I owe a great debt to Dr. Henry Morris. As a new Christian with many years of schooling and studying and working in the field searching for fossils and artifacts, I read through the New Testament twice soon after becoming born again at age 26. I had left a life of drugs, alcohol and general rowdiness behind and was trying to learn more about the Great God I had hoped and suspected was there all along. He was certainly patient as I tried to find anything else BUT Jesus Christ, the Savior. Eventually He was able to get my attention and all the pieces fit together for me.
Of course I had a general idea of the Genesis creation narrative and I figured it was an allegorical story rather than an actual historical record. So I was not uneasy about the idea of long ages and evolution. With so much to learn about living a Christian life and learning what my purpose in life would be, with all the new friends and new activities and renewed good things happening in my family, it was not even on my mind, this matter of evolution. After all, I could recognize any of the commonly pictured dinosaurs on sight and had found all sorts of fossils in all sorts of areas of the continent. With an established geological column and fossils being found in orderly progressions from simple to complex, it was likely God used evolution and that was that. (It turned out progressing fossils and a standard geological column were completely made up nonsense)!
But I was fortunate enough to get to hear presentations by Henry Morris. He was funny and gregarious, but his testimony of his own discovery that evolution was fairy tale rather than fact revolved around his area of expertise, hydrology. Dr. Morris studied what water did and that included flood and tsunami activity. As he studied the rock layers of the world, he realized he was looking at the evidence of a giant flood! He began to believe that the Noahic Flood was the cause of the sedimentary rock layers and he began to make it his mission to find out for sure and, if so, share his discoveries with others. After all, mankind had believed in the Flood for the bulk of human history and had only abandoned it to support Darwin's hypothesis.
I read The Genesis Flood by Whitcomb and Morris and at that point my research side was rolling...I thought of all the time I had spent among the rocks, all the huge spans of living shellfish preserved in the closed position and all the trilobites preserved in their upright position. These were incredibly common fossils in the area of Southern Indiana I had first began exploring. We were also able to find fish fossils, ferns and even a copralite! All within the same area and with limestone and shale formations that were right atop each other.
While the original Genesis Flood has some preliminary assumptions that were later cast aside as good scientists began to gather into Creation Science organizations and study the fossils, the rocks, the age of the Earth, the organisms and the make up of the cell and DNA. The list goes on and on as Intelligent Design scientists have entered the fray, studying only that which can be observed in real time and making logical assertions based on their findings. Between Creation Science and ID and my own studies I am completely convinced that God absolutely made everything in about 6,000 years AND that every single pillar of Darwinism has been shown to be evidence-free assertions.
If Dr. Morris had not set up a touring ministry to give talks and make books and tapes and other materials to help Christians see the myriad problems of evolution, I wonder how long it would have taken me to see it for myself? Perhaps when I firmly grasped the role of Jesus and the importance of the literal Adam and Eve, I would have seen that no thinking Christian can long live with the dichotomy of Salvation by Grace along with evolution through millions of years of death and suffering.
Evolution does not fit the evidence of the rocks.
Evolution does not fit what we see in organisms today.
Evolution cannot be seen to occur and has never been observed.
If Evolution with long ages is true, Adam and Eve were mythical and Jesus was a liar.
If Jesus was a liar, then He could not be Savior and we are without hope, dead in sins.
But Jesus preached that the Flood, Adam and Eve and man/woman marriage were true. He was in fact the Son of God who formed Adam by hand and breaths life into him.
Jesus was there, He is an eyewitness, He should know.
Therefore, if you want to accept evolution, you may as well give up on Christ. Evolution is the most convoluted and cleverly hatched lie Satan has managed to use to bamboozle folks since he came up to Eve and said, "Yeah, hath God said..?"
Paleontologists, operating under the assumption that earth’s strata
represent millions or billions of years, have not looked for fresh
tissues within fossilized remains. But fresh biological material within
some fossils has been there all along and is being continually
discovered, despite the protests of biochemists that it should not
exist.
Molecules such as proteins, pigments, and DNA—as well as intact cells
and, in some cases, cells still grouped together in tissues—have been
found in fossils that are supposedly millions of years old. Whole
organisms are sealed in amber deposits, and over a thousand still-living
kinds of microbes have been extracted from them.
Fresh tissues and living cells cannot possibly be millions of years
old, and they constitute some of the strongest evidence for the young
world that the Bible describes.
Right now, I am on a mission to highlight some incredibly useful sites that will help free you from the bondage of Darwinism if you are in such a thought prison. You have seen me present articles from myriad sites. It isn't really hard to find great evidence on the internet. Recently I gave you articles and links from Creation.com, Piltdown Superman, Apologetics Press, Ian Juby's Wazooloo YouTube channel and Institute for Creation Research. Over the years many, many more sites have been shared. I have a ton of good sites on my links lists. As a young and foolish man, I actually thought I was the smartest person I had ever known. In later years I have met and communicated with people much smarter and it has been a pleasure. I treasure the hours my wife and I got to spend with the brilliant, funny and gracious Jonathan Sarfati. I am facebook friends and occasionally have contact with brilliant men like Ian Juby and Tas Walker. I've exchanged emails with guys like William Dembski and Spike Psarris. Sometimes you get to be friends with people you have never met, for instance, Karl Priest and Bob Sorenson. What I have found is that the world of Creationists and Intelligent Design guys is that they are pretty uniformly gracious. In the world of science, I am a dust mite observing the greats and taking notes. I share the wisdom of others more than my own opinions because they have the training and have done the research. I have just enough training and time in the field to understand what they assert and share it with you. My field of expertise is actually the ability to research and report, skills learned and honed as a journalist. It really isn't about anything but the evidence, people, and the evidence should have debunked evolution before it even got started. Too late, but we can work on killing off the monster and burning down its castle. Like Frankenstein's Monster, Darwinism should not be alive and should not be allowed to keep wreaking havoc. Grab your clubs and torches!!! The Monster needs to die!
credit Today I give you a CEH article and I think it is great food for thought!
There are professors and leaders of special interest groups
whose sole purpose is to draw students away from belief in a Designer
and tempt them to embrace the aimless, purposeless, materialist
processes of Darwinism. How can students prepare for the challenge?
If evolution were true, well, then— who wouldn’t want to
embrace the truth, even if it means a radical change to one’s beliefs?
Ay, there’s the rub. Any aimless material process has no necessary
connection to truth. As Charles Darwin himself wrote to a friend the
year before he died,
But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Letter to William Graham, 3 July 1881, posted at the Darwin Correspondence Project.)
What this implies is that the evolutionist, to be consistent, must
abandon all reason. Yet paradoxically, they specifically employ reason
in their attempts to dislodge “faith” (which they mean as anything that
questions the science of evolution). Whether ignorant of or willfully
ignoring this major self-contradiction, some of them charge forward
anyway on their campaign to take students hostage for Darwin. Two of
them show how they do it.
Eugenie Scott and the NCSE
Retiring this year from her 26-year headship of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE),
an organization whose sole purpose is to prevent “anti-evolution” from
gaining any headway in public schools, Eugenie Scott was honored by Science Magazine this week. Jeffrey Mervis described the NCSE as a “U.S. Center That Fights Antievolution Forces.”
Whether that means creationism, intelligent design, or simply honest
teaching of Darwinism with its pros and cons, Eugenie Scott has been a
tireless advocate of Darwin-only in the schools, and a formidable
opponent of even the academic freedom laws that attempt to prevent
school boards from punishing teachers who teach evolution honestly.
Mervis’s article is filled with accolades for Dr. Scott from
like-minded Darwin-only people. She herself long ago decided not to
pose as anti-religious (after all, there are liberal theologians who
embrace evolution, and lately she has tried to make overtures even to
evangelical Christian groups to agree on some of NCSE’s goals). Aware of the political and cultural issues at hand, she relies on “powers of persuasion” to defend what Mervis calls “integrity in science education.”
Uh— what was that Darwin quote again? It would seem hard to define
“integrity” in Darwinian terms. To a Darwinian game theorist,
cooperation evolves by the same aimless processes of natural selection
that changes a finch beak, and non-cooperation is just part of the
game. None of that appears dependent on truth.
Melvin Konner and Daniel Dennett
Melvin Konner is a self-proclaimed admirer of Daniel Dennett, a
Darwinian philosopher (if that oxymoron can be resolved). Konner loved
Dennett’s earlier books, but in a review in Nature, had a few problems with his latest, titled Intuition Pumps and Other Tools for Thinking.
Konner usually appreciates Dennett’s dedication to “facts” and
“clarification of discourse.” Strangely, he never seems to insist
Dennett define those terms from materialistic processes of aimless
selection. Maybe that’s because Konner disclaims any expertise in
philosophy, which is obsessed with clarity.
In the course of his review, Konner described how he likes to
disabuse his students of their doubts about Darwin. He had just puzzled
about the usefulness of Dennett’s categories of “skyhooks”
(“thinking-tools that hang an explanation on nothing”) and “cranes”
(“concepts built on a solid factual foundation”). Predictably, Konner
pigeonholed intelligent design as a “skyhook” for its “explaining
too-intricate bits of biological machinery.” Anyway, here’s what he
said he does to his students in class:
But are skyhooks and cranes comparable kinds of ideas? Symbiosis and sex are evolved processes like respiration or photosynthesis; each began with random mutation and, by gradual natural selection, produced a ‘design’ that changed the history of life. But what do skyhooks and cranes add to the basic principles of how we think about evolution? The next time I comfort a student struggling between faith and Darwin, it will not help me to say, “What you learned in Sunday school about evolution needing a ‘big boost’? That’s just a skyhook.” Rather, I
will do what I do now: help the student to zero in on variation,
inheritance, selection and, crucially, how very many generations there
have been since evolution began. As Dennett states elsewhere in this book, the word for this is not ‘crane’ but ‘algorithm’ — both more and better than a metaphor.
It’s nice that Konner wants to “comfort” his students instead of beat
them over the head, but it appears he just helped himself to several
immaterial, purposeful concepts that depend for their
usefulness on truth and integrity: design, principles, thinking,
comfort, learning, algorithm, and metaphor. Can he derive those from
natural selection? He doesn’t feel he has to. Dennett has done it for
him:
I share many of Dennett’s views: a ‘designed’ nature without a designer; the mechanistic, emergent character
of consciousness; the rejection of the homunculus argument, or the idea
that an entity (often characterized in discussion as a little person) watches a theatre consisting of the rest of the brain; and the compatibility of free will with determinism.
It would be interesting to ask Konner if he really agrees Dennett’s
views are true, or if he considers himself a “cooperator” in some kind
of evolutionary game. Incidentally, who is watching the watcher in the
theater that doesn’t exist?
Students:
understand what you are up against. People like Eugenie Scott (and her
squadron of attack forces) and Melvin Konner are on a mission: a mission
to destroy “faith” and replace it with “Darwin.” To them, “faith”
means anything that doubts their own faith in Darwinism, which they
consider to be “science” (in their thinking, synonymous with truth).
What are you going to do when the Professor Konner in your college comes
alongside you to “comfort” you in (what he perceives as) your “struggle between faith and Darwin”?
Why, he just wants to ameliorate your worry about the conflict between
what your Sunday School teacher said about evolution and the alleged
“scientific” story of “variation, inheritance, selection” and long ages
(“how very many generations there have been since evolution began”). He
just wants to help you. What are you going to say to him?
The
answer is so important that we want you to think about it for a day.
Come back tomorrow for the continuation of our commentary. Write down
some problems you see with the situation as described, and what some of
your possible responses might be. The article contains some clues. If
you don’t learn to think these issues through for yourself with clarity
and conviction, reading our advice will not help that much. We are here
to help you think in more cogent, clear, convincing ways than many
Sunday School teachers do (speaking of the ones who say, “just have
faith” or “maybe you can have your faith and Darwin, too”). Your
convictions cannot survive Eugenie Scott or Professor Konner with that
kind of pablum. Think about your responses and check back with us
tomorrow. This is a good exercise for all readers, not just students.
How did you
do? Our suggested responses are part pragmatic and part logical.
First, the pragmatic part. Recognize that in class, it’s an unequal
contest. The professor is in the power position, and has the power to
make or break your grade, and possibly your career. In such cases,
discretion is usually the better part of valor. You don’t have to agree
with his views. Be respectful, try to fulfill the class requirements
and get a good grade. Just make sure you know what you would say if it
were an equal contest.
Logically, we hope you noticed that the Darwinian position is self-refuting. Self-refuting positions are not just misguided, they are necessarily false.
They can never be true, now or ever. This realization doesn’t dawn on
most Darwinians, but it did on Darwin himself (read that quote from his
letter to Graham again). Darwin said that this “horrid doubt” always
arises in his mind. He worried about this right up to his death, long
after he had become famous for his theory of natural selection. How can
the convictions of a man’s mind be reliable? In the letter, he had no
answer! He never answered that doubt. As far as we know, he died with
that doubt in his mind, that everything he had propounded was no more
reliable than whatever “convictions” exist in the mind of a monkey or
one of the lower animals.
To be
consistent, Darwin would have had to admit that his views are glorified
monkey screeches. They have no necessary connection to truth. What is
truth? Ask the Konner-types if truth evolves. Everything else in
Darwin’s world changes. If truth evolves, what is considered true today
could be false tomorrow. Evolutionary game theorists continually
publish articles in leading journals that claim all that we consider
good, true and beautiful is the result of behaviors that arise by
natural selection, not by purpose or intent. The aimless, mindless
processes of selection produce “emergent properties” that only appear to
be altruistic, truthful, and good. They really aren’t! They’re just
arbitrary states of matter. Even yeast colonies exhibit these
behaviors, they claim, trying to assert that human behavior is no
different. So why should we view the NCSE as
anything but an emergent property among human populations, that gains
power for awhile, till the “religious” population grabs the ball? Who
is calling what religious, anyway? In Darwin’s world, nothing has
meaning.
This logical
response is so crucial it is worth learning well. C. S. Lewis used it.
G. K. Chesteron used it. Now Alvin Plantinga and other modern
philosophers are using it. Understood and wielded well, this sword
stops the Darwinist in his tracks. We cannot allow a Darwinian to “help
himself” to concepts of truth or beauty, because it’s a form of theft.
If we told them “get your own dirt” (see joke)
they would be empty-handed. If they try to argue that Darwinism is
true, we must rap their knuckles and tell them to stop and define
truth. Does it evolve? If so, game over. A believer in God, by
contrast, has the resources to justify belief in truth, because God, the
eternal, unchanging One, is the source of Truth with a capital T. As
finite humans we may not always get our views right, but we have the one
and only pole star to hitch our arguments to. We can justify
our belief in truth. (Note: this is why belief in an impersonal
designing “force” is inadequate. A force like gravity does not deal in
concepts, and concepts require personal communication.)
Some
Darwinians try to wriggle out of the straitjacket by appeals to
“evolutionary epistemology.” This is the notion that natural selection,
to work, required that animals “get the world right” to survive and
reproduce. That notion is easily dismissed by repeating the same point:
survival has no necessary connection to truth. Survival is pragmatic.
What helps an animal survive today might not tomorrow, so what a
caveman thinks is true might be false in a million years. At no time
would an animal or human know what truth is. Truth must be unchanging.
Once again we recommend the Discovery Institute’s recent book, The Magician’s Twin: C. S. Lewis on Science, Scientism and Society
for an in-depth look at the “argument from reason” that defeats
materialism. But what about theistic evolution? The argument works
against that, too. Almost all theistic evolutionists capitulate to the
Darwinian notion that natural selection is aimless and unguided. They
refuse to think that God intervenes at any stage in the process, because
they want to be accepted within the scientific community. But any
unguided, aimless, purposeless process has no necessary connection to
truth, whether or not they believe in a God behind it. What about those
who think God set up natural selection as a “law of nature” that would
fulfill His purposes? Sorry, no dice there, either. A law of nature
that led inexorably to Adam and Eve would be a contradiction of natural
selection’s aimlessness. It would be tantamount to a miracle—indeed, a
whole sequence of miracles—so nothing would be gained by theistic
evolutionists who want to depend on “secondary causes” (natural laws),
not miracles.
The logical
argument explained above is crucial to your surviving evolutionary
evangelists in college, the media, or elsewhere, but there’s also an
abundance of empirical arguments against evolution. In June, Stephen
Meyer’s new book Darwin’s Doubt will discuss the problem of the Cambrian Explosion in detail. Illustra’s excellent documentary Darwin’s Dilemma
provides a one-hour presentation of this problem Darwin himself
recognized as a valid argument against his theory. Meyer’s earlier book
Signature in the Cell, and our online book here,
provide powerful, convincing arguments that work not only to refute
evolution, but to provide positive evidence for intelligent design.
There are so many empirical arguments against evolution at creation
sites and intelligent design sites that our problem is knowing where to
stop. Many good resources are available at a collection called True Origin,
where you can find discussions about most issues in the creation vs.
evolution debate. Naturally we also recommend you avail yourself of our
Search bar and categories here at Creation-Evolution Headlines.
A final (but
important) piece of advice concerning debate strategy. Don’t let the
Darwinians define the issue or the terms. They want to corner you into a
supposed conflict between “faith” and “science,” but that is a false dichotomy.
If you accept their terms, the deck is stacked against you. The truth
is, everyone has faith! The question is not faith vs. science, but
their faith vs. your faith; their religion vs. your religion; their
science vs. your science. You could even demonstrate to the Darwinian,
using the argument from reason, that they believe in miracles and the
supernatural. The key is to ask the right questions, as Phillip Johnson so ably argued in his book of that name. The debate should be stated, Can
you arrive at human reason, and all the beauty and complexity of the
living world, by a material process that is fundamentally aimless,
purposeless, and unguided? Asked that way, the Darwinian is at the
disadvantage. His arguments collapse into monkey screeches. Don’t
let him say another word until he can justify the existence of truth,
integrity, and morality. As soon as he opens his mouth to argue a
point, you have won.
If you have additional points you’d like to make about how to respond to evolution evangelists, add a comment. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CEH likes to use green for their take on the articles they publish, taken from secular science sites and published peer-reviewed papers. Therefore I have used that same color for their comments. Do you want to publish a comment? Go to the original post and go for it! On to the castle!!!
Geoff Mooreand The Distance, a great Christian rock band from the era of true rock, which I suppose would be approximately from 1963 to 1999. Rock owes its beginning to folk, gospel, blues, and rock and roll. By the 1950's there were rock and roll groups like Bill Haley and the Comets, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley and Ike Turner. Once the electric guitar became a core instrument in the hands of people like The Beatles, The Yardbirds, The Rolling Stones and other British Invasion bands the genre was truly rock and soon hard rock and alternative rock and progressive rock as well as psychedelic rock. So I would say 1963 to 1999. It's pure opinion.
Rap and Pop Tarts and the popular use of studio electronic tricks killed off most real rock. True in both Christian and secular music genres, although many country groups sound a lot like rock groups now, and there are always people who make great music, like the Killers and Muse and Creed, so it will never entirely die out.
Hopefully evolution will become extinct soon, though? Let's do some philosophy and look at actual evidence now.
It might be tempting to get the wrong impression and think that making assumptions in science is a bad practice, especially upon reading various writings from the Creationist community. Creation scientists, for instance, correctly relate many of the problems inherent in the assumptions of evolutionary geologic dating techniques that tend to yield extremely old ages for the items they test. But do not fall victim to the same fallacy that the evolutionary community makes in assuming too much. As is the case with the fact that scientific theories can be good things (see Miller, 2012b), the practice of making assumptions in science also can be a good thing.
A Scientific Assumption in Practice
Consider a real-world example from the engineering field. Let’s say I want to design a remote control vehicle to be used on a one mile strip of paved road. The road has been blocked off for my use, and I have maintained the road well, re-paving it when necessary. I have constructed fences around the road to keep animals off of it, and I check the road regularly to make sure that it is smooth and clear. The remote control vehicle is equipped with the necessary sensors that will allow me to keep track of its velocity and heading at all times, since I will be controlling the car from a building several miles away from the strip of road.
With all of that information, I begin developing the equations that will allow me to control the vehicle from a distance. However, the equations get significantly more complex if I do not make certain assumptions about the motion of the vehicle. So, I decide to make the assumption that the car will have 100% traction as it travels down this strip of road. In other words, I assume that it will never slide from side to side or skid—an assumption which could save me a lot of extra time and money. I check the weather report for road conditions and determine that skidding conditions are unlikely during the testing period. The assumption that I will have 100% traction, and can eliminate those variables pertaining to traction from my equations, is a reasonable one—one that will not cause significant error in my equations. There may be a few small rocks on the road, or a heavy gust of wind that might cause a very small amount of error due to my assumption, but by the end of the one mile strip of road, I can maintain, with a very high degree of confidence, that the car will likely still be on the road and in the location that I anticipate.
What if I were to take this same remote control vehicle, with the same assumptions in place, and use it in an off-road setting—out in the middle of nowhere, with no road, and on extremely rough terrain? Would the assumption that there will be 100% traction be a reasonable assumption in that setting—one that would not cause a significant amount of error in my equations? How likely would it be that I will know exactly where my car is by the end of one mile of off-road navigation?
Assumptions often have to be made in science, but those assumptions have to be made very carefully or the end results can be significantly affected. Invalid assumptions can cause the scientist to draw conclusions that are not in keeping with the actual evidence. The key for the scientist is to make assumptions that are reasonable and that do not significantly alter the end results. The problem is that much of the alleged evidence for evolution has been gathered under unsubstantiated, unreasonable, and even false assumptions that contradict the evidence.
Unreasonable Assumption #1: Abiogenesis
Consider, for instance, the assumption of abiogenesis. In 1960, G.A. Kerkut published The Implications of Evolution. Therein he listed seven non-provable assumptions upon which evolution is based. “The first assumption is that non-living things gave rise to living material, i.e., spontaneous generation occurred” (p. 6). Evolutionary geologist Robert Hazen, who received a Ph.D. in Earth Science from Harvard, is a research scientist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Geophysical Laboratory and a professor of Earth Science at George Mason University. In his lecture series, Origins of Life, Hazen said:
In this lecture series I make a basic assumption that life emerged by some kind of natural process. I propose that life arose by a sequence of events that are completely consistent with the natural laws of chemistry and physics. In this assumption I am like most other scientists. I believe in a universe that is ordered by these natural laws. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is (2005, emp. added).
The entire discipline of evolutionary biology is built on the assumption of abiogenesis. But is abiogenesis a reasonable assumption? Is there any evidence to support the assertion that life could come from non-life? Absolutely not. Quite the contrary. There has never been a scrap of empirical evidence that shows that such a thing could happen. In fact, there is a scientific law which prohibits the idea (see Miller, 2012c). The assumption of abiogenesis, upon which evolution stands, is unreasonable and should cause the scientist to scrap the idea in favor of one that does not require such an outlandish assumption.
Unreasonable Assumption #2: Uniformitarianism
What about uniformitarianism? According to the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, “uniformitarianism” is:
the concept that the present is the key to the past; the principle that contemporary geologic processes have occurred in the same regular manner and with essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time, and that events of the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today (2003, p. 2224).
Uniformitarianism is a fundamental assumption of evolutionary geology. Much of the alleged evidence for deep time—an extremely old age of the Earth and Universe—is based on the principle of uniformitarianism. But is it reasonable to assume that all, or even the majority, of “the events of the geologic past can be explained by phenomena observable today”? How could one possibly make such an assertion? How could one know whether or not something catastrophic happened, perhaps only once in history, that would have, for instance, completely altered the geologic strata? The idea of “catastrophism,” which creationists subscribe to, allows for such phenomena, and is a much more reasonable assumption upon which to interpret geologic evidence.
Consider, as one example of the effect of catastrophic events on geologic phenomena, recent scientific discoveries concerning rapid petrification. For years it had been assumed that the process of petrification is a uniformitarian process that takes millions of years to complete. However, in 2004, five Japanese scientists published research in the journalSedimentary Geology which casts doubt on that assumption. The team studied mineral rich, acidic water from the explosion crater of the Tateyama volcano in central Japan—water which runs over the edge of the volcano as a waterfall. Wood had fallen in the path of the water. The surprising discovery was that the wood had become petrified with silica after only 36 years as the water flowed over the wood.
As a further investigation of this phenomenon, the scientists attached pieces of wood to wire and placed them into the water flow. After only seven years, the wood had turned to stone—petrified with silica. Wood petrification had occurred due to the nearby volcanic activity as well. Using a scanning electron microscope, they found that silica petrification occurs in the same way that the wood petrification occurred in the volcanic ash near the volcano (Akahane, et al., 2004). This single discovery completely contradicts the assumption of uniformitarianism, and yet many more could be cited. Catastrophism, on the other hand, is much more reasonable, since it allows for catastrophic events such as volcanoes, meteors, and floods.
Unreasonable Assumptions #3-5—Basis of Dating Techniques
The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the Universe is running down or wearing out. We are running out of usable energy. Matter, itself, is breaking down. Various elements break down into other elements over time, and the breakdown appears to be at constant rates today. Scientists are able to measure the rate at which parent isotopes decay into daughter isotopes with an amazing degree of accuracy. This ability is an amazing technological feat, unsurpassed in known human history. However, a major issue arises based on what evolutionary geologists do with the information that they gather from this process. Using the known decay rates of the elements they are studying, evolutionary geologists extrapolate backwards in time to try to determine how old a specimen is.
While this procedure might seem reasonable on the surface, there are significant issues with this practice. The older a specimen is said to be, the more inaccurate the dating technique is known to be. The margin of error grows higher and higher. One reason scientists are aware of this fact is because different dating techniques are often used to date the same specimen, and completely different ages result—often differing by millions of years. It is reasonable to conclude that the primary reason for this discrepancy is the effect of unrealistic assumptions that initiate the process of age extrapolation (cf. Kulp, 1952, p. 261; McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 10-11; Friedlander, et al., 1981 for a discussion of the various assumptions inherent in the dating techniques). Ironically, the evolutionary geologists, themselves, acknowledge that “violations” of the assumptions “are not uncommon” (McDougall and Harrison, p. 11).
One major assumption upon which radiometric dating techniques are based is that while a specimen might currently have various daughter elements in it, it is assumed that no daughter element existed in the specimen at the beginning of its decay. In other words, the dating technique assumes that the rock was initially completely composed of the parent element. But how could one possibly substantiate an assumption about the initial conditions of a specimen’s decay process, especially when the commencement of its decay was hundreds or thousands (or according to evolutionists, millions) of years ago? Is it not possible, and even likely, that a specimen, might have been initially composed of more than one element that blended together during a geologic phenomenon before that rock’s decay processes began? Is it not possible that various rocks were even created by God from the outset, composed of more than one daughter element, due to the usefulness of having those elements already in existence rather than awaiting their emergence through decay processes? How could one possibly conclusively assert that any specimen was initially composed only of the parent element?
A second assumption upon which radiometric dating techniques are based is that the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in a specimen have not been altered during the decay process by anything except radioactive decay. So, according to this assumption, the specimen being examined is in a closed system. In other words, the amount of the elements present in a sample have not ever been affected by outside elements. But how likely is it that in thousands of years of geologic processes (or even worse, millions of years, again according to evolutionists)—lava flows, floods, mudslides, meteorite activity, etc.—the amounts of the various elements in a specimen have not been affected by outside forces?
Evolutionary geologists, again, recognize that this assumption oftentimes does not hold up. According to Ian McDougall, professor of geology in the Research School of Earth Sciences at the Australian National University, and T. Mark Harrison, professor of geology in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles, “Departures from this assumption in fact are quite common, particularly in areas of complex geological history” (1999, p. 11, emp. added). To suggest a closed system for a specimen that is believed to be very old is a reckless, unreasonable assumption, (1) when there is clear evidence that a closed system cannot be guaranteed; and (2) when, in fact, there is compelling evidence that ancient Earth was rocked by a global catastrophe that most certainly would have violated the “closed system” assumption (cf. Whitcomb and Morris, 1961) and created an extremely “complex geological history.”
The third assumption of such dating techniques is that, in keeping with uniformitarian principles, the nuclear decay rate of the elements being measured have remained constant throughout history. While the other assumptions can be seen on the surface to be unsustainable, the problem with this assumption might not seem as evident at first glance. One might expect that the rate of decay of various elements would be “set in stone” as it were—more like scientific laws. However, recent research by a team of scientists (known as RATE) that was presented at the International Conference on Creationism in 2003, indicates that the nuclear decay rates have not always been constant (Humphreys, et al., 2003). The RATE team had several zircon crystals dated by expert evolutionists using the uranium-lead evolutionary dating technique and found them to be 1.5 billion years old, assuming a constant decay rate. A by-product of the breakdown of uranium into lead is helium. Content analysis of the crystals revealed that large amounts of helium were found to be present. However, if the crystals were as old as the dating techniques suggested, there should have been no trace of helium left, since helium atoms are known to be tiny, light, unreactive, and able to easily escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. The presence of helium and carbon-14 showed that the rocks were actually much younger (4,000 to 14,000 years old) than the dating techniques alleged. Since these zircons were taken from the Precambrian basement granite in the Earth, an implication of the find is that the whole Earth could be no older than 4,000 to 14,000 years old. The results of the crystal dating indicate that 1.5 billion years’ worth of radioactive decay, based on the uniformitarian constant decay rate assumption, occurred in only a few thousand years. How could such a thing be possible? How can the two dating techniques be reconciled? By understanding that the rate of decay of uranium into lead must have been different—much higher—in the past (cf. DeYoung, 2005).
Evolutionists have no qualms openly acknowledging the assumptions inherent in evolutionary dating techniques, since without these assumptions in place, there would be no way to date the Earth or anything on it using science. The standard practice of geologists today, in light of this, is to “do what you can with what you have.” However, if the dating assumptions are too unrealistic to allow for an accurate date of anything, shouldn’t the dating methods be deemed untrustworthy or even abandoned, if that is where the evidence leads? It makes no sense to ignore the issues and accept evolution as fact along with its deep time proposition based on such faulty evidence. How is it scientific to use such dating methods in spite of the near certainty that they will not provide accuracy when dating extremely old specimens? In truth, because of the effect of catastrophic activity on the Earth over the centuries, the only sure way to attain the date of the Earth and its elements is through divine revelation. However, as the next assumption shows, that reasonable option has been eliminated from the table as well, due to evolutionary assumptions.
Unreasonable Assumption #6—Naturalism
According the National Academy of Sciences, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes. The statements of science are those that emerge from the application of human intelligence to data obtained from observation and experiment” (Teaching About Evolution…, 1998, p. 42, emp. added). So according to this modern definition of “science,” anything non-natural is ruled out. In other words, science must be approached through the assumption of naturalism and materialism. Therefore, God is deemed unscientific by this definition (even though He actually instituted the field of science, cf. Miller, 2012d), since He is non-natural and non-material.
Recall the earlier concurring statements by geologist Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution, in which he stated that he assumes that life came about through a “natural process…completely consistent with natural laws…. Like other scientists, I rely on the power of observations and experiments and theoretical reasoning to understand how the cosmos came to be the way it is” (2005). Richard Lewontin, evolutionary geneticist of Harvard University unabashedly said:
Our willingness to accept scientific claims against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to naturalism. 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 causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door(1997, p. 31, first three emp. in orig.).
So regardless of the evidence, the bulk of today’s scientific community has agreed to wipe God and supernatural phenomena out of the definition of “science,” not because of the evidence for or against God, but because of the assumption of naturalism. Again we ask, is this a reasonable assumption?
Remember that not all assumptions in science are unreasonable. If an assumption does not significantly alter the end results, it may be a fair, legitimate assumption. However, the assumption of naturalism significantly alters one’s results—yielding completely different answers to important questions than the answers that would be given using an approach without that assumption in place. And further, the assumption of naturalism proves to be unreasonable, first, because it is not in keeping with the evidence, and, second, because it is self-contradictory.
According to science—the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics—in nature, nothing comes from nothing and nothing lasts forever (cf. Miller, 2007). So according to the scientific evidence, in order to explain the origin of everything in the Universe, since it could not have naturally lasted forever or come from nothing, it had to have come from Something outside of “nature”—outside of the Universe.
According to the Law of Biogenesis, in nature, life comes from only from life and that of its kind (cf. Miller, 2012c). So again, according to the scientific evidence, in order to explain the origin of life in the Universe, since it could not have naturally come from nothing, it had to have come from Something outside of “nature”—outside the Universe. Naturalism does not work in explaining the scientific evidence on these points. It cannot offer an explanation for the origin of the Universe or life in keeping with the evidence. So would it not be reasonable to re-define “science” in such a way that no option is eliminated from consideration based on the faulty assumption of naturalism?
If the scientific evidence points to Something supernatural, why not be allowed as scientists to follow the evidence where it leads? Just because one cannot empirically observe something happening, does not mean that one cannot use science to determine who did what, how they did it, when they did it, where they did it, and what they did it with. Forensic scientists engage in this process every day. Indirect evidence is a legitimate source of scientific information, and the Universe is saturated with indirect evidence for the existence of God.
As an approach to science, naturalism contradicts the scientific evidence, and what’s more, it contradicts itself. The naturalist says that everything must be explained through natural processes. However, naturalism requires unnatural phenomena—like abiogenesis and the spontaneous generation or eternality of matter—in order to explain the origin of the Universe and life (cf. Miller, 2012a). Such things have not only not been witnessed by scientists, but in fact, all the scientific evidence is contrary to them. How can a self-contradictory approach to science be the very perspective that defines science? Why are simple logic and common sense being rejected by so many in the scientific community today?
Conclusion
Assumptions are oftentimes necessary in science, and they can be effective and productive in helping scientists to solve problems and make advancements and important breakthroughs, but assumptions must be made with caution. The evolutionary community has a strangle-hold on the minds of many in the scientific community today, and evolution is riddled with issues, many of which come down to the fundamental assumptions upon which evolution is based. Why do so many people insist on making such far-fetched, unreasonable assumptions? In the words of Scottish philosopher David Hume, “No man turns against reason until reason turns against him” (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). Many have turned against reason in spite of the evidence, since the evidence has turned against them. But why be so irrational? Why continue to hold to such a bogus, baseless, irrational theory? The reason for most of humanity’s rejection of truth throughout human history was stated succinctly by God through Paul nearly 2,000 years ago. Some people simply do “not like to retain God in their knowledge,” because His restrictions, thought given for our good (cf. Romans 7:12; Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:12-13; Psalm 119), tend to not harmonize with their fleshly desires (Romans 1:20-32).
REFERENCES
Akahane, Hisatada, Takeshi Furuno, Hiroshi Miyajima, Toshiyuki Yoshikawa, and Shigeru Yamamoto (2004), “Rapid Wood Silicification in Hot Spring Water: An Explanation of Silicification of Wood During the Earth’s History,” Sedimentary Geology, 169[3-4]:219-228, July 15.
DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Friedlander, G., J.W. Kennedy, E.S. Macias, and J.M. Miller (1981), Nuclear and Radiochemistry(New York: Wiley), third edition.
Hazen, Robert (2005), Origins of Life, audio-taped lecture (Chantilly, VA: The Teaching Company).
Humphreys, Russell, John Baumgardner, Steven Austin, and Andrew Snelling (2003), “Helium Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay,”Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. John Ivey Jr. (Creation Science Fellowship: Pittsburgh, PA), www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf.
Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Kulp, J.L. (1952), “The Carbon 14 Method of Age Determination,” Scientific Monthly, 75, November.
Lewontin, Richard (1997), “Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review, January 9.
McDougall, Ian and T. Mark Harrison (1999), Geochronology and Thermochronology by the40Ar/39Ar Method (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.
McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (2003), pub. M.D. Licker (New York: McGraw-Hill), sixth edition.
Miller, Jeff (2007), “God and the Laws of Thermodynamics: A Mechanical Engineer’s Perspective,” Reason & Revelation, 27[4]:25-31, April,http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3293.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Creation Vs. Evolution" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Living organisms are filled with designed molecular machines. In fact, mankind studies them to try to build more efficient machines themselves! Don't even TALK about how far more advanced DNA code is than modern computer coding...
Quite a few of them just plain hide evidence and tell lies. But the majority apparently prefer not to think about uncomfortable facts. Flesh remains are found on almost a weekly basis now in fossils after the "cat was let out of the bag" by Mary Schweitzer and her T. Rex. More research shows that flesh remains and even living creatures have been found in fossil rock for longer than there was a book written by Charles Darwin. I would contend that there has been a concerted effort by Darwinists to hide evidence and make up evidence...in fact, I can prove it! Are any of you willing to research beyond all the propaganda sites that Darwinists produce? How long have they known that birds and mammals have been found WITH and even BELOW dinosaurs? Evidence says design and creation. Darwinists say otherwise. Which side will you choose? Do you prefer blissful ignorance or informed knowledge? Cue the prolific and terrific science writer, Brian Thomas of the Institute for Creation Research... Organisms did not have TIME to evolve, even if they could!
Recent years have witnessed many revolutionary discoveries of original tissues in fossils. Each new find challenges the widely held notion that fossils formed millions of years ago. After all, lab tests repeatedly show proteins and other biological materials lasting no longer than hundreds of thousands of years—millions are out of the question. As a result, these fossils clearly look like recent deposits. What tactics do evolutionists use to accommodate these original organic remains into their entrenched belief in deep time?
One tactic is to simply turn a blind eye to the whole fossil tissue issue. A possible example of this occurred when an ICR employee attended a 2010 debate featuring the late atheist and evolutionist Christopher Hitchens. After the event, the employee asked Hitchens what he thought of blood vessels recently found in Tyrannosaurus rex bone?1 Hitchens replied that he knew nothing about it.
His ignorance conveniently insulated him from having to reconcile data that refuted his secular view of history. How could such a prominent author on origins topics have for so long "missed" all hints of paleontology's most game-changing discoveries? Shouldn't an expert be well read in the very subjects he debates?
Some deny the science showing that the tissues are real proteins, and others deny the science of tissue decay rates. Biblical creationists deny the millions of years—rather than the science—and this actually solves the key dilemma.
But secularists who do at least look at the soft tissue fossil reports deploy another tactic. In response to the recent discovery of original protein inside tiny dinosaur bones from China, Smithsonian Institution paleontologist Hans-Deiter Sues cited contamination.2 Supposedly, the proteins in question recently "snuck into the fossils" from some source other than the fossilized animal.
He told Science NOW, "You can never really totally rule out contamination."3
Technically, his statement is scientifically accurate. But it can lead to absurd conclusions. If one can never totally rule out contamination, then one can always excuse the data by claiming it—playing the convenient "contamination card"—even when it defies common sense.
For example, one can never totally rule out the possibility that my plate of dinner is contaminated. Instead of it coming from my kitchen, another person might have cooked the identical meal elsewhere, then secretly set the full plate of food on my table. Though possible, this contamination speculation is so unlikely that it can be ruled out on the basis of its extreme implausibility.
What quality of soft tissue fossil data would similarly refute claims of contamination beyond reasonable doubt?
This chart contrasts the maximum time required to convert bone collagen into dust with ages that the secularists themselves assigned to collagen-containing fossils. The tiny red column represents the maximum age of bone collagen determined by repeated decay measurements. It assumes that unrealistically cold temperatures preserved collagen for as long as one million years.
The blue columns represent seven fossils with collagen or similar protein. These examples build seven arguments favoring the view that fossils formed only thousands of years ago. Secular scientists reported each of these finds in evolutionary journals.4
What are the odds that contamination infected so many varied fossil proteins from so many different places?
Instead of following the evidence where it clearly leads, some use broom tactics to sweep away scientific challenges to secular beliefs. Sometimes human will—not reason—drives conclusions and behavior. Some ignore the fossils, ignore protein decay, or claim contamination. But all three tactics create far more problems than they solve. The most straightforward solution follows this fossil evidence straight to biblical origins in Noah's recent Flood.
References
Schweitzer, M.H., et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952.
Reisz, R.R., et al. 2013. Embryology of Early Jurassic dinosaur from China with evidence of preserved organic remains. Nature. 496 (7444): 210-214.
ICR news articles binned on this web page cite most of the relevant secular reports: Fresh Tissues Show That Fossils Are Recent. Institute for Creation Research. Posted on icr.org, accessed April 20, 2013.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
In a recent paper titled "Dissecting Darwinism," Baylor University Medical Center surgeon Joseph Kuhn described serious problems with Darwinian evolution.1 He first described how life could not possibly have come from chemicals alone, since the information residing in DNA required an input from outside of nature.2
He then addressed Darwinism's inability to account for the all-or-nothing structure of cellular systems, including the human body. As a medical doctor, Kuhn not only knows the general arrangement of the human body's visible parts, he also understands the interrelated biochemical systems that sustain and regulate all of those parts. He recognized that the human body contains an all-or-nothing system in which its core parts and biochemicals must exist all at once for the body to function.
Biochemist Michael Behe named these all-or-nothing systems "irreducibly complex."3 Removing a single core part from one of these systems keeps the entire system from working, and this implies that the system was initially built with all of its parts intact.
This is exactly what researchers expect to see if God purposely created living systems, rather than if natural processes accidentally built living systems bit-by-bit—as Darwinian philosophy maintains.
Kuhn cited the work of another medical doctor, Geoffrey Simmons, who described 17 "all or nothing" human body systems.4 These combine with many others to form the entire human body—a system of systems—that is irreducible at many levels, from gross anatomy to biochemistry. For example, just as a woman would die without her heart, she would also die without the vital blood biochemical hemoglobin.
But even an intact heart and hemoglobin need regulation. A heart that beats too fast or too slow can be just as lethal as having no heart, and a body that produces too much or too little hemoglobin can be equally unhealthy. Thus, the systems that regulate heartbeats and hemoglobin must also have been present from the beginning.
Kuhn wrote that "virtually every aspect of human physiology has regulatory elements, feedback loops, and developmental components that require thousands of interacting genes leading to specified protein expression." Thus, "the human body represents an irreducibly complex system on a cellular and an organ/system basis."1
Evolution has no proven explanations for the origin of just one irreducibly complex system, let alone the interdependent web of irreducible systems that comprise the human body.
Could the human body have evolved? According to Kuhn, to change another creature into a human "would require far more than could be expected from random mutation and natural selection."1 However, a wonderfully constructed human body is exactly what an all-wise Creator would make, and He promised that those who trust in Him will one day inherit new bodies "that fadeth not away."5
References
Kuhn, J. A. 2012. Dissecting Darwinism. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings. 25 (1): 41-47.
The first chapter of the timeless text of Genesis states, "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day."1
In direct contrast, modern consensus insists, "Documented deep in the earth's crust are the progressive changes and modifications undergone by various groups of the plant kingdom through millions of years."2
So, did plants really evolve over eons, or were they created in one day? New research demonstrates exactly why plants had to have been created in an instant.
A team of scientists led by researchers at the Scripps Research Institute and the University of Glasgow investigated the marvelous mechanism by which plant cells detect harmful UV-B radiation and then send signals that activate cellular UV-B protection regimes.3 Without UV detection and prevention, and without all the biochemicals for photosynthesis, plants would have long ago died.
A protein in plants called UVR8 responds to light in just the UV-B range. The protein consists of two identical halves that automatically link to one another just before light hits them. Investigators learned that when UV-B light hits a particular amino acid near the center of the dual complex to change its electrical charges, the halves separate and activate the protein.
The study appears online in Science Express. The lead authors said, "Other light-sensing proteins require a chemical modification or helper molecule to detect light, but UVR8 is unique in that it has these inbuilt UV-B-sensing tryptophan pyramids—structures that no one has seen before."3
Credit: Getzoff lab, The Scripps Research Institute. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.
When separated, each UVR8 protein half somehow quickly signals its cell to activate UV-B protection systems. Human skin cells employ similar tactics to protect against UV light damage, which can cause cancer by disrupting a cell's vital DNA.4
To discover what plant life would be like without the dual-purpose protein UVR8, the researchers mutated UVR8 proteins. "The mutant plants grew poorly when exposed to UV 'B' wavelength radiation—the range most responsible for tanning and burning of human skin," according to a Scripps Research Institute news release.3
If plants evolved over millions of years, then nature would have constructed their UV detection and protection system one piece at a time. But there are too many precisely specified parts for evolution to explain, such as various communicating molecules that detect UV, transport the correct signals to the correct places, receive those signals accurately, and deploy specific responses like activating a gene or producing more or less of a specific protein based on those signals. Building each of these separately and over long periods of time is unrealistic.
This is because it takes more than just UVR8 for all of this to work properly, just as it takes more than just a key for a car to function. In other words, all the parts had to have been put in place all at once. Otherwise, the first imaginary evolving plants would have incurred DNA damage from sunlight faster than the damage could be repaired.
UVR8-like proteins also occur in algae and moss. The evolutionary authors tried to fit these observations into their nature-only paradigm by insisting that UVR8 evolved early and all descendant plants inherited it. But because UVR8 would be useless without many other precisely interacting molecules, inheriting it would have been a waste of energy.
UVR8, along with all other vital plant molecules, was created on purpose. The fact that UV damage is detected and repaired by all kinds of plants just means that God designed all plants with foresight.
And that means that the Genesis record had it right all along.
Delevoryas, T. 1962. Morphology and Evolution of Fossil Plants. In Prothero, D. R. 2004. Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, 435.
Ultraviolet Protection Molecule in Plants Yields Its Secrets to Scripps Research Team. Scripps Research Institute news release, February 9, 2012, reporting research in Christie, J. M. et al. Plant UVR8 Photoreceptor Senses UV-B by Tryptophan-Mediated Disruption of Cross-Dimer Salt Bridges. Science Express. Published online February 9, 2012.
Workers with the Canadian energy company Suncor unearthed ankylosaur remains while mining oil sands near Fort McMurray in Alberta. The carcass of the four-legged land creature was not flattened, as is the case with many fossilized vertebrates. But most strangely, it was found in an area known primarily for fossilized marine creatures.
Previous vertebrate fossils found in this oil sand formation were marine reptiles, like the ichthyosaur and plesiosaur. Marine invertebrates such as clams and ammonites are the more typical fossils found in the region, so a large, land-living ankylosaur "wasn't supposed to be there."1
But finding a mixture of fossilized marine and land creatures together is not an unusual occurrence. For example, the famous dinosaur beds in the Morrison Formation at Dinosaur National Monument contain logs, clams, snails, and mammals.2
And the Institute for Creation Research's front lobby features a juvenile hadrosaur taken from the Two Medicine Formation—a sandstone formation which extends from the east side of the Rocky Mountains eastward to Edmonton, Canada—that was fossilized alongside marine clams and snails, as well as birds, mammals, and other dinosaurs.
Medical doctor Carl Werner actually used fossil-related criteria as a test for evolution.2 He reasoned that if the evolutionary story were true and that dinosaurs lived in a unique "Age of Reptiles," and if everyday natural processes were responsible for their fossilization, then no fossils of creatures from other "ages"—for example, creatures that had not yet evolved—should be mixed up with dinosaur fossils.
But Werner found that a fossil mixture of very different kinds was typical. He told Creation magazine:
Paleontologists have found 432 mammal species in the dinosaur layers….But where are these fossils? We visited 60 museums but did not see a single complete mammal skeleton from the dinosaur layers displayed at any of these museums.3
Werner also learned that dinosaur-containing rock layers have "fossilized examples from every major invertebrate animal phylum living today," and that dinosaurs were mixed in with varieties of fish, amphibians, "parrots, owls, penguins, ducks, loons, albatross, cormorants, sandpipers, avocets, etc."3 If museums displayed these real fossils instead of adorning dinosaur dioramas with feathers, then the evolutionary story that "dinosaurs evolved into birds" would be quickly seen as the fiction that it is.4
There are many other examples of land-dwelling dinosaur fossils mixed with sea creatures.5 This kind of evidence is to be expected if a world-destroying flood was responsible for the bulk of the world's fossils, dinosaur and otherwise, considering that "the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered."6
I make a living selling IT software and hardware and services but I would rather take a year off and finish writing my two novels. Not enough time! I do have the best wife in the world, several awesome kids, a few dogs, far too many bills and a few more pounds than I had back in my playing days.
The best thing to give to your enemy is forgiveness; to an opponent, tolerance; to a friend, your heart; to your child, a good example; to a father, deference; to your mother, conduct that will make her proud of you; to yourself, respect; to all men, charity. Francis Maitland Balfour
The ultimate determinate in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas – a trial of spiritual resolve; the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideas to which we are dedicated — Ronald Reagan
Please email radarbinder@comcast.net to contact me professionally. I consult and sell software, hardware and services to companies, organizations and government entities throughout North America.
