’re not millions of years old). National Geographic published the following article titled “Dinosaur Mummy Found; Has Intact Skin, Tissue.” It reads:

Scientists today announced the discovery of an extraordinarily preserved “dinosaur mummy” with much of its tissues and bones still encased in an uncollapsed envelope of skin.

Preliminary studies of the 67-million-year-old hadrosaur, named Dakota, are already altering theories of what the ancient creatures’ skin looked like and how quickly they moved, project researchers say.⁶

It get’s even better!

On May 1, 2009, John Roach wrote the following article for the National Geographic News titled “Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found—Blood Vessels, More”:

The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a new study says.⁷

The idea of soft tissue and red blood cells surviving 80 million years seems absolutely outrageous, but it’s what evolutionists are forced to believe because of prior assumptions. If the book of Genesis is accurate, the oldest dinosaur fossils were formed during the last six thousand years. It’s much easier to believe that blood cells were preserved for six thousand years as opposed to 80 million years; that’s a 79,994,000 year differential.

If you’re a Christian and you take God at his word, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus created the first human (Adam) along with each kind of land animal on day six (this would include dinosaurs). Since the word “dinosaur” is a relatively new term it will not show up in the scriptures or any other ancient literature. The word “dinosaur” was not even coined until 1841.

Dinosaurs have always been dinosaurs even though at one time they may have been called Dragons, Behemoth or Terrible Lizards. There is absolutely no empirical evidence to support the idea that dinosaurs magically evolved from another kind of creature.

From a Biblical perspective, it only makes sense that God created dinosaurs, with the rest of the animals, during the six days of creation. How could dinosaurs have fit into Noah’s Ark? That’s easy. God probably chose baby ones.

STUMBLING BLOCK #10

Young Earth Evidence

The idea of a young earth is nothing new. It has been the prevailing sentiment throughout world history. It was not until the theory of evolution infiltrated our culture that the idea of an old earth gained traction. In fact, the philosophy of evolution would not survive without the illusion of billions of years. The only way to make the story of evolution believable is to saturate it with eons of time. Evolutionists use “time” as a magic wand to make the impossible seem possible. It’s astounding to learn that secular scientists have been adding millions of years to the age of the earth every year. If a person were to review science publications over the last 20 years, it would reveal that the earth is getting older by about 28 million years per year.¹ Why have they been adding so much time to the earth’s age? Simple, it’s the only way to make the fairy-tale of evolution even remotely believable.

It cannot be scientifically proven exactly when the universe was created, but claims that the earth is billions of years old can be reasonably refuted. In fact, many traditional dating methods point to an earth that is less than 10,000 year old. There is ample evidence for a young earth from astronomy, geology, genetics, linguistics and the Bible.

It’s true that reliable and accurate scientific data can often be interpreted in different ways. In fact, false presuppositions can foster misguided interpretations which can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Even well-intentioned scientists are not immune to this phenomenon. This is why sincere evolutionists and sincere creationists can look at the exact same data and come up with opposite conclusions. But hopefully this book has demonstrated by now that the creationist’s assumption that God created everything is much more reasonable than the evolutionist’s assumption that unguided raw nature created everything. Regardless, each of us can decide which assumption makes the most sense.

Before we get started, it should be noted that the Holy Scriptures plainly reveal that God created the earth/universe about six to ten thousand years ago. It clearly lays out a genealogical roadmap from Adam to Christ. As stated earlier, almost everyone believed in a young earth before the idea of evolution became popularized. Sadly, the notion of an earth that is billions of years old has only further watered down the Scriptures from the perspective of many mainstream Christians. Many well intentioned Christians have spent untold hours devising theories that attempt to squeeze eons of time into the book of Genesis.

Exodus 20:11 reveals that God spent six days creating and rested on the seventh and God expects the same from us:

For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

If we assume each day of creation was millions of years, as many Christians do, the whole creation story falls apart. This would imply that people are to work for millions of years and then rest for millions of years on the Sabbath? Perhaps Christians need to take a deep breath and remind themselves that God’s Word does not change, unlike the shifting sands of evolution.

Once again, there is no way to prove the age of the earth. After all, it did not come with a stamp that says “Planet Earth, created at 2:30 pm, 4.6 billion BC.” Furthermore, no human was around to witness what occurred. Nevertheless, we are going to present a wide array of evidence that reasonably undermines the idea that the earth is billions of years old. Let’s start with evidence from our own planet:

Origin of Language: Over a century’s worth of professional research has failed to account for the origin of human language. A growing number of linguists, archaeologists, psychologists, anthropologists and others are beginning to consider the origin of language to be one of the most challenging problems in science.² Richard Dawkins noted:

“Nobody knows how [language] began. There doesn’t seem to be anything like syntax in non-human animals and it is hard to imagine evolutionary forerunners of it.” ³

The fact that complex human language shows up suddenly with no hint of evolution is another huge stumbling block for secular scientists. In fact, ancient languages are usually more complex than the ones we use today; it’s another example of evolution in reverse. According to the late, but highly respected anthropologist Ralph Linton:

“The so-called primitive languages can throw no light on language origins, since most of them are actually more complicated in grammar than the tongues spoken by civilized peoples.”⁴

It’s clear that ancient people were more intelligent than people living on earth today. This may seem hard to grasp because of all the technologies we have today. Humanity may seem smarter because we have mastered the art of recording and harnessing information. But just because knowledge and information is increasing does not mean, individually, we are more intelligent than our assessors. A simple review of various ancient writings will reveal a high level of intelligence and an impressive use of vocabulary among these authors. Paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson stated:

“Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed. . . . Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers. . . . The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view.”⁵

From a biblical perspective, the origin of language is not a problem whatsoever. In fact, linguistic evidence is very consistent with God’s Word, including the Tower of Babel account in Genesis 11.⁶ Furthermore, Adam was clearly speaking with God from the moment he was created; he even had the creative ability to name all the animals. All attempts to solve the mystery of the origin of language have only left evolutionists at a “loss for words.” Since language started complex and has been generally devolving ever since, it speaks volumes that humans were created brilliant and have only occupied the earth for thousands of years.

River Deltas: A river delta is simply an extension of land that is formed at the mouth of a river, where a river flows into a body of standing water such as a lake, sea, ocean, etc. River deltas are formed from an accumulation of sediment deposited where the river terminates. Over time, the deposition of sediment causes the surrounding landmass to expand outward into the body of water it feeds. The fact that river deltas around the world are relatively small indicates that our earth is relatively young. Here is an excerpt from Vance Farrell’s book Science vs. Evolution:

Did you ever see an air-view photograph of the Mississippi River delta? You can find an outline of it on any larger United States map. That river dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cubic meters] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico every year, at the point where the river enters the gulf. For this reason, the State of Louisiana keeps becoming larger. Yet, for the amount of sediment dumping that occurs, the Mississippi delta is not very large. In fact, calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years.

The Mississippi-Missouri river system is the longest in the world and is about 4,221 miles [6,792 km] in length. Because, below Cape Girardeau, flatland inundation along the Mississippi has always been a problem, over a hundred years ago, Congress commissioned *General Andrew A. Humphreys to make a survey of the whole area. It was completed in 1861. The English evolutionist, *Charles Lyell, had earlier made a superficial examination of the river and its delta and declared the river system to be 60,000 years old since the delta was 528 feet [1609 dm] deep.

But Humphreys showed that the actual depth of the delta was only 40 feet. Below that was the blue clay of the Gulf, and below that, marine fossils. His discovery revealed that the lower Mississippi valley used to be a marine estuary. Using Lyell’s formula for age computation, Humphreys arrived at an age of about 4,620 years, which would be approximately the time of the Genesis Flood.⁷

According to modern calculations the Mississippi delta has grown up to 50 miles in the last 5,000 years.⁸ This indicates the delta is growing about one mile every one hundred years. If this process has been taking place for even one million years the delta would have expanded thousands of miles. This would be a little hard to believe considering the entire width of the gulf is only about 1,221 miles wide. However, many naturalists estimate that the Mississippi River has only been flowing for as little as 200,000 years. Even at this conservative estimate the delta would have sprawled out into a good portion of the Gulf of Mexico.

It’s inconsistent for old age theorists to claim that the Colorado River has been flowing for 70 million years and then in the same breath insist that the mighty Mississippi has only been around for 200,000 years. Secular geologists assume the Colorado River has been flowing for 70 million years because it’s the only way they can even attempt to account for the formation of the Grand Canyon. Apparently, when evolutionists need a river to be old they simply say it’s old, but when they need a river to be young they assign it a young age. Regardless, the fact that the Mississippi River has only produced a relatively small delta speaks favorably of the Biblical time scale.

Niagara Falls: The massive amount of water cascading over Niagara Falls is truly a display of raw power. Niagara Falls has the highest flow rate of any waterfall in the world and has a vertical drop of more than 165 feet.⁹ The sheer volume of rushing water was taking its toll on the cliff’s edge. For this reason erosion control efforts became extremely important. In the mid 1900’s underwater weirs were installed to redirect the most damaging currents.¹⁰

Prior to man’s preservation efforts, the erosion rate of Niagara Falls had been consuming the cliff’s edge at a rate of four to five feet per year (the cliff is receding headward towards Lake Erie).¹¹ We know the total length of the eroded gorge is seven miles long. If we assume that the rate of recession was fairly constant, it indicates an age less than 9,000 years. Keep in mind that the effects of a worldwide flood could have drastically increased the erosion rate thus shortening the age of Niagara Falls well within the Biblical timeline of 4-6 thousand years.

It should be noted that the edge of Lake Erie is only about 22 miles away from Niagara Falls. At the normal historical rate of erosion, Niagara Falls’ receding gorge would have easily made it to Lake Erie in less than 25,000 years. Thus, Niagara Falls is another great natural wonder that points to a young earth.

Skeptics often ask what Niagara Falls has to do with a young earth. They are implying that even if Niagara Falls is young this does not limit the earth’s age. Creationists are not saying that the age of Niagara Falls absolutely proves the earth is young, but it’s one of many puzzle pieces that together strongly supports the biblical young earth model.

Radiometric Dating: Radiometric dating methods are often based on making certain assumptions. In fact, every radiometric dating method requires making at least three assumptions. These include:

1) The rate of decay has always remained constant throughout the past.

2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known.

3) The sample has remained in a closed system (uncontaminated).

The first assumption could possibly be a valid one, but since the earth is not a closed system the last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and questionable.

Outside influences such as heat and groundwater can seriously alter the original material. For example, if a rock sample was below the water table at any time, leaching would take place. For Uranium/Lead dating this means that some of the uranium that was initially present would be “leached” out of the rock. Leaching can also cause uranium to be leached into rocks that have little or no uranium in them. Hence, in virtually every case, scientists do not know what the original condition of the rock was unless the rock was recently produced from a magma eruption. When lava rock is formed, the radiometric clock starts over.

When a sample of the new lava rock in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon 40 that it had a so-called calculated age of 350,000 years!¹² Similarly, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.¹³ ¹⁴ Wow! Fifty year old igneous rock dated at a whopping 3.5 million years; astonishing!

When someone takes a sample of a known date and has it tested—without telling the testers that the age is known—it often comes back with an incredibly far off date. When confronted, we are told that mistakes can happen. But when samples of unknown dates are tested, then we are supposed to assume the dates are reliable—how convenient! There are many more examples of radiometric dating tests that are contradictory and inconsistent. Author John Woodmorappe, Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, highlights many examples of radiometric dates that don’t fit evolution’s old earth paradigm.

The Grand Canyon has evolutionary scientists baffled because one of its deep rock layers has been given an age that is younger than a layer above it. This violates the most fundamental rules of geology. According to Creation Wiki, twenty-seven rock samples from the Inner Gorge of the Grand Canyon turned out to have wildly different ages when tested according to different radiometric models, and even when tested according to the same model. Furthermore, the differences in ages vastly exceeded their published tolerances.

Granite reveals another radiometric inconsistency because it contains too much helium to be millions of years old. The glossy black fragments in granite, called mica, contain small crystals which allow helium to escape relatively quickly. Tests have consistently shown that a fair amount of helium still occupies granite crystals. The fact that helium is still found in granite is a great example of why the earth is not millions of years old.¹⁵

What about carbon dating, is it reliable?

Carbon 14 dating is unique in the sense that it’s used for dating organic material instead of inorganic material such as rocks. Carbon 14 is made when cosmic rays (sunlight) collide with atoms in the upper atmosphere, producing another type of cosmic rays which in turn collide with nitrogen atoms in the lower atmosphere. The C-14 atoms combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide; this gas gets absorbed into all plant life and eventually consumed by animals. Thus, all living creatures on earth contain a certain amount of carbon 14 in their bodies.

When an organism dies it no longer takes in carbon 14, but continues to lose C-14 through the process of radioative decay. Carbon 14 is a radioactive element with a half-life of 5,730 years. This means in 50,000 years from the death of an organism the C-14 is almost completely gone. After 100,000 years, it is completely undetectable by any modern measuring devise used today. Richard Dawkins openly acknowledged the limitations of radiocarbon dating in his popular book, The Blind Watchmaker. He said:

Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable. It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years.¹⁶

According to Richard Dawkins, C-14 dating is only reliable for up to a few thousand years. It’s not every day that he agrees with creation scientists. Incidentally, carbon dating is different than all other forms of radiometric dating since its half life is much shorter. We know that C-14 dating is very reliable on organic material that is under 4,000 years because it has been well calibrated with biological material of known age.

From an evolutionary perspective, diamonds are an example of something that contains too much carbon 14. Secular scientists believe diamonds formed over a period of millions of years resulting from the crystallization of pure carbon under intense temperature and pressure. Here’s a problem: If diamonds are really millions of year old, there should not be a trace of C-14 contained in them. It should be noted that the crystal structure of diamonds prevents recent contamination with C-14. To the detriment of old earth theories, carbon 14 has been detected and measured within diamonds when none should exist. Furthermore carbon 14 has been found in coal and dinosaurs that are supposedly millions of years old. Dr. Don DeYoung stated: The amounts of C-14 in coal are found to average 0.25 percent of that in the atmosphere today.¹⁷ That’s astonishing! This means coal is relatively young.

There is another interesting aspect of carbon 14 that has become a delight to creationists. Professor Robert Whitelaw of Virginia Polytechnic Institute examined about 30,000 dates published in Radio Carbon over the last 40 years. Amazingly, he noticed a strange absence of dates between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago. This fact undoubtingly points to the Biblical Flood catastrophe that killed off the world’s plant and animal life.¹⁸

Decaying Magnetic Field: The decaying magnetic field provides additional evidence that reasonably limits the age of the earth to less than 10,000 years. The earth’s magnetic field strength was measured by Carl Friedrich Gauss in 1835 and has been repeatedly measured since then, showing a relative decay of about 10% over the last 150 years.¹⁹ Evolutionists point to reversals in the magnetic field and argue that the exponential rate of decay in the magnetic field is only temporary. They speculate that the earth’s magnetic field randomly reverses every several hundred thousand years.

It’s true that the rocks have recorded several hundred reversals, but from a Biblical perspective all these reversals occurred fairly rapidly as a consequence of the Flood catastrophe. How do rocks record magnetic reversals? The magnetic minerals in magma orient themselves to the magnetic orientation of Earth at the time of their solidification. Thus, the histories of magnetic reversals are recorded in the lava rock. Many creation scientists believe that when the “great fountains of the deep” were released at the time of the great Flood, it kicked off massive seismic activity that dramatically disrupted the earth’s mantel. The reverberations traveling through the earth’s mantel during and after the Flood caused relatively quick recordings of magnetic reversals that still exist in igneous rock today

Old earth supporters point to Dr. Elsasser’s dynamo (electric generator) model which theorizes that the magnetic field of the earth is being recharged by some unknown energy source deep within the earth’s core. If the dynamo theory is correct it would allow for the vast periods of time that evolutionist’s desire. One problem, however, is that dynamo model requires the earth’s core to hold the charge. A charge that deep inside the earth cannot manifest fast fluctuations on the planet’s surface.²⁰ Another problem is that nobody knows the source of energy to feed this supposed dynamo.

In 1986, physicist D. Russell Humphreys described a magnetic field that was much different from the “dynamo” model. Humphreys introduced a version of the “free decay” model, describing a magnetic field held in the mantle that wraps around the outside of the core.²¹ This model accounts for the rapid reversals thus eliminating the idea of billions of years. Dr. Brian Thomas remarked:

According to Humphreys and other scientists, the after-effects of these turbulent Flood events caused magnetic field reverberations for centuries. The new measurements from the Middle East shed light on how rapid the fluctuations still were hundreds of years after the great Flood.

Thousands of similar records have shown “that the field intensity at the earth’s surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ.” Evolution’s long-age dynamo model fails to match the data. In contrast, a quickly decaying, rapidly fluctuating magnetic field fits the free decay model and an age for earth of only thousands of years.²²

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati noted:

Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction.

Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.”²³

In a Creation Institute article, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, Dr. Russell Humphreys made the following conclusion:

At present, the only working theory for the origin, fluctuations, rapid reversals, and decay of the field is a creationist theory—a theory that fits all the data. Thus, according to the best theory and data we have, the earth’s magnetic field certainly is less than 100,000 years old; very likely less than 10,000 years old, and fits in well with the face-value Biblical age of 6,000 years.²⁴

Sahara Desert: At over 3,600,000 square miles, the Sahara desert covers most of Northern Africa, making it almost as large as the United States.²⁵ The Sahara desert is the largest hot desert in the world and is expanding at a rate of about 29 miles every year.²⁶ Desertification is becoming a major problem as more and more of the world’s land surface is converting to desert.²⁷ Hot prevailing winds often dehydrate and kill the vegetation near the edge of the desert, thus expanding its size. Scientists really have no idea exactly how old the Sahara dessert is. Estimates range from one thousand to millions of years. If we assume the Sahara desert has been expanding since the last ice age, it should be much bigger than it is today. The Bible says the world experienced a worldwide flood about 4,400 hundred years ago. If this is true we should not currently have a hot desert over 4,400 years old. At the Sahara’s current growth rate it easily fits within a young earth time-line.

Oldest Tree: The bristlecone pines are a small group of pine trees that are thought to reach an age far greater than that of any other single living organism known. In fact, it’s widely acknowledged that a certain bristlecone pine in California is over four thousand years old. The tree has been nicknamed “Methuselah” (after Methuselah, the longest-lived person in the Bible).²⁸ Using techniques of dendrochronology (tree ring dating) scientists have dated the Methuselah tree between 4,000 – 5,000 years old. Why is the oldest living tree on earth today less than 5,000 years? It goes back to Noah’s Flood. Biblical chronology implies the Flood occurred about 4,400 years ago. It’s highly improbable that any tree could have survived the worldwide deluge. Seeds could survive, but not trees

Stalactites: Stalactites often hang from ceilings of limestone caves and are formed by the deposition of calcium carbonate and other minerals which are precipitated from mineralized water solutions. The average stalactite growth rate is.0051 inches a year.²⁹ However, some stalactites have been shown to grow much more quickly. Check out the following information posted on creationwiki.org:

“In Sequoia Caverns, stalactites protected from tourists from 1977-1987 grew 10 inches or 1 inch / year. At this rate they could have grown 300 ft in just 3600 years. Many caves do have slow stalactite and stalagmite growth rates today. However, there is evidence that suggests caves were formed rapidly by sulfuric acid dissolution rather than weaker and slower carbonic acid. This process would not only have sped up cave formation but also the growth rates of stalactites and stalagmites. Sulfuric acid forms when water, oxygen and hydrogen sulfide mix. The hydrogen sulfide could come from several sources, including anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, oxidation of sulfide deposits, volcanic activity and others. All of these sources would have been plentiful during the Genesis Flood. If the Genesis Flood is considered, cave formation along with stalactite/stalagmite growth rates would fit well within the time since the Flood.”³⁰

Stalactites have also been observed to grow very quickly in man-made environments. In 1968, a photograph was taken of a five foot long stalactite that formed under the Lincoln Memorial by dripping water. Since the Lincoln Memorial was built in 1922, this 60 inch stalactite formed in less than 50 years. So much for millions of years!

My own home had a slow leak in a plumbing valve; I recall seeing about a 3/4 inch long mineral stalactite form in a few short years. The bottom line is this: In lieu of the conditions that the Flood provided, the largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have easily formed in the less than 4,400 years.

Polar Ice Caps: Multiple ice core samples gathered from the Greenland ice sheets have been estimated to have as many as 135,000 annual layers. One simple discovery brought this estimate into question. It all started in 1942 when a squadron of war planes departed from a secret air base in Greenland. They were heading over the polar ice cap, but were forced to turn around and make an emergency landing due to a massive blizzard. One plane flipped upon landing, but due to the snow cushion the plane was only lightly damaged. All the crewmen were eventually rescued by dog sled. Because of the remote location, all the planes were left abandoned.

In 1980, a U.S. airplane dealer Patrick Epps and his friend Richard Taylor attempted to locate these missing planes. They knew the planes may be quite valuable. In 1988, with the help of an experienced geologists and expensive radar equipment, they detected eight large objects beneath the snow and ice. No one would have suspected these planes would be buried under so much ice; after all, naturalists tell us that the layers found in the polar ice caps accumulated over tens of thousands of years.

Upon arrival, simple steam contraptions were used to melt though the layers of ice at first, but because of the depth more sophisticated equipment had to be brought in. In the end, the team was dumbfounded by the amount of ice that covered these planes. Believe it or not, the crew had to melt a four foot wide vertical shaft through about 263 feet of ice to expose the planes. A worker was lowered down the shaft with a steam hose in order to melt a cavern around the plane. The planes were disassembled and raised up through the shaft in pieces. The parts were air lifted to the United States and reassembled.

It’s difficult to believe that about 263 feet of ice accumulated over these planes in forty-eight years. This works out to about 5.5 feet of ice accumulation per year.³¹ This contradicts the presumption that each layer of polar ice is an annual layer. It’s become obvious that vast periods of time are not needed to accumulate many layers of ice in the arctic regions. As it turns out, each ice layer most likely represent a snowfall or a freeze/thaw cycle. In other words, there may be several, if not hundreds, of ice layers forming each year. Dr Carl Wieland with Creation Ministries International sums it up nicely:

Evolutionists and other long-agers often say that ‘the present is the key to the past’. In that case, the 3000-metre-long ice core [brought up by the joint European Greenland Ice-core Project (GRIP) in Greenland in 1990–1992] would only represent some 2,000 years of accumulation. Allowing of course for compression of lower layers, (which is also offset by the inevitable aftermath of a global Flood, namely much greater precipitation and snowfall for a few centuries³²) there is ample time in the 4,000 or so years since Noah’s day for the existing amounts of ice to have built up—even under today’s generally non-catastrophic conditions.³³

Coral Reefs: The Great Barrier Reef is the world’s largest coral reef system composed of over 2,900 individual reefs and 900 islands stretching for over 1,600 miles covering an area of approximately 133,000 sq miles. The reef is located off the coast of Australia and is large enough to be seen from outer space. The CRC Reef Research Centre estimates the age of the Great Barrier Reef at about 500,000 years old, but says it has not been present in its current form for all of that time. It estimates the present, living reef structure at 6–8,000 years old.

Drs. John Whitcomb and Henry Morris cited a study that found 20 centimeters of coral reef growth in five years. They wrote, “This rate of growth could certainly account for most of the coral reef depths around the world even during the few thousand years since the Deluge.”³⁴

Dr Walt Brown agrees. He said:

Estimated old ages for the Earth are frequently based on “clocks” that today are ticking at extremely slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were thought to have always been very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show that no known coral formation need be older than 3,400 years.³⁵

DNA: According to many sources, two microbiologists, Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki, have brought ancient bacteria back to life! It’s widely reported that over 1,000 types of ancient bacteria and other microorganisms have been recently resuscitated; they say some of these life-forms date as far back as 135 million years. Wow. . .I would say that’s a long nap! Many scientists point out that Cano and Borucki took every effort possible to rule out contamination.³⁶

There are also reports that scientists have found and removed DNA from organisms that have been preserved in salt crystals for over 400 million years.³⁷ This would place them at the time of dinosaurs. Could this really be true? Many scientists argue that biological organisms and their DNA simply cannot survive that long. They claim that the chemistry of DNA cannot last for millions of years even under ideal conditions.³⁸ One expert, Svante Pääbo, found that a few hours after death, DNA breaks up into chains 100–200 units long, that water alone would completely break it down within 50,000 years. Background radiation would also erase the DNA information even in the absence of water and oxygen.³⁹

If we look through the lens of the Biblical Flood these organisms were most likely buried there 4,400 hundred years ago. There would be a much lower chance of destroying the DNA and the organism itself in this amount of time. Creationists should be thrilled by these types of discoveries.

Mitochondrial DNA: Mitochondrial DNA is often used for identifying victims of mass disasters where the nuclear DNA in the cells could have been degraded or damaged. Mitochondrial DNA is structurally strong and therefore protects the DNA they contain. In most species, including humans, mtDNA is inherited solely from the mother.

It’s fascinating that mitochondrial DNA studies indicate that all women have descended from a single woman, as opposed to some other creature. It’s commonly referred to as mitochondrial Eve. This does not prove that she was the only woman alive at the time, but is consistent with it. Furthermore, the latest estimated mutation rates indicate that this sole ancestor lived at about the time of the Biblical Eve.⁴⁰

Polonium Halos are microscopic, spherical halos of discoloration of minerals which are found in many igneous rocks, such as granite, that are supposedly millions of years old. The discoloration is believed to be caused by alpha-particles released during the decay of radioactive elements contained within the crystal structure.⁴¹ The sizes of certain halos indicate the decay of polonium as the cause. The problem for evolutionists is that polonium has a half-life of only 3 minutes. With such a short half life, it would be impossible for polonium to remain in the granite crystals for millions of years.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry, an outstanding nuclear physicist, says that ring-shaped discoloration haloes in granite provide sufficient evidence that the universe cannot be billions of years old.⁴² Mainstream geologists believe granite takes thousands to millions of years to form. If this is true, any polonium originally present would have decayed away long before the granite could have formed. Hence, polonium halos strongly support a young earth. It should be noted that Dr. Walt Brown explains that granite could have formed quickly under the conditions during the flood.

Let’s turn the page and examine the evidence from within our own solar system:

Short Period Comets: Like a dirty snowball, comets are made up mostly of dust and ice; they may also contain frozen ammonia, methane and carbon dioxide.⁴³ Comets revolve around the sun in strong elliptical orbits. Every time a comet approaches the sun it gets partially vaporized, thus continues to shrink in size. The visible tail of a comet is evidence of the vaporization taking place. Comets also become fragmented and lose mass during collisions with asteroids. How do comets relate to the age of the earth? Well, the average short period comet should be completely disintegrated within a couple hundred orbits. Halley’s Comet, for example, passes near the Sun about every 75 years. If we take 75 years times 200 orbits, this would limit the life of Halley’s Comet to 15,000 years. There are over 100 short period comets in our solar system today, many of which have periods of less than 20 years.⁴⁴ This begs the question: If our solar system is billions of years old why do short period comets still exist? Here are some theories.

In an attempt to alleviate this embarrassing problem, old-agers began letting their imaginations run wild. They hypothesized that a mysterious cloud of comet material must exist in the outer regions of the solar system that occasionally hurls a new comet into orbit. They named this fictitious cloud an “Oort Cloud.”

Since it’s impossible to prove the existence of make-believe Oort Clouds, old-agers began pointing to the Kuiper belt as a possible source of new comets. Unfortunately for evolutionists, the Kuiper belt was quickly discovered to be very stable and could not be the source of comets. In their refusal to think outside the evolution box, they now point to a region of the solar system called a Scattered Disk. When you read about the Scattered Disk, you will quickly learn that they are very poorly understood. Naturalists now speculate that comets must come from the Scattered Disk even though there is little or no evidence to back this up. It’s certainly not enough to hang your hat on. Here’s the bottom line: If the universe was billions of years old short period comets should no longer exist. The next chapter, Stumbling Block #11, will explain how the Flood may be the source of comets.

Lunar Recession: Did you know we are slowly loosing the moon! The strong gravitational pull between the earth and moon is the main cause of ocean tides. Due to tidal friction, the moon is slowly spiraling away from our planet at a rate of 4 cm per year.⁴⁵ Based on this rate, the earth and the moon cannot be billions of years old. This is an important point. According to the Roche limit, if the moon came any closer than 11,500 miles from earth it would begin to self destruct from the massive tidal forces.⁴⁶ If the earth and moon were billions of years old, the moon would have self destructed long ago. This proves the moon and earth could not have existed for billions of years. This fact has been a real headache for evolutionists.

According to an article posted on the Answers in Genesis website, astronomer and professor of physics, Dr Don DeYoung, illustrated in a technical paper that the upper limit of the earth - moon orbiting system is 1.4 billion years; this is based on the most favorable evolutionary assumptions. This, of course, does not rule out a younger earth age, but simply declares the upper limit. This limit is a far cry from the 4.6 billion years it has been assigned. Once again, by extrapolating backwards, Dr DeYoung shows that the moon would have been in physical contact with the earth’s surface ‘just’ 1.4 billion years ago.⁴⁷ It’s more likely that God placed the moon not far from where it is now about 6,000 years ago.

Earth Rotation: About every 18 months a leap second must be added to our standard time clocks in order to stay consistent with atomic clocks. Because of tidal friction, the earth’s rotation is gradually slowing every year which means it used to be spinning faster. This limits the age of the earth to less than billions of years. Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. If the earth was billions of years old it would have stopped spinning on its axis long ago.⁴⁸ Moreover, the decline in rotation rate is now known to be even greater than previously thought.⁴⁹

Saturn’s Unstable Rings: The rings around Saturn are unstable and breaking apart. This limits the age of the rings to way less than a billion years. Professor S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky stated: “Saturn’s rings (as well as the recently discovered ring system around Uranus) are unstable, therefore recent formations.”⁵⁰

Cooling Planets: Some planets lose heat faster than they gain it. Dr Walt Brown explains: “Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune each radiate away more than twice the heat energy they receive from the Sun.⁵¹ Uranus and Venus⁵² also radiate too much heat. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from nuclear fusion,⁵³ radioactive decay, gravitational contraction, or phase changes within those planets. This suggests that these planets cannot be very old.”⁵⁴

Solar Wind: Streams of charged particles from the Sun have a force that carries away small particles out of the solar system. The fact that these small particles are still orbiting the Sun indicates that the solar system is fairly young.⁵⁵

Meteorite Dust: “Meteoritic dust is accumulating on Earth so fast that, after 4 billion years (at today’s low and diminishing rate), the equivalent of more than 16 feet of this dust should have accumulated. Because this dust is high in nickel, Earth’s crust should have abundant nickel. No such concentration has been found on land or in the oceans. Therefore, Earth appears to be young.”⁵⁶

Shallow Meteorites: Dr Walt Brown noted: “Meteorites are steadily falling onto Earth. This rate was probably much greater in the past, because planets have swept from the solar system much of the original meteoritic material. Therefore, experts have expressed surprise that meteorites are almost always found in young sediments, very near Earth’s surface.⁵⁷ (Unsuccessful searches have been made for these deep—and very valuable—meteorites, including in the Grand Canyon and along conveyor belts in coal processing plants.) Even meteoritic particles in ocean sediments are concentrated in the topmost layers. If Earth’s sediments, which average about a mile in thickness on the continents, were deposited over hundreds of millions of years, as evolutionists believe, we would expect to find many deeply buried iron meteorites. Because this is not the case, the sediments were probably deposited rapidly, followed by “geologically recent” meteorite impacts. Also, because no meteorites are found directly above the basement rocks on which these sediments rest, those basement rocks were not exposed to meteoritic bombardment for any great length of time.”⁵⁸ This is very powerful evidence for a young earth.

Moon Dust: Astronauts from NASA were expecting several feet of cosmic dust on the moon when they first landed. That’s why the lunar module was equipped with big pads on its landing gear (to act like snow shoes). Fortunately, the spacecraft didn’t disappear in a sea of moon dust as secular evolutionists once predicted. As it turned out: “The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.”⁵⁹

Let’s briefly turn our attention to the stars:

Lightweight Star: According to Dr. Brian Thomas: “Astronomers have found a mysterious star that is made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium gas. According to naturalistic star formation theories, this star shouldn’t exist since it is missing massive quantities of heavier elements like oxygen, carbon, and iron, as well as lightweight lithium. From a Bible’s perspective the existence of such a star is no puzzle at all because it was made not more than 10 thousand years ago.”⁶⁰ All naturalistic explanations to account for this abnormal star have completely failed.

Large Stars: Some stars are so large and radiate energy so rapidly that they could not have contained enough initial hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages; this is because their initial mass would have had to be too immense.⁶¹ This is strong evidence for a young earth.

Supernovas: About every 26 years a star will explode with a tremendous force.⁶² These supernova explosions take place in galaxies throughout the visible universe. “The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.”⁶³ Once again the evidence better supports a biblical worldview. The Bible states the heavens declare the glory of God, not evolution.

Starlight: Critics love to point out that certain stars are billions of light years away and since we can see their light the universe cannot be less than billions of years old. Granted, the universe is large and it does contain stars that are extremely far away, but this does not necessarily prove the entire universe is billions of years old. Scientists Bruce Malone masterfully explains in his article, An Alternative to the Big Bang, how the six day creation account can be easily reconciled with the observable universe:

It has been demonstrated both mathematically and experimentally that time is not a constant, but is dependent on the gravitational pull at the location where time is being measured. This concept was first proposed by Albert Einstein and is called gravitational time dilation.

Numerous experiments seem to indicate that this strange concept is true. For instance, time moves five microseconds per year slower at the Royal Greenwich Observatory (which is located at sea level) than it does at the National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado (which is 1 mile above sea level). Atomic clocks flown around the world in different directions seem to vary by the amount predicted by Einstein’s equations. The direct result of this gravitational time dilation is that seemingly strange things happen to time near areas of space known as black holes.

A black hole is an area where matter is so concentrated that its gravity prevents even light from escaping. Indirect observations seem to indicate that many areas of our universe do indeed contain black holes. Black holes are so dense that they actually “bend” the fabric of space. In addition, time moves exceedingly slowly at the boundary of the black hole. Thus, if you could move from the center of a black hole outward, while observing what was happening far away, it would appear that clocks and all natural processes were proceeding in a rapid fast-forward motion. Although one has never been observed, Einstein’s equations also allow the existence of “white holes.” Instead of collapsing inward, matter (and space itself) would expand outward from a “white hole.” When matter inside the white hole moves past the boundary, the boundary begins to shrink inward. Eventually, the radius shrinks to zero and the white hole disappears, leaving behind all of the matter which it originally contained. However, the first material out would have aged millions or billions of years while the last material out may only have aged a matter of days.

Dr. Russell Humphreys⁶⁴ has proposed that this expansion of a “white hole” rather than the standard “big bang” theory is the method God used to create the universe we live in. Three effects should be apparent, if this is how our universe formed. First, the expansion of space would have left a very uniform background radiation throughout the universe. Second, as space itself expanded, the light coming from stars (which formed as the matter moved out of the white hole) would be shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. Third, if the earth was close to the center of our universe, it would have been one of the last things to have emerged from the white hole. Billions of years would have elapsed for distant stars giving plenty of time for light from those stars to have reached the earth. These three observations are exactly what we find as we observe our universe.

From the moment that all of the matter of the universe was created (day one of creation), until the earth emerged from near the center of the white hole (at which point stars would have appeared), it is quite mathematically feasible that only four 24-hour-days had passed on earth. Although this theory is quite controversial (and rejected out of hand by those who are committed to evolutionary development theories), this type of work demonstrates that there is not necessarily a contradiction between a six day creation and modern science.⁶⁵

Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity shows that the rate of time is affected by motion and gravity. In other words, “time” literally moves at different rates under different conditions. Einstein discovered that when an object moves close to the speed of light its time slows down. The phenomenon known as “time dilation” is defined by a popular on-line secular encyclopedia and corroborates what Mr. Malone has been saying:

In the theory of relativity, time dilation is an actual difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from gravitational masses. An accurate clock at rest with respect to one observer may be measured to tick at a different rate when compared to a second observer’s own equally accurate clocks. This effect arises neither from technical aspects of the clocks nor from the fact that signals need time to propagate, but from the nature of space-time itself.⁶⁶

The idea of “time dilation” is a fascinating subject even though it can be a little difficult to wrap your mind around. It’s interesting that the Bible records for us multiple times that God stretched out the heavens.⁶⁷ This is an interesting statement in light of the fact that scientists have confirmed that time and space is relative and the universe appears to have been stretched out. Even though scientists have a lot more to learn, Christians can take comfort in knowing that the great majority of scientific dating methods strongly favor the young earth Biblical timeline. God’s Word can be trusted. Amen!

STUMBLING BLOCK #11

Worldwide Flood

The quantity of reliable evidence in support of a global flood is practically boundless. There is evidence from archaeology, geology, biology, writings of antiquity (including the Bible) and much more. Some of the evidence we’re about to unpack has already turned the heads of many skeptics towards the cross.

It’s certainly no coincidence that a plethora of ancient writings (writings from antiquity) exists which includes stories of a great flood. Few people realize that descriptions of a worldwide flood have been found in almost every civilization throughout the world. Dr. Aaron Smith of the University of Greensboro collected a complete history of the literature on Noah’s Ark and the Flood. Believe it or not, he found 80,000 works in 72 languages about the Flood, of which 70,000 mention the legendary wreckage of the Ark.¹ All these literary works have been condensed into about 250-300 flood stories. Evidence this powerful is difficult for even the most hardened skeptic to dismiss. In fact, anyone who attempts to reject this irrefutable evidence must possess an ulterior motive.

One baseless rebuttal among skeptics is that Noah’s Flood was only a local event. If the Flood was simply a local event, then why would the overwhelming majority of flood testimonies (biblical and secular) from around the world describe a cataclysmic flood that destroyed most of the world’s civilization? Dr. Henry Morris, the father of modern creation science, constructed a meaningful Biblical clarification:

The word for “flood” (mabbul), used here for the first time, applies only to the Noahic Flood; other floods are denoted by various other words in the original. This was the “mabbul,” unique in all history. . .Similarly, when the Genesis Flood is referred to in the New Testament, the Greek term kataklusmos is uniquely employed (Matthew 24:39; Luke 17:27; 2 Peter 2:5; 3:6) instead of the usual Greek word for “flood.” This Flood was not to be comparable to other later local floods; it was to be absolutely unique in all history.²

It’s obvious that the ancient Hebrew writers were not describing a local flood event. Another common objection, from people who attempt to marginalize Noah’s Flood, is that all the flood stories don’t match up. The funny thing is, if all the flood stories did match up the same crowd of skeptics would be screaming “collusion.” Please read the following and make your own judgment.

The global flood described in the Bible has a firm relationship with the Mesopotamian Flood account as recorded in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh.³ It’s true that discrepancies do exist, but there are many similarities. For instance, the Mesopotamian account of the ark describes a different size and shape than the Biblical ark, but still an ark nonetheless. Additionally, the Biblical ark became perched in the Mount Ararat region whereas the Mesopotamian boat’s final resting point was on Mount Nisir (northern Iraq).⁴ This location in Iraq, incidentally, is not far from the Mount Ararat region which is located just north of the three-way border of Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

Most of the stories and legends throughout the world that describe a worldwide flood share a common theme and similar characters.⁵ It’s not uncommon for stories to turn into legends especially with the passing of many generations. But this does not take away from the striking similarities. Geologist Dr John Morris writes:

Over the years, I have collected more than 200 of these stories, originally reported by various missionaries, anthropologists and ethnologists. While the differences are not always trivial, the common essence of the stories is instructive as compiled below:

• Is there a favored family? 88%

• Were they forewarned? 66%

• Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%

• Is catastrophe only a flood? 95%

• Was flood global? 95%

• Is survival due to a boat? 70%

• Were animals also saved? 67%

• Did animals play any part? 73%

• Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%

• Was the geography local? 82%

• Were birds sent out? 35%

• Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%

• Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%

• Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%

Putting them all back together, the story would read something like this: Once there was a worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole Earth.⁶

For those who have a low view of scripture, let’s veer off course momentarily and examine why the Bible should be taken seriously and accepted as a trustworthy document. As you may know, the Bible has been examined, studied, critiqued, analyzed and even mocked more than any other written document perceived by human eyes.

Archeology, for instance, was basically invented to disprove the Bible, but as in turns out, not one archeological dig has ever produced evidence that emphatically disproves any Biblical statement. Furthermore, there are cases in which secular archeologists, who set out to disprove the Bible, became believers and now wholeheartedly trust the Bible. Biblical scholar Hank Hanegraaff highlights one of the most well-known New Testament conversions relating to the books of Luke and Acts.

A biblical skeptic, Sir William Ramsay, trained as an archaeologist and then set out to disprove the historical reliability of this portion of the New Testament. However, through his painstaking Mediterranean archaeological trips, he became converted as — one after another — the historical statements of Luke were proved accurate. Archaeological evidence thus confirms the trustworthiness of the Bible.⁷

The Bible has stood the test of time and has consistently proven to be a reliable document. There have been more copies of the Bible printed and distributed than any other book on planet earth. There are many legitimate reasons for trusting the Bible. Among the most practical and powerful is the manuscript evidence. In fact, of all the ancient documents that exists, the Bible is by far the most reliable book ever written.

Homer’s Iliad is a famous book of ancient Greece and nobody doubts its accuracy because there are 643 copies of the original manuscript that exist today. This makes Homer’s Iliad the second most reliable writing from antiquity. So how does the Bible compare? The Bible has over 24,000 supporting copies of the New Testament alone. Furthermore, only about 60-100 years have passed from the original written biblical manuscripts to the oldest copies we have today. Comparatively, Homer’s Iliad suffers from a 500 year time span, yet it still remains a highly esteemed and trusted document.⁸ By comparison, this makes the Bible shine most brilliantly.

Still, skeptics say the Bible cannot be trusted because it’s full of copying errors. Granted, some copying errors do exist but they have been identified and weeded out by the hard work of scholars who have compared all the copies side by side. Consider the following example: Imagine if ten people were asked to individually transcribe the same page from an encyclopedia. If we compared all ten copies (side by side) and discovered that only one copy contained a word that was spelled differently than the other nine, then we could confidently correct the one discrepancy. It would be very unlikely that nine people made the same mistake and the one got it right. Therefore, a single correction could be made without even looking at the original encyclopedia page. As the number of copies (available to compare) increases, the probability of reconstructing the original document increases.

With over 24,000 New Testament copies, scholars have been able to reconstruct the original manuscript with almost 100% certainty. As it turns out, the New Testament is exactly 99.5% reliable.⁹ Norman Geisler noted:

We have 100 percent of the New Testament and we are sure about 99.5 percent of it. But if we did not have such good manuscript evidence, we could actually reconstruct almost the entire New Testament from quotations in the church fathers of the second and third centuries. Only eleven verses are missing, mostly from 2 and 3 John. Even if all the copies of the New Testament had been burned at the end of the third century, we could have known virtually all of it by studying these writings.

If doubters want to continue to question the New Testament, then they should also question all other ancient writings (i.e. Homer, Plato, Aristotle, etc.). Another component in determining whether an ancient writing is trustworthy is to know how much time passed between the actual event and when it was first recorded. Once again the Bible blows the doors off the competition. Most of the New Testament was written by people who were eye-witnesses of Jesus himself. For an in-depth study of why we can trust Jesus please consider reading Lee Strobel’s, A Case for Christ.

The plain transparency and honesty that’s found throughout the Bible adds another dimension to its creditability. If the Bible was written to merely promote Christianity, its authors would have never included embarrassing details such as David’s adulterous relationship with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband. They would not have mentioned the Israelites engaging in public sexual perversion at the foot of their idolatrous golden calf.

Another reason the Holy Scriptures should be considered a trustworthy document is because it’s historically accurate. Unlike other religious writings which make no historical references, the Bible names many people, places and dates with laser precision and accuracy. In fact, many secular historians, such as Josephus, affirm a host of biblical citations including references of Jesus. There is no other ancient book in the world that is more historically accurate than the Holy Scriptures.

The Bible is also prophetically accurate. Many things that were predicted in the Old Testament were fulfilled in the New Testament. It should be noted that the great majority of these predictions could not possibly have been self-fulfilled. In a desperate attempt to discredit the Bible, some critics have asserted that the biblical prophecies were written after the actual events took place. This assertion is completely false and without merit. Biblical references of Christ’s birth, life and death were penned more than 600 years before they occurred. According to many sources, including David Reagan’s “Christ in Prophecy Study guide, the Bible contains an abundance of Messianic prophecies, many of which have been fulfilled:

The prophetic scriptures validate Jesus as who He said He was — namely, God in the flesh. The Bible contains more than 300 prophecies about the First Coming of Jesus, but some of these are repetitive. There are actually 109 separate and distinct prophecies concerning the First Coming, and all of them were literally fulfilled.¹⁰

The book of Isaiah, as affirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as many other biblical prophetic books absolutely confirms that messianic predictions were not written after the events occurred. Skeptics have attempted to prove that one or more Messiahs existed before the biblical Jesus came on the scene. They’re implying that the biblical Christ was merely a copycat. To the contrary, these so-called “pre-messiahs” left no impact on the world and were unable to fulfill biblical prophecies. Only the real Messiah forever changed the world because He was full of Grace and Truth. Only Jesus Christ lived a sin-free life and performed countless miracles. It’s powerful evidence that the Jewish leaders, the very people who were set out to kill Jesus, never denied His miracles; they simply attributed them to demonic powers. The Bible warns that false prophets and false Christs will rise. Believers should expect nothing less than a barrage of attacks against Christ and the church until the Lord returns; only then will every knee bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.

Many critics assume that the old and new testaments contradict one another. The Old Testament is like a multi-faceted roadmap whereby all its inscriptions and messages point towards the New Testament; the New Testament is clearly a supernatural fulfillment of the Old Testament. Many people don’t realize that Jesus is woven all throughout the Old Testament; it’s not entirely obvious until a person becomes intimately familiar with God’s Word. The accuracy of the Holy Scriptures is so powerful that there is no legitimate reason to doubt a literal interpretation of the Noahic Flood. Apostle Peter along with Jesus Christ himself plainly referenced the worldwide deluge as historical truth. Luke 17:26, 27 records Jesus’ own words:

Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.

Apostle Peter states in 2 Peter 3:5b, 6,

. . .the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed.

According to Saint Peter and the Lord Jesus this was no local flood. Moses plainly describes in Genesis 6:5-8 why God decided to cause the great flood.

The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The LORD regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the LORD said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.

In Genesis 6:13-21 God reaffirms to Noah why the earth is being destroyed. The Lord also gave Noah exact specification on how to construct the Ark.

So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. So make yourself an ark of cypress wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit high all around. Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

Its important to pay close attention to the following words in Genesis 7:11,12:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

This verse states “all the springs of the great deep burst forth.” This statement is critically important. Question: What caused the waters of the great deep to burst forth? This is where the Hydroplate Theory connects the dots. We will briefly outline Dr. Walt Brown’s brilliant Hydroplate Theory. This theory resolves many of the geological mysteries that secular scientists struggle with. You may want to take a deep breath before plunging into the Hydroplate Theory because it’s sure to turn everything you’ve learned about Plate Tectonics, Ice Ages and the Grand Canyon on its head. It should be noted that we are only going to skim the surface of the Hydroplate Theory. For a full in-depth analysis please refer to Walt Brown’s wonderful book In the Beginning. This comprehensive masterpiece contains large colored pictures, diagrams and much technical support.

Every theory begins with a starting assumption. The starting assumption of The Hydroplate Theory, according to Dr. Walt Brown, is that about half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the entire earth’s surface. The average thickness of the subterranean water was about 3/4 mile. The granite crust above the subterranean waters was supported by both water pressure and granite formations (pillars).

Incidentally, The Hydroplate Theory is in harmony with secular teachings that all the continents were once connected above what is now the Atlantic Ocean. This theory assumes the pre-flood crust had shallow and deep seas and mountains that were generally smaller than those of today. Dr. Brown’s Hydroplate Theory explains how comets, fault lines, folded-mountains, the Ice Age and the Grand Canyon (along with many other geological features) came into being. The Hydroplate Theory has been simplified into the following four phases:

• Rupture Phase

• Flood Phase

• Continental-Drift Phase

• Recovery Phase

Let’s just say that all hell broke lose with the Rupture Phase: A quick look at Google Earth will reveal that the Mid Atlantic Ridge is basically an underwater mountain range with a continuous crack (rift) down the center of its ridge. From a biblical perspective, this fault line or “scar” in the earth’s crust is a reminder of the violent activity that kicked off the worldwide flood. This massive crack, from Greenland to Antarctica, literally split the earth’s crust into two jagged halves. According to Plate Tectonic Theories this occurred over eons of time, however, the Hydroplate Theory suggested it happened very quickly.

According to Dr. Brown, the earth endured centuries of tidal pumping—caused by lunar and solar gravitational forces—that steadily raised the subterranean water temperatures. Eventually the increasing temperature and pressure started stretching the earth’s crust until it ruptured. Within seconds this crack took the path of least resistance as it traveled down to the subterranean chambers. Dr. Brown explains:

As the crack raced around the earth, the 10-mile-thick crust opened like a rip in a tightly stretched cloth. Pressure in the subterranean chamber directly beneath the rupture suddenly dropped to nearly atmospheric pressure. This caused supercritical water to explode with great violence out of the 10-mile-deep “slit” that wrapped around the earth like the seam of a baseball.¹¹

Supercritical fluid is any substance at a temperature and pressure above its critical point, where the difference between liquid and gas no longer exist. In other words, as both temperature and pressure increase liquid becomes less dense due to thermal expansion; gas becomes denser due to pressure increases. Eventually, the densities of the liquid and gas converge and become identical; at this point, the distinction between gas and liquid completely disappears.

God was serious when he said “the waters of the great deep burst forth.” According to Dr. Brown, the supercritical water came jetting out of the crack in the earth’s crust at a velocity greater than a supersonic velocity, even above the escape velocity of the earth’s gravitational field. This massive outburst of water would have made Old Faithful look like a squirt gun by comparison.

Much of the water from the rupture came down as torrential rain, but some of the water above the atmosphere froze into extremely cold muddy hail stones which came down in various regions of the earth. As the hail accumulated it buried, suffocated and froze many animals. This may explain why Woolly Mammoth’s have been found frozen, sometimes with undigested vegetation in their stomachs.

A large amount of the jetting water, rocks and debris escaped the earth’s gravity and entered the solar system. This in turn formed comets, asteroids and meteoroids that still orbit within our solar system. Dr. Brown took the time to calculate all the forces involved to support his theory and he has them clearly displayed in his book. The Hydroplate Theory is a reasonable source of comet production unlike evolution’s hypothetical Oort Cloud theory. The highly speculative Ort Cloud supposedly spits out comets like a child’s backyard bubble toy. The funny thing is, no one has ever seen the Ort Cloud; it’s completely imaginative. It was simply conjured up because there was no other way to account for the existence of comets.

The second part of the Hydroplate theory is called the Flood Phase. Here is an excerpt from Dr. Walt Brown’s book describing what occurred during the dramatic flood phase:

Each side of the rupture was basically a 10-mile-high cliff. Compressive, vibrating loads greatly exceeded the rock’s crushing strength in the bottom half of the cliff face, so the bottom half continually crumbled, collapsed, and spilled out into the jetting fountains. That removed support for the top half of the cliff, so it also fragmented and fell into the pulverizing supersonic flow. Consequently, the 46,000-mile-long rupture rapidly grew to an average width of about 800 miles all around the earth. Water trapped in the sponge-like openings in the chamber’s roof and floor was steadily forced into the chamber during the flood, so the hydroplates settled slowly. Sediments swept up in the escaping flood waters gave the water a thick, muddy consistency. These sediments rapidly settled out over the earth’s surface, trapping and burying many plants and animals. The world’s fossils then began to form.

The rising flood waters eventually blanketed the jetting fountains, although water still surged out of the rupture. Because today’s major mountains had not yet formed, global flooding covered the earth’s relatively smooth topography.¹²

The flood stripped, uprooted and eventually buried all of the earth’s vegetation. The vegetation floated in large mats before being distributed in both thin layers and thick mass deposits. During the end of the next phase (Continental Drift Phase) buried layers of vegetation were rapidly compressed and heated. It has been shown in laboratory tests that these sorts of conditions can quickly produce oil and coal. Oil and coal do not require millions of years to form. By the end of the flood stage the fractured continents still had not moved all that far. The earth then entered into the Continental-Drift Phase. Dr. Brown continues:

The rupture path continually widened during the flood phase. Eventually, the width was so great, and so much of the surface weight had been removed, that the compressed rock beneath the exposed floor of the subterranean chamber sprung upward.

As the Mid-Atlantic Ridge began to rise, the granite hydroplates started to slide downhill on the steepening slopes. This removed even more weight from what was to become the floor of the Atlantic Ocean, so the floor rose faster, the slopes increased, and the hydroplates accelerated, removing even more weight, etc. The entire Atlantic floor rapidly rose almost 10 miles.

When the first segment of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge began to rise, it helped lift adjacent portions of the chamber floor just enough for them to become unstable and spring upward. This process continued all along the rupture path, forming the Mid-Oceanic Ridge. Also formed were fracture zones and the ridge’s strange offsets at fracture zones. Soon afterward, magnetic anomalies began to develop.

The sliding hydroplates were almost perfectly lubricated by water still escaping from beneath them. This sliding process resembled the following:

A long train sits at one end of a very long, level track. If we could somehow just barely lift the end of the track under the train and the wheels were frictionless, the train would start rolling downhill. Then we could lift the end of the track even higher, causing the train to accelerate more. If this continued, the high-speed train would eventually crash into something. The long train of boxcars would suddenly decelerate, compress, crush, and “jackknife.”¹³

The huge hydroplates quickly decelerated as they hit resistance. The plates collided, crushed, overlapped, thickened, buckled, and heated in a gigantic compression event. According to Dr Brown, “The downward buckling formed ocean trenches and the upward buckling formed mountain ranges. This is why major mountain chains are parallel to the oceanic ridges from which they slid. As mountains buckled upward, air was displaced, causing a great wind. The earth begins a slow 35°–45° roll, so the poles shift.”¹⁴

The last phase of the Hydroplate Theory is known as the Recovery Phase. According to Dr. Brown, after the continents slid apart and crashed, the flood waters naturally backfilled the deep basins between them.¹⁵ The massive continental collisions created instability within the plates leading to a sequence of earthquakes, volcanoes, inner earth melting, flood basalts, etc. It’s also responsible for the “ring of fire,” rising plateaus and methane hydrates. Methane Hydrates are solid compounds in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.¹⁶ The methane was a result of decomposing vegetation and biological organisms.

Even though the continents took on the shapes we see today, settling and friction continues to occur along fault lines causing continued pressure and heat. As the flood water began to recede, various mountain ranges and hillsides held back huge volumes of flood waters. Eventually the water pressure caused some of these relatively soft natural dams to breach, forming large canyons such as the Grand Canyon.

Vegetation was beginning to reestablish during the recovery phase. The lower sea levels formed the continental shelf that is visible from satellite imagery today. Human and animal migration was made possible during this time as land bridges connected all the continents. The lower ocean levels also allowed submarine canyons to form. Submarine canyons are steep sided valleys and canyons that once eroded the continental shelf and adjacent slopes. When the glaciers began to melt, the ocean levels rose to the current levels and the earth became divided. Let’s turn the page and focus on some specific geological features that could have resulted from a global flood. The Grand Canyon may be a good place to start.

The Grand Canyon is so spectacular it’s considered one of the seven natural wonders of the world. The beautiful multi-colored canyon stretches over 277 miles through the barren Colorado Plateau. The Grand Canyon’s enormous chasm spans up to 18 miles in width and its impressive multi-layers are stacked about a mile high. The Colorado River flows through the bottom of the canyon, but the sheer size of the canyon make the river look like a tiny creek by comparison.

First time visitors who approach the rim of the canyon are usually left standing in complete silence. When I first looked over the edge of the canyon, I felt completely awestruck by the canyon’s magnificence. One obvious question that came to mind is how did such a gigantic canyon form in such a parched desert environment? The truth is nobody knows for sure; everyone agrees that water carved out the canyon, but there is much disagreement on how that happened.

Evolutionists theorize that the Grand Canyon was formed over a period of 70 million years by the Colorado River. Whereas Creationists believe the receding flood waters carved out most of the canyon in a matter of days, weeks or months. From a biblical perspective it’s likely the newly uplifted mountains created a massive natural dam which prevented huge volumes of flood water from draining into the ocean basins. At some point the natural dam failed from the stress of trillions of gallons of water pushing against it. In fact, satellite images reveal that the Grand Canyon is simply a huge monumental breach in the side of a mountain range.

This view is also supported by the legends of the Havasupai Indians who still live in villages within Grand Canyon. The ancient writings of the Havasupai Indians testify that the canyon was formed by receding flood water just after the entire world was covered by a great flood.¹⁷ Incredibly, it’s consistent with the Bible. Mere coincidence. . .? I don’t think so.

The Mt St Helen’s eruption provided visual proof that massive canyons can form quickly. This unusual eruption delivered a huge “blow” to the theories of uniformitarianism and gradualism. On May 18th 1980, Mount St. Helens experienced a cataclysmic volcanic eruption. The eruption kicked-off a landslide that traveled about 14 miles west down the North Fork Toutle River at speeds over 150 miles per hour.¹⁸ This muddy, rock-entrained landslide wiped out entire forests, roads and bridges before dumping massive amounts of sediment at its final resting place. The amount of sediment deposited was so substantial it could cover the entire area of Washington D.C. to a depth of fourteen feet.¹⁹

On March 19, 1982, a couple years after the initial blast, the volcano produced watery mudflow by melting accumulated snow in the crater. Incredibly, this abrasive mudflow carved through the previous soft sediment layers forming a gigantic canyon in about nine hours. This canyon is roughly a thousand feet wide and 140 feet deep. It’s now known as the little “Grand Canyon of the Toutle River.” The ravines and gullies that surround the canyon somewhat resemble the topography of the badlands in South Dakota.

The cliffs of this newly formed canyon display many horizontal stacked layers of sediment resembling the Grand Canyon. The Toutle River now runs through the entire length of this canyon. Amazingly, the newly deposited layers of sediment have already hardened enough to maintain sturdy cliff walls that stand almost vertical. Imagine if this canyon was formed two or three hundred years ago; today’s secular geologists would most likely conclude that the tiny Toutle River carved this canyon over a period of millions of years as indicated by the many layers of sediment.

The truth is the Grand Canyon is a wonderful showcase of solid evidence for the Biblical Flood and cannot be the result of 70 million years of gradual erosion by the Colorado River. According to the Bible, God sent a catastrophic flood. When the newly formed, relatively soft, mountain range finally gave way, the waters carved through the fresh layers of sediment forming the Grand Canyon within a very short period of time. It’s interesting that many canyons around the world have been observed to form rapidly (i.e. the Providence Canyon and the Scablands of eastern Washington), but when a canyon formation is of an unknown age, academia assumes it took millions of years to form.

There are many other geologic features that exist today which cannot be explained by millions of years of gradualism. For instance, many polystrate fossils have been found extending through multiple rock layers of the so-called geologic column. Here are a couple photographs displaying fossilized trees extending through “millions of years” of sedimentary rock layers. Either the rock layers are not that old or these are amazing trees.

Polystrates have become a thorn in the side of evolutionists because they cannot be reconciled with the idea of old earth gradualism. There are thousands of petrified trees found vertically entombed through many rock layers. How can trees become slowly buried over millions of years without rotting away? The answer is they can’t. In order for a tree to petrify it must be submerged in mineral rich water. The Mount St. Helen’s eruption ended up becoming a great object lesson in the petrifaction of trees. The massive landslide that followed the eruption stripped many trees of there branches and root systems and dumped them into Spirit Lake. This beautiful lake quickly became a wasteland, void of oxygen and covered with a mat of floating tree trunks. The bark was eventually stripped off tree trunks as the wind blew the log mats from one end of the lake to the other.

One by one, the trunks turned upright and began floating in that position. Eventually, many of the water saturated trunks sank vertically down into and through several layers of fresh sediment on the bottom of the lake.²⁰ We now know from laboratory tests that wood can petrify rapidly. Even though every knowledgeable scientist understands this, most people still believe petrifaction takes millions of years. There are even man-made objects that became petrified over a relatively short period of time including fence posts, mine timbers, bridge supports, etc.²¹

It was thought that the petrified forest of Yellowstone National Park along with other petrified forests around the world were the result of 40 or more successive forests destroyed one at a time by volcanic activity.²² This has been a common argument against the idea of a young earth. Because many of the Yellowstone trees stand upright today geologists mistakenly assumed they were the remains of an actual forest. Upon a closer investigation by Dr. Harold Coffin it was discovered that these upright standing petrified trees had no root system and therefore were planted there much like the tree trunks resting at the bottom of Spirit Lake. It’s certainly not consistent to believe these trees were merely buried in volcanic ash. A recent sonar scan of the bottom of Spirit Lake revealed an amazing 19,500 upright trees.²³ In consideration of the catastrophe that put the trees in the bottom of Spirit Lake it’s reasonable to assume that the Yellowstone Petrified Forest is a result of the Biblical Flood.

Another problem for the theory of gradualism is the existence of many solid granite mountain ranges that are literally folded and wrinkled. This could not have happed slowly over millions of years because the hard, brittle rock would have simply fractured and shattered instead bending and folding. In order to produce folded and wrinkled mountain ranges, part of the earth’s crust would have had to be relatively soft and pliable during a compression event. The Biblical Flood provides the most adequate explanation for these conditions.

For what its worth, every secular attempt to explain how the Grand Canyon’s layers were formed has hit major roadblocks. Dr. Brown points out that if the canyon’s strata were formed over millions of years there would be many irregularities between each layer from wind and rain erosion. What we find is just the opposite. The observable sedimentary layers that form the Grand Canyon are neatly stacked in sharp parallel layers. The very top layer is relatively cut up compared to the layers below because it’s currently exposed to wind and rain. If the flood rapidly deposited all the layers of the Grand Canyon all at once, it would explain the lack of erosion marks between the layers.

The evidence in support of a global flood is almost endless. Many fossilized clams have been found in the “closed position” at high altitudes of every continent. Under normal circumstances clams open up before they die. When clams are found fossilized in the closed position, it’s a good indication they were rapidly buried. There are many other types of marine fossils found at high elevations as well. Normal plate tectonic theories cannot adequately account for this phenomenon.

Here is a short list of additional Flood evidence:

• Volcanic rocks are found inter-bedded with sedimentary rocks of all supposed geologic ages. This correlates with the Biblical implication that the “fountains of the great deep” poured out their contents throughout the flood (Genesis 8:2).

• There have been many well documented sightings of the ark or its remnants. These sightings have even been covered by all the major television networks.

• Sedimentary deposits such as the Austin Chalk layer cover large parts of the earth. These are the type of deposits that result from movement of water.²⁴

• The Origin of Civilization appeared near the resting place of the Ark at about the same time that the flood ended.²⁵

• An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the “Radiocarbon” journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago.²⁶

• The oldest known living trees, Bristlecone Pines in California, are about 5,000 years old. This is consistent with the flood chronology.²⁷

• During a global flood the waters would have mixed many different types of fossil organisms into localized areas called “fossil graveyards.” This is exactly what is found in the fossil record throughout the world.²⁸

• Many fossils have been found in the wrong order, layer and region of the so-called geologic column.

There are enough variables in science to allow agenda driven scientists to interpret the data according to their own desires. Take the planet Mars for example; many scientists insist that Mars once had a great flood even though it’s a dry planet today. These same scientists would most likely deny the Biblical Flood even though our planet is mostly covered in water today.

In the end, scientific analysis may offer a speck of faith to believe the Scriptures, but unfortunately the choice of what to believe is often the result of one’s emotions. It’s simple; some people have faith in nature while others place their faith in nature’s Creator. 2 Peter 2:1-3 reminds us to beware of false teachings:

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

The worldwide flood model is the only satisfactory explanation for much of the geological evidence that exists today. Despite this fact, many evolutionists continue to act as if Noah’s Flood never occurred. Christians should not be surprised by man’s denial of the Biblical Flood; according to the Bible it’s simply a pathetic attempt to marginalize the Creator of the Universe.

STUMBLING BLOCK #12

Origins of the Universe

Question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If it’s assumed the egg came first, then how does one explain the existence of the first egg without a chicken? If it’s assumed the chicken came first, then how does one explain the appearance of the first chicken without an egg? The theory of evolution offers no satisfactory answer to this riddle. From a Biblical viewpoint, however, there is a simple answer: God created the first two chickens (one male and one female) and the female chicken laid many eggs. Problem solved! Without God, nothing really makes sense. When the origin of life is strictly perceived through a naturalistic prism it will always pose some real challenges. When it comes to the origins of life and the universe, only the Bible offers a reasonable explanation.

If you’re a committed follower of Charles Darwin, buckle up your evolution seatbelts and get ready for a fairly rough ride. The next few chapters may become painfully uncomfortable for some readers. But take heart, there is good news coming. The poisonous snakebite of evolution must be properly understood before a life-saving antidote can be offered. The following quote is truly eye-opening: George Wald, a prominent evolutionist and biochemist at Harvard University candidly acknowledged:

When it comes to the Origin of Life there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous Generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!¹

Wow. . .! This incredible statement by George Wald is a bold confession to say the least; it highlights how radical evolutionists unscientifically choose to believe the impossible. It appears this honest biochemist has painted evolution into a corner of “blind faith” from which there is no scientific escape. Thank you Mr. Wald for your candor; you have courageously exposed evolution for what it really is; you have removed the pseudo “mask of science” from evolution’s unauthentic face.

According to Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.²

All I can say is, “Ouch!” The following quote by Dr. T. N. Tahmisian with the Atomic Energy Commission, USA is worth repeating. He said:

Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.

Michael Denton, author and molecular biologist, said: [Evolutionary theory] is still, as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support. . .

It gets even better (or worse depending on your perspective). Some scientists have sunk to new intellectual lows by embracing an abstract concept that everything naturally came from nothing? It’s astounding to read what a growing number of evolutionists are now saying. Richard Dawkins, in his 2004 book “The Ancestor’s Tale” remarked:

The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved literally out of nothing, is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice.³

It seems Mr. Dawkins is confessing that the concept of “everything coming from nothing” is ludicrous, yet he believes it nonetheless. Apparently it’s not only creationists who believe in crazy stuff. Physicist Robert A.J. Matthews, of Aston University, Birmingham, England, wrote: It is now becoming clear that everything can—and probably did—come from nothing.⁴ In his most recent book The Grand Design, Steven Hawking proclaims:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.

Once a person denies the existence of an intelligent creator—like committing intellectual suicide—the individual is almost forced to accept the irrational explanation that “everything came from nothing.” In other words, if a person claims that everything came from almost nothing, it becomes an inevitable trap. If it’s assumed everything came from hydrogen, the next obvious question is where did the hydrogen come from? Eventually the atheist will get backed into a corner whereby at some point he/she must concede “everything must have come from nothing.”

It’s difficult to imagine anything more irrational than evolution’s formula for the origin of the universe: Nothing + (time & chance) = Everything

The Biblical formula for the origins makes sense: God + His Creation = Everything

It’s probably safe to say that Richard Dawkins does not believe in a Creator, a Designer or a purpose for life! He assumes that everything we observe, in its full splendor, is the result of pure chance. This would explain why Mr. Dawkins titled one of his books, “The Blind Watchmaker.” I wonder if Mr. Dawkins realizes that his “blind watchmaker” analogy is seriously flawed. . . If the universe actually started empty and dark, then Mr. Dawkins’ fictitious watchmaker would not only be blind, but also Deaf, Dumb and Dead! In fact, this so-called blind watchmaker would actually be Non-Existent! Gee. . .if a hypothetical non-existing person can build a watch, then I suppose “nothing” can literally create everything.

The truth is Mr. Dawkins has no idea about the origins of life. It’s really sad that Richard Dawkins main purpose in life is to teach others that there is no purpose to life. Even if scientists could one day create life, all that would prove is that life cannot spontaneously generate on its own—intelligence is required!

The discovery of the “God particle” has recently made headline news. Evolutionists from around the world have literally spent billions of dollars on a gigantic atom smasher in a desperate attempt to find a mechanism for the existence of matter. Over 10,000 scientists and engineers were involved in building the world’s largest particle accelerator. This massive atom collider is about 17 miles in circumference and lies up to 574 feet beneath the France-Swiss border near Geneva Switzerland. Many people involved in this project surmise that the “God particle” is likely the mechanism that created all the matter in the universe. However, many scientists now confess that this illusive subatomic particle is poorly understood and has only created more questions than answers. The sixty-nine dollar, unanswered, question is this: Who created the God particle? The following quote by Dr. Robert Jastrow, astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and founder of NASA’s Institute for Space Studies, pretty much sums up the origins debate:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.⁵

When you get right down to it, the theory of evolution is about as stable as a house of cards built upon a sandy beach during a hurricane. Hard-line evolutionists would probably rather jump off a cliff in the Galapagos Islands than to admit the Bible was right all along. It’s extremely hypocritical for atheists to presuppose there is no God, all the while claiming to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. The theory of evolution displays bias at its very foundation; by its own definition it assumes that only “natural causes” are responsible for the origins of the universe. This dogmatic and bigoted theory discriminates against God and the Bible right from the vary start.

It’s contradictory for secular scientists to insist they are the arbiters of objectivity when they only accept evidence that falls within their own narrow-minded naturalistic paradigm. How can a creationist actually enter into a legitimate debate with an evolutionist if the idea of a supernatural deity is banned from the start?

STUMBLING BLOCK #13

United States Constitution

For over 40 years our government has been promoting the faith-based religion of Secular Humanism (via evolution) in direct violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This amendment prohibits the making of any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”¹ How can we be sure that Secular Humanism is a religion? Well, it comes down to the fact that all religious beliefs are based on the following two criteria:

1. Religious beliefs influence people’s moral values and behaviors.

2. Religious beliefs are based on having faith in something or someone, especially as it relates to the meaning of life and/or the origins of mankind.

Things that are usually considered non-religious include chemistry, math, reading, swimming, running, etc. These sorts of activities and disciplines are not faith-based and don’t impact the moral values of people in the same way religious beliefs do. When you boil it down, there are only two kinds of religions in the world, theistic and non-theistic.

Secular Humanism is a good example of a non-theistic religion because it denies the existence of a supernatural deity and assumes raw nature is all there is. To the contrary, theistic religions assume there is a spiritual realm beyond the natural world. It’s worth noting that each of these religious beliefs requires faith. It takes faith to believe in God; however, it also requires faith to deny the existence of God. Therefore a belief in the godless philosophy of evolution is certainly not void of faith. If you’re still not convinced that Secular Humanism is a religion then consider what others have been saying. Charles Francis Potter, signer of the Humanist Manifesto and author of Humanism: A New Religion stated:

Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?²

Author and Humanist, John J Dunphy, claimed the Bible is an incredibly dangerous book. His harsh remarks are recorded in The Humanist Magazine:

I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. . .The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.³

Here’s a question: If God does not exist, then why are militant atheists so angry at Him?

It’s clear that Humanists themselves view Humanism as a religion, but what about American courts. Do they acknowledge Humanism as a religion? In the case Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”⁴

There have been other court cases where Humanism has been addressed as a religion. Here is one example: In the case of Reed v. Van Hoven a federal court ruled, “In light of the decided cases, the public schools, as between theistic and humanistic religions, must carefully avoid any program of indoctrination in ultimate values.”⁵ A former president of the American Humanist Association, Lloyd Morain, stated, “Down through the ages men have been seeking a universal religion or way of life. . . . Humanism. . .shows promise of becoming a great world faith.”⁶

For many years the courts have established precedence that no government body can favor one religion over another. However, everything changed with a few significant court rulings in the 1960’s. In 1962 the Supreme Court declared that school prayer was unconstitutional. In 1963 the Warren Court stopped schools from allowing Bible reading in classes.

In 1968 the Supreme Court struck down the ban on teaching evolution in public schools (Epperson vs. Arkansas). This marked the beginning of a massive tax-funded indoctrination campaign to spread Humanism throughout America in the name of Charles Darwin. The teaching of evolution has gradually changed the way many students view themselves, God and the world around them. The ongoing promotion of biological evolution in public schools has secularized and de-humanized much of our culture. It was Adolph Hitler (a huge fan of Darwin) who once said “He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future!”⁷

Since the 1968 court decision to indoctrinate children with Darwinian evolution, consider what has followed:

• Ten commandment displays are being removed from public view across the nation.

• Schools have become intolerant of the word Christmas.

• Nativity scenes are being banned from schools, city halls, airports and government buildings across the country.

• Public schools are commonly prohibiting student led prayer and any mention of God’s name at graduation ceremonies.

• Lawsuits are being filed to have “God” removed from the pledge of allegiance.

• The motto “in God we trust” as printed on our currency is currently under attack.

America is increasingly moving from a nation of theism to a nation of atheism and the main building block is the state mandate to teach evolution.

Thomas Jefferson’s idea about “separation of church and state” was never intended to sanitize God from government, but rather to prevent government from promoting one particular religion. Atheists have so badly twisted the meaning of Jefferson’s words that Atheism is often promoted in the name of “separation of church and state.” This is an oxymoron of the highest order. Thomas Jefferson simply coined the phrase “separation of church and state” in a written letter to the Danbury Baptists. Even though this phrase is not part of the constitution, it often gets interchanged with the constitutions “establishment clause.”

The expression “separation of church and state” as used by Jefferson was unfortunately a two sided metaphor used to describe his one sided point. Unfortunately, this has allowed secularist humanists to easily misinterpret Jefferson’s statement and turn the original meaning on its head. Instead of being concerned about keeping the state out of the church we are now concerned about keeping the church out of the state.

Hard-line humanists are acutely aware that anywhere God is banned atheism will soon flourish. Incidentally, Secular Humanism has become an unofficial state sponsored religion that blatantly violates the Establishment Clause. Our government does not possess the legal right to establish any type of faith-based religion whether theistic or non-theistic. Regardless of the outcome, Secular Humanists have successfully infiltrated every level of government and are busy undermining the constitution. Secularism is an attack on both liberty and freedom because it attempts to eliminate the very God who gave us those things.

The theory of evolution is foundational to Secular Humanism just as the Bible is foundational to Christianity. Many Humanists insist that the anti-God philosophy of evolution is solely based on scientific facts and objective truth. But nothing could be further from the truth. Sorry to kick a dead horse, but it requires a huge amount of faith to deny the existence of God. This book has clearly demonstrated that Darwinian evolution is not based on legitimate science but rather a desire to remove shame and guilt from the conscience of its followers.

Nevertheless, Secular Humanism has been granted a form of “religious immunity” in order to avoid the scrutinies that normally flow from the Establishment Clause. Sadly, our public schools continue to go beyond the educational basics of reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, etc.; in a sense, public schools have become proselytizing centers for Atheism. Science has become so politicized that if anyone dare utter a critical word against Humanisms “sacred cow” (evolution) you risk being accused of blasphemy. Imagine the outcry from Secular Humanists if public schools started allocating equal time to the theory of Intelligent Design? It would spark a one-sided religious war.

Ironically, some Christian parents don’t object to the teaching of evolution in public schools since they believe their children will learn both sides of the argument. The problem with this line of thinking is that public schools only teach one side of the debate. Regrettably, we can’t rely on the local church to make a difference; most churches avoid the subject altogether. Most parents would probably object if Nazism was being promoted in public schools? Why then are parents so quick to tolerate the grave influence of evolution?

I would like to encourage all concerned parents to get involved; contact your school officials and ask them to stop violating the U.S. Constitution by favoring the doctrines of Secular Humanism (via macro-evolution) over the doctrines of other religions. Please do some research and begin asking your school officials some tough questions. For instance: Why is there not a spirit of intellectual freedom in the classroom when it comes to Darwin’s theory? Why are students in the classroom who bring up genuine questions that are critical of Darwin’s theory immediately silenced? Why is information that refutes macro-evolution suppressed? How difficult would it be for public schools to remain neutral in this culture war? Is it not possible to keep both creationism and evolution out of the classroom? If not, teach both sides and let the children decide what is true.

America’s founding fathers clearly understood the dangers of a state sponsored religion and now America is threatened by the very thing our founders ran from.

STUMBLING BLOCK #14

Motives for Believing

There are plenty of reasons to believe in Darwinian evolution; however, none of them are based on empirical scientific evidence. Never is a person, armed with accurate information, compelled to believe in evolution because the experimental evidence is so overwhelming. Instead, a belief in organic macro-evolution is always tied to bad science, ignorance, peer pressure, self-preservation, emotions, philosophy and even greed.

I’m reminded of an old teenage friend who made it clear to me that he didn’t believe in God. Even though I disagreed, I always showed respect for his belief. After graduating from high school we gradually drifted apart. Fast forward 20 years. . . . Through a mutual friend we were reunited at a bon fire event. At some point in our conversation we stumbled across the subject of evolution. We had never discussed the subject before, but to my surprise I learned my atheistic friend had strong doubts about evolution. Needless to say, my jaw almost hit the ground. During our heart to heart discussion he informed me that his doubts about evolution were based on a lack of scientific evidence to support the theory.

I turned to him and said “if evolution is not true, how can you be an atheist”? Without hesitation, he conceded that a “higher power” of some sort must exist somewhere; otherwise there is no other way to account for the existence of everything all around us. I was pleased with his progress; however, he made it crystal clear that he does not believe in the God of the Bible. I guess he converted from Atheism to Deism. It’s fascinating that Deists choose to believe in a “god” who is unknown, undefined, and not supported by any evidence yet deny the Biblical God who is well defined, self-revealed, intimately involved with His creation and supported by tons of evidence. Deism seems to provide people with a convenient way to keep “God” at an arms length.

Unlike my forthright friend, most staunch atheists and secular humanists tend to cling to the axiom of evolution regardless of refuting facts. It’s awfully ironic why so many educated people embrace the theory of evolution despite the lack of evidence to support it. Understandably, some people are simply naive or ignorant due to years of brainwashing. It should be noted that my cynical remarks are not directed at this group since they are merely victims of the propaganda machine. Some of us are just suffering from spiritual myopia and only the Bible can prescribe the right set of corrective lenses. Still, others may quietly go along with the evolution crowd because it’s the path of least resistance; it’s a cowardly act of self preservation.

Without a doubt, a certain percentage of scientists remain faithful to the philosophy of evolution strictly for the money and notoriety. Grants and accolades are frequently awarded to scientists who “dig up” evidence to support the theory. To the contrary, any scientists who dare dissent from evolution will most likely see their grant funds disappear, lose their job and risk being labeled a scientific hack or a goofy creationist. There is also a subconscious reason people embrace the bizarre theory of “molecule to man” and it often goes unacknowledged by the believers themselves; it has to do with underlying moral and philosophical motives. The following quote by Aldous Huxley speaks to the heart of man:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning, consequently assumed it had none and was able to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. . .For myself, and most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. Liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedoms.¹

Who would’ve thunk—a desire for sexual freedom could actually cloud the objectivity of a scientist? Dr. Richard Lewontin is a renowned Harvard geneticist, a self-proclaimed Marxist and a world leader in evolutionary biology. Dr. Lewontin boldly proclaims what many evolutionists would rather not divulge. He stated:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material cause to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door² (Underling added)

Anyone who refuses to allow a Divine foot in the door does not sound like someone who is open-minded or willing to let the scientific facts lead him/her in whatever direction it may go. There are basically two choices: Scientists can use science to develop their worldview or they can use their worldview to develop their science. Unfortunately, I suspect there’s too much of the latter. The way we view the world affects our decisions and behaviors. It should be noted that everyone’s worldview is highly influenced by one’s initial assumption regarding origins. It all boils down to making a choice between what is rational and what is irrational.

Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning God.” The atheist says “In the beginning, nothing.” What makes more sense? a) An intelligent being created the universe on purpose, or b) nothing created the universe by accident.

It’s difficult to imagine why anyone would embrace a worldview that denies what is rational. Sadly, many people choose to believe what is irrational. Dr. John MacArthur says it best in his book The Battle for the Beginning:

It boils down to the sheer love of sin. People want to feel comfortable in their sin, and there is no way to do that without eliminating God. Get rid of God and you erase all fear of the consequences of sin. So even though sheer irrationality is ultimately the only viable alternative to the God of Scripture, multitudes have opted for irrationality just so they could live guilt-free and shamelessly with their own sin. It is that simple.³

In the end there will be no acceptable excuse for bowing before the throne of evolution. Evolution cannot take credit for creation. The Bible lays it on the line. Romans 1:20 states:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Underlining added)

According to the Holy Scriptures, each of us either stands with God or against Him. James 4:4 states: You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. As long as you’re still breathing it’s not too late to turn your heart to God. Are you aware that He desperately loves you!

STUMBLING BLOCK #15

Harmful Effects of Evolution

The evidence has been examined and a verdict has been rendered. . . Darwin’s theory of evolution is simply a faith-based belief system that is scientifically unsubstantiated. Much of Darwin’s dogma is built upon wishful thinking, conjecture, scanty evidence, imagination, artist’s renditions, false assumptions, speculation, blind faith and even deception. Even if we assume the theory of evolution were true, which it’s not, it has absolutely nothing good to offer.

Evolution is solely a naturalistic philosophy that is riddled with holes and tangled in deception. In fact, the harmful effects of teaching Darwinian Evolution to an entire society have been nothing less than catastrophic. The philosophy of evolution has greatly dehumanized the world in the name of science.

Darwin didn’t explain the origins of life, he devalued all human life!

Since the dawn of creation, the theory of evolution has been the most sophisticated scheme ever perpetrated against heaven and earth. All attempts by evolutionists to remove God from their conscience have only resulted in flipping reality on its head. A good dose of honest research and spiritual discernment will reveal that the story of evolution is nothing more than a heretical belief system designed to offer an alterative to the biblical creation account. Ultimately, the teaching of evolution is man’s pathetic attempt to water-down and even destroy the God of the Bible. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (student of Darwin) declared repeatedly that “God is dead.”

As it turns out, Nietzsche is the one who is dead, not God.

It may not be obvious, but Darwin’s philosophy provided the foundation that supports the worldly religions of Secular Humanism and Atheism. Without the story of evolution the religious philosophy of Secular Humanism—like the Serpent—wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. No pun intended!

It’s no coincidence that the moral values and belief system of Secular Humanism have been carefully crafted and aligned exactly opposite to the moral values upheld in the Bible. The following worldview chart illustrates, line by line, how man’s ways are generally apposed to God’s ways:

Opposite Beliefs & Effects of Two Diametrically Opposed Worldviews (each require faith)

Biblical Theism versus Secular Humanism

Belief in Biblical God

Belief in non-biblical gods

Absolute Truth

Relative Truth

Biblical Creation

Biological Evolution

Intelligent Design

Random Chance

Young Earth

Old Earth

Multiply and fill the earth

Population control

Altruism

Narcissism

Holy Bible

Humanist Manifesto

Humanity is depraved

Humanity is basically perfectible

Life is sacred (pro-life)

Abortion, murder, euthanasia, etc

Forgiveness & peace

Revenge and bitterness

Freedom from addiction

Slave to addiction

Exalt God

Exalt man (athletes, celebrities, etc)

Worship the Creator

Worship the Creation

Desire to save souls

Desire to save the environment

Responsibility/accountability

Rights/entitlements

Self control

If it feels good – “Do it”

High view of Scripture

Low view of Scripture

Loves truth

Avoids truth (often censors truth)

Intellectual Freedom

Coerce, manipulate, indoctrinate

Love is an “action”

Love is a “feeling”

Fornication is a sin

Sex outside of marriage is good

Adultery is wrong

Open marriages becoming acceptable

Marriage = 1 man & 1 woman

Marriage = almost anything

Honor the name of Christ

Jesus’ name used as a swear word

Love the sinner, hate the sin

Love the sin, hate the righteous

Homosexuality is unhealthy

Celebrate & promote homosexuality

Sexual purity

Pornography, promiscuity, prostitution

Loves Light

Loves Darkness

Salvation

Damnation

Why does our world oppose God on every level? It’s impossible to attribute it to mere chance. There is only one book on earth that accurately describes why these opposites exist; the Bible describes a spiritual battle that has been brewing between “good and evil.” This chart highlights the vivid distinction between the spirit of Christ and the spirit of anti-Christ. If you believe Jesus supports anything in the right column, then try supporting it with Scripture. Incidentally, the probability of having all thirty line items on this chart in direct opposition by mere chance is two to the thirtieth power. That’s a probability of less than one in a billion! Consequently, this improbable anomaly can only be explained by the inherent character of one authority (God) and a rebellion against that authority.

It may be difficult to accept, but these opposing worldviews clearly illustrate how humanity is, in a sense, at war with God. Sadly, the number of Christians accepting a convoluted belief system of both worldviews (Biblical Theism and Secular Humanism) is increasing at an alarming rate. It should be stated, however, that we are all humanists at heart; we all tend to gravitate towards humanistic behaviors. All of us, including born again Christians, are tempted to live life according to our own sinful nature instead of walking in humble obedience to God. We all fall short, but the greater concern is whether we approve and embrace our humanistic nature or turn to the living God of the Bible for help in overcoming it.

Still, some people question whether God’s ways are better than man’s ways. It’s a fair question. Perhaps Satan’s “modus operandi” brings more fulfillment, happiness and better health to humanity than God’s laws, standards and precepts. Let’s put it to the test. Let’s start by comparing God’s “absolute truth” with man’s “relative truth.” What makes more sense, a world governed by a system of relative truth or a world governed by absolute truth? What would happen if everyone on earth embraced the idea of relative truth? To start with, it would be difficult for a math teacher to say that 2+2=4 when the teacher’s version of truth may not square up with the student’s version of truth. Some students may think 2+2=3 and other students may say 2+2=1. Remember, no one is wrong (or right) in relative truth world and nothing is absolutely true for everyone. . .I think! J

It would be a scary thought to hire a builder in a world where everyone defines their own truth. Your home plans may look like a contemporary rambler to you, but your builder may review your plans and envision an upside down colonial two story.

Imagine trying to drive in a world where everyone defines traffic rules differently. As you can see a world of relative truth would only lead to much confusion, frustration and chaos. It’s obviously not a good thing when everything is uncertain and undefined. I’m thankful God gave us an instruction manual that shows us how to live our lives; the Bible is a wonderful gift that demonstrates God’s love for us. In case you’re still questioning whether God’s ways are better than man’s ways, let’s look at a few more examples.

The Bible says gluttony and laziness are sinful. Imagine if everyone quit their jobs and started slopping down food in front of the television until they became obese; how would that make the world a better place? The Scriptures also warn against drunkenness. What if everyone became chronic alcoholics; would society be better off? What if everyone engaged in stealing, cheating, and lying on a regular basis? What if everyone on earth decided to live a homosexual lifestyle? In this case, venereal disease would shoot through the roof and the world population would drop to zero within 120 years.

The bottom line is this: Who should define what is right and wrong, God or Man? It should be clear that the Bible offers the healthiest prescription on how to live. It should be obvious that when people are left to their own devices, suffering, death and madness increase significantly. God’s commandments are not designed to harm us, but to protect us.

Imagine what a beautiful world it would be if everyone on earth lived according to the Bible. There would be no greed, deception, embarrassment, heartache, murder, wars, etc. Ironically, even though the Bible contains the only solution for the world’s many problems, most people seem uninterested. To the contrary, Satan (the great deceiver) has set up his kingdom exactly opposite to God’s kingdom and the majority of people tend to follow its poisonous fragrance. If everyone on earth followed Satan’s plan, the world would self destruct within one generation. Tinkering around with sin can bring short term pleasure, but ultimately it’s a clever trap designed to conquer and destroy.

One important question remains: So who’s your daddy? Is it the “Prince of this world” (the father of lies) or the heavenly Father (the Spirit of Truth)? The Bible never claims that making the right choice will be easy. After all, we all have three things going against us: Our sinful nature, the fallen world and demonic temptations. Nevertheless, the Bible makes it clear that the Holy Spirit will empower all those who choose to sincerely place their trust in Jesus Christ. It’s possible to overcome the power of sin with God’s help. Do you want to go to heaven? Jesus plainly describes the way to heaven in Matthew 7:13, 14:

Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The good news is that God desires everyone to be saved! 2 Peter 3:9 says:

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

God desires everyone to come to repentance; but since He didn’t create spiritual robots each of us has a choice to make. Individually, we can choose spiritual life or spiritual death. Unfortunately, the majority of people willingly choose to travel down the broad road; it’s the road marked by a spirit that opposes God.

For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

—2 Timothy 4:3

Unfortunately, Satan’s tentacles run deep. It’s an absolute tragedy that the anti-God philosophy of Secular Humanism has been largely forced on society, specifically school children, for such an extended period of time. A major reason Darwin’s theory has flourished is because it has been substantially subsidized and promoted with public tax dollars for many decades. Uncle Sam is not only busy censoring Biblical Truth but is actively promoting the exact opposite. When you think about it, the government has a war against drugs, a war against terror, a war against this and a war against that. Why is there never a war against lies?

Has America reached a tipping point?

In the 1960’s God and prayer were basically removed from public schools and replaced with the teaching of Darwinian Evolution. This paradigm shift in worldviews has changed the way many people see themselves, God and the world around them. This massive indoctrination experiment has slowly secularized much of our culture. It’s making the wide road to destruction all the wider. When students examine the world through a Darwinian lens long enough, life can lose much of its meaning. Consider the tragic ripple effect this has caused.

Now that our public schools have replaced traditional Biblical values with the secular values, consider what has followed: Absolute Truth has been replaced with Relative Truth. Capitalism is giving way to Socialism. Altruism has been overshadowed by Narcissism. Self Control has yielded to a form of Sexual Anarchy and Objective Science is often tainted by Selfish Agendas. This momentous shift in worldviews—strongly influenced in public schools—has caused a national explosion of divorce, middle-school sex, teacher-student sex, school shootings, abortion, venereal disease, teen suicide, etc.¹ If you teach children in public schools that they are nothing more than animals, then don’t expect them to behave any differently.

America is in the midst of a moral free-fall and it should be obvious that the Biblical foundations that once made our country great are starting to crumble. How did it come to be that what was once regarded as self-destructive is now regarded as healthy and normal? Behaviors that used to be considered sleazy, dirty and immoral are now openly celebrated and even portrayed as virtuous. What has happened to America—people hardly blush anymore? The widespread promotion of Secular Humanism via macro-evolution has truly proven to be a deadly experiment.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, —Isaiah 5:20a

It seems America is on a trajectory towards self-destruction. Even though a growing number of people are starting to connect the dots it may be too late to turn the ship around. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the ongoing influence of biological evolution in public schools and universities is ground-zero in the culture war. This pervasive secular indoctrination has caused many people to doubt God’s Word; it has caused an explosion of post-modern thinking. Humanity has truly gone to great lengths to squeeze God from their conscience. It’s so sad because God, to the contrary, has gone to great lengths to offer all people freedom and redemption. The prophet Isaiah hit the nail on the head:

Woe to those who go to great depths to hide their plans from the LORD, who do their work in darkness and think, “Who sees us? Who will know?” —Isaiah 29:15

When a Christian attempts to merge his/her Biblical worldview with the empty philosophy of evolution it will always result is confusion; it only offers a false view of reality—one that is based on a system of relative truth. The writing is on the wall. . ., have you noticed it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to distinguish a Christian from a non-Christian. Too many Christians are abandoning their faith in God. The tax-funded Darwinian propaganda machine has become a strong catalyst for the non-theistic religions of Atheism and Secular Humanism. It appears Uncle Sam has been busy exalting man instead of God. Our money may say “in God we trust” but our actions say “in Man we trust.” Without a doubt, the theory of evolution has become the philosophical lynch-pin that keeps Secular Humanism moving forward. Without the theory of evolution, Atheists would lack the intellectual justification to behave any way they desire. Without the theory of evolution, the religion of Secular Humanism would crash like a helicopter without a rotor.

Does anyone really believe in their “heart of hearts” that evolution is proven science? Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist, once confessed:

Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.

It’s clear that many Secular Humanists think special creation is unthinkable, but God says:

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. —Colossians 2:8

The Bible and evolution were never meant to be mixed together. Special Creation is grounded in Christ; Darwinian Evolution is not! Just a small caveat: The remainder of the chapter will cover some unpleasant material. I would rather not discuss the tough issues, but silence only helps history to repeat itself. As Christians we are called to love our brothers and our enemies. Therefore, it’s probably not Christ-like to remain apathetically silent and fail to warn people of possible immanent danger ahead.

We’ve all heard the phrase “ideas have consequences.” Unfortunately, Darwin’s idea about evolution has led to more death and suffering than any other idea since the world began. You may be surprised to learn that powerful links exist that connect Darwinian evolution with racism, communism, eugenics, genocide and ethnic cleansing. Dr. James Kennedy, evangelist and pastor noted:

It was Darwin’s theory—carried to its logical conclusion—that led to the death of some 11 million people at the hands of German Nazis. Hitler was a devout evolutionist. He instructed his troops in evolution and had them provided with books by Darwin and Friedrich Nietzsche.²

The reason Hitler felt no shame or remorse about killing millions of people is because he believed he was simply advancing evolution along. He felt he was doing a good thing by speeding up evolution in order to create a stronger race. Hitler’s own words as recorded in Mein Kampf give us a glimpse of how evolutionary philosophy had poisoned his mind:

The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as cruel, and if he does so, it is merely because he is of a feebler nature and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be conceivable at all.³

Dr Kennedy unequivocally links some of the worst genocidal maniacs that the world has ever seen directly with evolutionary philosophy. Dr Kennedy reveals the truth about Carl Marx with no uncertain terms: Marx, the founder of communism, found in evolution exactly what he needed: a pseudo-scientific foundation for his godless worldview. Karl Marx was a diehard follower of Charles Darwin. Marx combined communism with evolution to rule over people as a ruthless dictator. His reign was so horrific that it’s commonly remembered by the phrase, rivers of blood. Dr. Kennedy connects evolution with other ruthless dictators as well:

Communist henchman Josef Stalin became an atheist as a young man, while reading Darwin in seminary.

These communist leaders and others killed more people than all those killed in all religious wars combined. . . Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the rest are the greatest mass murderers of all time—and all compliments of evolution.⁴

Former Atheist and Evolutionist, Tom DeRosa Evolution’s Fatal Fruit: How Darwin’s Tree of Life Brought Death to Millions explains how he himself was adversely influenced by Darwin’s ideas:

I read Origin shortly after I completed my high school studies at a Roman Catholic seminary. I had been on my way to entering priesthood, but Origin made me question my faith. It raised doubts that led me to become an atheist and denounce God while attending college in New York City. My return to the city and my long subway ride brought to mind how desperately I once wanted to be “free” in thought and in action and how Darwin offered me an escape from God—one I eagerly took.⁵

Incidentally, Darwin’s Origin of Species is considered to be the most influential book ever written, besides the Bible. Political correctness is a form of censorship that has prevented many people from viewing the full title of Darwin’s book. For this reason many people don’t realize that Darwin’s ideas are very racist. Check out the full title: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The title of Darwin’s book has racism leaping off the page. The preservation of favored races is obviously a racist idea that has had horrific results. Tragically, Darwin’s racist beliefs have caused an exorbitant amount of pain and sorrow for millions of people across the globe.

From a biblical perspective, all people are created with equal value and worth; God created only one race, the human race! Darwin taught just the opposite; he claims that some people are more evolved than others and therefore superior. Thus evolution’s “survival of the fittest” philosophy has carried a racist undertone from the very start. Many people are unaware that Darwin’s destructive ideas are also closely tied to eugenics and abortion. Francis Galton, a cousin of Charles Darwin, developed the practice of Eugenics in 1883. The eugenics movement meant people were forcefully sterilized against their will because they were considered to be of less worth than others. Unfortunately, evolution helped eugenics become widely accepted in the United States from the 1890s to 1945.

It gets worse, much worse!

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a Darwinist, racist and a major advocate of eugenics. She was particularly prejudiced against black people. Sanger created the “Negro Project” in 1939, whereby the main goal was to reduce the growth rate of the black population. Margaret Sanger opened Planned Parenthood clinics to expand eugenics through the practice of abortion. It’s no coincidence that her clinics were mainly located in black neighborhoods. Planned Parenthood is by far the largest provider of abortion in the United States. Sadly, the United States government funds over one-third of the yearly budget of Planned Parenthood, approximately $300 million dollars.⁶ Our tax dollars hard at work!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, in 2008, 825,564 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC in the United States alone!⁷ This means about 2,268 innocent children were killed by abortion every day in the United States. According to the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, approximately 42 million abortions take place worldwide every year.

Abortion has caused more deaths than all of the wars of human history combined. In fact, abortion is the leading cause of death in the world. It kills as many people as ALL of the other causes of death combined.⁸ Every year the world takes more lives through abortion than the millions of lives that were taken by the Nazis during the Holocaust.⁹

It’s contemptible that public schools teach children how awful the Nazi’s were, yet fail to explain that Darwinian evolution is the underlying philosophy behind most of the world’s bloodshed. The theory of evolution is truly an insidious philosophy; it’s the single greatest source of the world’s ills, besides sin itself.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to remain silent.¹⁰

STUMBLING BLOCK #16

The Holy Bible

Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free. —John 8:32

A belief in both Biblical Theism and Evolution is known as “Theistic Evolution” and it asserts God is involved in the evolutionary process. It may seem reasonable at first glance, but there are many reasons why the Bible cannot be reconciled with the general theory of evolution. To start with how can evolution and the Bible be reconciled when evolution places millions of years of death before the “fall of man” and the Bible places all death after the fall? In other words, a belief in evolution turns the entire Bible on its head because it places all the terrible effects of the curse before the curse. How can the punishment of sin come before sin? How could God look at the world after creating Adam and Eve and say “it was very good” knowing the world was already neck-deep in death and suffering?

Honestly, what kind of god would use a cruel and painful process like evolution as a means of creating? Not a loving god! A benevolent and merciful god would never institute death and suffering unless its purpose was to uphold justice in response to man’s sin and rebellion. How powerful is your god? Do you believe God could have created the world any way he wanted? If so, then why would a loving and mighty Creator use the dark and destructive forces of evolution as the mechanism for creating the world? If you dare, imagine for a minute that you are God; would you institute a system of death, suffering and destruction as a means of kicking off your creation? Where’s the Love? If “God” is truly the author of evolution, then “God” is not just, merciful or worthy of praise.

There are only two choices: The Bible (including the book of Genesis) is wrong or the story of evolution is wrong. It’s very unnecessary to accept a compromised and convoluted belief in both. Who do you trust, God or a bunch of Secular Humanists? I think the following is worth repeating:

For a Christian to believe in both God and Darwinian Evolution is like an Atheist who believes in both evolution and God (it makes no sense).

If you trust God’s Word, Matthew 19:4 is a verse that cannot be reconciled with a belief in macroevolution. Jesus said, at the beginning the Creator made them male & female (underling added). The Bible says male and female (Adam and Eve) existed at the beginning. Evolution contradicts this clear statement made by Christ because it teaches that all early life forms were asexual. Evolution teaches that there were no males or females at the beginning (or even near the beginning), but rather opposite sexes evolved millions of years after life started. Here are some additional reasons why attempting to blend the Bible with evolution will only result in convolution:

• The Bible testifies that man and animals were created from the dust of the earth on the 6th day of creation. This is radically different from the idea that man emerged from pre-biotic soup over a period of millions of years.

• The Bible says animals produce offspring according to their kinds, not from other kinds as evolution suggests.

• The Bible says plants were created before fish and that fish were created before insects. This goes contrary to the chronological order taught by evolutionists.

• The Bible states birds were created before reptiles; evolution teaches the opposite.

• The Bible never mentions a slow process like evolution, but plainly speaks of six-day creation. Adam and Eve were instantly created, not slowly evolved.

• Throughout the Bible, creation is addressed as a fact (Isa. 43:7, John 1:3, Col. 1:16, Heb. 1:2&10, Rev. 4:11).

• Jesus also spoke of creation and Noah’s Flood as fact (John 17:24, Mark 10:6, Matt. 24:37-39).

• The Bible says man is to rule over all the animals; it does not say we evolved from them.

• In order to be honest with ourselves we must admit that the theory of evolution establishes divisions among people groups, which can lead to racism. Evolution implies that some races are superior to others (see Stumbling Block #15). The Bible teaches there is only one race, the human race. God loves all people and is not a respecter of skin color. Besides, variety is good, not bad.

• Macroevolution is inconsistent and contrary to God’s very nature.

Have you ever wondered why we die? From an evolution perspective “death” is simply the victory of chemistry over biology. If evolution is true, why not build (evolve) a repair system to help an organism live forever? Why would death continue to be part of evolution’s survival of the fittest? The Bible clearly states that we all die as a result of Adam’s sin (rebellion against God) and that death did not enter the world until after Adam sinned. The Bible says:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. —Romans 5:12.

From a biblical perspective, death is the direct result of sin. Romans 5:14 states: death reigned from the time of Adam.

Admittedly, the Bible can be a difficult book to “want to believe” because it calls for humility and self-denial. The evolution story, however, is tempting and easy to believe because it comes with no absolute truth and few moral restrictions. Let’s face it, it’s difficult for “thou shall not” to compete with “if it feels good – do it.” Jesus makes it clear that the Christian life will not always be a bed of roses even though His yoke is easy and His burden is light.

. . .Jesus said to his disciples, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. —Matthew 16:24

Part of picking up your cross is to live a truth filled life. You may have noticed that our world is not always a friend of truth. In fact, every time someone promotes the false teaching of evolution, the truth about creation is being suppressed. Listen to what the Bible says about suppressing the truth:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness. —Romans 1:18

The good news is this: It’s not too late to hit the reset button. Perhaps now is the time for decision: Do you have a personal relationship with God though Jesus Christ? If not, what’s stopping you from getting right with God this very moment? According to the Scriptures there are generally only two reasons why people avoid coming clean with God; it always boils down to pride and love of sin. Nevertheless, God offers everyone a choice. He never forces anyone to love him because that would make no sense. Jesus said, I stand at the door and knock. In other words, He will never kick the door down and force you to follow Him. The Bible makes it clear that everyone has a choice:

See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse - the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. —Deuteronomy 11:26-28

It’s your choice. . . You can continue resisting the promptings of your conscious and live life your own way or you can repent and place your trust in the Creator of the universe who loves you. Genuine repentance will result in genuine heart transformation, not mere behavior modification. True repentance is marked by a broken spirit that turns from the lies of the world and instead embraces God’s Truth. The Bible says:

Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.—John 4:23-24

What is Truth?

Jesus claims He is the Truth. As recorded in John 14:6: Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. Only the Bible defines “ultimate reality” because it is the book of Truth. Check out how Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate in John 18:37: “You are a king, then!” said Pilate. Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”

It’s noteworthy that the Bible makes many strong links between Salvation and Truth, but it’s also interesting that the Bible makes no connection between salvation and religion. The Bible paints a clear picture that cold religion is not needed for salvation. As Jesus was hanging on the cross, consider the following dialog as recorded in Luke 23:39-43:

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Amazingly, this humble criminal was saved on the spot and without an ounce of religion in his life. In fact, Jesus was consistently hostile towards man-made religion. Listen to His harsh words directed towards the popular religious leaders of the day.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. —Matthew 23:27

The Bible warns against placing one’s trust in mere religion. Yet most people throughout the world tend to cling to some form of religion instead of trusting the Creator of the universe directly. After having many sincere conversations with various people of different religious backgrounds a common thread began to emerge. Most people tend to believe that their “brand of religion” is the one true religion.

Most Jehovah Witness’ sincerely believe that anyone outside of their religion is without hope. The same is generally true of Mormonism, Judaism, Catholicism, Islamic sects (Sunni, Shi’a, and Sufi), etc. People may genuinely believe they belong to the one true religion, but Jesus has a reputation of turning everything on its head. Many Jews at the time of Christ thought their religion would save them. The majority of them even went as far as believing that their bloodline would save them.

Apostle Peter proclaimed: Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12). Jesus makes it clear in John 3:16 that whoever believes in him shall not perish. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that whoever believes in Mormonism, Judaism, Catholicism, etc will not perish. The true church is made up of those who have repented and put their trust in Jesus Christ alone (this could include Catholics, Protestants, Messianic Jews, etc).

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that being a religious person, or belonging to a certain church denomination can save you (those are man-made ideas). Nowhere in the Bible does it say baptism, communion or purgatory can save you (these are simply doctrines of men). The Holy Scriptures do not even suggest that pastors, priests and rabbis can save someone’s soul. 1 Timothy 2:5 states: For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus,

False gods and false prophets most certainly can’t save you since they’re powerless and fictitious. Pretending God does not exist or placing your trust in any number of empty philosophies (i.e. Evolution, New Age, etc.) will definitely not save you from God’s coming judgment. So what’s holding you back from coming clean with God? Do you think you’re good? Maybe you are by worldly standards, but God has his own set of standards. Evangelist Ray Comfort often asks the following question: What if God judged you according to the Ten Commandments? Please take the time to consider the following questions with a tender heart:

Have you ever told a lie? According to God this makes you are a liar? Ever looked at another person with lust? Jesus said if you even look at another person with lust you have committed adultery with that person in your heart. From God’s perspective this makes you an adulterer. Have you ever felt hatred towards someone and/or slandered them? God considers this murder. It’s obvious that God looks beyond mere words and outward appearances; He judges us by the intentions of our heart.

The main purpose of God’s law was not to show how good we can be, but to show us how far we have fallen. Do you still think you’re good? Let’s say a high tech computer chip was placed on the side of your head and it recorded your every selfish, evil, perverted and slanderous thought for an entire month. After the recording was complete you were ushered onto a stage in front of a large room full of people; the room was filled with all your friends, family, relatives, co-workers and acquaintances. The chip was quickly removed from the side of your head and placed into a computer. The computer then projected all your worst private thoughts onto a large screen in front of everyone. This would probably look worse than imagined. Well, this is how God sees you and me. We can easily fool ourselves into thinking we are good and moral, but we can’t fool God who knows everything.

The Bible makes it clear that we’re all lawbreakers. That’s right; you and I are guilty of breaking God’s laws. Since God is “holy and just,” he cannot allow lawbreakers to go free; someone must pay the price to satisfy what justice demands. According to the Bible, God is in complete control and there is a coming day when his patience will give way to final judgment. Unfortunately, the whole human race has been infected by sin. It has been passed down like a spiritual virus from your great, great grandparents, Adam and Eve. You don’t have to teach a toddler how to be bad? Children are naturally selfish; they choose to sass, hit, bite and take what’s not theirs. People need to be taught how to be good, not bad. As we get older we sometimes get better at hiding our depravity. The following quote rings true:

When it comes to the common church goer and people who are merely religious, God is not looking at the outward actions; He is looking at the heart of the actor.—(author unknown)

God says in Romans 3:23: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, The bottom line is this: Until you understand your own depravity, you will never understand the need for a savior; and until you understand the Holiness of God you will never understand a need for a savior. In the end, if you don’t let Jesus save you, nobody can save you. It’s impossible for anyone to earn their way into heaven by simply trying to be good person (everyone who has tried has failed). I’m happy God is not a respecter of people or religion. When it comes to salvation, God does not show religious favoritism and does not grade people on a curve.

Let’s say you violated a human law and ended up in court. Try telling the judge to let you off the hook because your good deeds have outweighed your bad deeds. If the judge is “just,” he/she will punish you for breaking the law. According to the Bible, God is just; therefore He cannot simply wink at your sins and pretend they don’t exist—someone must pay the penalty for violating His laws.

According to God’s Word, only Jesus and his shed blood can truly save you. Only Jesus (God wrapped in human flesh) was qualified, willing and able to pay the price for the punishment that you and I deserve. Only Jesus stepped up to the plate; He willingly allowed himself to be brutally beaten, nailed to a cross and murdered for your sins and for my sins. The bad news is that you and I are sinners, we deserve eternal punishment and we cannot save ourselves. The good news is that Jesus conquered sin and death and was raised from the dead on the third day. He is alive today, Halleluiah! Think about this: No one has ever referred to Jesus in the past tense. Why is this?. . .because He is alive! Jesus is very much alive today and wants to save you. God’s grace is truly AMAZING!!!

Remember, God did not have to die for you. . . He chose to. God did everything to save you and He is offering you the most valuable gift ever offered to anyone—it’s the free gift of salvation and eternal life. All you need to do is freely receive it by repenting of your sins and trusting Jesus to be your Savior and Lord. This will be the most life transforming decision you can ever make. Once you cross this line, you will be spiritually born again and become a child of the living God. You will be instantly adopted into God’s family. You will go from spiritual death to spiritual life; from darkness to light. The veil will be lifted from your eyes and you will gain a whole new perspective on life. God’s Truth will become attractive and the lies of the world will become things of lament.

If you’re tired of running from God like so many before you, please consider turning around and start running towards His nail-pierced hands that are waiting to embrace you. Let Jesus carry your burdens. The Bible says “today is the day of salvation.” Please don’t wait any longer. Every time someone rejects God’s free gift of salvation their heart becomes a little harder, thus making it increasingly more difficult to say “yes” at a later time. When it comes to salvation, God allows each one of us to make our own decision. According to the Bible, all the money, toys and pleasures of this world are completely worthless compared to the abiding joy that is only found in the Lord Jesus. Money, fame and toys only offer short term happiness and a false sense of security. God says:

For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul. . . —Matthew 16:26a (NKJV)

Gaining the whole world means nothing if you lose your soul in the process. If you’re still hesitant about saying yes to God, just know that your soul is sinking in spiritual quicksand and Jesus is the only lifeline. Religion cannot save you. Please don’t let salvation slip away!

If you said yes to God, it’s important to tell a friend about your exciting news. Begin reading your Bible daily and start attending a church that is Spirit-filled, Bible-believing and Christ-centered. Keep your faith alive and keep it real.

For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. —John 3:16 (NKJV)

Illustration Credits

Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28 & 30: Reproduced with special permission, courtesy of Richard Gunther www.mightymag.org

Figure 7: Access Research Network. Copyright © 1998; All rights reserved. International copyright secured. File Date: 6.10.98; www.arn.org

Figure 14: Romanes, G. J. (1892). Darwin and After Darwin. Open Court, Chicago.

Figure 17 & 18: Answers in Genesis

Figure 19: Creation Ministries International

Figure 20 & 21: Institute for Creation Research

Figure 22: Creation Research Society

Figure 23: Rygel M.C.

Figure 24: Reproduced with the permission of Natural Resources Canada 2012, courtesy of the Geological Survey of Canada (Photo 180345 by R.A. Price)

Figure 29 Answers in Genesis

Notes

Introduction

1 Ken Ham, The Lie: Evolution, 31st printing, 2009, p. 9. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest, AR; ©1987.

2 Michael Ruse, professor of zoology and philosophy, University of Guelph; transcript of the speech given at the 1993 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science [AAAS] February 13/93

3 Dr. T. N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in “The Fresno Bee”, August 20, 1959. As quoted by N. J. Mitchell, Evolution and the Emperor’s New Clothes, Roydon Publications, UK, 1983, title page.

4 Robert Roy Britt, Scientists’ Belief in God Varies Starkly by Discipline, Live Science, date: 11 August 2005 Time: 10:24 AM ET. www.livescience.com.

5 Dr. Don Boys, Almost a Thousand Major Scientist Dissent from Darwin, Canada Free Press, Sunday, May 2, 20010. www.canadafreepress.com.

6 Discovery Institute, www.dissentfromdarwin.org/.

7 Ibid.

8 Portugal News Online, Scientists say Darwinian evolution theory is flawed, August 20, 2005, http://www.theportugalnews.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=819-9,

9 http://godfatherpolitics.com/4074/miley-cyrus-tells-her-teenage-fans-forget-jesus/#ixzz1pa6ZoEqJ

10 The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, (with original omissions restored, edited with appendix and notes by his grand-daughter Nora Barlow), Collins, London, ‘Religious Belief’, pp. 85–96, 1958.

11 http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/147-most-twentysomethings-put-christianity-on-the-shelf-following-spiritually-active-teen-years?q=attending+college

12 http://www.cbn.com/media/browse_videos_info.aspx?s=/vod/DHU46_DineshDsouza_111607

13 http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/21-transformation/252-barna-survey-examines-changes-in-worldview-among-christians-over-the-past-13-years

14 Wikipedia, On line Encyclopedia, www.wikipedia.org/wiki/evolutionsunday, accessed 2008

15 Richard Dawkins, The Illusion of Design: An introduction to the November 2005 special issue “Darwin & Evolution”, Natural History Magazine.

16 http://www.sindark.com/2009/11/23/the-climatic-research-units-leaked-emails/

17 www.FOXNews.com, John Lott, Jr., Why You Should Be Hot and Bothered About ‘Climate-gate’, John Lott, Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor, economist and author of “Freedomnomics.”

Stumbling Block #1, Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

1 Vance Ferrell, Science vs. Evolution, Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont, TN, third printing, 2006, Ch 11, p. 384

2 Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Dallas, TX: Probe Books, 1989)

3 Lane P. Lester, CMI, Creation magazine: Genetics: no friend of evolution, Vol. 20, Issue 2, March 1998, pp. 20-22

4 Roger Lewin, Evolutionary Theory Under Fire, Science, Volume 210, 21 November, p. 883

5 Ibid., 884

6 Babu G. Ranganathan, http://bgrnathan.blogspot.com

7 Genesis 1:25, Holy Bible, NIV

8 Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator, Zondervan, 2004, back cover

Stumbling Block #2, The Fossil Record

1 Richard Dawkins, The Illusion of Design: An introduction to the November 2005 special issue “Darwin & Evolution”, Natural History Magazine.

2 Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101–102, 1998. Patterson’s letter was written in 1979. Patterson later tried to backtrack somewhat from this clear statement, apparently alarmed that creationists would utilize this truth.

3 Stephen Jay Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, vol. 86 (May 1987), p. 14

4 Darwin, Charles, The Origin of Species (1st edition) (New York: Avenel Books, Crown Publishers, 1979) p. 292.

5 Luther D. Sutherland, Darwin’s Enigma: Ebbing The Tide of Naturalism, 2nd printing 2002; Master Books, Inc., Green Forest, AR; ©1988, Ch 1, p. 11. Used with permission from publisher.

6 David Raup, Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1979, p. 22-29.

7 Morris, J. 2008. The Mythical Horse Series. Acts & Facts. 37 (9): 13.

8 Carl Werner, Evolution: The Grand Experiment: The Quest for an Answer, Second printing, 2009, p. 103, Used with permission from publisher — New Leaf Press, Green Forest, AR; ©2007

9 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p. 35. Used with special permission. All rights reserved

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect; accessed 5/30/12

11 Barbara J. Stahl, Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), P. 350

12 Richard Dawkins, Climbing Mount Improbable, Norton Publishing, New York, 1996, Cp 4, p. 124

13 Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, 2009, Ch 4, pp. 64, 65

14 Britten, R.J. 2002. ‘Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5% counting indels.’ Proceedings National Academy Science 99:13633-13635

15 Gagneux, P. and Varki, A. 2001. ‘Genetic differences between humans and great apes.’ Mol Phylogenet Evol 18:2-13. Found at www.creation.com

16 Ibid.

17 David DeWitt, Greater Than 98% Chimp/Human DNA Similarity? Not Any More. A Common Evolutionary Argument Gets Reevaluated—By Evolutionists Themselves, Creation Ministries International, www.creation.com

18 National Academy of Sciences, Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science, p. 18

19 Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Refuting Evolution, Master Books, 2009, Ch 5, p. 32, Used with permission from publisher — New Leaf Press, Green Forest, AR.

20 John Reader (author of “Missing Links”), “Whatever happened to Zinjanthropus?” New Scientist, 26 March 1981, p. 802.

21 The Human Toll, www.tsunamispecialenvoy.org

22 John D. Morris, Ph.D., Why Don’t We Find More Human Fossils?, Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org

23 J. E. O’Rourks, Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy, American Journal of Science, vol. 276, January 1976, p. 47.

24 Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, pp.1185 and 1212

25 David B. Kitts. PhD (Zoology), head curator of the dept of geology, Stoval Museum, trade journal “Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory,” Evolution, vol. 28, (1974), p. 467

Stumbling Block #3, The Cambrian Explosion

1 Darwin, C. R. 1872. The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 6th edition, p 286

2 Raup, David M. Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? W.W. Norton and Company. New York. 1991. pp.3-6

3 Darwin, C. R. 1872. The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. 6th edition, p 282

4 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987, Ch 9, p. 229

5 I. Axelrod, “Early Cambrian Marine Fauna,” Science, Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7

6 Jeffrey S. Levinton, “The Big Bang of Animal Evolution,” Scientific American, Vol. 267, November 1992, p. 84

7 2 Peter 3:5, Holy Bible

Stumbling Block #4, Irreducible Complexity

1 Michael J Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press, 1996, 2006, Ch 2, p 39

2 Unlocking the Mystery of Life, video documentary by Illustra Media, 2002, www.Illustramedia.com. Used with permission; All rights reserved.

3 http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

4 www.designinference.com, William A. Dembski, Still Spinning Just Fine: A Response to Ken Miller, February 17, 2003

5 http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evocmplx.htm

6 Darwin, C. R. 1859. On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray. [1st edition], Cp VI, p 189

7 http://www.expelledexposed.com/

Stumbling Block #5, Faulty Mechanisms

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

2 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p, 6. Used with special permission. All rights reserved.

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

4 www.scientificamerican.com, Katherine Harmon, Malaria-carrying mosquitoes might be splitting into new species, Oct 21, 2010.

5 Vance Ferrell, Science vs. Evolution, Evolution Facts, Inc., 2001, p. 391

6 Ibid.

7 James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, 1990, Ch 5, p. 49.

8 Windows to the Universe team. Changes to the Gene Pool: Microevolution, Boulder, CO: ©2010 National Earth Science Teachers Association, Last modified October 15, 2011 by Jennifer Bergman, Online. Available: http://www.windows2universe.org. (accessed page on 2-14-2012).

9 Vance Ferrell, Science vs. Evolution, Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont, TN, third printing, 2006, Ch 10, p. 316.

10 Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (printed 1987), pp. 103, 104. Used with permission from publisher – Master Books, Green Forest, AR; ©1982.

11 http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/sickle-cell-anemia/overview.html, The New York Times, Health Guide, 2/19/2012

12 Ibid.

13 Dawkins, R. 2009. The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. New York: Free Press, 31

14 Brian Thomas, 100 Years of Fruit Fly Tests Show No Evolution, Institute of Creation Research, Article posted on July 29, 2010, http://www.icr.org/article/a-100-years-fruit-fly-tests-show-no-evolution/

15 Meyer, S. C. et al. 2007. Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism. London: Hill House Publishers, 105.

16 Nüsslein-Volhard, C. and E. Wieschaus. 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature. 287 (5785): 795-801.

17 Linton, A. H. 2001. Scant Search for the Maker. Times Higher Education. Posted on, April 20, 2010, accessed November 9, 2010., timeshighereducation.co.uk

18 J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, 2nd edition, ©2005, P. 189, 190.

19 Lee Spetner, Not by Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, 1996, pp. 131-138.

20 Bodie Hodge, Answers in Genesis, The New Answers book 2, Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the “Engine” of Evolution?, February 18, 2010 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/mutations-engine-of-evolution

21 Ibid.

22 Vance Ferrell, Science vs. Evolution, Evolution Facts, Inc., Altamont, TN, third printing, 2006, Ch 11, p. 390.

23 Ibid., 384.

Stumbling Block #6, Mathematical Probabilities

1 Sir Fred Hoyle, as quoted in “Hoyle on Evolution”. Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105.

2 Francis Crick & L.E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,” Icarus journal, 19, p. 341–346; also Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981).

3 Origins by Design (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1983), p. 376

4 The Big Bang in Astronomy, New Scientist, Vol. 92, No. 1280 (1981), p. 527.

5 A. E Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, p. 4. Used with permission from the publisher – Master Books, Green Forest, AR; copyright©1981.

6 Ibid., 9-89.

7 Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986), p. 264.

8 James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, 1990, Ch 7, p. 70.

9 Ibid., 70.

10 Bruce A. Malone, Search for the Truth: changing the world with evidence for creation, 2006, p. 21

11 Tom Wagner, A Squashed Mosquito is Dead Forever, Creation magazine, www.answersingenesis.org

12 James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, 1990, Ch 7, p. 74.

13 Michael J Behe, The Edge of Evolution,: The Search for the limits of Darwinism, Simon & Schuster (Free Press), 2007, back cover of book

14 James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, 1990, Ch 7, p. 69.

15 George Sim Johnson, Did Darwin Get It Right? The wall street Journal, October 15, 1999

16 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p. 3. Used with special permission. All rights reserved.

17 From the book In the beginning was information: A Scientist Explains the Incredible Design in Nature by Werner Gitt, First printing, 2006; p. 11. Used with permission from the publisher - Master Books Inc., Green Forest, AR; copyright 2005.

18 Ibid., 106.

19 J.C. Sanford, Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, 2nd edition, ©2005, P. 4.

Stumbling Block #7, Laws of Science

1 http://trylibertee.com/creationism/scientific-facts-that-contradict-evolution/

Stumbling Block #8, Hoaxes of Evolution

1 Bill Nitardy.

2 1988 Webster’s New World Dictionary

3 James Perloff, Tornado In A Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, 1999, Ch 8, p 80-81

4 Chuck Colson, Break Point, The Archaeoraptor Fraud: This Bird Will Never Fly, January 28, 2000, www.colsoncenter.org

5 Hillary Mayell, Dino Hoax Was Mainly Made of Ancient Bird, Study Says, National Geographic News: Reporting Your Word Daily, November 20, 2012, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1120_021120_raptor.html

6 Creation Magazine 12(3):32, June 1990, Creation Ministries International, www.creation.com

7 Dr. David Menton, Answers in Genesis, The New Answers Book: Chapter 8: Did Humans Really Evolve from Apelike Creatures? February 25, 2010

8 Erik Trinkaus, “Hard Times Among the Neanderthals,” Natural History, vol. 87, December 1978, p. 10; R. L.

9 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p 14. Used with special permission. All rights reserved.

10 Dr. Duane Gish Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No, Third printing, Institute of Creation Research, ©1995, pp. 327-328

11 Ibid.

12 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p 16-17. Used with special permission. All rights reserved.

13 From the book Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong by Jonathan Wells. Copyright©2000, p. 25. Published by Regnery Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted by special permission of Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington D.C.

14 Ibid., p. 26.

Stumbling Block #9, Dinosaurs

1 James Perloff, Tornado In A Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, Refuge Books, 1999, Ch 16, p 181

2 Peter Dickinson, The Flight of Dragons (New York: Harper and Row, 1979), p 127

3 Job 40:15-18, Holy Bible

4 http://enlightenedawareness.wetpaint.com/page/Humans+and+Dinosaurs

5 “Bushmen’s Paintings Baffling to Scientists,” Los Angeles Herald Examiner, 7 January 1970, quoted in Henry M. Morris, That Their Words May Be Used Against Them (San Diego: Institute for Creation Research, 1997), p 252

6 (www.nationalgeographic.com, John Roach, for National Geographic News, December 3, 2007)

7 John Roach, National Geographic News titled: Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found—Blood Vessels, More, May 1, 2009,

Stumbling Block #10, Young Earth Evidence

1 http://www.creationproof.com/id25.html

2 Morten H. Christiansen and Simon Kirby (editors), Language evolution: the hardest problem in science?, Oxford University Press, 2003, pp. 1- 15.

3 Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1998, p. 294.

4 Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 9.

5 George Gaylord Simpson, The Biological Nature of Man, Science, Vol. 152, 22 April 1966, p. 477.

6 Klaas-Jan (K.J.) Duursma, The Tower of Babel account affirmed by linguistics, www.creation.com

7 Vance Farrell, Science vs. Evolution, third enlarged, classroom edition, ©2001, pp. 146, 147. Used with permission. All rights reserved.

8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_Delta, accessed 2/24/2012

9 http://gocanada.about.com/od/niagarafalls/tp/niagara_falls_travel_guide.htm, accessed 2/27/1012

10 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niagara_Falls, accessed 2/24/2012

11 John D. Morris, Dating Niagara Falls, Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.com

12 S. A. Austin, “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10.3 (1996): pp. 335–343.

13 Andrew A. Snelling, “The Cause of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating,’” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. E. Walsh (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1998), pp. 503–525.

14 Andrew A. Snelling, Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, September 2, 2009, www.answersingenesis.org

15 Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org

16 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1986, p. 226.

17 Don DeYoung, Thousands. . .Not Billions, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2205, p. 53., Used with permission from publisher.

18 Helen Fryman, Is Carbon Dating Reliable? Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry (CARM), http://carm.org/carbon-dating.

19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth’s_magnetic_field#cite_note-40; Courtillot, Vincent; Le Mouel, Jean Louis. “Time Variations of the Earth’s Magnetic Field: From Daily to Secular”. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Science 1988 (16): 435.

20 Brian Thomas, M.S., Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model, www.icr.org.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth in young, Creation Ministries International. Accessed 2/24/2012. www.creation.com

24 Dr. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.com.

25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

26 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification#cite_note-11. Accessed 2/27/2012

27 Uwe Paschen, NowPublic.com: The Ever-Growing Deserts of the World! Is the earth about to die? | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/ever-growing-deserts-world-earth-about-die#ixzz1nEj0zfjW

28 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristlecone_pine

29 Kramer, Stephen P.; Day, Kenrick L. (1995), Caves, Carolrhoda Books (published 1994), p. 23.

30 http://creationwiki.org/Stalactite_and_stalagmite.

31 Dr Carl Wieland, The lost squadron; Deeply buried missing planes challenge ‘slow and gradual’ preconceptions; Creation Ministries International. Accessed 2/28/2012.

32 Creation 19(1):42–43, 1997. The GRIP ice-core (to be precise, 3028.8-m-long) is cited in W. Dansgaard et al., Nature 364(6343):218–220, 15 July 1993.

33 Dr Carl Wieland, The lost squadron; Deeply buried missing planes challenge ‘slow and gradual’ preconceptions; Creation Ministries International. Accessed 2/28/2012.

34 Morris, H. M. and J. C. Whitcomb. 1961. The Genesis Flood. Phillipsburgh, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 408.

35 Ariel A. Roth, Coral Reef Growth, Origins, Vol.6, No 2, 1979, pp. 88-95. This was taken from: Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p, 34.

36 R. Monastersky, Ancient bacteria brought back to life - microbiologists Raul J. Cano and Monica K. Borucki at California Polytechnic State University in San Juan Luis Obispo, CA. www.findarticles.com.

37 Don Batten, Bugs in brine, Creation Ministries International. Accessed 3/02/2012

38 Lindahl, T., Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA, Nature 362(6422):709–715, 1993.

39 Pääbo, S., Ancient DNA, Scientific American 269(5):60–66, 1993.

40 Carl Wieland, Mitochondrial Eve and biblical Eve are looking good: criticism of young age is premature, July 6, 2006, www.creation.com.

41 http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Polonium_halos

42 Robert V. Gentry, Creation’s Tiny Mystery (on-line version), www.halos.com/book/ctm-toc.htm.

43 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet

44 Whipple, Fred, L., “Comets,” Scientific American, July, 1951, reprinted in “Comets,” by John C. Brandt, 1981, W.H. Freeman and Co., p. 29.

45 Don Batten, Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe Published: 4 June 2009(GMT+10), Creation Ministries International

46 Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc., Young Age for the Moon and Earth, Institute for Creation Research

47 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v14/n4/moon

48 Vance Farrell, Science vs. Evolution, third enlarged, classroom edition, ©2001, p.128

49 Thomas G. Barnes, “Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ “ Impact 16, July 1974.

50 S. K. Vsekhsvyatsky, “Comets and the Cosmogony of the Solar System,” Comets, Asteroids, Meteorites, editor A. H. Delsemme (Toledo, Ohio: The University of Toledo, 1977), p. 473.

51 H. H. Aumann and C. M. Gillespie Jr., “The Internal Powers and Effective Temperatures of Jupiter and Saturn,” The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 157, July 1969, pp. L69–L72.; G. H. A. Cole, The Structure of Planets (New York: Crane, Russak & Co., Inc., 1978), p. 114.; M. Mitchell Waldrop, “The Puzzle That Is Saturn,” Science, 18 September 1981, p. 1351.

52 “The Mystery of Venus’ Internal Heat,” New Scientist, Vol. 88, 13 November 1980, p. 437.

53 [See Andrew P. Ingersoll, “Jupiter and Saturn,” Scientific American, Vol. 245, December 1981, p. 92.]

54 Paul M. Steidl, “The Solar System: An Assessment of Recent Evidence—Planets, Comets, and Asteroids,” Design and Origins in Astronomy, editor George Mulfinger Jr. (Norcross, Georgia: Creation Research Society Books, 1983), pp. 87, 91, 100.

55 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p, 40. Used with special permission. All rights reserved.

56 Ibid., p. 39.

57 Fritz Heide, Meteorites (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964), p. 119.; Peter A. Steveson, “Meteoritic Evidence for a Young Earth,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 12, June 1975, pp. 23–25.; Ralph Stair, “Tektites and the Lost Planet,” The Scientific Monthly, July 1956, p. 11.; William Henry Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950), p. 144.; F. A. Paneth, “The Frequency of Meteorite Falls throughout the Ages,” Vistas in Astronomy, Vol. 2, editor Arthur Beer (New York: Pergamon Press, 1956), p. 1681.; W. A. Tarr, “Meteorites in Sedimentary Rocks?” Science, Vol. 75, 1 January 1932, pp. 17–18.; N. T. Bobrovnikoff, “Comets,” Astrophysics, editor J. A. Hynek (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1951), p. 352.

58 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p, 39. Used with special permission. All rights reserved.

59 Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc., Institute for Creation Research, Young Age for the Moon and Earth.

60 Brian Thomas, Lightweight Star Should Not Exist, Institute of Creation Research; Article posted on September 14, 2011.

61 Ibid.

62 G. A. Tammann, “On the Frequency of Supernovae as a Function of the Integral Properties of Intermediate and Late Type Spiral Galaxies,” Astronomy and Astrophysics, Vol. 8, October 1970, p. 458.

63 Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175–184, order from http://www.creationicc.org

64 Russell Humphreys, Starlight and Time, Master Books, 1994; also Alex Williams & John Hartnett, Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, 2005

65 Bruce Malone, The Search for Truth: changing the world with the evidence for creation, 2006

66 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

67 Job 9:8, Psalm 104:2, Isaiah 40:22, Jeremiah 10:12, Zechariah 12:1, 2 Sam. 22:10, Psalm 144:5, Ezekiel 1:22, Isaiah 48:13, Job 26:7, Isaiah 42:5, Isaiah 51:13, Job 37:18, Isaiah 44:24, Jer. 51:15, Psalm 18:9, Isaiah 45:12.

Stumbling Block #11, Worldwide Flood

1 Werner Keller, The Bible as History, 1980, p. 38.

2 Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Record, Baker Books, 1976. p.183-184.

3 http://www.2think.org/ssotb.shtml

4 Ibid.

5 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n2/flood-legends

6 John D. Morris, Ph.D., Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood?, Institute for Creation Research, www.icr.org

7 http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-reliability

8 http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

9 Ibid.

10 David Reagan, Christ in Prophecy Study Guide (McKinney, TX: Lamb & Lion Ministries, 3rd edition in 2006).

11 Walt Brown, In The Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, 8th edition, 2008, p. 120. Used with special permission. All rights reserved.

12 Ibid., 121.

13 Ibid., 122-124

14 Ibid., 128

15 Ibid., 126-129

16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

17 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v7/n3/grand-canyon

18 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00/

19 http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/MSH/NatMonument/PointsInterest/debris_avalanche.html

20 Gary parker, How Fast? Creation Facts of Life, Answers in Genesis, January 1, 1984, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/how-fast

21 Dr. John D. Morris, Are Human Artifacts Ever Petrified?, www.icr.org

22 Professor Walter J. Veith, PhD, Petrified Trees, Amazing Discoveries, http://amazingdiscoveries.org

23 Harold G. Coffin, “Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington,” Geology. 11 (1983): pp. 298-299.

24 www.lighthouseupc.org/flood.html

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 www.torahtimes.org

28 Andrew A. Snelling, The World’s a Graveyard, February 12, 2008, www.answersingenesis.org

Stumbling Block #12, Origins of the Universe

1 George Wald, The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954

2 Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research, The Advocate, 8 March 1984.

3 Excerpt from THE ANCESTOR’S TALE by Richard Dawkins. Copyright © 2004 by Richard Dawkins. Used by permission of Houghton Miffin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved, p. 613

4 Robert Matthew, Something from nothing is a quantum possibility, The National, January 12, 2009, http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/something-from-nothing-is-a-quantum-possibility?pageCount=2

5 Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton, 1992), p. 107. (p. 116 in the ‘78 edition)

Stumbling Block #13, United States Constitution

1 U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

2 Charles Francis Potter, Humanism: A New Religion (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1930), p. 128

3 John J Dunphy, A Religion For A New Age,” The Humanist magazine, January-February 1983 [Volume 43, Number 1]

4 TORCASO v. WATKINS, 367 U.S. 488 (1961), Footnote 11.

5 John W. Whitehead and John Conlan, “The Establishment of the Religion of Secular Humanism and Its First Amendment Implications,” Texas Tech Law Review 10 (winter 1978): 19.

6 Lloyd Morain and Mary Morain, Humanism as the Next Step (Boston: The Beacon Press, 1954), p. 4.

7 Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935

Stumbling Block #14, Motives for Believing

1 Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means (London: Chatto & Windus, 1946), pp. 270, 273.

2 Richard Lewontin, The Demon-Haunted World, The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28.

3 Reprinted by permission. The Battle for the Beginning, John MacArthur, copyright © 2007, p. 38, Thomas Nelson Inc. Nashville Tennessee. All rights reserved.

Stumbling Block #15, Harmful Effects of Evolution

1 David Kupelian, The Marketing of Evil, Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., 2005

2 James Kennedy (forward), Tom DeRosa, Evolutions Fatal Fruit, Coral Ridge Ministries, 2006, p. 8.

3 Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. James Murphy, Chapter XI, “Race and People”, http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200601.txt.

4 James Kennedy (forward), Tom DeRosa, Evolutions Fatal Fruit, Coral Ridge Ministries, 2006, pp. 9,10.

5 Ibid., 14.

6 http://prolifeprologic.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/the-link-between-eugenics-and-planned-parenthood/

7 http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/index.htm

8 http://www.biblehelp.org/didknow.htm

9 http://www.movementforabetteramerica.org/abortionindex.html

10 Remake of Edmund Burke’s quote

Table of Contents

From Slimy Goo, Came Me and You!

Evolution Fun

Introduction

Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

The Fossil Record

The Cambrian Explosion

Irreducible Complexity

Faulty Mechanisms

Mathematical Probabilities

Laws of Science

Hoaxes of Evolution

Dinosaurs

Young Earth Evidence

Worldwide Flood

Origins of the Universe

United States Constitution

Motives for Believing

Harmful Effects of Evolution

The Holy Bible

Illustration Credits

Notes