|
|
|
Creation in review
Has everything been born and evolved by itself or is creation true? The evidence clearly points to the creation
If we go back 100 to 200 years, Christian theism was clearly the most common worldview in the Western world. Few people questioned the existence of God, Creation, or the historical reliability of the Bible in the matters it tells about. Although the people may not have had a personal faith relationship with Jesus Christ, they still had an outward respect for Christianity and spiritual things. However, the situation has changed in Western countries. Now we live in a time where the basic teachings of the Christian faith have been abandoned more and more. It has happened throughout society but also within the church. The development in this area has been long and major culprits for the change have been e.g. evolutionary theory and liberal theology. They have broken the foundation on which the Christian faith has rested. It has also affected morale: people don't believe anymore that the Teachings of Jesus and the Disciples concern and bind us. In this article, we will go through the creation and the initial stages. If these things are unclear, and you don't trust that the Book of Genesis tells about historical things, then it is difficult to trust other things mentioned in the Bible, such as the great importance of Jesus. That's why we're going to explore creation and the opposite view - that is, the view of whether universe and its life could have arisen by itself.
DENIAL OF CREATION. The main worldview of non-Christians in Western countries is atheistic and agnostic evolutionism. In this view, God's creation work is denied and instead it is believed that everything started from nothing, in the so-called Big Bang. After that, billions of years later, life arose by chance and has evolved into increasingly complex forms ever since. God is irrelevant in this view, and he is no longer needed to explain anything. But how is it and what does the evidence point to? It seems that these new theories have a rather weak foundation. They are difficult to prove true and have numerous problems. You shouldn't trust them. Among other things, you should pay attention to the following points:
Nothing can be born out of nothing. When some believe that everything was created from nothing by itself, the so-called in the big bang, they don't take into account that it is a view comparable to magic. It requires much greater faith than faith in God's creation work. The reason for the former is simple: No practical observation shows that things appear out of nothingness. Bicycles, airplanes, stones and rocks, or road signs do not suddenly appear out of nothingness by themselves. Why would the universe be an exception, even though it is many times bigger than the previous things? Why can only the universe come from nothing but not other things? If we believe in such a theory, which is against logic and true science, we are certainly not acting wisely. It is much more reasonable to stick to the view that an almighty God created everything (creation cannot be the work of any “small god”). This is also evidenced by the complexity and beauty in nature. It is difficult to reconcile them with the Big Bang.
- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, 6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
No expansion is observed. In addition to the fact that it is not wise to assume that everything came into existence by itself out of nothingness, there is another problem with the big bang: we do not observe the expansion of the universe. That's what should happen according to the general perception, but cosmologists themselves admit that there are no direct evidences and observations for it. Instead, they use indirect redshift observations to support the expansion. A couple of cosmologies talk about the topic and how expansion lacks direct evidence (bolds added later):
I do not want to imply that everyone is of the same opinion regarding the interpretation of the redshift. We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us; the only thing that is sure is that their spectrums have moved towards red. Famous astronomers doubt whether the red shift has anything to do with the Doppler shifts or with the expansion of space. Halton Arp of the Hale Observatory has emphasized that groups of galaxies can be found in space where some galaxies have quite different red shifts; if these groups are really composed of galaxies that are close to each other, they could hardly move at very different velocities. Furthermore, Maarten Schmidt noticed in 1963 that certain kinds of objects resembling stars had enormously high red shifts, up to more than 300 per cent! If these "quasars" are at the distances that can be deducted from their redshifts, they must radiate an extremely large amount of energy in order to continue being so bright. It is also very difficult to measure the correlation between velocity and distance when the objects are really far away. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The Three First Minutes, p. 40)
What about using redshifts as evidence for the big bang? They have been held up as the most convincing evidence of this event, as the previous quotes showed, but there are a few fundamental problems with them. Among other things, the following things are puzzling:
• The light of all stars is not red shifted. For example, the Andromeda Galaxy and certain other Galaxies show blue shifted light, which means that they should be approaching us. These kinds of exceptions indicate that there may be some other explanation to the red shift values than drawing away from us. Maybe the values have nothing to do with their movements.
• The values of adjacent galaxies. Another problem with the red shift is that some adjacent Galaxies may have completely different red shift values, even though they are in connection with each other and quite close to each other. So, if the red shift value could be really used to tell the distance, there is no way these Galaxies could be close to each other: instead, they should be far away from each other. And yet, they are not. This indicates that the red shift must be caused by some other facts, such as internal reactions and radiation of stars, which can also be detected from the Earth. The following quotes are related to the topic. They show how questionable it is to use redshift to support expansion.
Another interconnection between Galaxies that immediately lets us determine their distance, is a connection where two Galaxies are attached to each other by a visible strand. Zwicky was one of the first to find discordant red shifts in this kind of system. In this case two galaxies, whose red shift corresponded to 7000 km/s, were attached to each other by a strand that led to a third galaxy, whose red shift only corresponded to a few hundred km/s. Recently, there have been further examples of different red shifts in interconnected galaxies. (Arp, Evidence for Discordant, in the Redshift Controversy 15, 54-55 / G. Field, et al. eds. 1973)
However, it can hardly be overemphasized that these redshifts of different magnitudes do not occur only in one or two independent, separate cases. They occur in all cases that can be tested: in large clusters, groups, close companions of galaxies, companions of galaxies at medium distances, companions connected by visible bonds, galaxies interacting through gravity, galaxy chains. In all conceivable cases, we come to the same result: redshifts of different magnitudes for the same common classes of younger, dimmer galaxies... (Arp, Evidence for Discordant Redshift Controversy 15, 54-55 / G. Field, ed. 1973)
• Red shift periodically changing. One peculiarity with some quasars is that their red shift changes periodically – often in the course of one day: sometimes the value is higher, sometimes lower. Why are there changes like these? If we were to draw a conclusion based on these changing red shift values, the conclusion would be that they are sometimes moving away faster, sometimes slower. However, this phenomenon has never been found in the universe. It is more probable, therefore, that changing red shift values are due to internal reactions or unknown physical phenomena and not any escaping motion, as far as these quasars are concerned.
Perhaps the red shift is not caused by escaping radiation sources, but by some physical phenomena that are still unknown. This view can be justified most of all by observations made of the so-called quasars. In these objects, which were regarded as distant, quickly drawing away, and large material formations because of their red shift, quick variations were noted in the intensity of radiation. Actions of this kind are very strange, because it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could affect those formations that are at least the size of the Milky Way in a couple of months. As comes to galaxies, the scale of their red shifts proved to be dependent on their type or position among all galaxies. Furthermore, cases were found in which objects with small and big red shifts seemed to be in physical connection, close to each other. (Antti Jännes, Koululaisen uusi tietosanakirja, p. 1012)
Questioning the theory. As noted, many astronomers have disagreed that redshifts would be good evidence of the Big Bang (see Steven Weinberg's comment above). They do not believe that redshifts have anything to do with that issue, and therefore they question the whole theory of the Big Bang. They do not consider the Big Bang theory to be credible. We look at a few comments from astronomers on the topic. Surely we are not acting stupidly if we reject this theory, the evidence for which is weak.
As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)
There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)
The birth of galaxies. As for the beginning of the universe, it also involves the birth of galaxies, which should have happened at some point after the big bang. Some publications give the impression that this issue, too, has already been resolved and clarified like the Big Bang. It has been suggested that this is a proven fact that is not to be doubted, but only believed. Many really think that celestial bodies are formed by themselves so that God has not made them. However, in this matter, scientists are on weak ice. They do not have a clear idea of the initial stages, which, of course, is natural, since none of them were to witness these events. The genesis of celestial bodies remains an enigma, despite claims to the contrary. In particular, the emergence of galaxies is considered problematic. There is absolutely no decent evidence of this:
I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)
It is almost certainly true that this is exactly how stars are created from the sparse condensations of gas between the stars. We can hope that the same would take place in the whole universe and thus, the formation of galaxies would begin. However, there is a huge problem here – this does not take place. (…) We need better evidence based on observations regarding how galaxies and large structures of the universe were born. At this point, it is not yet possible to make such observations regarding ordinary galaxies. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 99,109) Books are full of stories that feel rational, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not know, how the galaxies were born. (L. John, Cosmology Now 85, 92 / 1976)
The birth of the solar system and the earth. When many reject God's creation work, they are forced to look for an explanation of how everything came into being. They admit that the universe, the solar system, and everything else had a beginning, but when they don't believe in God's creation work, they have to look elsewhere for an explanation. The problem with their theories, however, is that they are based more on imagination than actual observations and science. This is also the case with the beginning of the solar system and the earth. The problems are so big that according to some scientists, the entire solar system shouldn't even exist. This shows that the theory of their self-emergence cannot be on solid ground. It is much easier to believe in God's creation work than for such things to arise by themselves.
Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
The birth of life. As stated, there are numerous problems in theories about the beginning of the universe, the birth of galaxies, and the birth of the solar system and the Earth. These are the problems we encounter when we try to deny God's work of creation. These theories rest on nothing. Therefore, it is not wise to believe such unproven theories that are contrary to observations and common sense. What about the beginning of life? This has the same problem as the previous theories. The more the topic has been studied, the more difficult the problem has become. In naturalistic theory, dead matter is given supernatural properties that it does not possess. That's why it's strange that many deny the miracles mentioned in the Bible, but believe in fairy-tale theories in which dead matter gives birth to life by itself. They believe in miracles without a miracle worker, and it certainly doesn't make sense. Many scientists have acknowledged the magnitude of this problem. They have no solution to the origin of life. It has been established that life is born only from life, and not a single exception to this rule has been found:
Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)
More than 30 years of experimentation in the field of chemical and molecular evolution have highlighted the immensity of the problem associated with the beginning of life rather than its solution. Today, basically only relevant theories and experiments are discussed and their drift into a dead end, or ignorance is acknowledged (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)
In trying to bring together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life, and the stages of its formation that led to the biology that appears around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in obscurity. We do not know how life began on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances. (Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University) (1)
Changes in species. According to the atheistic and naturalistic model, all current species have descended from one and the same primordial cell in the sea or water. This notion of evolution is one of the major reasons why people doubt the reliability of the Bible and the existence of God. This theory became known mainly through Charles Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species. What evidence is there for evolution? There are two notions that should be separated first. Evolutionists often call two different phenomena evolution, but only the latter of the two truly captures the Essence of evolution:
• 1. Ordinary variation and adaptation • 2. Primordial cell -to-human theory
It is important to emphasize that there is ample evidence in favor of the first option. Evolutionists are absolutely right in that we observe change, mutations and natural selection in living things. There is no denying this, and there are numerous good examples in this area in the evolutionary literature. They appear in Darwin's book On the Origin of Species, as in other books in the field. They include cases like the resistance of bacteria, variation in the beak sizes of birds, resistance of insects to pesticide, change in the growth speed of fish due to overfishing, light and dark colored peppered moths, and variation due to geographical changes. All of these are examples of how a population responds to changes in the environment, so they are actually about adaptation. However, the basic types remain the same all the time and do not change. Bacteria remain bacteria, dogs remain dogs, cats remain cats, etc. Transformation does occur, but within certain limits. On the other hand, while changes and adaptations take place, part of the rich genetic heritage that the first ancestors had was lost. The more organisms become specialized, e.g. due to breeding or geographical differentiation, the less they can afford to change in the future. The evolutionary train goes in the wrong direction the more time passes. The gene pool is depleted, but no new basic species are born. The primordial cell -to-human theory is another understanding given to evolution. It is depicted on an evolutionary tree where all species originate from a single primordial cell. It is precisely this area where a single-celled organism is assumed to have evolved into fish, reptiles, birds, mammals, and humans that causes controversy. In contrast, adaptations, which were the first explanation given for evolution, are generally not disputed. Everyone admits that. It is interesting that when evolutionists want to prove the one-cell-to-human theory to be true, they use examples from the first group, i.e. the area of adaptations. What is causing this? Surely the best explanation is that they have no evidence of true species changes, only adaptations. More than a hundred years of experiments with bacteria and banana flies and centuries of breeding have also shown that there are certain limits that cannot be exceeded. The basic species do not change, but for example bacteria and banana flies remain bacteria and banana flies. Therefore, we must distinguish between changes and adaptations that have occurred within species from the notion that all current species are derived from the same stem cell. They are two different things, of which only one has convincing evidence. Those who believe in the theory of evolution should read their own books on the subject. They should consider in which area the examples they themselves present move; are they about ordinary variation and adaptation, or do they have examples of one main group having changed into another, as required in the primordial cell -to-human theory. If they are honest, they will have to admit that all their examples relate only to the first area. What about the accuracy of the evolutionary tree? A better option is the creation model, where there are hundreds or thousands of trees with branches everywhere. These branches describe normal variation, which is caused, for example, as a result of geographical differentiation. However, basic species do not change into others, and there are no examples of this. Or if a species had changed into another in the 150 years since the theory of evolution was accepted, the science magazines would have already made a big deal out of it. However, this has not happened. We look at some comments on the subject. They show that Darwin and his followers have no evidence for the primordial-cell-to-human theory. Darwin had to admit it, and in modern times the situation has not changed at all. We can very well believe in changes in organisms, but the basic premise of the theory of evolution, in which all current species have been inherited from one and the same cell, should be rejected. It is better to believe that God created everything; the universe and plants and animals ready. It's the only sensible option.
Darwin: I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (2)
Encyclopedia Britannica: It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus indirect.
"It is quite ironic that a book that has become famous for explaining the origin of species does not explain it in any way." (Christopher Booker, Times columnist referring to Darwin's magnum opus, On the Origin of Species) (3)
More recently, it has been admitted that Darwin's "evidence" was actually philosophical without a greater scientific basis. To quote the influential evolutionist Ernst Mayr (Harvard University): "It must be admitted that two objections of Darwin's opponents are valid. First, Darwin gave embarrassingly little concrete evidence to support his most important claims." (Nature 248, March 22, 1974, p. 285) The evidence of evolution has never been strong, nor is it still. (4)
Perhaps the most astonishing aspect of the current situation is this: while Darwin is treated as a secular saint in the mass media, and while the theory of evolution is seen as an invincible challenge to religious claims, leading biologists take it for granted that the origin of species is still unexplained. In Nature magazine, Eörs Szathmary wrote an assessment of Jeffrey Schwartz's attempt to build such a theory and he began his assessment as follows: "The origin of species has long fascinated biologists. Although this is the title of Darwin's main work, his work does not offer a solution to the problem. Does Jeffrey Schwart offer a solution? I’m afraid that generally speaking he does not do that. (5)
What about species transformations in fossils? Possibly the most famous fossil researcher in the world, late atheist anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledged the lacking evidence, when he examined fossils. He tells the fossils don’t carry any signs of gradual development, although this would be necessary for the evolution theory. Another well-known fossil researcher, Niles Eldredge, refers to the same issue:
Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...) (6)
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (7)
The problem is the creation of new information. When it comes to heredity, it allows for great variation. An example of that is the individual appearance of people. Not everyone looks the same, but the appearance can vary a lot even in members of the same family. Bears are also a good example of variation. It is obvious that all current bear groups - polar bears, black bears, grizzly bears... - originate from the same initial population. In this initial population and its descendants, there has been a possibility of hereditary modification so that the current groups of bears could have arisen through speciation and isolation. Within the framework of their heredity, they have had the opportunity to change and adapt to different circumstances. However, this is not about the birth of completely new species, but only about variation within the same basic group. Heredity has clear limits. Breeding and years of mutation experiments have proven this. Change does occur, but only within the prescribed limits. For example, breeding can affect the length of dogs' legs or the size and composition of plants, but at some point a limit is reached, and one cannot go beyond it. No new species are born and there are no signs of new information.
Breeders usually find out that after a few generations of refining, an extreme limit is reached: advancing beyond this point is not possible, and no new species have been created. (…) Therefore, breeding tests cancel the theory of evolution rather than support it. (On Call, 3 July 1972, p. 8, 9)
The biggest problem in terms of evolutionary theory is indeed the creation of new genetic information. Natural selection and mutations do not succeed here. First, natural selection. It cannot create anything new, because it only chooses from what is old and ready. It cannot give birth to any new species or create a new one because mere survival cannot bring it about. Natural selection can at most preserve or eliminate, but no new information is created. That is, an organism that exists can no longer change into another. It's too late at that point. Giraffes remain giraffes and lions remain lions until the end of their lives:
This is where Darwin's mindset fails decisively. Natural selection may perhaps explain how those who are best equipped remain alive, but it can in no way explain how the best equipped have come into existence. Natural selection is not able to produce new properties: the process can only, given the chance, select from already existing properties. A new organ cannot be "selected", it must be created! Already existing genetic properties and possibilities can be artificially refined, but neither natural nor artificial selection is able to produce anything new. Natural selection may perhaps explain how some individuals are destroyed, but not how some are born. (8)
What about mutations? When evolutionists were faced with the limits of natural selection, they turned to mutations. However, mutations lead to an opposite direction in terms of evolution. They cause degeneration, which means development has been for the worse. If mutations had the capacity to lead development forward, scientists should be able to point out thousands of examples of mutations that add information and develop the species further, but they have not been able to do so. Changes can happen – deformed wings and limbs, pigmentation loss... – but clear cases, where new information is being added, remain unfound. Many experts in the field also oppose the claim that mutations could cause widespread change or bring about new information. This has been made clear by mutation experiments carried out for decades on fruit flies and bacteria, among other experiments. Below are some relating comments from researchers:
Even though thousands of mutations have been examined in our time, we have found no clear case in which mutation would have changed an animal into a more complex one, produced a new structure, or even caused a deep, new adaptation. (R.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After, p. 131)
The mutations we know – that are thought to be responsible for the creation of the living world – are generally either losses of an organ, disappearances (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or reduplications of an existing organ. In no case do they create anything genuinely new or individual to the organic system, anything that could be regarded as the basis of a new organ or as the beginning of a new function. (Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution, 1961, p. 79)
The results of experimental mutation research tell nothing about macro evolution. So far, the well-known facts regarding the mutation event refer to mutations taking place within narrow limits. The changing of organisms outside the borders of micro evolution cannot be explained by the well-known mutations. (Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker, Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi, p. 69)
It must be understood that scientists have a very responsive and extensive network for detecting information-increasing mutations. Most geneticists keep their eyes open for them. - - However, I am not convinced that there is even one obvious example of a mutation that would have undoubtedly created information. (Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, New York, p. 17).
MATTER OF TIME. Evolution theory is comprised of assumptions, like a fish changing into a fisherman, or a fish changing into a rat-like land creature, which suddenly wants to go back to the sea and then changes into a massive whale. Traditional evolution theory is filled with these kinds of unbelievable narrations, and they are being presented in a serious light disguised as science in schoolbooks and in other forms of media. What causes people to believe such fabrication? Time is one reason. Many think that an infinite amount of time allows for any change to happen, even major changes. The story of a girl kissing a frog, which then changes into a prince, is considered fiction. However, the same idea turns into science, when enough time is added, which in our case would be hundreds of millions of years. Since the notion of extended time periods is such an essential part of evolution, it is good to familiarize oneself with the topic. We will begin with space.
Space. As for the age of the universe and space, it is based on the idea of the Big Bang, which is believed to have happened about 13.8 billion years ago. However, if this thing is just a figment of the imagination—which it is, because nothing can come from nothing—the number 13.8 billion years has no meaning. It's a number that can be dismissed right away. What about the concrete age of space, if the big bang is just a figment of the imagination? If we look into space, we cannot directly see its age. However, it is much more likely that the universe is very young than that it is very old. For when we can see millions of stars and galaxies in space that emit light, they point to a young universe. Or if the universe really was millions or billions of years old, it would probably be a very dark place because the stars and galaxies would have stopped radiating in space. The fact that they are still emitting, however, points to a young universe. What about our own sun? Some scientists have honestly admitted that they don't know its age. They have also admitted that the age of the sun is tied to the assumed age of the earth, and that evidence has been sought in this matter from the side of paleontology. The following are some comments from well-known astronomers on the subject. By looking at the sun and space, we cannot know their age:
Eddington: On such an important issue, we should not blindly rely solely on astronomical arguments, but should turn to other, perhaps more convincing, evidence from the sister sciences... The age of the oldest rocks has been recorded as about 1200 million years... Of course, the sun must be much older than the earth and its rocks.
George Gamov yr. 1953: The Sun is now only 3 or 4 billion years old… why is that?... because the estimated age for earth is approximately in the same range.
Sun expert John Eddy: It is possible that the Sun is 4,5 billion years old. However, based on some new unforeseen conflicting results, frantic recalculations and theoretical revision, I suspect that the number (the age of the Sun and the earth) could be closer to bishop Ussher’s estimates. I don’t think that there is much observational astronomical evidence coming against this. Astrophysicists are now turning to paleontologists, when it comes to determining the age of the Solar System.
The globe. It was stated above that the age of space is not known to researchers. There is no certain information about it, only assumptions. What about the age of the earth? Many people have the idea that its age has been determined from some of the Earth's own rocks and it has been given an age of 4.5 billion years. However, the former is not true, because the age of the Earth has been determined from the meteorite stone. The reason for this has been that the Earth is believed to have formed at the same time as the meteorites. However, not even a single stone has been found on Earth itself that has been defined as old as the previous figure of 4.5 billion years. The stones defined as oldest have been less than 4 billion years old. However, there are numerous puzzles in measuring the radioactivity of stones, of which we will highlight a few. The concentrations of stones can be measured precisely, but it is questionable to relate them to the age of the stones.
Concentrations in different parts of the rocks. One important note is that different results can be obtained from different parts of radioactive stones, i.e. different concentrations, which also means different ages. For example, several different results have been obtained from the well-known Allende meteorite, with ages ranging from 4480 million to 10400 million years. This shows how a small area of one sample can have different concentration levels. It is uncertain to relate the concentrations of rocks to their age.
Old ages of fresh stones. Another serious problem with rock radioactivity measurements is that quite fresh rocks have given ages of millions or even billions of years. One of the most dramatic examples is the concentrations measured in the lava rocks of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii, which ranged from 160 million to 3 billion years old, meaning these results or concentrations are close to the oldest measured rocks on Earth. The problem, however, was that the Hualalai volcano erupted in 1800 and 1801, so the rocks defined as ancient were actually only less than 200 years old. When such discrepancies occur in measurements, they cannot be considered reliable. Another observation is that if all the rocks were really only less than 200 years old, why was there such a large discrepancy in their ages? This shows how unreliable measurements from rocks are. Hualalai's measurements gave the following results:
1. 160 million years 2. 791 million years 3. 960 million years 4. 1500 million years 5. 1580 million years 6. 2040 million years 7. 2470 million years 8. 2960 million years
Radiocarbon refutes the long periods required by the theory of evolution. As stated, the theory of evolution is based on long periods of time. It is assumed that long periods of time automatically prove the theory of evolution right and creation wrong. This is how people think, even though the theory of evolution itself has insurmountable problems for which no solution has been found. Among other things, the following factors are unsolvable problems, regardless of how much time has passed:
• The beginning of life. It is practically observed that life can only come from another life, and there are no exceptions to this rule. Therefore, the naturalistic theory of evolution lacks a foundation, that is, how everything began. • Where did genetic information come from? There isn’t a proper explanation. DNA contains much more information than any computer programs. • Which mechanisms enabled the shift to new and complex structures? • Where are the intermediate forms between basic kinds of current and fossilized species? Around 250 000 fossilized species have been collected and categorized, but there is not a single intermediate form among them. This is acknowledged by many front-line paleontologists. • Why aren’t there any simpler forms beneath the layers of the Cambrian period, for the creatures of the Cambrian period seem to have appeared fully developed and complete in these layers? This is clearly an indication of creation and not evolution.
The previous points show that there are numerous problems with the traditional theory of evolution. Still, the theory of evolution can also be proven wrong in another way: through radiocarbon measurements. For when the theory of evolution deals specifically with the evolution of living things over hundreds of millions of years, it is possible to prove this wrong if there is radiocarbon left in the fossils. Because when the remains of living organisms are measured with the radiocarbon method and the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there shouldn't be anything of it left after 100,000 to 200,000 years. However, the fact is that radiocarbon is repeatedly found in fossils classified as ancient, as well as in coal, oil, natural gas, the oldest life forms in deep-sea deposits (fossils from the Cambrian period), even dinosaurs and diamonds. Such discoveries would in no way be possible if it were a question of tens or hundreds of millions of years. The Radiocarbon publication in 1969 examined the results of 15,000 radiocarbon datings, stating, among other things, that
• Out of 9671 samples (trees, animals and humans) only 1146 (12%) gave a radiocarbon age of more than 12530 years • in only three cases the age was defined as 'infinite'. • some samples of coal, oil and natural gas gave a radiocarbon age of less than 50,000 years. • the samples representing the supposedly oldest life forms in the deep sea deposits gave an age of approx. 40,000 years. (9)
Another quote tells how radiocarbon has been found in samples that are believed to be from tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. However, the presence of radiocarbon proves that it is actually a question of thousands, not millions of years. If the results are taken as they are, the history of life on Earth is a much more short-term phenomenon than has been assumed. This also destroys the theory of evolution, which is based on periods of millions of years.
However, scientists have not been able to find a single organic remain, which would have reached the lower limits of AMS resolution. Normally, radiocarbon content will be 0,1-0,5 % from the present level, even in samples, which should be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. The issue with old fossils containing radiocarbon has been discussed in the literature since the 1980s. Physicist Paul Giem conducted an extensive survey of the 1980s’ -and 1990s’ scientific literature and found over 70 articles reporting significant amounts of radiocarbon detected in “ancient” organic samples (De Young, p.49). In a partial RATE study, ten coal samples were sent for analysis to one of the world’s best regarded AMS laboratories, which had 20 years of experience in removing exterior 14C contamination from samples. Three of the samples were from the Eocene epoch, another three from the Cretaceous period and the other four from the Carboniferous period. All samples came up with clear concentrations of 14C, and all the concentrations were highly similar (0,12-0,27 % from the present level). The results speak for the young age of these samples and that they are all nearly the same age. This means that the ages are approximately between 40 000 – 50 000 years. (But if we consider the apparent low concentration of radiocarbon compared to the present level, it would seem the real age of these samples might even be a few thousand years.) No one had previously thought of measuring the 14C concentrations in diamonds. It is presented that they were formed between one and three billion years ago inside the earth’s crust, from where explosive volcanic forces have pushed them near the surface. However, the RATE group concluded an agreement with the formerly mentioned AMS laboratory, and radiocarbon concentrations were measured from 12 diamonds. The laboratory was able to detect measurable 14C concentrations in all the diamonds, which led to estimates that the diamonds are less than 58 000 years old. (The diamonds came from Australia, South Africa, Russia, Canada and Brazil.) This is also significant in the sense that the crystal structure of diamonds completely rules out the possibility of exterior contamination. The diamond can, thus, be considered perhaps as the only absolute “closed-system” (10)
Human-related discoveries. It was stated above how radiocarbon has been found in coal samples. Such observations have been made in coal deposits from different parts of the world. The common belief has been that coal was formed 300 million years ago, but the radiocarbon in the samples refutes this. Another indication of the rather young age of the coal deposits are the finds related to people. A gold chain, an iron cauldron, other goods and human fossils have been found in coal deposits "300 million years ago" (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). In his book Time Upside Down (1981), Erich A. von Frange has listed more objects found in coal, which are listed below. If the discoveries are considered according to the evolutionary scale, man should have appeared on Earth 100 to 200 million years before the dinosaurs, since the Carboniferous period is believed to have been so long before the dinosaurs. One discovery of this type – no more is needed – is enough to disprove the theory of evolution and the millions of years it requires.
1. a small steel cube 2. an iron hammer 3. an iron instrument 4. a nail 5. a bell-shaped metal vessel 6. a bell 7. child's jawbone 8. a human skull 9. two human molars 10. a fossilized human foot
DINOSAUR DISCOVERIES. As for dinosaurs, these prehistoric animals are generally placed back 65 million years, when they were thought to have become extinct. It is thought to be impossible that these mythical creatures lived at the same time as humans. If we assume that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, however, we have to reject a lot of material that contradicts the long periods. Such are e.g. the soft tissues of dinosaurs and a few other finds that we study. They refer to short periods, not long periods.
Soft tissues. For example, Yle uutiset [Yle news] reported on December 5, 2007: "Dinosaur muscles and skin were found in the USA." This news is not the only one of its kind, but similar news and observations are numerous. According to one research report, soft tissues have been isolated from about every second dinosaur bone from the Jurassic period (145.5 – 199.6 million years ago) (11). Well-preserved dinosaur fossils are indeed a great puzzle if they are from more than 65 million years ago. The reason is that they contain substances that should not survive in nature for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone millions of years. It has been found e.g. Tyrannosaurus Rex’s leg bone containing red blood cells, blood vessels and proteins such as collagen, albumin, osteocalcin and DNA. These substances should not be present because the microbes very soon break down the soft tissues. Similar soft tissue discoveries have been made in mammoths, but they have also been made in other organisms from a period of 500 million years (evolutionary scale), when the evolution of the animal kingdom is believed to have taken place.
Collagen and other proteins. It has been possible to isolate proteins such as collagen, albumin and osteocalcin from the remains of dinosaurs. Interestingly, these substances are not always found even in animal fossils from modern times. For example, in one mammoth bone sample, which was estimated to be 13,000 years old, all the collagen had already disappeared (Science, 1978, 200, 1275). However, collagen has been isolated from dinosaur fossils. According to the professional journal Biochemist, collagen cannot be preserved even for three million years at the ideal temperature of zero degrees Celsius (12).
DNA. A few news stories have told how DNA has been found in dinosaurs. DNA has been isolated from e.g. About Tyrannosaurus Rex bone material (Helsingin Sanomat 26.9.1994) and dinosaur eggs in China (Helsingin Sanomat 17.3.1995). What makes DNA discoveries difficult for the theory of evolution is that after 10,000 years there should not be any DNA left at all (Nature, 1 Aug, 1991, vol 352). However, like other rapidly decomposing substances, it has been found in dinosaur fossils. If it's about animals that lived millions of years ago, it shouldn't be possible. Related to this topic, Yle uutiset (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13.10.2012) reports that the storage time of DNA is very limited, i.e. its half-life is only 521 years. This shows that it cannot be present in fossils tens of millions of years old. The news stated:
The last limit of DNA preservation was found - dreams of cloning dinosaurs ended
Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. DNA does not survive nearly as long, not even in the ideal conditions, according to a recent study… Enzymes and micro-organism start to break down the DNA of the cells right after an animal dies. However, the primary reason for this is thought to be the reaction caused by water. Because there is groundwater nearly everywhere, DNA should, in theory, decay at a steady rate. To determine this, however, prior to this date we were not able to find large enough amounts of fossils that still had DNA left. Danish and Australian scientists have now solved the mystery, as they received 158 shinbones of the giant Moa bird in their laboratory, and the bones still had genetic material left in them. The bones are 600 – 8000 years old and originate approximately from the same area, thus they have aged in stable conditions.
Not even amber can provide DNA extra time
By comparing the age of the samples and the decay rates of the DNA, scientists were able to calculate a half-life of 521 years. This means that after 521 years half of the nucleotide joints in the DNA have broken apart. After another 521 years this has also happened to half of the remaining joints and so on. Researchers noted that even if the bone rested in an ideal temperature, all the joints would have broken apart no later than after 68 million years. Even after one and a half a million years, DNA becomes unreadable: there is too little information left, because all the essential parts are gone.
Radiocarbon. It was already brought up earlier how radiocarbon has been found in coal deposits, oil wells and also in Cambrian fossils. With the official half-life of radiocarbon being only 5730 years, there shouldn't be any left if these samples are from millions of years ago. The only possibility is that the time of death of organisms was much closer to the present, i.e. thousands, not millions of years away. Same problem is with dinosaurs. In general, dinosaurs have not even been radiocarbon dated, because dinosaur fossils have been considered too old for radiocarbon dating. However, a few measurements have been made and the surprise has been that the radiocarbon still remains. This, like the previous observations, suggests that it cannot be millions of years since these creatures became extinct.
Fossils that are assumed to be very old are not usually carbon-14 dated because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that it has practically all decayed in less than 100,000 years. In August 2012, a group of German researchers reported at a meeting of geophysicists the results of carbon-14 measurements that had been made on many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the results, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! At least at the time of writing, the presentation is available on YouTube. (13) How was the result received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The results are available at http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. The case shows how the naturalistic paradigm affects. It is almost impossible to get results that contradict it published in the scientific community dominated by naturalism. It is more likely that the raisins fly. (14)
Dinosaurs and mammals. When we read biology books and evolution literature, we repeatedly come across the idea of how all life developed from a simple primitive cell to the current forms. The development included that fish had to become frogs, frogs into reptiles, and dinosaurs evolved into mammals in their final stage. However, an important observation is that dinosaur bones have been found among bones resembling horse, cow and sheep bones (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.), so dinosaurs and mammals must have lived at the same time. The following quotation refers to the same. It tells how Carl Werner decided to test Darwin's theory in practice. He did 14 years of research and took thousands of photographs. Studies have shown that mammals and birds lived in abundance and at the same time as dinosaurs:
Without any specific prior knowledge about living fossils, American paramedic doctor Carl Werner decided to put Darwin’s theory under a practical test… He conducted extensive 14-year research on fossils of the dinosaur era and the possible species that might have coexisted with them… Werner familiarized himself with professional paleontology literature and visited 60 natural history museums around the world, where he took 60 000 photographs. He only focused on fossils that were dug up from the same strata, where dinosaur fossils can be found (Triassic -, Jurassic -, and Cretaceous periods 250-65 million years ago). He then compared the thousands of equally old fossils he had found in museums and seen in the literature with current species and interviewed many experts in the field of paleontology and other professionals. His result was that the museums and paleontology-based literature displayed fossils of every group of species that currently exist… We have been told that mammals began to slowly develop during the “prime era” of dinosaurs, that the first mammals were “small shrew-like creatures living in hiding and only moving during the night in fear of the dinosaurs.” In the professional literature, however, Werner discovered reports of squirrels, opossums, beavers, primates and platypuses that had been dug up from dinosaur strata. He also referred to a work published in 2004, according to which 432 mammal creatures have been found in the Triassic -, Jurassic -, and Cretaceous strata, and almost a hundred of them are complete skeletons… In Werner’s video interview the administrator of Utah’s prehistoric museum, Dr Donald Burge, explains: “We find mammal fossils in almost all of our dinosaur excavations. We have ten tons of bentonite clay containing mammal fossils, and we are in a process of giving them to other researchers. Not because we wouldn’t find them important, but because life is short, and I am not specialized in mammals: I have specialized in reptiles and dinosaurs”. Paleontologist Zhe-Xi Luo (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh) stated in Werner’s video interview in May, 2004: “The term ‘dinosaur era’ is misnomer. Mammals constitute a significant group that coexisted with dinosaurs and also survived”. (These comments are from the book: Werner C. Living Fossils, p. 172 –173). (15)
Dinosaurs and humans. In the theory of evolution, it is considered impossible that man lived as early on Earth as dinosaur sets. It is not accepted even though it is known that other mammals were present at the same time as dinosaurs, and although other discoveries even suggest that humans must have existed before dinosaurs (goods and human fossils in carbon layers, etc.). However, in the data of history there are plenty of stories about dragons resembling dinosaurs (the dinosaur designation was not invented until the 1800s). The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) reports these accounts as follows: "The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology." In addition, there are depictions of dragons in old rock paintings, sculptures and paintings. These pictures are very similar to dinosaurs (pictures can be seen on e.g. https://www.biokemia.fi/Dinosauruslegendat.htm.), so the extinction of these large or also small animals cannot be behind millions, but only thousands of years. Even in modern times, animals continue to become extinct. The following quote is related to the topic. The author tells how pictures of dinosaurs have been found, e.g. among the Incas:
Did dinosaurs and humans coexist
An interesting story from Peru. A couple of days ago, a program came out, telling about various unsolved cases that scientists are trying to solve. One of the cases came from Peru, Ica, from the Ica district, where people had found stones in tombs, and these stones were filled with images of currently well-known dinosaurs battling with the Incas and eating, etc. Over 11 000 similar stones have been found. According to official sources the first “dino”-stones were found by a Spanish priest in 1525, and he described the fantastic animals in the Peruvian stones of Ica. This is how some of the stones found their way in Spanish museums and archives. The term dinosaur was officially used in 1841, when the first dinosaur skeletons were officially found. The most interesting part in all this is that the stones of Ica depicted living dinosaurs in different situations, and not just skeletons. Paleontologist Stephen Czerkas published Skin based on the 1993 discovery of a dinosaur’s skin fossil, which allowed scientists to determine the kind of skin surface the herbivore dinosaur had had. Or more specifically, what size and shape had the spines on the skin been and how they had gone along the body. More information at (12/1992, v.20 website 1068) http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/peru-tomb_art.htm#geology Interestingly, the Incas had already known 2000 years before Christ, what kind of skin the herbivore dinosaur had, for example, and they had known many other currently known dinosaur species. Read more about the herbivore dinosaur and the Incas from this link: http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/peru-tomb-rock_art-man-fighting-dipodocus.jpg General view of today considers the story of these stones impossible, but it is also considered impossible that these stones would be fake and intended to mislead paleontologists to determine them as coming from 2000 years before Christ, or that these stones were found before the first official dinosaur discoveries. If the age of these stones is correctly estimated, they tell us that the Incas lived with dinosaurs. From the link below you can find more images of the dino-stones, and the Peruvian geologist (Dr. Don Patton): http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm Furthermore, images of dinosaurs have been found in carvings of ancient temples: http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/_tracks-cambodia.htm (16)
THE FLOOD
- (Gen 7:10) And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were on the earth.
- (Gen 10:1,32) Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and to them were sons born after the flood. 32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood
- (Matt 24:38,39) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
- (2 Peter 3:5,6) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
When it comes to the early stages of the universe and life, there is exactly the same evidence available to both creationists and evolutionists. They have the same fossils and other material on the basis of which they make their conclusions. However, the world view affects how the results are interpreted. Thus, when an evolutionist interprets similar structures, genes or proteins, he considers them as evidence of a common stem form. Instead, a believer in creation considers the same things as evidence of a common designer, the Creator, who has utilized similar structural solutions and prepared organisms for a similar world. Preconceptions therefore affect how the same evidence is interpreted. A good example of preconception is the statement of Jacques Monod - the famous biochemist, Nobel laureate and the person considered to be the creator of modern molecular biology. He admitted that it is absurd to believe that a living cell arose by chance. However, he saw no other option, because he rejected in advance the only reasonable explanation for the origin of life, i.e. God's work of creation:
It is completely illogical to believe a living cell could come about by accident. However, I believe it happened, since I cannot see any other possibilities.
Another good example of preconception is the opinion of perhaps the world's best-known paleontologist, Marxist atheist, Stephen Jay Gould, about the Behemoth mentioned in the book of Job. He admitted that the only animal this description fits is a dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). However, because he thought dinosaurs were extinct millions of years ago, he thought the author of the book of Job had gotten his knowledge of dinosaur skeletons. He did not take into account that the book of Job, one of the oldest in the Bible, speaks of living animals, not the dead.
- (Job 40:10-18) Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox. 16 See now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach to him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
What about the evidence of the Flood? This is the same problem as in the previous issue. Geological deposits and their history can be interpreted in different ways. Today, many evolutionists already admit that catastrophes have influenced the formation of deposits - although they generally believe that everything happened as a result of slow processes. However, due to their preconception, it is impossible for them to admit the alternative that most of the current layers of the earth were created through the Flood. Evolutionary glasses have the effect that they interpret everything in the light of millions of years. Nevertheless, there are many reasons to believe in the historicity of the Flood. Here are some reasons:
• When the folklore contains stories about dragons that resemble dinosaurs, they also tell about the Flood. According to some estimates, there are about half a thousand flood descriptions:
• Many think Noah is nothing more than a legend, but Josephus and Berossus, for example, talk about the remains of Noah’s ark. Furthermore, many other books in the Bible, besides the First Book of Genesis, refer to him several times.
- (1 Moos 6:9-11) These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
- (Isa 54:9) For this is as the waters of Noah to me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with you, nor rebuke you.
- (Eze 14:14) Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, said the Lord GOD.
- (Matt 24:37) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
- (Luke 3:36) Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
- (Hebr 11:7) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
- (1 Peter 3:20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
- (2 Peter 2:5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
• Many television programs may have depicted how the sea has covered areas that are now arid, such as the Sahara. Indeed, many geologists admit that many deposits are of marine origin. J.S. Shelton referred to this strange paradox, and how the vast majority of the continents' surface is covered by marine rocks:
James Hutton, cited as the father of geology, made the same observation already a few centuries ago. In his book, he wrote about how remnants of marine fossils are seen in the earth's deposits:
We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)
• The peaks of the mountains are rich in fossils of marine animals. They are found in the Alps, Andes, Himalayas and other mountain ranges. The following descriptions relate to Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world. The first quote from 1938 tells how the remains of petrified fish can be found at the top of Mount Everest. Another quote refers to the same observation:
In the glaciers of the Himalayas there are bones of oxen and horses. An avalanche of ice that originated on a glacier at an altitude of 5000 metres brought such bones. A large English expedition, reaching almost the top of Mount Everest, discovered petrified fish at these heights lying on the mountain. (18)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…) At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. (19)
• The Flood explains the abundant fossil finds in the soil. Fossils can only be formed by the rapid covering of dead organisms; otherwise they will rot in a few weeks. For example, the presence of dinosaur fossils in the middle of hard rocks (you often need a drill and other sturdy tools to remove them from the rocks) can only be understood in the way that soft mud has covered these animals. After that, the mud has hardened around them like cement. The following description is related to the topic. It tells how dinosaurs are found inside hard rocks, indicating that they must have been covered by soft mud. The mud has then hardened around them. Only in the Flood, but not in the normal cycle of nature, we could expect something like that to happen (the article also refers to how water eddies could have piled up dinosaur bones). Bolds have been added to the text afterwards to make it clearer:
He went to the deserts of South Dakota, where there are brightly colored red, yellow and orange rock walls and boulders. Within a few days he found some bones in the rock wall, which he estimated to be the kind he had set out to find. When he dug rock around the bones, he found that the bones were in the order of the structure of the animal. They weren't in a heap like dinosaur bones often are. Many such heaps were as if made by a powerful whirl of water. Now these bones were in the blue sandstone, which is very hard. The sandstone had to be removed with a grader and removed by blasting. Brown and his sidekicks made a pit almost seven and a half meters deep to get the bones out. Removing one large skeleton took them two summers. They by no means removed the bones from the stone. They transported the boulders by rail to the museum, where the scientists were able to chip the stone material away and set up the skeleton. This tyrant lizard now stands in the exhibition hall of the museum. (s. 72, "Dinosaurus" / Ruth Wheeler ja Harold G. Coffin)
• An indication that most of the strata have been formed over short periods of time – a few days or weeks – is the fact that no erosion has been observed between many of the strata. Layer boundaries may be completely smooth. However, it is impossible for wind, water and rain not to have an effect at all during long periods of time, when even in modern times they shape the landscape and make the surfaces uneven. For example, one heavy downpour can make deep furrows. An indication of how strata can form quickly is also the process that took place in connection with the eruption of the St. Helena volcano in 1980. At that time, almost 200 meters thick soil deposits were formed on top of each other and in just a few weeks. These events did not take millions of years. Similar rapid processes may have occurred during the Flood, and it explains most of the world's strata.
FIND A CONNECTION TO GOD. Above, we have discussed the early stages of the universe and life. It has been established that scientists from a naturalistic view of the earth do not have clear answers to these issues. They have theories, but these theories are contrary to experimental science (the birth of the universe from nothing, the birth of life by itself, etc.) and clumsy attempts to replace God as creator. It makes much more sense to stick to the view that God created all things. Or, as Paul wrote, that by observing the creation, we can discern the existence of the Creator and God. If anyone denies and rejects this, he is in a state of spiritual blindness:
- (Rom 1:19-22) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
How can you find a connection to God? Many may think that this matter should not be considered very seriously, but why shouldn't we? Because if God exists, it is certainly the most important thing to get into His connection and to be assured of His acceptance. It is certainly more important than the acceptance from people. After all, we are dealing with the Creator of the universe. So how do we get in touch with God and how do we get his approval? In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:
We are flawed in ourselves. Firstly, it is important to realize that we cannot receive forgiveness of sins by ourselves. That is because we are not perfect. ”For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). It means that there may be small and large sinners, but still all are sinners and do not meet God's measure:
- (Rom 3:9) Tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
- (Gal 3:22) But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
God Himself has approached us. Although every one of us is flawed and we cannot save ourselves, the good message of the Bible lets us know that God approached us and removed obstacles from between people and Him. God was in His Son Jesus Christ and reconciled the world through Himself as the following verses show. He did what we couldn't. His motive was, and is, His love for people and to give us a chance at salvation:
- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- (1 John 4:10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
- (2 Cor 5:19,20) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be you reconciled to God.
Salvation is also received as a gift without a single act. It is possible because sins have already been atoned for and taken away through Jesus Christ. This is good news for those who have noticed their own imperfections. They can receive everything as a gift without any effort. Moreover, after having received the gift of salvation, they are accepted all the time and they are under the grace of God:
- (Rev 21:6) And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.
- (Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
- (Rom 5:1,2) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Therefore, if you yourself want to receive eternal life and the forgiveness of your sins, consider the following important things:
Turn to God! If you are not in connection with God, it is of course most important that you turn to Him. Do like the prodigal son in Jesus' parable. He did not stay away from his father but turned to him. As a result, the father welcomed him:
- (Luke 15:13,17-20) And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. 17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you, 19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants. 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
Confess your sins! You certainly have sins on your consciousness. Perhaps it is fornication and extramarital affairs (Hebrews 13:4), bitterness, accusations and unforgiveness (Matt 6:14,15), occultism (Genesis 18:10-12), lukewarmness, selfishness, or some other sin. Confess all these sins that come to your mind to God. You don't deserve salvation through them, but it's good to recognize that they don't weigh on your own mind:
- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
- (Prov 28:13) He that covers his sins shall not prosper: but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.
Accept Jesus into your life! The third important thing is to understand that salvation and eternal life are only in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the way, not just a guide. No man can come to God except through Him, not through Buddha, not through Muhammad, not through the Pope, not through the Church – only through Jesus Christ, who’s arrival was prophesized, who lived a sinless life for us, and who took our sins to the cross. (Many understand all these things in theory, but they have never surrendered themselves to God and placed their hope in Jesus Christ alone. God is in their lives as if in a closed compartment). That is why you must turn to Him and receive Him into your life and you will have eternal life. Do not reject Him, but surrender yourself to Him and welcome Him. The following has been written on this topic:
- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
So, if you have turned to Jesus Christ and received Him in your life, you are a child of God and have eternal life. You have the eternal life regardless of what you feel right now. Do not base your assurance of salvation on your ever-changing emotions, but rest in the word of the Bible and on Jesus Christ, just like the anchor of a ship is never thrown inside the ship but always outside.
- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life. 13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The prayer of salvation. Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
References:
1. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. toukokuuta 2004, sit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne 2. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 3. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19 4. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 257 5. Rodney Stark, p. 184 6. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 7. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” in book Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution 8. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: "Puuttuva rengas", p. 46 9. Information from: www.kreationismi.fi 10. Koulubiologian analyysi osa 2 / Evoluutioteorian analyysi, Mikko Tuuliranta 11. Many dino fossils could have soft tissue inside, Oct 28 2010, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue_2.html 12. Nielsen-March, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist 24(3):12-14, June 2002; www.biochemist.org/_bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf 13. http://creation.com/redirect._php?http://www. youtube.com/_watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ 14. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146 15. Mikko Tuuliranta: Koulubiologia jakaa disinformaatiota, kirjassa Usko ja tiede, p. 131,132 16. Keskustelu / Kauppalehti. 5.2.2012, jkorpi 17. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated 18. Raamatullinen aikakauskirja, p. 17 19. Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55
Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
Why has there not been an evolution of man? Did man evolve from ape-like primitives or was he created? Learn how evolutionists ’own discoveries refute the notion of human evolution Imaginary perceptions. People believe that science has proved the birth of the universe and life by itself, as well as the theory of evolution. These perceptions are based on a lie Darwin in the media. The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory Theistic evolution under inspection. Theistic evolution contradicts the Bible. In addition, practical evidence refutes the notion of theistic evolution Conditions for life – coincidence? Fine-tuning in the universe and on earth clearly refers to God’s work of creation. Life is not born by chance Questions about science. If we reject God’s work of creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers How did everything begin? We are repeatedly told about the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies and life itself. Read how deadlocked these views are Is the theory of evolution true? Examples in evolution always refer to variation within basic species and adaptation to conditions. The theory of stem cell to human is nonsense Faith and science. What is science and what is faith?
|
