“Why I am Not an Evolutionist
…”
The Science
Lecture Class Handout
By Andy Carmichael ©
2003
Creation School Online
with Andy Carmichael is hosted
at the website www.SloppyNoodle.com/ev.html
Andy_Ally@hotmail.com
1. Introduction
“The evolutionary record leaks like a sieve … The general scientific
world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution
has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
(Sir Fred Hoyle, evolutionist, atheist, astronomer, cosmologist, mathematician
and Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University
[1] )
“One of the reasons evolution continues to survive is that paleontologists
believe geneticists have the real evidence [for evolution],
and geneticists believe that paleontologists have the
evidence, and so on around the various specialties within
biology, each man passing the buck for evidence to the
next man. Since professionals in different disciplines
rarely talk with one another about such matters, the myth
of overwhelming support for evolution continues. …
Sometimes people ask me how virtually all the evolutionists in the world
could be so wrong about such an important issue as human
origins. Answer : it wouldn’t be the first time.”
(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in biology, creationist scientist, biologist
and palaeontologist, former university lecturer in evolution,
Science Faculty Fellow of the US National Science Foundation,
Creation Facts of Life, 1997
[2] )
“Regardless of how robustly
dogmatic assertions to the contrary may be, even if they
are made by the American Association for the Advancement
of Science and endorsed by fifty thousand scientists,
human evolution is simply not proven.”
(William Fix, evolutionist,
1984 [3] )
“I really do think that people have been so brainwashed into believing
that evolution is a proven fact rather than one possible
interpretation of the facts (which is a very different
matter), that they are extremely surprised to find a practising
scientist who at least appears to be intelligent espousing
the cause of the Biblical account. … It is possible to
be wholly scientific and at the same time to accept the
opening chapters of Genesis as sober history. I think
that what’s required is that we recognise that science
has its limitations.”
(Professor E.H. Andrews,
PhD, creationist scientist and Professor of Material Science
at Queen Mary College, London University [4] )
“A person may choose any
group of animals or plants, large or small, or pick one
at random. He may then go to a library and with some patience
he will be able to find a qualified author who says that
the evolutionary origin of that form is not known.”
(Dr Bolton Davidheiser,
zoologist and creationist scientist, 1969 [5] )
“Science does not claim a 10 billion year history of
the world. Such a claim is beyond its scope. It only claims
that, if we assume that the present laws of nature were
always in force, then the world is that old. But, according
to the simple meaning of the Torah’s narrative, the world
– and the laws of nature with it – were created 5,740
years ago. This denies the non-scientific assumption of
the scientists and does not quarrel with their scientific
reasoning. In other words, the Torah does not at all contradict
the claims of science, but only the hypothesis of scientists,
which is not science at all.”
(Leo Levi, Jewish scholar,
1983 [6] )
“I know of no finding in
archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition
to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history
textbook the world has ever seen.”
(Dr Clifford Wilson, former
Director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology
[7] )
“There is no evidence based
solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5-5 x 109
[i.e. 4.5 to 5 billion] years old. I suspect that the
sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new
and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time
for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment,
I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value
for the age of the earth and sun [i.e. 6,000 years old].
I don’t think we have much in the way of observational
evidence in astronomy to conflict with that.”
(Dr John Eddy, PhD in Astrogeophysics, Solar Astronomer
at the High Altitude Observatory at Boulder, Colorado,
Geotimes, 1978 [8] )
2. What is
evolution ?
Evolution theory is a religious
belief that fundamentally requires adherence to the
religion of atheism and/or the religion of pantheism.
“Evolution” is a hypothetical, unobserved process
(without any known scientific mechanism) by which all
things in the universe are said to have created themselves
from nothing without needing the existence of a Creator.
Evolution is a hypothetical process of onwards-and-upwards
self-improvement where all things somehow create themselves
and somehow increase their complexity of their own accord
:
“Once in a while an evolutionist
will say that any farmer who practices selective breeding
is practising evolution. But as one farmer put it, ‘Mister,
when I cross pigs, I get pigs. I don’t get dogs and cats
and horses.’ ”
(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in
biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist,
former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty
Fellow of the US National Science Foundation, Creation
Facts of Life, 1997 [9] )
“When someone asks if I believe
in evolution, I’ll often say, ‘Why, yes, no, no, yes,
no.’ The answer really depends on what the person means
by evolution. In one sense, evolution means ‘change’.
Do I believe in change ? Yes, indeed – I’ve got some in
my pocket ! But change isn’t the real question, of course.
Change is just as much a part of the creation model as
the evolution model. The question is, what kind of
change do we see : change only within kind (creation),
or change also from one kind to others (evolution) ?”
(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in
biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist,
former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty
Fellow of the US National Science Foundation, Creation
Facts of Life, 1997 [10] )
By one of the foundational
laws of logic (the “law of excluded middle”) we know that
either things were made or they were not made. Logically,
there is no third alternative. If they were made, they
were made by someone or something – this is the concept
of creation. If they were not made by someone or something,
they must have made themselves – this is the concept of
evolution :
“Creation and evolution,
between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the
origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on
the earth fully developed or not. … If they did appear
in a fully developed state, they must have been created
by some omnipotent intelligence.”
(Douglas Futuyma, evolutionist
and biologist, Science on Trial, 1983 [11] )
3. The Seven C’s of history
Evolutionists claim that
the history of the universe can be summarised by four
B’s :
1.
Big Bang
2.
Big Chance
3.
Big Struggle
4.
Big Death
In reality, these four B’s
never occurred. Instead there are seven C’s of history
:
1.
Creation
2.
Corruption (the Fall)
3.
Catastrophe (the global Flood of Noah)
4.
Confusion (the Tower of Babel)
5.
Christ (God born as a human being)
6.
Cross (death and resurrection of Christ)
7.
Consummation (future wrapping up)
4. Timeline and overview of world history
Here is a summary of the
history of the universe :
·
4,004 BC Biblical creation of the world,
solar system, entire universe and time
·
2,348 BC Start of the year-long global
Genesis Flood in Noah’s life
·
c. 2,165 - 1,990 BC The lifetime of Abraham. Job also
lived around this time.
·
c. 1,914 - 1,804 BC The lifetime of Joseph
·
1,445 BC Exodus from Egypt; God gives
Moses the 10 Commandments
·
c. 1,350 BC King Tutankhamen reigns in Egypt
·
c. 1,320 BC Rameses I reigns in Egypt
·
c. 971 BC King David dies and King Solomon
starts to reign in Israel
·
c. 6 BC to 30 AD Jesus walks the Earth as a human
·
1,066 AD William the Conqueror becomes
king of England
·
2,003 AD The present.
·
God creates the universe, time, the galaxies, the stars,
the solar system, the earth, dinosaurs, all other animal
kinds, all plants, one man and one woman in week one of
the creation 6,000 years ago in approximately 4,004 BC.
·
Exactly 1,656 years later, the global catastrophic Flood
of Noah occurs, in 2,348 BC. It lasts just over one year
and kills all people and all land-dwelling, air-breathing
animals that were outside the Ark. Breeding pairs of dinosaurs
were on the Ark with all other kinds of living and now
extinct animal breeding pairs. It was not a local
flood.
·
The occurrence of a global flood is equivalent to earth
being young because the evolutionist’s main philosophical
assumption in all their “dates” is that the earth has
never experienced a global catastrophe and particularly
not a global flood …
·
The Flood waters were primarily subterranean waters –
“the fountains of the great deep” and not rain.
The Flood waters and associated tectonic upheaval totally
reshape the surface of the Earth, form the present mountain
ranges including the Himalayas, and form the Grand Canyon,
and the continents rapidly split apart from what is now
the base of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The global Flood forms
the one-mile thick sedimentary layer all over the Earth.
This rapidly hardens into rock because of cementing agents
in the highly permineralised, highly pressurised and hot
subterranean waters of the Flood (hydrothermal water),
having killed and entombed the dead animals, plants and
people that are trapped in it, and who rapidly become
fossilised or turn to oil and coal. The northern mammoths
are frozen and killed by suffocation and crushing by the
fall-out from the now super-chilled, muddy “fountains
of the great deep” that had jetted high above the stratosphere
at the start of the global Flood. Coal and oil start to
form worldwide from the dead remains, salt domes start
forming and the process of liquefaction vertically sorts
the sediments and the contents of the newly-formed global
fossil record. Every time you fill up your car with petrol,
you are filling up with the dead remains of people, plants
and animals killed in the global Flood of Noah …
·
“Cute Ark” versus the Biblical Ark : The capacity of the
Biblical Ark was vast : it was 450 feet long, 45 feet
high and 75 feet wide. In terms of its cargo capacity,
how many people, each weighing 100 kg, could Noah’s Ark
have carried ? Would the answer be 150 people, 1,500 people,
15,000 people or 150,000 people ? The cargo capacity of
Noah’s Ark was 15,000 tons. This means Noah’s Ark could
have carried 150,000 people each weighing 100 kilograms
…
·
The Ark needed at most only 16,000 individual animals,
namely a breeding pair of the approximately 8,000 required
air-breathing, land-dwelling animal kinds (i.e.
mammals, birds, some reptiles and some amphibians) plus
their food for one year. Whales were not required
on Noah’s Ark as they could survive in the waters of the
global Flood without drowning ! Were dinosaurs on Noah’s
Ark ? Yes. What is the average size of a dinosaur found
in the fossil record ? About the size of a sheep or a
small cow. And there were only 20 to 30 kinds (or genera)
of dinosaur despite the overly-many “species” names that
are given to dinosaur remains.
·
The median size of the animals on the Ark has been calculated
by biologists as being smaller than a sheep so the Ark
would probably have been 2/3rd empty ... There
are no logistical problems for 8 people to care for, feed
and maintain these 16,000 animals for one year in the
emergency floating shelter of Noah’s Ark.
·
Noah, his family and the animal breeding families disembark
from the Ark in the 17,000 feet tall Ararat mountain range
in Armenia, eastern Turkey. They spread out across the
planet and rapidly repopulate the world in the 4,350 years
since the global Flood. Many kinds, genera and species
of animal and plant have since become extinct, including
most or all of the large dinosaurs (diplodocus,
T-rex, stegosaurs, etc.) as well as the dodo, the
carrier pigeon, mammoths and many species of ape.
5. The Biblical
age of the earth and the universe
Bible Verse Event
Age of the Earth in years
Genesis 1:1-31
Creation of universe, world, Adam and Eve, etc.
0
Genesis 5:3
Seth born when Adam aged 130
130
Genesis 5:6
Enosh born when Seth aged 105
235
Genesis 5:9
Kenan born when Enosh aged 90
325
Genesis 5:12
Mahalalel born when Kenan aged 70
395
Genesis 5:15
Jared born when Mahalalel aged 65
460
Genesis 5:18
Enoch born when Jared aged 162
622
Genesis 5:21
Methusaleh born when Enoch aged 65
687
Genesis 5:25
Lamech born when Methusaleh aged 187
874
Genesis 5:28
Noah born when Lamech aged 182
1056
Genesis 11:10
Shem was born 98 years before the Flood ended
1559
Genesis 7:6,11
The worldwide Flood hit when Noah was aged 600
1656
Genesis 7:11, 8:13
The worldwide Flood ended after one year
1657
Genesis 11:10
Arphaxad born to Shem two years after the Flood
1659
Genesis 11:12
Shelah born when Arpachshad aged 35
1694
Genesis 11:14
Eber born when Shelah aged 30
1724
Genesis 11:16
Peleg born when Eber aged 34
1758
Genesis 11:18
Reu born when Peleg aged 30
1788
Genesis 11:20
Serug born when Reu aged 32
1820
Genesis 11:22
Nahor born when Serug aged 30
1850
Genesis 11:24
Terah born when Nahor aged 29
1879
Genesis 9:28
Noah lives for further 350 years after the Flood ends
2007
Genesis 11:26
Abraham born when Terah aged 130 (not 70)
2009
Genesis 11:10-11
Shem lives for further 402 years after the Flood ends
2059
Genesis 11:32
Terah dies in Haran aged 205
2084
Genesis 12:4
Abraham leaves Haran for Canaan aged 75
2084
Genesis 21:5
Isaac born when Abraham aged 100
2109
Gen.12:10, Exodus
Exactly 430 years between Abraham leaving Haran
12:40-41, Gal.3:17
for Canaan until the Exodus
2514
1 Kings 6:1
480 years from the Exodus to the start of the Temple
2994
1 Kings 11:42
Solomon reigned 40 years, started the Temple in his 4th
year, start of Temple to
division of Kingdom 37 years 3031
Ezekiel 4:4-6
Division of the Kingdom to destruction of Jerusalem
was 388 whole years plus two part years
3419
History and Jer. 25:1
Jerusalem destroyed in 586 BC (to 588 BC)
Hence 586 BC was 3,419 years after creation
Hence creation was 586 + 3419 - 1 = 4,004 BC
So Adam speaks of the creation
to Methuselah who tells Shem (Noah’s son) who tells Abraham.
Shem had 50 years to speak with Abraham and tell him every
detail of creation and the global flood.
6. Dating methods
The only supposed
indicators of vast age in the universe are :
1.
Starlight from very distant galaxies and quasars. Evolutionists
claim these galaxies and quasars are up to 10 billion
light years distance away from us, so they claim that
10 billion years of time must have passed for the starlight
to be reaching us today.
2.
Some radioactive dating “ages” of rocks from the
earth and the moon. Evolutionists claim these radioactive
dating methods give them ages of up to 10 billion years.
6.1 Distant starlight
in a young universe :
The evolutionist’s first
supposed indicator of vast age is this : if the solar
system and the universe are around 6,000 years old, how
can we see stars in galaxies and quasars that are said
to be at a distance of more than 6,000 light years from
the earth ? If the universe is 6,000 years old as the
Bible clearly states, then the starlight that we see today
has had no more than 6,000 years to cross the universe
to reach the earth. Evolutionists claim that stars visible
to us today are supposedly so far away from us it would
have taken their starlight 10 billion years to
cross the universe to reach the earth. So the universe,
they claim, must be at least 10 billion years old or we
would not be able to see these stars. A combination of
the following five scientific explanations is most likely
the answer to how we can see very distant starlight in
a very young universe :
(a) How are star distances estimated and
how far away actually are the furthest stars ? :
On what scientific or mathematical
basis do evolutionists claim that certain galaxies
and quasars are distances of up to “10 billion light years
away” from the earth ? It is a proven fact of astronomy
that distances in space beyond 300 current light years
cannot be scientifically measured, estimated or
even known. The idea that quasars and some galaxies are
distances of up to 10 billion light years away from us
is only an evolutionist assumption based on the flawed
evolutionist interpretation of the redshift of starlight
and not a fact of astronomy or science. But
redshift of starlight is not an indicator of distance,
speed or recessional velocity (see astronomer Halton Arp’s
book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies).
Further, since light currently
travels a distance of 9.46 trillion kilometres through
space in one year, this would still give an immensely
vast diameter of the universe of 114 million billion
kilometres (i.e. 2 x 9.46 trillion km x 6,000 years) even
if the other four scientific explanations are ignored.
The universe is probably smaller in diameter than is popularly
believed. It is unknown (and scientifically unknowable)
whether stars, galaxies and quasars are all located within
a distance of 6,000 current light years from the earth.
(b) Riemannian or curved space :
Space could be curved allowing
distant starlight to reach us quickly by taking a “short-cut”
through space on a curved path. In other words, space
may be curved or Riemannian instead of being straight-line
or Euclidean. Evolutionist Albert Einstein used this theoretical
mathematical concept of Riemannian or curved space in
his relativity theories.
(c) An instantly mature creation :
The entire universe was certainly
and very logically created as partly or fully mature and
therefore was created with some appearance of age. However,
this fact does not by itself explain how we can see supernova
explosions that are at a supposed distance of more than
6,000 current light-years from the earth. The question
to be asked is how does an evolutionist scientifically
know a supernova’s distance from the earth ? As
metioned above, it is scientifically impossible to
estimate the distance of any object in space that is more
than 300 light years away from the earth.
(d) The speed of light has decreased enormously
over the past 6,000 years :
Observations in astronomy
over the past 325 years have shown a definite measured
statistical decrease in the speed of light. Contrary to
popular false belief, there is no scientific law
that requires the speed of light to be constant. Even
Einstein did not claim that the speed of light itself
is constant but that the speed of light is independent
of the speed of the light source, or that the speed of
light is constant with regard to all observers.
And evolutionists themselves are now claiming that the
speed of light was billions of times faster at
their “time zero” to try to resuscitate their big bang
theory. The observed historic decrease in the speed of
light has been graphed mathematically and forms a logarithmic
curve. Extrapolating this mathematical logarithmic curve
back 6,000 years results in an almost infinite speed of
light during the creation week 6,000 years ago. An initial
almost infinite speed of light would easily allow all
starlight, even in an almost infinitely large universe,
to reach us within 6,000 years. If the speed of light
has decreased substantially, this would make all radiometric
dating methods produce artificially old billion-year “dates”
for objects that are in reality only no more than a few
thousand years old.
(e) A rapid initial stretching out of space itself
:
The Bible indicates at least
twelve different times that God rapidly stretched out
or spread out the heavens, which probably refers to the
very fabric of space itself, most likely during the creation
week of 6,000 years ago. This would also account for the
observed redshift of most starlight. The question is therefore
not how far away are the very distant stars, but
how close to us were they when their starlight
that we currently see first started out on its journey
to us.
6.2 Radiometric dating
methods :
No radioactive dating method
has ever scientifically proved that the earth or the moon
are more than 6,000 years old. Radiometric years are
not the same as calendar years and all radiometric
“dates” are entirely dependent on the assumptions
used. If, despite the existence of the global fossil record
that could have been produced only by a global
flood, you merely assume that no global flood happened,
you will get billion-year radiometric “dates” as
a result. If you conclude from the scientific evidence
that a global flood did happen, you will get
only thousand-year radiometric “dates” as a result. Radiometric
“dates” are only as good as your assumptions. They do
not constitute scientific evidence for the universe
being supposedly billions of years old.
(a) Carbon dating
Carbon-dating is not an
absolute dating method. It can only “date” living or once-living
things (plant, animal and people remains) and cannot date
rocks. Evolutionists never use method to date fossils
or “dinosaurs”. But a C-14 “date” is only an inference
obtained by comparing the ratio of two types of carbon
atom left in organic remains. The “dates” depend entirely
on the assumptions used (for example, the evolutionist
assumption that there never was a global Flood). This
dating method is usable only to an absolute
maximum of 50,000 hypothetical past years and is also
usable only back to the last global catastrophe
(i.e. the global Genesis Flood of 2,348 BC). The method
is accurate only to about 100 BC.
The method’s long-age “dates”
rely critically on unknown and unknowable assumptions.
“Garbage In, Garbage Out” – evolutionist assumptions will
obviously give very old (evolutionist) “dates”. Biblical
assumptions will give very young “dates” for the same
object being dated. And carbon-dating “years” are not
the same as real years. All evolutionist carbon-dating
“ages” unscientifically assume that : no
global Flood (or any other worldwide catastrophe); speed
of light always remained constant; intensity of Earth’s
magnetic field not changed for past 20,000 years; only
small variations in ocean depths for time span being dated;
were only small ocean temperature variations during time
span; and C-14 decay rate has not varied much during
time span.
Evolutionists wrongly carbon-dated
fresh-water snails living in Artesian springs in Nevada
as being “27,000 years old”; and they “carbon-dated” seals
clubbed in the Antarctic a few weeks before as having
died “1,300 years ago” :
“The Carbon-14 contents of
the shells of the snail of Melanoides tuberculatus
living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada
indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years.”
(Dr. Alan C. Riggs, formerly
of the US Geological Survey, 1984 [12] )
“… when the blood of a seal
freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested
by Carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years
ago.”
(Wakefield Dort Jr, Department
of Geology, University of Kansas, 1971 [13] )
“Radiocarbon analysis of
specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria
Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years.
However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14
activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore,
radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent
ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown
and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon
ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot
be accepted as correct.”
(Wakefield Dort Jr, Department
of Geology, University of Kansas, 1971 [14] )
(b) Other radiometric dating
methods : uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon
and rubidium-strontium dating
Radiometric dating methods
don’t actually “date” anything and so they cannot give
absolute dates of millions of years. A radiometric
“date” is only an inference obtained by comparing the
ratio of two types of atom left in a sample (parent and
daughter isotopes). Evolutionists use unscientific
assumptions of constant decay rates and no global
catastrophes. However, leaching of parent and/or daughter
elements into and out of a rock sample is very easy and
is very common, especially if there was ever ground water
flowing in that region.
All of these methods are accurate
only back to the last global catastrophe (i.e.
the global Flood of 2,348 BC) as global catastrophes reset
all the radiometric / atomic “clocks” by invalidating
the evolutionist’s main dating assumption that there have
never been any global catastrophes. The assumptions are
similar to the assumptions used in carbon dating.
These radiometric dating methods
also have many anomalies : volcanic lava flows in the
1800s from Hawaii were “dated” by the Potassium-Argon
(K-Ar) method as having flowed 3 billion years ago.
Lava flows in 1954 from Mt Ngauruahoe in New Zealand were
“dated” by the K-Ar method as having flowed 250,000 to
3 million years ago. Radiometric dating methods are not
used to date fossils or “dinosaurs” :
“[Radiometric dating] is
an exceedingly crude instrument with which to measure
our strata and I can think of no occasion where it has
been put to an immediate practical use. Apart from very
‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can
think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date
fossils.”
(Dr Derek Ager, evolutionist,
geologist, Head of the Geology Department of the University
College of Swansea and former president of the British
Geological Association, 1983
[15] )
“As yet there is no radiometric
method (that is, one based on radioactivity) for the direct
absolute dating of dinosaurs.”
(Dr Alan Charig, evolutionist,
palaeontologist and Head of the Palaeontological Laboratory
at the British Natural History Museum, 1979 [16] )
“It is obvious that radiometric
techniques may not be the absolute dating methods they
are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological
stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite
different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years).
There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological
‘clock’. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating
are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists …”
(Dr. William Stansfield, Instructor of Biology, California
Polytechnic State University, 1977 [17] )
“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some
4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium
and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as
nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There
has been in recent years the horrible realization that
radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thought,
nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this
could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some
global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic
to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather,
within the age and memory of man.”
(Frederic Jeuneman, “Secular
Catastrophism”, 1982 [18] )
·
Radiometric dating methods are not used to assign
dates to rocks in rock strata – they are used only to
try to “verify” the unscientific 19th century
evolutionist “index fossil dates” :
“Index fossils” are types
of fossil (such as ammonites and coelacanths) that 19th
century European evolutionists of the Victorian era claimed
lived and died out many millions of years ago. The supposed
age of “index fossils” is based on how long these 19th
century evolutionists believed one kind of animal would
take (somehow) to “evolve” into a different kind of animal.
For example, if they believed it would take 200 million
years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into
say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites
(the “index fossil”) would be given an “age” 200 million
years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs :
“… the geological column
and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata
were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought
about radioactive dating … There are so many sources of
possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating
that most such dates are discarded and never used at all,
notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on
[index fossil] dates.”
(Dr Henry Morris, creationist
scientist and hydraulicist, PhD in hydrology, geology
and mathematics, Fellow of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and the American Society of
Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering
at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1974
[19] )
And when it comes to dating
any individual rock today, the resulting “date” is forced
to conform to predetermined evolutionist “dates” based
on these imaginary 19th century index-fossil
“dates”. Any radiometric dates that show a supposedly
“old” rock to be young are rejected for no other reason
:
“Few people realize that
the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions
and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool
for geologic time. … In other words, radiometric dating
methods are actually fit into the geological column, which
was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.”
(Michael Oard, meteorologist
and creationist scientist, 1984 [20] )
7. So how do you tell
the age of a fossil, rocks, dinosaurs and the Earth ?
You can’t. There is no scientific
method that can give absolute dates for a fossil, a rock,
a dinosaur or the Earth :
·
Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by their appearance
(supposedly old rocks do not necessarily look old,
neither do supposedly young rocks look young)
·
Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by their petrological
character
·
Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by their mineral
contents
·
Rocks are not necessarily dated by their structural
features
·
Rocks are not dated by their adjacent rocks
·
Rocks are not dated by vertical superposition
·
Rocks are not dated radiometrically (many people
mistakenly believe evolutionists determine the
age of rocks from the study of the radioactive elements
in the rocks)
·
Rocks cannot scientifically be dated by any physical
characteristics at all (there is nothing at all
in the physical appearance or content of a rock that can
be used to determine its age)
·
Rocks are not dated by their total fossil contents
(many fossils are the remains of animals and plants
kinds that are still alive today. This makes the fossils
useless as indicators of a rock’s age)
So how do evolutionists actually
know the age of fossils, rocks, dinosaurs and the
Earth …? They don’t.
8. How do you become
a fossil ?
Get buried rapidly in thick,
wet sediment that contains a chemical cementing agent
… The global fossil record could have been formed
only by a global Flood of the hydrothermal, hot,
highly pressurized, highly permineralised subterranean
waters – the Biblical “fountains of the great deep”. This
is simply subterranean water at high pressure and high
temperature, containing a vast amount of dissolved salts
and minerals in solution.
·
How long does it take for an animal, plant or person
to become fossilised after dying … ?
How long does it take for
an animal, plant or person to become fossilized ? Let’s
ask an evolutionist :
“The amount of time that
it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized
is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden
with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly.
Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become
permineralized within a matter of weeks.”
(Philip J. Currie, evolutionist,
Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology,
Alberta, Canada, 1996 [21] )
“Bones do not have to be
‘turned into stone’ to be fossils, and usually most of
the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.”
(Philip J. Currie, evolutionist,
Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology,
Alberta, Canada, 1996 [22] )
“A relatively common fossil
found on many parts of the coast of northern Australia,
Thalassina is a crustacean, a kind of lobster,
that lives in burrows on tidal mudflats. Like all other
crustaceans, it has to cast off its shell in order to
grow. Throughout its life, a single Thalassina may
produce a dozen or more shells. Each time it molts, the
shell is buried at the bottom of the burrow and a new
living chamber is excavated. Buried in mud, the cast-off
shell can be fossilized in a very short time, perhaps
less than a year. Some of these fossils are so young that
the animals that shed them may still be alive.”
(Rocks and Fossils
– The Ultimate Guide to the Earth, Collins, 1996 [23] ) (emphasis added)
“Although professionals understand
how fast fossils begin to form under flood conditions,
the general public often does not. … That same process,
mineral in-fill, can turn wood, bones, and shells into
fossils in a short period of time. Indeed, fossils can
be made in the laboratory !
… In short, floods form
fossils fast ! …
Like most Americans, I was
mis-taught in grade school that it takes millions of years
and tremendous heat and pressure to turn sediments (like
sand, lime, or clay) into rock (like sandstone, limestone,
or shale). We all know better. Concrete is just artificial
rock. Cement companies crush rock, separate the cementing
minerals and large stones, then sell it to you. You add
water to produce the chemical reaction (curing, not drying),
and rock forms again – easily, naturally, and quickly,
right before your very eyes. … Time, heat, and pressure
can and do alter the properties of rock (including
‘Flood rock’), but the initial formation of most
rocks, like the setting of concrete, is quite rapid. …
Once a plant or animal is
buried deeply enough in the right kind of sediment, there’s
no special trick involved in turning it into fossil, and
no huge amount of time is required. Minerals simply accumulate
in the specimen itself or in the cavity left by the specimen
after it rots away.”
(Dr Gary Parker, PhD in
biology, creationist scientist, biologist and palaeontologist,
former university lecturer in evolution, Science Faculty
Fellow of the US National Science Foundation, Creation
Facts of Life, 1997 [24] )
9. Other dating methods
·
Coral growth – fossil coral “islands” (e.g. Eniwetok,
Bikini atoll and the Bahamas) did not grow in place over
hundreds of thousands of years. They are not fossil coral
islands or coral reefs but are primarily limestone
rock containing embedded fossil corals that
were washed into position probably by the global Flood.
·
Tree-ring dating (“dendrochronology”) :
this is a subjective (not objective, hence not technically
scientific) dating method. Results depend on who does
the dating. Also, multiple tree-rings can grow in one
year or none can grow at all. Fossil trees often have
no growth rings.
·
Coal, oil and gas do not need a long time
to form, just special conditions, such as the global Flood
: the buried portions of US wooden border posts, when
dug up, were found to have turned to pure rock and coal
in less than 200 years. With heat and pressure, organic
matter (e.g. the dead remains of people, plants and animals
killed by the global Flood) can turn to oil in 20 minutes
and plant matter in the laboratory can turn to coal in
only a few hours. Vast time is not needed to form
coal, oil or gas.
·
The Grand Canyon : many scientists believe that
the entire Grand Canyon was formed in less than one year.
It was not formed by a little water over a long time but
by a lot of water (i.e. the receding waters of the global
Flood) over a very short time. The Mount St Helens volcanic
eruption in the USA in 1980 formed a 1/40th
scale model of the Grand Canyon in just one day with stratified
sedimentary layers that turned to solid rock within
nine months.
·
The earth’s small human population : The world’s
human population growth rate over the centuries is said
to be about 2% a year. Even assuming a much smaller rate
of only 0.5% per year, it would take only 4,000 years
for one man and one woman to produce the world’s present
population of 6 billion people. This matches perfectly
the Biblical account of Noah’s global Flood 4,350 years
ago with four human breeding-pair survivors.
If the Earth’s human population
increased at only 0.5% a year, then after the evolutionist’s
supposed one to two million years since man first somehow
“appeared” on the planet, the entire universe would not
have enough space for them. To be precise, there would
be 102100 people on Earth, an immense figure
that is even larger than the number of atoms in the universe
(there are only an estimated 1080 atoms in
the known universe)
Even if the Earth’s human
population is assumed to have grown at such a drastically
slow annual rate of almost zero so that it would have
taken one million years to reach today’s population of
6 billion people, there would still have been at least
3,000 billion people who must have lived and died on Earth.
Where are the remains of all these people ?? Where is
the archaeological, cultural, fossil and historic evidence
for such vast numbers of people ? The scientific and archaeological
evidence tells us that people have only been living on
Earth for the past 6,000 years and underwent a population
bottleneck because of the global Flood 4,350 years ago.
·
Fast fossils : there are many full-colour photographs
in the Creation magazine of, for example, a fossilised
Australian hat, a fossilised side of ham, fossilized car
keys from a 1960s American car, 100 year old fossilised
sacks of flour, a fossilised role of copper wire, fossilized
teddy bears from England, fossilised ships bells from
an 1850’s shipwreck (the Isabella Watson), fossilised
Australian farm water-wheels, large long stalagmites and
stalactites formed within only a few decades, and a 70-year
old Australian tree trunk with axe-marks in it but which
is now completely petrified. (To order the excellent Creation
magazine, visit the website www.AnswersInGenesis.org).
·
Remember : A global Flood forms fossils fast … :
“At the present stage of geological research, we have
to admit that there is nothing in the geological records
that runs contrary to the view of conservative creationists
…”
(Dr. Edmund J. Ambrose,
evolutionist, Emeritus Professor of Cell Biology at the
University of London, 1982
[25] )
10. Was there a global Flood as the Bible states
?
“I am convinced there is
far more evidence for a recent, six-day creation and a
global Flood than there is for an old earth and evolution.”
(Dr Keith Wanser, creationist
scientist, Professor of Physics at California State University,
1999 [26]
)
“Fossils of marine life …
are found above 8,000 metres in this area. They bear out
the theory that the Himalayas were once submerged … The
layers of limestone that now cover all of Mt Everest above
8,000 metres were once under water.”
(Kyuya Fukada, Japanese
author, Himalayas, 1986
[27] )
“Marine fossils are found
high up in mountains in the Alps, often deposited with
great violence (as suggested by the Jurassic marine fossils
at lower altitude on the North East coast of Yorkshire
near Whitby). The burial of large dinosaurs, by their
thousands in Alberta and Montana, South Dakota, Kansas
and Colorado with vast continental sedimentation (in some
places thousands of feet thick) would not be possible
without causing gigantic upheaval in other parts of the
earth. … The scale, depth and the sheer number of fossils
argues strongly that these must be part of the [global
Biblical] Flood.”
(Dr Andy McIntosh, Tom
Edmondson and Dr Steven Taylor, creationist scientists,
2000 [28]
)
“It is ironic that no geologist
denies that the oceans once covered the land, since rocks
containing marine fossils may be found at elevations above
sea level anywhere from 1 to 5 miles (1.6 to 8 kilometres).
That the ocean waters should have covered the land is
exactly what one would expect to happen during a global
Flood, while earth movements concurrent with the retreating
Flood waters would be expected to leave strata with marine
fossils now perched high and dry at considerable elevations,
just as we observe.”
(Dr Andrew Snelling, geologist
and creationist scientist, 1996 [29] )
11. The many theories of evolution
Evolution theory is about
origins – where did everything come from ? Evolution
theory is thousands of years old and predates Christ.
“Change over time” is entropy,
not evolution. “Survival”, “survival of the fittest”
and “survival of the luckiest” are not evolution
– you may survive to your 70th birthday but
does this mean you have evolved ? Clearly not. Death is
not evolution. Extinction is not evolution.
Variation within a kind or species is not evolution
– such as in the 200 very different types of dog that
have been bred by intelligent human beings for their different
looks. Or the varieties of Galapagos Island finches and
tortoises that Charles Darwin saw on his travels. Or the
“industrial melanism” example of the peppered moth. Peppered
moths breeding peppered moths is not evolution.
Galapagos Island finches breeding more finches is not
evolution. Dogs breeding dogs is not evolution.
No breeder has ever bred two dogs and got a litter of
kittens, yet this is what the theories of evolution predict
: that one kind of animal or plant will gradually
(or rapidly) turn into a different kind of animal
or plant. In other words, that an amoeba will turn into
a man and that a frog will gradually (or rapidly) turn
into a prince ...
Evolutionism is the
belief in a hypothetical process that all
living things and all matter somehow increase in complexity
of their own accord.
The theories of evolution,
in contrast to the theory of Biblical scientific creation,
claim that the universe, the solar system, the earth and
every living creature appeared as the result of a theorised
cosmic explosion, nick-named the “big bang”, around (an
assumed) 17 to 20 billion years ago. Hydrogen –
a colourless, odourless gas – is believed to have resulted
from the theorised explosion, somehow condensed into the
stars, the solar system, the earth and the other eight
known planets in the universe, and (by an unknown mechanism)
other chemicals (somehow) formed on earth and became a
theorised, hypothetical “primeval soup” – literally a
toxic sea of chemicals – and is thought to have gradually
(somehow) produced a cell with 100% operative DNA.
This theorised first cell
(somehow) came to life, gradually improved itself and
(somehow) over an assumed 2 billion years turned itself
into every living and extinct type of plant, animal and
human being, including you. Hence, the evolutionist believes
that “nothing exploded and became everything all on its
own”. Or “nobody x nothing = everything”. Or “if compacted
enough, nothing will explode and become everything.” The
theories of evolution are thus unscientific and
can be summarised as follows :
“Hydrogen is a colourless,
odourless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people.”
· The
15 theories of evolution
There is no such thing as
“the theory of evolution”. There are many theories
of evolution (about 15) and as a result, evolutionists
are always attacking one another which makes for very
interesting reading :
1.
Pre-Darwinian theories of evolution
The early Greek philosophers
(Thales of Miletus in 620 BC) were the first recorded
as thinking of evolution theory. Aristotle had ideas similar
to Charles Darwin. Many of the ancient Greeks believed
in vast ages of history – Plato claimed there were 20
million years between the global Flood and his day.
Evolutionist ideas can be
traced through the philosophies of many nations, including
the Chinese, Hindu, Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian.
The Egyptians long believed in the spontaneous generation
of frogs after the Nile had flooded and the Chinese thought
that insects appeared from nothing on the leaves of plants.
2.
Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution
“Time + random natural
selection by survival of the fittest = everything in the
universe”
Evolution theory is medieval
superstition, not science. Contrary to the title of
his book, Darwin never actually discussed or showed the
evolutionary origin of any species in his book
or anywhere else in his works :
“Darwin did not invent, or
discover, evolution; it was in the air at the time … He
caught the mood, made it popular and gave it credibility.
The problem was that he had no real evidence to support
the change of one kind into another.”
(Graham Fisher, creationist
scientist, geology and geography teacher, 1998
[30] )
“Darwin never really did
discuss the origin of the species in his Origin of
Species.”
(Dr Niles Eldredge, evolutionist,
paleontologist and Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology
at the American Museum of Natural History, 1985 [31] )
“The only trouble was that,
as Darwin himself was at least partly aware, it [Darwin’s
theory] was full of colossal holes ... A book which has
become famous for explaining the origin of species in
fact does nothing of the kind.”
(Christopher Booker, The
Times, 19 April 1982)
“Darwin’s book – On the
Origin of Species – I find quite unsatisfactory :
it says nothing about the origin of species; it
is written very tentatively, with a special chapter on
‘Difficulties on theory’; and it includes a great deal
of discussion on why evidence for natural selection does
not exist in the fossil record … As a scientist,
I am not happy with these ideas.”
(Professor H.S. Lipson,
Professor of Physics at University of Manchester, 1981
[32] )
Charles Darwin thought that
natural selection by survival of the fittest would cause
a slow, irresistible “evolution” of life onwards and upwards
from one kind of plant or animal to another, culminating
in apes becoming people. But as a supposed mechanism for
evolution, natural selection (also known as random destruction)
is simply an illogical tautology and is therefore not
a scientific mechanism for any kind of onward and
upward improvement. (As will be shown, natural selection
simply means random destruction or differential survival.)
Charles Darwin himself was
the first doubting Darwinist. He admitted that his own
theory was “grievously hypothetical” [33] and he wrote, “The eye to this day gives
me a cold shudder”
[34] . He said that even trying to account for something
as comparatively simple as a peacock’s feather “makes
me sick” [35] :
“To suppose that the eye
with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been
formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess,
absurd in the highest possible degree.”
(Charles Darwin, evolutionist,
Origin of Species [36] )
“Not one change of species
into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single
species has been changed.”
(Charles Darwin, evolutionist,
My Life and Letters)
3. Neo-Darwinian (or synthetic theory) of evolution
“Time + random natural
selection by survival of the fittest + random genetic
mutations = everything in the universe.”
In the 1940s, neo-Darwinian
evolutionists simply added the words “plus random genetic
mutations” to Darwin’s theory of evolution. Darwin’s theory
of evolution was dying a rapid death for lack of supporting
scientific evidence and for lack of a scientific
mechanism of self-creation and universal onward-and-upward
self-improvement. However, natural selection and genetic
mutations are both mechanisms of destruction only
and not mechanisms of creating new things or improving
them :
“In the meantime, the educated
public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all
the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation
plus natural selection – quite unaware of the fact that
random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural
selection a tautology.”
(Arthur Koestler, 1978
[37] )
“But in all the reading I’ve
done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found
a mutation that added information ... All point mutations
that have been studied on the molecular level turn out
to reduce the genetic information and not to increase
it. … The essential biological difference between a human
and a bacterium is in the information they contain. All
other biological differences follow from that. The human
genome has much more information than does the bacterial
genome. Information cannot be built up by mutations that
lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little
at a time.”
(Dr Lee Spetner, scientist
in information and communication theory at Johns Hopkins
University, Not By Chance [38] )
4. Richard Goldschmidt’s “hopeful monsters” theory
of evolution
In the 1940s, evolutionist
and world-famous geneticist, Professor Richard Goldschmidt
of the University of California at Berkeley, became so
disenchanted with Darwinism’s explanation for the origins
of new structures that he was driven to propose his “hopeful
monsters” theory. He thought that, occasionally, large
changes might somehow occur just by “chance” – perhaps
a reptile laid an egg once, say, and a bird or a “brown
furry thing” hatched out of it.
He proposed that every once
in a while an offspring was produced that was a monster
grossly different from its parents. For example, perhaps
two rabbits produced a male bear cub and, by coincidence,
just over the hill two other rabbits produced a female
bear cub. Both baby bears were able to get enough milk
from their mother rabbits so that they grew to maturity
and reproduced and gave rise to all the bears in the world.
That would be how bears got their start in life according
to “hopeful monsters” evolution theory. According to Professor
Goldschmidt, that is pretty much how every kind of living
and extinct plant, animal and person came into existence
:
“He [Goldschmidt] noted that
paleontologists had searched for a hundred years since
the time of Darwin for transitional forms in the fossil
record without finding any. Obviously, none were ever
going to be found, and if evolutionists were going to
keep the faith, they needed a new theory. So he proposed
the ‘hopeful monster theory’.
… Needless to say, Goldschmidt’s
hopeful monster theory was met with much derision. Critics
said that there was not a shred of evidence to support
his theory. He responded that this was unfair criticism
because neither was there a shred of evidence for slow
and gradual evolution.”
(Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, 1998)
All that the Darwinian and
neo-Darwinian evolutionists could do was to ridicule Goldschmidt
and wish he would disappear. His hopeful monsters theory
did not catch on then, but it re-emerged several decades
later in the form of the “punctuated equilibria” theory
of evolution.
5. The Eldredge / Gould
punctuated equilibria (“punk eek”) (or saltation) theory
of evolution
This is just a minor variation
of neo-Darwinian and “hopeful monsters” evolutionist theories
also with no fossil evidence. This theory of evolution
postulates two things : that for long periods most species
undergo little observable change; and that when it does
occur, change is rapid and concentrated in small, isolated
populations hence fossil intermediates (i.e. missing links)
are hard to find. They claim that evolution took place
in short bursts, with long periods of rest in between.
For 50,000 years or so, there will be no change (an “equilibrium”
without any evolution) and then suddenly (in a rare “punctuation”)
two totally different life forms will (somehow) “appear”.
By sheerest chance, one will be male and the other a female
and coincidentally, they will always appear at the same
time in history and less than a few miles apart so they
can breed and continue the new species … Evolutionists
can give no scientific explanation for how or why this
could happen. They also claim that this “punctuated equilibria
evolution” process is (conveniently) not happening today
so we can’t observe or test it.
Richard Goldschmidt called
them “hopeful monsters”, Stephen Jay Gould renamed the
idea “punctuated equilibria” and Steven Stanley renamed
it “quantum speciation” evolution :
“The theory of punctuated
equilibria is causing much turmoil among evolutionists.
They know that there is no actual mechanism that would
explain large rapid jumps from one species to another
[i.e. hopeful monsters], and yet they also know the fossil
record does not support gradualism [i.e. neo-Darwinism].
They are left on the horns of a dilemma.”
(Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s
Enigma, 1998
[39] )
What do other evolutionists
think about replacing the Darwinian and neo-Darwinian
theories of gradual evolution with Gould’s theory of instant
(“punctuated equilibria”) evolution ? Harvard evolutionist,
Dr Ernst Mayr, calls such hypothetical evolutionary entities
not “hopeful” but “hopeless” and says that the “hopeful
monsters” theory “is equivalent to believing in miracles”
[40]
.
6. Lynn Margulis’ bacterial theory of evolution
7. Stuart Kauffman’s “complexity theory” of evolution
8. The theories of “panspermia” and “directed
panspermia” evolution (life from outer space)
9. Cairns-Smith’s clay-based mineral origin of
life theory of evolution
10. Corliss’ hydrothermal-vents-on-the-sea-floor
theory of evolution
11. Wachterhauser’s
“metabolism first” theory of evolution
12. De Duve’s “metabolism
first” theory of evolution
13. Prigogine’s “self-organisation-in-nature”
theory of evolution
14. Eigen’s “hypercycle”
theory of evolution
15. The theory of
theistic evolution (“theistic atheism”)
The theory of theistic evolution
is sloppy, lazy thinking and is unbiblical and unscientific.
The theory of theistic evolution (or “theistic atheism”)
is nothing more than a combination of one or more of the
above theories of evolution with the words “plus God”
tacked on to the end. “Theistic evolution” theory includes
the unbiblical ideas that perhaps God somehow used a big
bang plus evolution and that the Earth and the universe
are millions or billions of years old. Beware of evolution-contaminated
theology and evolution-contaminated thinking, especially
in churches today …
The theory of theistic evolution
has no Biblical or scientific support. The theory of
theistic evolution also contradicts every book
in the Bible and not just the book of Genesis.
“Theistic evolution may be
defined as an anesthetic which deadens the patient’s pain
while atheism removes his religion.”
(William Jennings Bryan,
US statesman and creationist, 1922 [41] )
12. There is no
scientific mechanism for any evolution ever to occur
·
“Natural selection by survival of the fittest” is no
mechanism for evolution
“Natural selection by survival
of the fittest” is the central (but still hypothetical)
mechanism of creative change for the theories of evolution.
The term “natural selection” is a misnomer – a deliberately
misleading term – as “nature” is not a person (and cannot
be personified) and so “nature” cannot “select” supposedly
good or useful characteristics in an individual. Natural
selection by survival of the fittest is more accurately
termed “random destruction”, because it is the
random elimination or destruction of individuals (and
thus their genetic information) from a population. Natural
selection can only whittle away what was created. Natural
selection thus cannot create any new kind of animal, person
or plant. Natural selection takes away more and more,
and can of itself create or add nothing :
“But natural selection per
se does not work to create new species.”
(Dr Niles Eldredge, evolutionist,
paleontologist and Curator of the American Museum of Natural
History, 1980 [42] )
“No one has ever produced
a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has
ever gotten near it …”
(Dr. Colin Patterson,
evolutionist, senior palaeontologist at the British Natural
History Museum, 1982
[43] )
The phrase “survival of the
fittest” (the assumed “struggle for life”) is also a meaningless
tautology as a supposed evolutionist mechanism. Evolutionists
define it as follows : those individuals that survive
are fit, and those that are fit survive. This says nothing
at all. It is a circular definition that simply restates
itself, saying merely that “the survivors survive and
that is how everything came into existence !” Survival
of the fittest simply means that some creatures die sooner
than others and so may leave fewer offspring than those
of their kind that die slightly later. So it is entirely
irrelevant as to how animals, plants and people originate
and then self-improve themselves :
“Someone asked how we determine
who are the fittest. The answer came back that we determine
this by the test of survival; there is no other criterion.
But this means that a species survives because it is the
fittest and is the fittest because it survives, which
is circular reasoning and equivalent to saying that whatever
is, is fit. The gist is that some survive and some die,
but we knew this at the onset. Nothing has been explained.”
(Dr Norman Macbeth, evolutionist,
lawyer from Harvard Law School, Darwin Retried,
1971 [44]
)
“I argued that it [natural
selection] was a tautology in my book because it seemed
to go round in a circle. It was, in effect, defining survival
as due to fitness and fitness as due to survival. … I
think the phrase [natural selection] is utterly empty.
It doesn’t describe anything.”
(Dr. Norman Macbeth, evolutionist
and retired lawyer from Harvard Law School, 1982 [45] )
“Of one thing, however, I
am certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ … means
nothing more than ‘the survivors survive’.”
(E.W. MacBride, Nature,
1929 [46]
)
“There, you do come to what
is, in effect, a vacuous statement : Natural selection
is that some things leave more offspring than others;
and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and
it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing
more to it than that.
The whole real guts of evolution
– which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers,
and things – is outside the mathematical theory.”
(Dr C.H. Waddington, evolutionist,
1967 [47] )
·
“Genetic mutations” are no mechanism for
evolution
Evolutionists claim that every
kind of living and extinct animal, plant and person (somehow)
came into existence by genetic mutations of their DNA
:
“Ultimately, all variation
is, of course, due to mutation.”
(Dr Ernst Mayr, evolutionist
and Professor of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative
Zoology at Harvard University, 1966 [48] )
A genetic mutation is a
copying error that causes a harmful loss of
complex, coded information. All mutations are faulty copies
of the original correct genetic instructions. No living
or extinct person, plant or animal can reprogram their
own DNA to change themselves into a different and improved
kind of person, plant or animal. In terms of genetics,
a mutation is a mistake in transmission of highly
complex hereditary information. Mutations are mutilations.
A mutated animal or person is in fact a mutilated
animal or person, and not an improved species.
Mutations in genetic material
cannot be a mechanism of evolution. All known mutations
are lethal, harmful, neutral or reversible. If mutations
survive at all, they build up a “genetic load” in the
population, reducing its overall viability. Yet
evolutionists continue to believe in the existence
of positive, beneficial mutations that somehow create
brand new, complex genetic information (although they
have never seen any). Genetic mutations do not and cannot
add anything that was not already in existence and hence
cannot cause any kind of evolution.
None of natural selection,
survival of the fittest or genetic mutations can even
in principle account for the existence of living things
as they are all mechanisms of destruction
and they all also require pre-existing, fully-formed,
reproducing, living people, plants and animals with 100%
operative DNA on which to work. Hence they cannot account
for the origin, or any improvement, of people,
plants and animals. Natural selection, survival of the
fittest and genetic mutations delete, destroy, corrupt
and eliminate what already exists. As mechanisms only
of destruction, they cannot create or
bring anything new into existence nor can they
improve living (or dead) organisms, as destruction is
the opposite of bringing something into existence and
is the opposite of improving something.
Natural selection, survival
of the fittest and genetic mutations can only destroy
what already exists, a conclusion that follows perfectly
from the laws of thermodynamics. So evolutionists have
not and cannot scientifically answer the issue of origins,
namely : How did everything come into existence and where
did it all come from ?
“Viewing mutations as degradations
is in line with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which
states that matter goes from order to disorder.”
(Randall Hedtke, 1984
[49] )
“Apparently most mutations
are harmful – that’s an old story – because they foul
up in the development process. They are mistakes in copying,
that’s what they are.”
(Dr. Niles Eldredge, evolutionist,
1979 [50] )
“A mutation doesn’t produce
major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by
mutating the species.”
(Professor Stephen Jay
Gould, evolutionist, Professor of Geology and Paleontology
at Harvard University, 1980 [51] )
“If we say that it is only
by chance that they [genetic mutations] are useful, we
are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are
useless, detrimental, or lethal.”
(Professor W.R. Thompson,
Fellow of the Royal Society, evolutionist and entomologist,
in his Introduction to the Centenary Edition of Darwin’s
Origin of Species, 1956 [52] )
“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe
a mutation, talk about evolution … No matter how numerous
they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
(Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist
and zoologist, Director of the Laboratory of the Evolution
of Living Beings at the University of Paris, Head of the
Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years,
former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences,
1977 [53] )
Scientists have never found
a mutation that has advanced life. But what about sickle-cell
anaemia, you may say ? That is a mutation – doesn’t that
help the sufferer to be immune
