Questions about science

If we reject creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers

In today's society, people have prejudices against Christianity. They are not interested in it and easily reject it. They have many arguments and ideas that seem wise, which they use to reject any discussion about faith or turning to God. These attitudes and thought patterns are an obstacle to them wanting to get to know the teachings of the Bible more deeply.

The biggest reasons for the previous attitudes are certain theories such as the theory of evolution, liberal theology and the philosophy according to which God has not influenced the early stages of the universe and its history. These theories and ideas have spread through the media to people's minds. When they have been emphasized repeatedly, people have started to take them as truth. They have been adopted uncritically and it has not been taken into account that people can make mistakes.

Next, we will ask some questions and look at some viewpoints that are rarely considered. People do not dig very deeply into these questions and their answers because they hold naturalistic ideologies and prejudices. However, if the various theories and philosophies noted above are true, then people should easily be able to find answers. This should be no problem. If you are a person who believes that the universe came into being by itself, and think that the biblical description of the human race’s origin (Creation) is false, then you should be able to give a good answer to all the questions below. There are more than thirty questions in all.

Why does something exist? The first question concerns the existence of matter and life. Why is there something instead of nothingness? Why is there an inanimate and animate world - the sun, stars, earth, mountains, seas, water, people, lions, mosquitoes, trees, flowers and other things - instead of being nothing? These things require an explanation. We should not take this matter for granted, but should think deeply about it. When there are only two possibilities: something exists or there is nothing, an explanation must be found why the first option is true. This observation is so simple in its rudimentary nature that we are not always even aware of it. We take it for granted, but it is extremely important. It should not be passed over lightly.

The first point, which each of us comprehends before he even starts to think, is that something exists. In other words, all outlooks on life assume that something exists instead of that nothing exists. This presumption is in its primitiveness so elementary that many of us are not even conscious of it. We regard it as too self-evident even to be mentioned. Of course something exists! Indeed, so it does. And that is just the point! If we do not realize this, we will not get anywhere. However, this point may be extremely significant, just as many simple "facts” that are directly under our noses. (1)

Why does the universe have a beginning? Another remarkable thing is the beginning of the universe. Even scientists admit this, because the second law of thermodynamics suggests that celestial bodies could not have radiated forever. The fact that the sun and stars are still radiating and giving off energy points to their beginning. There must have been a certain moment when these celestial bodies began to act.

Therefore, a good question is, why does the universe have a beginning and what caused it? This is difficult to explain through materialistic philosophy.

William Jevons (an English philosopher in the 1870s): We cannot trace the heat history of the universe too far into the past. At some point, we will get impossible results referring to such heat distributions, which cannot, according to the laws of nature, come from any preceding distribution. (...) The theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time. (John D. Barrow:Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 36, 37)

Why is there complexity and beauty? When the question was raised above, why something exists, it is also necessary to explain why there is beauty and complexity in nature. Why isn't the earth filled with some simple mass of cells instead of the complex and beautiful structures we can see around us? Creation is an easy explanation for them, chance is not.

The same thing appears in the speeches of the famous philosopher Socrates and Darwin. Both understood that the senses are complex and that their development by itself seems irrational. However, only Socrates drew the right conclusion and understood the influence of the designer:

Darwin: The presumption that the eye with all its inimitable structures that focus images at different distances, regulate the amount of light, fix spherical and chromatic aberration (color aberration) could have been formed as a consequence of natural selection is, I do admit openly, absurd to a great extent. (...) The idea of an organ like the eye forming through natural selection is more than enough to confuse anyone. (2)

Socrates: Do you think that he, who in the beginning of time made men, gave them senses for their benefit, eyes to see what there is to see, ears to hear what to hear. - - Don't you think it also shows consideration that the eyes are closed with lids like doors that open when the eyes are needed. They close in sleep, and so that the winds don't damage them, lashes were put on them like sieves. The eyebrows are like an eave so that sweat falling from the head won’t injure eyes. Besides, the ear catches all sounds but never becomes filled. (...) - - When everything is planned like this, I ask again, is it the result of chance or consideration? (3)

How can the current universe be born of the space the size of a pinhead? The most common explanation of how everything started is the big bang, which is a theory that all matter was concentrated into a space the size of a pinhead, and the current universe exploded from this space. However, we might ask, how could the billions of galaxies, the Sun, the planets, oceans, mountains, mosquitoes, huge trees, humans, fish, apples, strawberries, crocodiles, cheetahs, beautiful flowers, birds and everything else in our surroundings have come into being from something the size of a pinpoint? It is a great wonder if these things have arisen by themselves from a single point. How many actually believes that a “pinhead” could transform into the universe and into living beings by itself?

Where did thought, intellect, consciousness, movement, speech, hearing, smell, taste, touch, sight, fatigue, hunger, irritability, cheerfulness, love, infatuation, lust, humor, sexuality and genitals originate? If life originated from some rock or inanimate matter, it is difficult to explain these things. Instead, if there is a living and personal God behind everything, it explains the existence of these features.

How did life begin? If the origin of life by itself was possible, why has this problem not been solved in the last hundred years? The more information has accumulated, the more difficult it has become to find a solution. There is a huge gap between living and non-living matter.

Let's look at a quote related to Stanley Miller. He is a man who has become famous for experiments related to the origin of life. He was interviewed shortly before he died by J. Morgan. Morgan described Miller’s response to questions:

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (4)

How was hydrogen gas able to condense into celestial bodies? If there was only hydrogen gas to begin with, how was it able to condense into celestial bodies? It is known from physics that a gas always fills as much space as it is given. Therefore, it would spread and escape deeper into space and celestial bodies could not form. Several scientists admit that this is problematic.

An even bigger problem is how could the same hydrogen gas turn into living beings that can laugh, cry and feel other emotions? Has the same thing been observed now, that hydrogen gas turns itself into living beings? Such an assumption is not in accordance with common sense and one doesn’t need a university degree to understand the irrationality of it.

Why is the formation of galaxies not observed? There are many problems related to the early stages of the universe, and one of them is the birth of galaxies. How did they come about, since there is no definite evidence or observation? Astronomers have acknowledged that this is one of the unsolved problems in astrophysics. For example, Steven Weinberg has taken a stand on the subject:

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)

Where did the rotating and circulating motion come from if there was only the centrifugal motion generated by the Big Bang at first? What brought about these new directions of motion, because no rotating or circulating motion begins unless it is first acted upon by some force? If the Big Bang had happened, it would not have brought about these new directions of movement.

Why is the composition of the Sun and the planets different? A theory has been put forward that the solar system arose from one and the same gas cloud. But the problem is that the composition of the planets in comparison with each other and the Sun is completely different. They have different elements. Also, the moons that orbit the planets have a completely different composition than the Sun and the planets. What are the reasons for these differences, or is it the case that they did not come from the same gas cloud, but were created by God?

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, 6^th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

What was the composition of the early atmosphere? The most common theory about the early atmosphere has been that it had hydrogen, ammonia and methane, but no free oxygen. This is in contrast to today's atmosphere, which is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, and 1% other gases.

A good question is, what has changed the atmosphere so radically that it changed into something almost completely opposite? On the other hand, practical observations do not support the idea of an oxygen-free primordial atmosphere. The Precambrian rocks, which are considered the oldest, contain oxidized iron minerals, so free oxygen must have been present then.

"There is one problem related to the studies of the early Precambrian age. On one hand, it is admitted that there was no gaseous oxygen in the beginning and that life started in such an environment. On the other hand, many Precambrian rocks, including the oldest known layers, include oxygenated iron minerals. Therefore, at the time they were formed, there was free oxygen. Where did it come from?" (p. 115, Jim Brooks Näin alkoi elämä / Origins of Life)

How did eukaryotic cells come into being? There are eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, the former being cells with a distinct nucleus and the latter cells having no distinct nucleus. The difference between these two cell types is huge: eukaryotes are much more complex and almost a thousand times larger in terms of volume than prokaryotes.

The question is, where are the intermediate forms between these two cell types? They should be present in fossil records, as well as in current day organisms, but why haven’t we found them? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that God created all the species, and therefore intermediate forms between these two cell types and no other groups have been found.

Even though the evidence supports the idea of the eukaryotes evolving from the prokaryotes, the differences between these two groups are so large that it seems that something other than just time and mutations would have been needed for a simple prokaryote to evolve into a complex eukaryote. (John Reader: Alkumerestä maalle, p.36 / The Rise of Life)

How were multicellulars organisms come about? The birth of multicellulars is a mystery. It has not been solved, and intermediate forms between uni -and multicellulars have not been found. This clearly indicates that species have been separate from the beginning. It is indicative of creation rather than gradual development.

What conclusions can be drawn from the possible relationship between monocellulars (Protozoa) and multicellular (Metazoa) organisms? The only fact is that we are not familiar with the relationship. Almost all possible (as well as many impossible) relationships have been proposed, but the information available to us is insufficient to justify drawing any scientific conclusion about such a relationship. If we please, we may believe that one of these theories is more correct than the others, but we do not have any real evidence. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, p. 49)

How did complex organs such as breathing and blood circulation, hands, feet, senses, reproductive organs and digestive organs arise? If these body parts were not immediately ready, it would have resulted in a quick death. The perfect functioning of these organs can only be understood through God's work of creation. Half developed organs, required by evolution theory, wouldn’t work.

Why have dinosaur bones been found among bones that are very similar to those of horses, cows and sheep, even though mammals are thought to have inhabited the earth long after dinosaurs? (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.) And why dinosaur fossils are often in good condition – they can contain unfossiliferous bone, soft tissues and remnants of blood cells, proteins and DNA. It shouldn't be possible if the fossils are tens of millions of years old. And why do almost all nations have stories about dragons that closely resemble dinosaurs?

One interesting comment comes from the late respected fossil scientist Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that when the book of Job speaks of Behemoth, the only animal that fits this description is a dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist, he believed that the author of the book of Job must have obtained his knowledge from fossils found. However, this one of the oldest books in the Bible clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you …).

Why does the written history of the human race extend only around 4,000 or 5,000 years in the past? If humans have inhabited the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, why did writing, ceramics, agriculture, buildings, etc. enter the picture only around 4,000 or 5,000 years ago? These time estimates fit well within the Bible description of the early human history, but they are contradictory with the notion of humans having inhabited the earth for hundreds of thousands of years.

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, 6th volume, p. 12)

In the recent excavations, the most surprising thing has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the diggers would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28)

Why has the Earth become inhabited only in the last centuries, and not 100, 000 years ago? For example, 500 years ago the population of North/South America and Australia was around a hundredth of the current population. This suggests that the human race could not have come into being very many millennia ago, as the Bible indicates. The fact that our current population size can be reached in one thousand years, also indicates that tens of thousands of years cannot be true.

Why does radioactive dating give the same age for top and bottom strata? Radioactive measurements are characterized by contradictions. One example is when measurements may have given nearly fresh lava rocks ages of hundreds of millions or millions of years. It cannot be possible with new stones.

The following examples are related to radioactive measurements made in the Grand Canyon. It is generally thought that its deposits have been piled up on top of each other as a result of processes of hundreds of millions of years, but if the scientists' own measurements are used as support, they contradict it. According to some measurements, all the deposits in the Grand Canyon are the same age. According to some measurements, the uppermost, or young, layers are even "270 million years" older than the old layers below. What causes such differences? At the very least, they show that radioactivity measurements are unreliable. On the other hand, they show that the Canyon deposits considered old are not necessarily that much older than the deposits considered young. Most likely, these deposits were formed in one catastrophe, i.e. the flood mentioned in the Bible.

Dr. Steve Austin has made extensive measurements of lava-derived rocks in the Colorado Canyon (Austin, S.A., ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, pp. 111-131, 1994) and has shown that the P-Ar method gives far too long ages from very young stratifications, which are of the same order as the results obtained from very old stratifications. (5)

The lava rock created in the volcanic eruption on Hualalai Island about 170 years ago was studied and its age was determined using new methods. With these "reliable" radiation meters, the age of the 170-year-old rock was estimated to be millions of years, from 160 million to 3 billion years. The same has happened in other similar measurements. Attempts were also made to measure the age of the layers of the Grand Canyon using these mentioned new methods. The results again surprised the researchers. The "young" basalt rock of the uppermost layers was 270 million years older than the "thousands of millions of years old rock layer" at the bottom of the canyon. After these measurements, the time estimates previously given by evolutionists for the rocks and deposits in the canyon have been partially transferred to the "old beliefs". (6)

Why has radiocarbon been found in "ancient" strata and fossils? Radiocarbon, whose half life is only about 5,730 years, has repeatedly been found in coal, peat, natural gas and crude oil deposits, and even in fossils of the Cambrian period (which is assumed to have started 600 million years ago). What do such finds point to? At least they show that the deposits and fossils cannot be even 100,000 years old.

In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (7)

Another piece of evidence showing that dating methods are contradictory is that rocks taken from the earth have been dated as tens- or hundreds of millions of years old but a fossil that was found right next to the rocks was dated using the C-14 method as only a couple of millennia old. Such discrepancies should not occur if the methods were reliable. It is also clear that the C-14 method produces results that are closer to the truth because no radiocarbon could be present after 100,000 years – its half life is only about 5,730 years.

We have published detailed reports in which a tree found in a "250 million years old" sandstone or in a volcanic rock "tens of millions of years old" received only thousands of years in radiocarbon age determination. When... Geologists take samples of volcanic rock, which is known to have erupted from a volcano in historical times, and send them to prestigious radiometric age determination laboratories, the "age determination" almost invariably gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions underlying the age determination are incorrect. (8)

Why have fossils of trilobites - supposed to have become extinct "230 million" years ago - been found under human sandal prints? These types of finds show that humans and trilobites lived at the same time.’

William Meister made an amazing discovery on June 1, 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils in a fossilized human sandal print! But according to evolutionary periods, arranged on the basis of geological strata, trilobites became extinct about 230 million years before man appeared!

… Geologist Dr. Clifford Burdick found further evidence to support the hypothesis of human and trilobite coexistence. He found the footprints of a barefoot child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (9)

Why have fossils of ordinary birds been found in older strata than fossils of a lizard bird (Archaeopteryx), even though the order should be the opposite according to the theory of evolution? Furthermore, an ancient Mayan relief depicts a bird that resembles the lizard bird Archeopteryx, a bird that is thought to have lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Such findings suggest the lizard bird cannot have been the ancestor of Birds and, most likely, it has lived at the same time as humans.

Furthermore, an ancient relief by the Mayas has been found that resembles the lizard bird or Archaeopteryx. This means that there is an error of 130 million years in the dating. If the geological series of layers were correct, these two – the Mayas and the Archaeopteryx – could never have met. It is evident that the geological series of layers is wrong. (10)

Why do long tree trunk fossils pierce multiple soil layers? According to the usual understanding the strata have formed over a period of millions of years. However, long tree-trunk fossils piercing several strata show that the strata must have been formed quickly, in just a few weeks. Otherwise, tree trunk fossils could not exist, because normally they rot before fossilization takes place.

Many signs refer to several overlapping strata being formed as a consequence of a continuous and world-wide process, since the fossils of many plants and large animals pass vertically through several different strata, without there being signs of thousands of years of exposure to erosion at their upper or lower ends. Therefore, a tree trunk has remained in an upright position in the middle of quickly accumulating layers of sediment. Large dinosaurs have also been found in similar positions. A 24-metre-tall tree trunk going through more than ten layers was found near Edinburgh, and everything indicated that the trunk had been quickly carried in place. Neither have any signs indicating erosion between various geological periods been found between the different strata. (11)

Why are the Precambrian and Cambrian strata the uppermost? The Precambrian and Cambrian strata, which should contain the simplest forms of life, are located at the top of the earth in many areas. For example, ammonites and other early marine fossils have been found on high mountain slopes. According to the evolutionary view, they should not be in such places. A good question is, why are the ancient Sea Animals high up in the mountains? Surely the best explanation is that these organisms are not hundreds of millions of years old and that the sea has covered these areas, as the Bible says happened in the Flood.

Why are the series of layers deficient? One idea is that there are complete Geological strata all around the world, a series of layers in which the layers of the Geological time scale are exactly on top of each other. However, it is rare if even 3-4 layers are on top of each other. The Grand Canyon is often used as an example, and even there only five of the twelve (or thirteen) most important strata have been found. What does this say? At least it indicates that the geological layer series with its millions of years is only real on paper and in people's imagination. In nature, no decent evidence of this series of layers is observed.

Why have human footprints been found in rocks that are “250 million years old” in, for example Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky and other states of the United States? Such finds cannot be possible if the geological time scale is accurate. Furthermore, a gold chain, an iron pot and other man-made items and human fossils have been found in mineral coal strata. (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115–116; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, pp. 36–39.) These finds prove that humans must have lived 250–300 millions years ago or the periods in question occurred only a couple of thousand years ago.

Why aren't intermediate forms found in nature, as well as new, newly emerging senses, hands, feet, or other beginnings of body parts? Even Darwin noted that nature consists of clearly definable species. If we draw conclusions from what fossils and modern species tell us, the gradual development of Darwin's theory cannot be true.

The greatest mystery of the fossil materials is that we have not found any clear factor that takes evolution forward in the history of life. (…) We have set the finds in order based on our wishes, but this order cannot actually be found in the real world. (Stephen J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment. Natural History, vol. 93, Feb. 1984, p.23)

It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)

No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla... The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been same since the beginning... Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types... This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only... If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)

Why have fossils of marine animals and plants been found in all the tall mountain ranges (the Himalaya, the Alps, the Andes, the Ural Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, the Altai Mountains, etc.)? Darwin found the remains of a whale in the mountainous part of Peru, and marine fossils have been found even on top of the Himalaya. What is all this about? It is a clear indication that these places have been covered by the sea. The best explanation for it is the Flood mentioned in the Bible.

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. (Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55)

There is a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. They are often badly damaged but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237, Pentti Eskola, Muuttuva maa)

Why are dinosaur fossils found inside hard rocks? How could these great animals have gone there? The only possibility is that soft mud has come around them, covered them, and then the same mud has hardened into hard rock. Otherwise, no fossils could have remained of these large animals. The same goes for other fossils that exist. Soft mud must have covered them quickly. In the Flood, this may have happened.

Why do animals not build houses, fly an airplane, drive a car, write letters, engage in farming, read newspapers or use technical solutions that are characteristic of man? Why is man radically different from the rest of creation if everything originates from the Big Bang or from one and the same primordial cell? Or is the Bible's teaching that man was originally created in God's image, and therefore he is able to do the previous things, more truthful?

- (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Why are stories about the Fall, the Flood, the mixing of languages, the Tower of Babel and the Creation commonly found around the world? For example, a story of the Miao tribe says that woman was made from man, as the Bible explains. The same story also describes how the land started to fill up with tribes and peoples:

On the earth He made a man from mud. From a man thus created He formed a wife. Then the patriarch Loka made a scale out of stones, estimating the weight of the earth to the bottom, calculating the mass of the heavenly bodies, meditating on the ways of the deity, God. To patriarch Loka was born patriarch Se-teh. To patriarch Se-teh was born son Lusu, and Lusu had Kehlo and to him was born Lama. To patriarch Lama was born the man Nuah. His wife's name was ancestress Kau Po-lu-en. Their sons were: Lo-Han, Lo-Shen and Jah-hu. Like this the earth started to fill with tribes and families. In creation the families and nations were formed. (12)

Why are there several theories about the origin of the Ice Age, but clear flaws can be shown in all of them? Theories cannot explain the sudden and long-term cooling of summers by 10-20 degrees and how it could have snowed more in winter than it does now. If the winters were colder than now, like the summers, the rainfall would have radically decreased because moisture could not have evaporated from the seas because of the ice cover. It is a well-known fact that it rarely snows when the temperature is freezing.

A more likely explanation for the features that have been interpreted as Ice Age is the Flood. Cuneiform inscriptions and people's traditions tell about it, but the Ice Age is an unknown thing in these stories.

REFERENCES:

1. James W. Sire: Missä maailmassa? (The Universe Next Door. A Basic World View Catalog), p. 14

2. Shute, E., "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution", Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey, 1961, pp. 127-128

3. Ksenofon: Sokrates (1985, Helsinki, Otava), s. 30

4. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

5. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 300

6. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 102

7. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92

8. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34

9. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus [The Collapse of Evolution], p. 25

10. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus [The Collapse of Evolution], p. 25

11. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, p. 121

12. E.V. Koskinen: Alusta loppuun, p. 12