1. Theistic evolution and the Bible

Contradictions with the Bible. When we study theistic evolution, we find numerous contradictions in it with the Bible. Many supporters of this view may hold the Bible as the word of God and value it, but the problem is that the Bible does not support their views. Contradictions arise in the following aspects:

Man was at the beginning of creation. In theistic evolution, as in atheistic evolution, it is assumed that man appeared on the earth late, i.e. after millions of years of development. It is assumed that there were long evolutionary processes before that, which finally made it possible for modern humans to appear on Earth (The so-called gap theory, in which a period of millions of years is placed between the first and second verses of the Book of Genesis, is a similar type of theory.).

    Jesus taught otherwise, and here is the first major conflict between the Bible and theistic evolution. Jesus taught that man was created at the beginning of creation, not later. If he is the Son of God who created everything (John 1:3, Col 1:16), you would think he would know about it. Many modern teachers thus claim Jesus as a liar or ignorant. Are they wiser and more right than Jesus?

- (Matt 19:4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female

- (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Man is fully developed from the beginning. Another difference between theistic evolution and the Bible is that according to theistic evolution man was not fully developed in creation, but instead became a man through long evolutionary processes. Whereas, the Bible teaches the creation of man happened in an instant, and that he was not any more primitive than the modern human, because he was fully developed. Man could talk, make music and different objects, and he named all the animals, which demonstrated his difference to the rest of the creations.

   The same difference exists today. Animals do not have the ability to speak, they do not know how to make objects and they do not have the same level of intelligence as humans. A physical and mental gap separates man from other living beings.

- (Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

- (Gen 2:20) And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

- (Gen 4:20-22) And Adah bore Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

22 And Zillah, she also bore Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

Creation has ended. Theistic evolution presumes that creation has lasted for millions of years. In fact, it should still be ongoing if we follow this logic. However, according to the Bible, creation has already ended:

- (Gen 2:1-3) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

Famous atheist Richard Dawkins referred to this, when he talked to theistic evolutionists. He stated that it would be odd if God existed and He had created everything through million-year processes. Dawkins is not wrong with his comment:

I think it's about doing things through a bend. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be a bit strange that He should choose the rare indirect way of waiting 10 billion years before life can begin and then waiting another 4 billion years before we get humans who are able to Worship God and do sin and all the other things religious people are interested in. (1)

The origin of sin and death. One of the biggest contradictions between theistic evolution and the Bible is the origin and timing of sin, death and disease. In theistic evolution, it is assumed that there was death and disease in the world before man and the fall of Adam, even millions of years. Instead, the teaching of the Bible is that they came into the world only through the fall of Adam. It is clear that these views are completely contradictory, and that only one of them can be the right one.

    The Bible's position comes out well in the following words of Paul. He teaches that death came into the world only through the fall of Adam, not before. Proponents of theistic evolution claim these verses are false:

- (Rom 5:12,17) Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

- (1 Cor 15:16,20-22) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

The other verses continue with the same theme. They teach that it was only through the fall of Adam that the curse and as a result sickness, death and other harmful things came into the world - not e.g. millions of years before that. The world, which God had made good (Gen 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good…), was subject to corruption, as shown in the Romans. The good news, however, is that the things that came through the fall of Adam will be removed finally in the coming kingdom of God. Then there will be no more curse, sickness, death or sorrow, because all the former things have passed away:

- (Gen 3:17) And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life;

- (Rom 8:20-22) For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.

- (Rev 22:1-3) And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2 In the middle of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bore twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:

- (Rev 21:3,4) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

How inconsistent it is to defend the theory of evolution, millions of years, and at the same time think that the Christian faith is true, is evident from the following speech. The speaker is an atheist, who sees that the basis for the whole life and death of Jesus were foreseen in the life of Adam and in the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve. If there is no original sin that came through Adam, who needs to be redeemed? If the fall of Adam was not real, but there was sickness and death in the world before that, what is the significance of the teaching of the Bible about the first and second Adam and the atoning work of Jesus? These two things would be false and can be dismissed as useless. Another option is that adherents of theistic evolution have gone astray on this issue.

Christianity is—it must be—fully committed to that particular creation described in the first book of Moses. Christianity must fight with all its might, for better or for worse, against the theory of evolution... It has become clear that the very foundation of the life and death of Jesus is foretold in the life of Adam, as well as in the forbidden fruit that Adam and Eve ate. Without original sin, who needs to be redeemed? If Adam had not fallen into sin and sin was thus not constantly present until death, what purpose would Christianity have? Nothing. (2)

Another atheist continues on the same topic. If Adam and Eve were not real people and if there was no real original sin, the foundation of Christianity is destroyed. Then there is no need for salvation and a savior. It makes Jesus and His work unnecessary.

    This atheist is absolutely right. If we don’t acknowledge Adam and Eve as the first humans on earth, as presumed in theistic evolution, the atonement of Jesus would become questionable.

However, the most destructive thing that biology did to Christianity was the discovery of … evolution. Now that we know that Adam and Eve were never real people, a central Christian myth is destroyed.

    If there was never an Adam and Eve, there was never real original sin. If there was never original sin, there is no need for salvation. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for a savior. And I think this puts Jesus, historical or not, among the unemployed. (3)

Some theistic evolutionists might acknowledge the historicalness of Adam and Eve. The problem is, however, that they are unable to specify when they appeared on the planet and at which evolutionary stage. Were they ape-like, as supposed in the evolutionary theory, or were they like modern humans? These are the kinds of questions we are faced with if attempt to combine the Bible narration with evolution.

Question about real days. Theistic evolution assumes that God has been working through evolution for millions of years. One consequence of this is that creation days are also considered longer than normal days, e.g. periods of thousands or millions of years. For its support, e.g. verse 2 Peter 3:8 has been used:  But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

    So what about the validity of this view? Can the days of creation be longer than a normal day? Among other things, the following points are against this view:

• A good indication that creation is about ordinary days is the mention in the book of Exodus. It says that God made everything in six days and rested on the seventh. In the same way, a person should work for six days and rest on the seventh day.

    So it is a question of a one-week period that concerned both God and man. God could have done everything much faster, but through the work of creation he set a model for man regarding work and rest:

- (Ex 20:9-11) Six days shall you labor, and do all your work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: why the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

What is more, a seven-day-week is recognized all around the world among all different cultures. It shows that it is shared heritage of the whole mankind. God created everything in seven days and the first humans were aware of it:

We can find from time immemorial the knowledge of the seven-day week in the consciousness of all peoples - among the Ethiopians, the Arabs, the Indians - in a word, all the peoples of the East have at all times used this seven-day week, which is difficult to explain without admitting that this knowledge was received from the common ancestors of mankind. (4)

• Another reason to be critical of the view that days in Genesis are long periods of time is that a normal Bible reading does not lead to it. If the text is taken as it is, and a person is reading the Bible for the first time, he cannot come to any other conclusion than that the Bible speaks of normal days. James Barr, a famous professor of Hebrew and Bible interpretation at the University of Oxford, wrote in a personal letter (23.4.1984) on the same subject:

As far as I know, there is no world-class university professor of Hebrew or Old Testament who does not believe that the author(s) of Genesis chapters 1-11 intended to express to readers the following thoughts: (A) Creation lasted for six days and those days were equal to our 24 hour days. (B) Genealogical records from the First Book of Genesis give us a simple chronology from the beginning of the world to later events in the Bible. (C) The Flood was a global event that destroyed all people and animals, except the ones on the Ark.

 • When Peter says that ”that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”, it is not about creation, as some supporters of theistic evolution might think. Instead, we can deduce

from this piece of text that God is not bound to time. For Him thousands of years are equal to short time periods. I believe this is the original meaning of the text.

• When we try to combine evolution with the First Book of Genesis, the sequence of events will pose a problem. One such problem is the creation of plants on the third day and creation of the Sun on the fourth day. In other words, if creation days lasted for millions or thousands of years, the plants would have had to survive without the Sun for quite a long time. It certainly wouldn’t have worked out.

• When the theistic theory of evolution contradicts the Bible, it also contradicts the usual theory of evolution. The reason for this is simple: in ordinary theory of evolution, it has always been assumed that evolution is an unguided process. If it was directed by God, meaning that God created everything through evolution, as believed by supporters of theistic evolution, the whole premise of evolution would change. If evolution were indeed true, these two opposing views could not be valid at the same time. Those who advocate theistic evolution do not take this into account.

2. Beginning, evolution and millions of years under inspection

In the previous paragraphs, it was stated how theistic evolution contradicts both the words of Jesus and the book of Genesis. That is, if the text of the Bible is taken as it is, there is no mention of an evolutionary process lasting millions of years from a simple primordial cell, or that God created through evolution. On the contrary, we are told that the species were created immediately ready-made and that man was already involved in the initial stages of creation. Anyone who reads the text as it is and not through evolutionary glasses comes to this conclusion. Evolutionary glasses can distort us from understanding the clear texts of the Bible.

    In order to get to the bottom of the matter, we will next look at the matter specifically from the point of view of how reliable are the naturalistic conceptions of the early stages of the universe, life and man, as well as millions of years - that is, conceptions that the supporters of theistic evolution have also adopted and added to them according to God. In the background of the studies is Eero Junkkaala's book on theistic evolution, Alussa Jumala loi. We go through this book several times. We start our study with the Big Bang.

The idea of the big bang. People who support theistic evolution usually believe in the big bang theory. This is also the case in Eero Junkkaala's book on theistic evolution, Alussa Jumala loi.

    In this theory, it is assumed that before the explosion in question there was nothing at all: no matter, no time and no space, but everything started in the blink of an eye approx. 13.8 billion years ago. Naturalists assume it all happened by itself, whereas theistic evolutionists believe it happened through God. Eero Junkkaala’s book (p. 81,89) explains:

According to our faith God created the world. Science, in layman’s terms, talks about the Big Bang… Our universe appears to be 13,8 billion years old. Early universe was rather small, dense, and its temperatures were extreme.

If you think about the big bang theory only from a naturalistic point of view, there are numerous problems and inconsistencies in it. The following aspects should be taken into consideration:

Contrary to practical observations. In the big bang theory, it is assumed that the universe appeared from nothing, because before this explosion there was nothing at all, neither matter nor space. Everything is believed to have started from a small point with a volume of zero.

    However, practical observations are against this naturalistic theory. If the universe started from nothing, why don't other things like boulders, cars or airplanes appear from nothing by themselves? Why don't we see other things popping up in the same way? Why would only the universe be an exception? It is a logical contradiction and a denial of clear laws of nature. There is no practical evidence supporting the possibility that the Big Bang happened. If we accept this theory, we are forced to abandon all common sense. 

Everything from a tiny point? As for the universe and life in it, materialists believe that everything appeared by itself out of nothing. As stated, they believe this happened in the so-called in the big bang, where the entire current universe and life were born from nothing or a space the size of a point. Proponents of theistic evolution believe in the same theory, except they attach God to it.

    What about the validity of the big bang theory? It could be compared to someone taking a matchbox (it's much bigger than a tiny point) and then saying that all kinds of things come out of it. He claims that it is a scientific fact and should not be doubted because all reasonable scientists believe in it. So, according to his words, it is possible that much larger and more complex things can come out of the matchbox, such as:

• Cow and the grass it eats

• Fast cheetahs also appear from the same matchbox or emptiness

• Roaring lions

• Birds that can fly and sing

• Mosquitoes for the birds to eat

• Fish and the ocean around them also originate from this tiny box

• Beautiful scented flowers and tall trees also come from the very same box

• Billions of galaxies, stars and planets appeared from the box as well

• The Sun that gives us warmth and light

• Humans that have the ability to speak and have feelings: cry, laugh, get angry, be afraid, mourn, feel infatuation and fall in love

• Tasty strawberries, bananas, blueberries, peas, grapes and nuts. They too are believed to have appeared from the same matchbox

Can the previous theory be doubted? You certainly can. It is the greatest miracle in the world if all the previous and surrounding things have arisen by themselves from a space the size of a box or a pinhead, which is many times smaller than them. It is a complete impossibility and against logic, because mere non-existence cannot cause its existence. Something must first exist before something can come into being. We are certainly not acting stupidly if we doubt a theory like the previous one. This is not a scientific fact, but a naturalistic theory of imagination, which many proponents of theistic evolution have also adopted.

Criticism of the big bang theory. The big bang theory can be considered a substitute for the creation story. When you don't accept God's work of creation, you have to somehow try to explain how everything got started. That is why this theory and other naturalistic theories about the early stages of the universe and life have arisen.

    However, many scientists have criticized the big bang theory. Fred Hoyle thought the whole theory wrong. Regarding the background radiation of space, which has been considered as another evidence of the Big Bang (about 2.7 degree background radiation), he stated that it could be any number between 2.7 and 27 degrees. He did not consider background radiation as credible evidence of the Big Bang. It is said about him:

Fred Hoyle, who died in 2001, was convinced to his death that quasi-steady-state model is accurate, and the Big Bang model is wrong. He wrote in his autobiography: "Many proponents of Big Bang cosmology dare to claim that they have found just the right theory, but I think such a claim verges on arrogance. If I myself have fallen into this trap, I have been momentarily in the power of hybris, and punishment has inevitably come." (Simon Singh: Big Bang, p. 423)

There are some other scientists who have also criticized the theory. Physicist Eric Lerner stated that “The Big Bang is merely an interesting fable, which is upheld for a certain cause” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991). Nobelist Hannes Alfven wrote about this topic as well. He states how several observations contradict the Big Bang theory:

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)

Redshift in review. There are numerous problems with the big bang theory. If we assume that the hydrogen or helium gas created as a result of the Big Bang can form itself into fish, chirping birds, people, the sea, rocks, trees or beautiful flowers, it is a rejection of common sense. Certainly, none of them would form by themselves from some gas - after all, nothing like that is observed happening now.

    Another problem is that we don't see galaxies receding from us. Indirect redshift observations of celestial bodies are used to support it, but in practice we do not see galaxies moving away, as Steven Weinberg states in the following quote. He also takes a stand on redshift observations, which have been considered as evidence of an explosion. It is difficult to explain e.g. why neighboring galaxies have completely different values, why there are also blue-shifted celestial bodies, or why the redshift of some celestial bodies is sometimes higher, sometimes lower. Due to these reasons, it has been suggested that the redshifts are related, for example, to the internal reactions of celestial bodies and not to their escape motion.

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)

The birth of galaxies is another phenomenon that is assumed to have taken place after the Big Bang. Eero Junkkaala’s book addressing theistic evolution says that galaxies are still being born by condensation, like stars (the Sun is also a star).

The majority of stars, our Sun included, were born from the remains of older stars. Our Solar System is approximately 9 billion years old and our Earth around 4,5 billion years old. There are still stars that are being born due to condensation of gas clouds in space; the same goes for new galaxies. (5)

Numerous scientists disagree on the origin of galaxies. The reason is simple: galaxies have not been observed to form in modern times, and it is not known how they were formed in the past. The origin of the largest entities in the universe is still an enigma. The best explanation for their origin is God's sudden creation, but when it is not accepted, it will surely remain a mystery to these scientists.

    What about the birth of stars from the gas clouds of space? That, too, is a weakly proven thing. There is not much certainty as to whether some fog clouds are accumulating or dissipating. People are usually not old enough to observe these movements very far. Thus, it is possible that if we think we see a new star, it may simply be that the same star has been hidden from view all along behind a cloud of fog, but now only emerges, e.g. due to the rotation of the celestial bodies or the movement of the nebula. It doesn't have to be the birth of a new star, but only the "appearance" of a star.

    On the other hand, if the formation of galaxies and stars is so simple, then where is the evidence for their formation? When it has been assumed that there are about a hundred billion galaxies in the sky, each of which would have a hundred billion stars, and if this is divided by 10 billion (the assumed age of the universe has been 10-15 billion years), it would mean that every year 10 new galaxies should be born and 1000 billion new stars! Such a number of new stars and galaxies should surely be detected somehow, but why aren't we? The following comments show how the formation of galaxies and stars is a problem for scientists:

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 rather embarrassing that no one has explained how they (galaxies) came about... Most astronomers and cosmologists openly admit that there is no satisfactory theory of how galaxies are formed. In other words, a central feature of the universe is unexplained. (W.R. Corliss: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, p. 184, Sourcebook Project, 1987)

The scary thing here is that if none of us knew beforehand that stars exists, the frontline research would provide many convincing reasons as to why stars could never be born. (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007)

Abraham Loeb: “The truth is that we don’t understand the formation of stars on a fundamental level.” (Cited from Marcus Chown’s article Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)

The birth of the Solar System. Eero Junkkaala's book highlights the view that the current solar system with its planets originated from an earlier generation of stars about 4.6 billion years ago. The book says:

The planets and the sun condensed from a vast rotating cloud of gas and dust. This, in turn, was caused by the death of another star. After a couple of million years, the contracting cloud began to develop into the early sun. Over the next millions of years, carbon, rock, ice and other material combinations began to form planets. (6) 

It is impossible to prove the previous claim. For example, the animations that have been made of the birth of the solar system are based more on imagination than on what is known, because no modern human was watching and seeing these events. It is not a question of scientific observations and factual information, but of mere guesses that one has to resort to. It is purely a mindset of believing that the Solar System and its planets must have formed in this manner, in the same way as someone else might believe that they were created by God. We cannot prove either one of these beliefs afterwards.

    Many astronomers admit that the birth of the solar system is an enigma. They have no solution to how it might have arisen by itself. The completely different compositions of the planets, moons and sun, the too slow rotation of the sun, the non-uniform movements of the planets and moons and a few other factors require an explanation. The contradictions are too great in this naturalistic theory of birth.

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)

The birth of life. If you read the Bible, it becomes clear that God created life on earth. It did not take millions of years, as proponents of theistic evolution and proponents of standard evolutionary theory believe, but happened in a short moment. This teaching of the Bible is evident from the Book of Genesis, if the text is taken as it is and no attempt is made to change it to fit the theory of evolution and millions of years.

    However, the origin of life is a problem for atheist scientists. It has been established that life is born only from life and not a single exception to this rule has been found. Louis Pasteur also proved that life cannot come from non-life. Those who believe that life arose from itself, thus believe in something for which there is not a single scientific proof. They believe in miracles without a miracle worker.

    A few comments show that the origin of life itself is an enigma. This idea is adopted for philosophical reasons, not through practical evidence:

Doctor George Wald, the Nobel laureate of 1967 in medicine: When it comes to the origin of life on earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or the coming about by itself (evolution). There is no third option. Coming about by itself has been proven wrong 100 years ago, but it leads us to one single option: supernatural creation. We cannot accept this on philosophical basis (because of personal reasons), and that is why we choose to believe in the impossible: that life began on its own by accident. (7)

I think we have to go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this idea has been ostracized by physicists, and in fact by me, but we shouldn't reject it just because we don't like it if the experimental evidence supports it. (H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution", Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980) (8)

Evolution theory in review. As for the theory of evolution, theistic evolutionists also believe in it, of course. They have adopted the same idea of development as ordinary evolutionists, thinking that species were not created immediately, but gradually developed from a simple primitive cell towards the present complex forms. They believe it took millions of years.

    However, practical evidence contradicts the simple-to-complex theory. It does not support the idea of gradual development from a simple primitive cell. Instead, the evidence speaks in favor of species being created immediately, as presented in the creation model.

Cambrian explosion – species complete from the beginning. When we begin to explore the evolution theory, a good starting point is the so-called Cambrian explosion. In evolutionary literature, it means that multicellular life suddenly appeared approx. 550 million years ago (according to the evolutionary scale) and there have been no major changes since then. Stephen Jay Gould explains this remarkable event. He states that within a few million years, all the main groups of the animal kingdom were born:

Paleontologists have known for long, and wondered that all the main groups of the animal kingdom appeared rapidly in a short period of time during the Cambrian period... all life, including the ancestors of animals, remained single-celled for five-sixths of current history, until about 550 million years ago an evolutionary explosion gave rise to all the main groups of the animal kingdom only within a few million years…

    The Cambrian explosion is a key event in the life history of multicellular animals. The more we study the episode, the more we are impressed by the evidence of its uniqueness and decisive influence on the course of later life history. The basic anatomical structures born at that time have dominated life since then without significant additions. (9)

Harry Whittington, a paleontologist specializing in Cambrian fossils, continues on the same topic. After studying fossils from the Cambrian period, he has questioned the traditional evolutionary tree, in which all current species originate from one and the same stem cell. (One of the most important and first evolutionary trees was drawn up by Ernst Haeckel. He has become famous for his fetal picture forgeries, which he had to admit were fakes. Haeckel's evolutionary tree has also been the basis for later evolutionary trees. In his evolutionary tree, life was believed to have started from the protoplasm Monera, which was noted later, in 1875 , as a hoax. It was found to be a mixture of gypsum and alcohol.) He wrote in his book The Burgess Shale (p.131) in 1985 how animal species are more likely to have had many beginnings. His view agrees with the creation model, where the species were created separately from each other from the beginning:

I am sceptic about the schematics which, on the axis of time, depict the branched diversity of life in the animal kingdom, with one original species at the bottom... It is possible animals have had multiple beginnings in different areas and at different times.

Richard Dawkins, a well-known god-denyer, has also referred to the Cambrian explosion. He admits that complex fossils seem to have appeared in deposits out of nowhere, and there are no earlier and simple fossils below them. However, he cites the inadequacy of the fossil record, i.e. uses the same argument as Darwin did:

Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes. - - For example, the Cambrian deposits from 600 million years ago are the oldest, with fossils from most of the main periods of vertebrates. Moreover, many of them are already quite advanced. Since there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared in these strata out of nowhere... Regardless of school of thought, all supporters of evolution are of the opinion that at this point there is a gaping hole in fossil discoveries. (10)

What makes the cambrian explosion problematic from an evolutionary point of view? There are two reasons for this, both of which support the creation model but not the evolutionary model. These reasons are:

Complexity at the beginning. The fact that the fossils of the Cambrian period are completely ready, complex, as well as clearly separate and different from each other, suggests their creation. These first multicellular ones are not simple or semi-finished, as assumed in the theory of evolution, but as complex as current species. They are almost no different from the current forms, except for those species that are extinct. In addition, below the fossils of the Cambrian period, no simpler preforms preceding them are found. If the evolutionary model were true, simpler preforms would have to be found, but it has been impossible. The finds clearly support a creation model in which species were ready-made, complex and distinct from the very beginning.

Abundance of species at the beginning. If the evolutionary model and evolutionary tree were correct, there should have been only one stem cell in the beginning, from which other species gradually developed. The number of species should have increased all the time, the more time passes. From one and a few species should have become more and more species over time.

    The Cambrian explosion is contrary to the previous observation. It shows that in the beginning there was an abundance of species, but now there are much fewer species than before. The trend has been that species are becoming extinct all the time, and they cannot be restored. If the evolutionary model were correct, development should go in the opposite direction, but that does not happen. This fits better with the creation model, where there was an abundance of species at the beginning. The traditional evolutionary tree cannot be correct. A better option is that there have been hundreds or thousands of trees, each with branches. These branches describe the changes and differentiation that are possible within the limits of heredity.

No signs of gradual evolution in fossils. Another reason why we should be more critical towards the molecule-to-man -theory is the fact that it contradicts fossil records. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, who is perhaps the most distinguished fossil researcher, and his friend Niles Eldredge have denied that fossils carry any signs of gradual development. Even Dawkins’ latter comment stated that “fossils do not form a chain of small slightly detectable changes”.

   Basically, this means that the most important evidence for evolution is missing from our past. If fossils don’t carry signs of gradual development, evolution simply cannot be true. This will not change no matter how much time has been involved. The evidence is more appropriate for the fact that the species have been separate from the beginning, as required by the creation model:

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. (...) (11)

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. (12)

Even Darwin stated that the fossil record of his time didn’t support his theory. That is why he appealed to the inadequacy of the fossil record:

Those who believe that the geological narrative is more or less perfect will certainly reject my theory.  (13).

But since, according to our theory, there must have been innumerable intermediate forms, why do we not find innumerable fossilized intermediate forms in the bosom of the earth? - - I think the reason for the lack of intermediate forms is that the annals of geology are incomparably more incomplete than is usually assumed. (14)

But I could never have even imagined how weak is the evidence given by even the best preserved geological layers. The lack of innumerable intermediate forms between species that should have been living during the early and later stages of each formation has put my theory to a major test. (15)

The following comments continue on the same topic. There are millions of fossils in museums, but it is impossible to observe a gradual change from one species to another in them. If the evidence is taken as such, it supports the idea that the species were created immediately ready and separated from each other. This is what the Biblical creation story requires:

Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (16)

None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at find out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [17])

Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. When Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, it influenced both the scientific world and the world view of other people. The theory of evolution and the long periods associated with it were generally accepted and began to be regarded as scientific truth. It began to be believed that life evolved from a simple primitive cell towards the present complex forms, and that it took millions of years.

    The basis for the current theory of evolution is thus Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Without it, the theory of evolution would not have become as accepted as it did.

    However, it is remarkable that Darwin does not have any examples of real species changes in his book. A book that, as its name suggests, should explain the origin of species (from simple to complex), does not bring them up. Darwin was indeed a keen observer; he brought up good examples of changes within basic species, but was unable to demonstrate actual species changes. He himself had to admit that he had no direct evidence:

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. (18)

The following comments continue on the same topic. They show that Darwin had no evidence of transitional forms. His examples were limited to variation within basal species, which is quite different from the notion that all current life forms originated from the same stem cell. The book, which should explain the origin of species and give examples of it, thus does not give an answer to the matter.

    The first of the comments is from the well-known evolutionist Jerry A. Coyne. He also admits that Darwin could not present transitional forms in his book On the Origin of Species, but that modern paleontology (fossils) would confirm Darwin's theory. However, Coyne himself partially refutes what he says. Previous comments also showed that paleontology disproves Darwin's theory, not confirms it.

Although Darwin could not show transitional forms in On the Origin of Species, he would have been delighted to see how the fruits of modern paleontology have strengthened his theory

… What is considered fossil evidence of a significant evolutionary transition? According to the theory of evolution, any two species, no matter how different, have a single parent species from which they are descended. This species could be called the “missing ring”. As we have seen, the possibility of finding such a single parent species among fossils is non-existent. There is simply too little surviving fossil record to justify the discovery of the parent species. (Jerry A. Coyne: Why Evolution Is True, p. 60) (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta / Why evolution is true, p. 60)’

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.

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. (19)

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. (20)

"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) (21)

Although evolutionists cannot show evidence of actual species changes in fossils or in modern times, they are right about one thing: there really is evidence for evolution. The question is precisely how evolution is defined. If it means changes within the framework of the basic species, everyone admits this. In these species, natural selection and evolution really happen. There are good examples of that in Darwin's books and other evolutionary literature. Resistance of bacteria, different colors of peppered moths and the finches of Galapagos islands often get mentioned in the literature. They are all variations within the framework of the basic species, because the species in question are at the beginning and at the end bacteria, peppered moths and finches. The phenomenon we see is adaptation to different conditions, but it is not actual change of species to another.

   In this area, it should be precisely defined what is meant by evolution. Does it refer to the one cell-to-human theory or only to adaptations. The latter is something that everyone admits, but there is no evidence for the first conception.  

   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 adaptation. 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. Species do not change, but for example bacteria and banana flies remain bacteria and banana flies. That's why we need to separate the changes and adaptations that have taken place within species from the notion that all current species come from a one stem cell. They are two different things, of which only one has convincing evidence.

We can only speculate about the motives that led scientists to adopt the concept of a common progenitor so uncritically. The triumph of Darwinism undoubtedly increased the prestige of the scientists, and the idea of an automatic process fit so well with the spirit of the times that the theory even received a surprising amount of support from religious leaders. In any case, scientists accepted the theory before it had been rigorously tested, and then used their authority to convince the general public that natural processes were sufficient to produce a human from a bacterium and a bacterium from chemical mixture. Evolutionary science began to look for supporting evidence and began to come up with explanations that would nullify the negative evidence. (22)

I have been assured that there are evolutionists, who have described, how the necessary changes could have happened. When I ask, what are the books, where these descriptions can be found, I either get no response or I get referred to books that don’t have these descriptions. Everyone seems to know about the descriptions existence, but I have not yet found anyone, who would know where to find them (David Griffin, 2000, Religion And Scientific Naturalism, State University of New York Press)

Assumed intermediate forms under review. When Eero Junkkaala wrote his book about theistic evolution, he says that his second main source was the book of evolutionist Jerry A. Coyne. In this book by Coyne, three possible transitional forms are described: the lizard bird Archeopteryx, the Tiktaalik Roseae, and the supposed ancestors of whales. Eero Junkkaala refers to these three examples in his own book:

One of the most famous of the found transitional forms is a lizard bird, a crow-sized Archaeopteryx lithographica, which was discovered in a limestone quarry in Germany as early as in 1860. It is the intermediate form between lizards and birds… The best intermediate form between fish and amphibians is a fossil discovery of Tiktaalik Roseae made in 2004. Its discovery was a sensation, because it carries clear features which can be associated with both early coelacanths and later amphibians… We have also been able to follow whales’ development from land to sea through many intermediate stages. That is, whales are not fish, but mammals that swim in the sea. (23)

Lizard bird Archaeopteryx. The lizard bird Archaeopteryx appeared first on our previous list. For example, Jerry A. Coyne mentions in his evolutionary book that: “Archaeopteryx is more of a lizard than a bird… primarily a dinosaur” (Jerry A. Coyne: Why Evolution is True, p. 68).

   On this issue, many scientists specializing in birds disagree. When the international Archaeopteryx conference was held in Eichstätt Germany in 1984, ornithologists disagreed on many facts about the Archaeopteryx. However, the conference was largely unanimous about Archaeopteryx being a bird. Only a small minority thought it was a light-built dinosaur. That is, if it is a bird, it cannot be an intermediate form, half reptile, half bird, as is often explained. What about fossil finds and other observations? Among them, the following three things can be noted:

• The lizard bird cannot be the ancestor of birds because the remains of ordinary birds have been found in older strata than the remains where the lizard bird has been found. It has been suggested that these layers were as much as "60 - 75" millions years older (Beardsley, T., “Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses”, Nature, vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677). This negates the lizard bird's status as a special intermediate form.

• Fossil finds have shown that Archeopteryx has exactly same kind of beaks and feathers as modern birds. They are equally perfect. The lizard bird therefore completely resembles modern birds. On the other hand, in modern times, and also in the fossils, it has not been possible to find examples of scales that even remotely resemble feathers.

• Lizard birds are supposed to have lived on Earth long before humans. However, the following quotation refers to the simultaneity of the lizard bird (Archaeopteryx) and man:

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. (24)

Titktaalik Roseae. An earlier quote mentioned Titktaalik Roseae. It is a fossil species that has been considered a transitional form between fish and amphibians.

   However, this assumption has been proven wrong. In Poland, older, well-preserved footprints older than 18 million years (according to the evolutionary scale) were found, made by a four-legged animal.

Science magazine Nature reported the following: “They force us to radically re-evaluate the period, ecology and environment in terms of fish evolving into four-limbed vertebrates… “ (25) 

Whales. What about the line of development of whales that was referred to in the previous quote? In the evolutionary literature, it is generally assumed that the ancestor of cetaceans was a terrestrial quadrupedal mammal. Some whales are considered to have had rudimentary hind legs, which has been regarded as a piece of evidence for whales’ land life.

    Other scientists disagree about the whales' so-called from atrophied hind legs. They see them as important supporting bones that aid in reproduction and diving. The following quote refers to this: "The atrophied pelvic and femur bones of the whale, which have already been mentioned, serve as the attachment platform for the muscles of the genital organs and the strong muscles of the anus. Their function is to prevent the contents of the intestine from bursting out under high hydrostatic pressures. We cannot talk about the incapacity of the bones in question, because without them the whales could not dive well or even reproduce." (26)

Human family tree. Eero Junkkaala's book representing theistic evolution also takes a stand on the human family tree. He subscribes to the evolutionary view, which means that man is descended from a simple primitive cell and that chimpanzees and humans share an ancestor that lived ca. 7 million years ago. He brings up e.g. Lucy's and other stages of development connected to the human family tree, the last one being the Neanderthal:

This individual, more familiarly called Ardi, was dated back 4,4 million years. It had a brain volume of around 350 cm² … It was clearly more perfect than Lucy, which had become famous in the 1970s specifically for her perfectness… Lucy is approximately 3,2 million years old. A few years later, Mary Leakey made a discovery in the Olduvai Gorge, where she found the famous Laetoli footprints, which date back 3,6 million years… We take a huge leap forward and meet the Heidelberg man… Brain volume of the Heidelberg man was around 1200 cm². As early as 1856, a fossil was found in a small cave in the Neander Valley in Germany, which much later was named Neanderthal man after the place of discovery. (27)

Ardi. First on the previous list was Ardi. There are several problems with this find:

• When the size of Ardi's brain is mentioned as only 350 cm3, it is a quarter of the size of the modern human brain. It clearly shows that it is an ordinary monkey, e.g. a creature like a chimpanzee. The size difference to the human brain is too great to consider Ardia as an intermediate form.

• An ordinary person who is not at all familiar with the supposed finds related to the human family tree may get the idea that fossils are complete skeletons.

    However, this is usually not the case. The bones are usually broken, spread over a wide area, and there may be bones from other animals in the same area. This is also the case with the discoveries related to Ardi. It was assembled from several fragile bone fragments that were far apart. There is no guarantee that all finds belong to the same species or individual.

Finally, in 2009, it became clear that researchers had unearthed a large number of fossil bone pieces and fragments in 1994-1995, from which they were able to reconstruct most of the skeleton of an adult Ardipithecus. The problem was that almost every found bone was crushed. Tim White, who led the research team, said the skull fossil resembled the remains of an animal flattened under cars on the highway. In addition, the bone fragments were surrounded by very tightly packed clay. When trying to extract the fossils from the clay, they disintegrated into fine dust. The researchers had to moisten and strengthen each bone fragment fossil separately.

    … More than 6,000 fossils from different vertebrate species have been found in the same place: bones, bone parts and fragments, teeth and tooth chips.

The material found consisted of 125 bone fragments that were hand-raked from the area of the middle course of the Awash River. First found (1992) were a child's jawbone, a tooth and a few pieces of bone. Two years later, one of the searchers found a piece of bone a stone's throw from where the teeth had been found. The researchers were crawling on all fours next to each other trying to find more. The animals had messed up the area, trampling the bones to pieces. By chance, part of a tibia and parts of a crushed skull and pelvis were found at the edge of the area. Bone chips were found in an area of several meters. Parts were found up to 1.5 km apart and some of them belonged to around 35 different individuals. Some of the bone pieces had to be embedded in plaster. They were too fragile to handle otherwise. (29)

Lucy, mentioned in the previous list, is a similar find to Ardi. It, too, is assembled from numerous pieces of bone, and its brain size is less than a third of the size of a modern human's brain. It is difficult to apply the words human or humane to it. It resembles modern chimpanzees more than humans, as several experts in the field have stated. Considering it as an intermediate form is questionable:

Evolutionist Ernst Mayr: Transition to walking on two legs was thus considered the Greatest step in human evolution. However, this chain of reasoning no longer sounds convincing in the light of current knowledge. Apes of the South moved on two limbs for more than 2 million years, but their brain size did not change significantly during that time. The importance of using tools has also lost its value after chimpanzees were found to use tools very versatile and some crows were found to use tools rudimentarily. If we also disregard walking on two limbs and some features of the dentition, almost all other characteristics of the southern apes were equal to the chimpanzee. More importantly, they did not have even the first characteristic of a typical human. They didn't have big brains, they didn't carve tools out of stone, their sex dimorphism was still big like apes have, they had long arms and short legs and they were small in body size. The ""two-limbedness" of tree-dwelling South apes and ground-dwelling people was also different. It is probably entirely appropriate to say that, in the totality of their features, the South apes were closer to chimpanzees than to humans. (30)

The Australopithecus was only an upright walking, intelligent anthropoid, not a human. The small cranium with intense bone crests above the eyes and on top of the head is similar to that of an anthropoid ape. (31)

When comparing the skulls of a man and an anthropoid, the skull of an Australopithecus clearly more resembles the skull of an anthropoid. Claiming otherwise would be the same as asserting that black is white. (32)

Our discoveries leave hardly any doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (33)

Laetoli's footprints. Eero Junkkala's book on theistic evolution mentioned Laetoli's footprints, about which much has been written. Mary Leakey's assistants found them in northern Tanzania in 1978 in a deposit whose age was determined to be 3.6 million years (the aforementioned Lucy was only 3.2 million years old according to the evolutionary scale). These footprints have been assigned to Lucy's type species Australopithecus Afarensis.

    However, it is questionable to consider these footprints as the work of beings like Lucy. They are closer in size to modern man's footprints and also in shape they resemble modern man's footprints. Many researchers have come to this conclusion. The problem for them has been the dating, because the 3.6 million year old human footprints do not fit the evolutionary schedule. (This is similar to the earlier mentioned problem, where distinctively clear human footprints have been found in 250-million-year-old layers.) Russell H. Tuttle (University of Chicago), who did a study of the footprints, found them to be very similar to modern human footprints:

3,5-million-year-old footprints of Laetoli from site G look like footprints of modern humans walking on bare feet. None of Laetoli’s hominid features suggest he was an any less capable two-legged being than we are… If we didn’t know the footprints in site G were that old, we might assume they were made by modern humans. (34)

Heidelberg and Neanderthal men are next on the list mentioned earlier. Evolutionists usually explain that they were different from modern humans, but this view can be questioned due to e.g. for the following reasons:

• For example, the cultural discoveries related to Neanderthal humans are so abundant (for example, Marvin L. Lubenow has summarized these discoveries in his book Bones of Contention]) that it is wrong to say that they were different from modern humans.

• The brain size of these people is exactly the same as that of modern humans. There is no difference. In addition, the rest of the body structure resembles modern humans. Some researchers have stated that if a Neanderthal man or Homo erectus were to meet us on the street, we would not notice any difference from modern man. Even in modern times, there is great variation in the shape of the human skull, the size and length of the brain.

Long or short periods? In both the theory of evolution and the theistic concept of evolution, it is assumed that man appeared on the earth late, so that before that life had appeared on the earth for hundreds of millions of years. It is assumed that life began with a simple primitive cell and then developed into the current forms, including humans. Similarly, it is assumed that before all the previous stages there was the Big Bang from which everything started.

    What about the accuracy of these things? Next, we will explore this topic through a few observations. We start with the inanimate world:

Inanimate world. The inanimate world is believed to have been born through the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

    However, if the big bang theory is a false theory and without evidence, as already stated earlier, the age of the world-universe can also be questioned. It is absurd to believe that everything started by itself from nothing, because it is not supported by any practical observation. Similarly, one can doubt the idea that the beginning of everything happened 13.8 billion years ago, because the evidence for the big bang theory is that weak.

    What about when we look at the universe and space? It can just as well be said that the universe looks only 6000-7000, and not 13.8 billion years old. No one can prove this thing using the methods of science. By looking at space and the universe, we cannot determine its age. On the other hand, the older the universe is assumed to be, the more likely it is that the stars and galaxies have run out of fuel. The fact that we currently see billions of stars and galaxies shining and radiating light fits better with the idea of a young than an ancient universe.

• When the age of the earth has been determined, it has been said to be approx. 4.6 billion years old.

    Where did this age come from? Not at all from the rocks on the ground, the oldest of which have been determined to be less than 4 billion years old, but from the meteorite rock. The researchers used a meteorite named Allende (A – Yen – day) as their material. The hundreds of samples obtained from this rock ranged from 4480 million to 10400 million years old, which shows how the same rock can have very different values. In the end, a compromise was made and the age of the earth became 4.6 billion years.

    It is interesting, however, that fairly recent lava stones can give almost the same values as the oldest stones dug out of the ground and meteorite stones. Hawaii's lava rocks, which are only about 200 years old, are proof of this. The oldest of them were measured to be almost 3 billion years old. Such readings show that the concentrations of stones are not directly related to their age. The results also show that if the methods are so wrong in cases where the time of crystallization of the stones is known, how can the same methods be reliable when it is not known? It is absurd to trust methods that are so wrong.

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". (35)

• As for age determination, the age of organic samples is measured by the so-called with the radiocarbon method, which has a half-life of only approx. 5730 years. Instead, other methods are used to measure inanimate materials, i.e. mainly lava rocks.

    The age determination is made interesting by the samples where, for example, the tree is inside the volcanic rock, i.e. they must have been formed at approximately the same time. However, the radiocarbon method can give the age of the tree only thousands of years, while the volcanic rock connected to the tree can give an age of tens or hundreds of millions of years. The following example shows how this happened in practice. It indicates a conflict between methods: 

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. (36)

The organic world. As stated, evolutionists and proponents of theistic evolution believe that life has existed on Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionists believe that life began in such a way that matter and energy together gave rise to life, although no practical observation supports this. An increase or decrease in energy causes, at most, that the state of non-living matter varies between solid, liquid and gas. This is basic teachings of chemistry textbooks.  No life is born through this, when the states of matter change. God's creative work is needed for that.

    Despite everything, evolutionists have tried to determine the age of life on earth. Here they have a geological chart prepared in the 19th century as an important help. In it, the history of the earth is put into different periods. Included are e.g. the Cambrian period approx. 500 million years ago, the Cretaceous period, i.e. the time when dinosaurs lived, and the modern period, when humans appeared on earth. However, this table can be proven false for many reasons. Next, we look at a few observations. Let's start with the dinosaur.

• Dinosaur finds have contained DNA, which cannot stay preserved for thousands of years in the nature. For example, the expert on organic molecules, professor Tomas Lindahl, has estimated the preservation time of DNA in nature to be only 20,000 – 40,000 years (Nature, 1993, 362, 709-715). Even from old human mummies that have been studied, DNA samples cannot always be obtained because this material has been spoiled. A good example of this area is when Svante Pääbo studied tissue samples from 23 mummies from Berlin museum in Uppsala. He was able to isolate DNA from only one mummy, indicating that this substance cannot last very long (Nature 314: 644-645). The fact that DNA is still present in dinosaurs shows that the fossils cannot be from millions of years ago.

• Dinosaurs have been found to contain radiocarbon. Since the half-life of this substance is only ca. 5730 years, it is not possible there would be any left after 100 000-200 000 years. This sets certain limits as to when these creatures lived.

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. (37)

   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. (38)

• Why are dinosaur bones found among bones that seem to have belonged to horses, cows and sheep (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.), despite the common belief that mammals only appeared on earth long after dinosaurs?

• Scientists have been able to isolate proteins, such as collagen, albumin, and osteocalcin from dinosaur remains. What is interesting is that, these substances have not always stayed preserved in current day animal fossils. For example, all collagen was already gone from a mammoth’s bone sample, which had been estimated to be 13 000 years old (Science, 1978, 200, 1275). Yet, some collagen has been successfully isolated from dinosaur fossils.

• The fact that human footprints have been found in dinosaur strata in various parts of the globe suggests there is something off with the geological time chart. These kinds of discoveries should not exist, if the geological time chart and its millions of years were true. These discoveries indicate humans and dinosaurs used to coexist on the planet. 

Many known scientific facts cast serious doubts on the geological sequence and geological eras. One such example would be the discovery of simultaneous human tracks and dinosaur tracks in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois and elsewhere in the United States. These tracks occur over a wide area and are usually only exposed by floods or earthmoving machines. They have been carefully examined and authenticated by reliable paleontologists and cannot be passed off as frauds. In addition, in Arizona and the former Rhodesia, human-drawn pictures of dinosaurs have been found on the walls of caves and canyons. (39)

• We can find a particularly interesting comment from the late fossil researcher Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that Behemoth in the Book of Job, only fits the description of a dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist he believed that the writer of Job must have gotten their knowledge from found fossils. However, this Book that is one of the oldest in the Bible clearly refers to a living animal. (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you …).

Why also do almost all nations have stories about dragons that resemble dinosaurs in appearance? This cannot be seen as a mere coincidence. Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola states in the following quotation how depictions of dragons resemble dinosaurs. The World Book Encyclopedia reports the same:

The varying forms of lizard-like animals seem so funny to us because many of them resemble – in a distant and often caricature-like way – modern mammals living under similar conditions. However, most dinosaurs were so very different from the modern life forms that the nearest analogues can be found in the depictions of dragons in legends. Strangely enough, the authors of the legends had naturally not studied petrifactions or even knew of them. (40)

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. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, s. 265)

Discoveries related to people. Supporters of the theory of evolution generally believe that man appeared on the surface of the earth relatively late. According to their view, man has been on earth longer than can be concluded from the Bible. They think that man has existed on the surface of the earth for a few million years, while the Bible only refers to millennia. Another significant difference is that, according to the Bible, man was already involved in the initial stages of creation. This is not what evolutionists admit.

  Next, we will study a few discoveries related to man. They fit the description of the Bible better than the geological time chart, which was drawn up in the 19th century, and the millions of years that are associated with it. These finds suggest humans have been on the planet since the beginning, which was not millions of years ago: 

• The earliest notes. When trying to figure out the age question, you always have to start from certain information, not uncertain ones.

    One such is human history. Many evolutionists have wanted to move this time back hundreds of thousands or a few million years, but there is no clear evidence for such a thing. Such ideas are based more on mere stories and imagination than on proper evidence, because reliable historical information about humans only goes back 4,000 to 5,000 years. At this time, such things as writing, construction, farming, the use of metals, ceramics and other related aspects of culture appeared. They suggest that man appeared on Earth only a few millennia ago and fully developed. This fits the Genesis pattern. If the theory of evolution and millions of years are true, why is there no historical data from earlier periods?

    The following quotes refer to the same thing. They show how suddenly Civilization has appeared in the world. In the first of those statements, the developer of the radiocarbon method, professor W.F. Libby, who said at the time in the Science magazine on March 3, 1961 (p. 624) that verified history only goes back about 5,000 years. He talked about thedynasties of Egypt, in the dating of which there may also be hundreds of years of errors (This was reported, e.g., in a three part TV series called ”Faaraot ja kuninkaat”, which was presented on Finnish television in December of 1996):

"Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the time of the First Dynasty of Egypt is in reality the oldest historical point of time confirmed with some certainty." (41)

"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. (42)

• One of the assumptions in the theory of evolution is that all life started from a simple primordial cell and gradually developed into the present complex forms. This leads to the fact that humans are also thought to have evolved from simpler forms of life. The last stage of them is believed to have been the ancestors of man, somewhat ape-like creatures.

    However, there is a fundamental problem with the previous theory: remains that clearly belong to modern humans are repeatedly found in layers older than their supposed ancestors. This problem emerges even if only evolutionists' own datings and classifications are used. Marwin L. Lubenow, in his thorough and meritorious book Bones of Contention, has summarized the time definitions given to fossils by evolutionists themselves. In general, evolutionists do not have similar summaries because they are not prepared much. They have fragmentary information, from which it is difficult to get a complete picture of the finds. These time definitions given by the evolutionists themselves prove the theories of human evolution to be impossible:

The following facts are about the human fossil record. First of all, the fossils, which outwardly cannot be distinguished from modern humans, are placed up to 4.5 million years on the evolutionary time axis. Based on this, it seems that there were real people before the appearance of the Southern apes in the fossil record.

    ...Based on the fossil record, we can say that when man first appeared, he was already a full human. This sudden appearance of our ancestors morphologically as humans means that the fossil record is suitable for the creation view. This fact is evident even when the fossils are arranged in order according to evolutionary chronology (although we believe that chronology is badly flawed). In other words, even if we accept the evolutionists' dating of the fossils, the result does not support the idea of human evolution. The results are actually so contrary to human evolution that they practically prove the theory wrong. Such is the true nature of the human fossil record. (43)

To make it clear, we look at the mentions of a few scientists specializing in human fossils. These well-known anthropologists admit that human remains of a distinctly modern type have been found in deposits of the same age or older than those of their supposed ancestors. There are dozens of these finds, but usually there is no desire to accept them as authentic because they have been of the modern type.

L.B.S. Leakey: “I have no doubt that that human remains belonging to these [Acheul and Chelles] cultures, have been found several times (...) but either they have not been identified as such or they have been rejected because they were the Homo sapiens type, and therefore they could not be regarded as old.” (L. B. S. Leakey, Adam's Ancestors, p. 230).

Arthur Keith: “If human remains were found from the older Pleistocene strata, and they proved to be modern as comes to the size and shape, they were rejected as false antiquities, regardless of their degree of fossilization. But if the remains proved to be non-modern as comes to the quality, they were accepted as genuinely old, even though they might be imperfectly fossilized.” (Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, introduction).

• Human related finds are not only limited to what has been mentioned above. For example, “300 million-year-old” coal layers have revealed a golden chain, an iron pot and other items that belonged to man. Not only that, but there have also been human fossil finds (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, p. 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). Finds of this type suggest how the foundation of the geological chart compiled in the 1800s is wrong. They also suggest that man must have existed already in the early stages of creation:

• Earlier we discussed how human footprints have been found in dinosaur strata in many parts of the world. These finds suggest humans and dinosaurs coexisted on Earth. Humans’ stone tools have also been found in the same strata as dinosaur remains.  (Michael Brandt: Vergessene Arhäologie, 2011).

   However, there are some finds that suggest humans existed long before dinosaurs did. Human history must extend much further than the history of these extinct animals, extending at least 150 million years further! This is the conclusion we are driven to if we abide by the geological time chart and the millions of years it entails.

   The following quotation will illustrate the point. It tells us how clear human traces have been found in “250 million-year-old” strata. These kinds of finds demonstrate, how the basis of 19th century geological time chart is wrong. They also suggest that humans must have existed in the beginning of the universe:

The human-like footprints in the rock are a puzzle to scientists. They can't be human because they're far too old - but what strange, bipedal, amphibious animal could have made them?

    What is it that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs with human-like feet?

    ... (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found (...) Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These foot prints were found by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

    Recently prof. Burroughs was visited by some Kentucky mountain men who took him to their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)

    The footprints are extremely strange. They are just the right size to be human - nine or ten inches tall - and almost the right shape. Almost everyone who sees them first thinks that they are made by a human foot and it is almost impossible to convince someone that they are not human...

    But even the boldest estimates of human presence on earth are only a million years - and these traces are 250 times that old...

    Such is the riddle. A quarter of a billion years ago, this human-like animal left footprints in a wide spread of sand, which time hardened into rock. Then he disappeared. And now scientists are scratching their heads. (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)

Another quote continues on the same topic. It also tells how traces similar to human footprints have been found in several ancient strata in the United States and elsewhere (Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky and other states). This type of finds points to the inaccuracy of the geological time chart compiled in the 19th century.

If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)

• It was mentioned above how human fossils have been found even inside rocks and coal deposits. A few other similar examples suggest that either man has lived tens of millions of years ago, or in reality these ancient periods have been in the recent past. Most likely, the latter option is true, because no scientist believes that man has existed on Earth for very long.

Bones of humans that very closely resembled the modern man were found around 55 kilometres (34 miles) southeast of Moab, Utah. They were buried around 5 metres (16 feet) below the ground level. Around 1,5 meter (five feet) of the soil on top of them was hard rock. The stratum in which the bones were found was estimated to be at least 100 million years old. Scientists of the University of Utah studied the find.

   (...) Human and mastodon bones were found around 7 metres (23 feet) deep near Menlo Park around 45 kilometres (28 miles) south of San Francisco in a stratum that has been classified as a late Miocenic or around two to three million years old.

   Two human skeletons were found in a copper mine about 57 kilometres (35 miles) from Moab, Utah, also in a stratum classified as Cretaceous.

   Human footprints were found in Antelope Springs, Utah, in a stratum of trilobites. Trilobites were crustaceans that, according to the theory of evolution, became extinct during the Palaeozoic Permian period more than 200 million years ago.

   (...) A gold chain was found in a mineral coal stratum in Morrisville, Illinois. This stratum is estimated to be from the Carboniferous period about 300 million years ago. (23)

   (...) A slate wall with unknown but probably alphabetic writing on it was found in a mineral coal mine in Hammondsville, Ohio. It is estimated to be from the Carboniferous period about 300 million years ago. (44)

Coal has also revealed different kinds of human objects. One such find includes a bell that is approximately 15 centimeters long and it was found inside a coal layer that had been estimated to be 300 million years old.

A bronze, approximately 15 cm tall bell (stem bell) was found inside the coal. Coal from a coal mine operating in West Virginia was also commonly used for the heating needs of local residents. Coal pieces that were too big for the furnace were broken into a suitable size at home with a hammer. It was a big surprise when a bronze bell appeared from inside the coal mine. The coal deposit from which the mined coals were retrieved has been determined to have been formed during the Carboniferous period, approximately 300 million years ago. (45)

• Some finds indicate trilobites and humans coexisted. It is believed trilobites became extinct as early as ca. 250 million years ago, which is long before the existence of dinosaurs. These kinds of discoveries demonstrate how trilobites, dinosaurs, humans, and other organisms categorized as index fossils might have coexisted; they simply lived in different ecological zones. Sometimes we find these fossils buried in the same stratum, although they have lived in different zones:

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. (46)

• If only the radiocarbon method is used for dating, it gives interesting results. The reason is that radiocarbon has even been found in fossils from the Cambrian period, which evolutionists consider 600 million years old. When the half-life of radiocarbon is approx. 5,730 years, there should be almost none left after 100,000 years. However, it is repeatedly found in fossils of all ages:

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. (47)

In the 1950s and 1970s, however, the values given by radiocarbon measurement were approached with caution in official circles. This was due to the fact that by 1970, in the measurement results published in the Radiocarbon magazine, almost all measured samples (more than 15,000 samples) were found to contain 14C isotopes. The obtained measurement results were considered unreliable because among the samples there were plenty of fossils that were millions of years old. Their age was determined according to to an index fossil -chart, which is considered reliable. (48)

Scientific world view or myths? In modern times, it is common for people to consider themselves wise and reasonable when they reject belief in creation and the existence of God. They prefer to stick to the birth of life by itself, Darwin's theory of evolution and that God or anything supernatural could not have influenced this world. They consider belief in God unrealistic and think that they have a scientific world view. Several atheists are an example of this.

    Theistic evolutionists are in almost the same position. They do believe in God's existence, but they might be arrogant if you talk about intelligent planning, God's sudden creation and that it would have been only a few millennia. These individuals would rather believe in imperfect scientists and their unproven theories than in the revelation given to us in the Bible.

    Here, however, supporters of theistic evolution may make a big mistake. Scientists are as flawed as any of us. They eat the same food, go to the same schools as children and young, drive with similar cars, read the same magazines and also have the same prejudices, preconceptions, even false information. It is a mistake to think that they are infallible and neutral, because they certainly are not. They too have their own biases and world view through which they look at things. Their prejudice may be correct in some matters, but it is also possible that they are mistaken. This must always be taken into account when it comes to flawed humans.

It is surprising how in this “era of science” so few people know what science really is and how it functions. Many think that scientists do not have biases because they impartially look for the truth in their white coats. However, there are two kinds of scientists, men and women, and they are similar to you and me. They have beliefs and biases. The biases determine what you do to scientific evidence, and it especially determines the way in which you decide that some pieces of evidence are more significant and important than others. The scientists are not impartial seekers of truth, they are not objective.

   (…) An atheist, agnostic, a person who believes in the Bible (and a theist), each have their own religious standpoint. What they do to evidence depends on their suppositions (beliefs) and religious standpoint. It is thus not a question of whether or not someone has biases. The real question is: Which of the biases is the best? -Meaning a bias that is worth to adopt as your own. (49)

Secondly, one must take into account the Bible's own teaching about how the enemy of the soul can deceive a person. A person may think he is very wise, but he may have actually embraced the lie of Satan. It is strange that proponents of theistic evolution do not take this into account. They should know the Bible about this matter too, but it seems they don't. That's why we look at a few New Testament verses that tell about lies, and how Satan and the evil spirit world mislead people.

    To put it boldly, even the supporters of theistic evolution have fallen into the same delusion and lies because they believe in unproven theories. This is strongly said, but what if it is true?

- (Matt 13:18-19) Hear you therefore the parable of the sower.

19 When any one hears the word of the kingdom, and understands it not, then comes the wicked one, and catches away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

- (John 8:43-45) Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word.

44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.

- (Rom 1:19-21) 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,

- 1 (Cor 2:14) But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

- (2 Cor 4:3,4). But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.

From the Bible's point of view, when we reject faith in God and His creation work, we turn to lies. People may not accept this, but Paul wrote about the false knowledge that goes by the name of knowledge and that in the coming times many will not accept sound doctrine but will turn to fables. Could the Big Bang, life beginning by itself and Evolution be such lies Paul talked about? At least, practical evidence goes against these theories. They are based more on imagination than on real information. Paul himself knew God intimately and could foresee how many would abandon God:

- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.

- (2 Tim 4:3.4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.

REFERENCES:

1. van Biema, D., God vs Science: We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for Miracles and for MRIs. But are the worldviews compatible?  Time convenes a Debate, <time.com/time/magazine/_article/0,9171,

1555132,00.html>, 5 November 2006.

2. G. Richard Bozarth: ”The Meaning of Evolution”, The American Atheist, September 1978, p. 19

3. Frank Zindler (Filosofian professori, New Yorkin yliopisto) väittelyssään William Graigin kanssa, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996

4. Tri John Kitto kirjassa Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, II, hakusana "Sabbath", p. 655

5. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 90

6. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 67

7. Dennis Lindsay: ”The Dinosaur Dilemma”, Christ for the Nations, vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14

8. H.S.Lipson: “A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, 1980, 31. vsk., p.138

9. Stephen Jay Gould: Hirmulisko heinäsuovassa (Dinosaur in a Haystack), p. 115,116,141

10. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

11. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

12. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

13. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 457

14. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 222

15. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 446

16. Gordon Lindsay: Evolution – The Incredible Hoax, Christ for the Nations, Dallas, Texas, 1977, p. 16

17. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19

18. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

19. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 257

20. Rodney Stark, p. 184

21. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19

22. Philip E. Johnson: Darwin on Trial, p. 152

23. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 125

24. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

25. Niedzwieski, G., et al, Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463 (7277): cover and pp. 43-48, 7 January 2010

26. Siegfried Scherer, Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio kriittiinen analyysi (Evolution – Ein kritisches Lehrbuch) p. 171

27. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 106,107

28. Juha Valste: Ihmislajin synty, p. 87-89

29. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 156

30. Ernst Mayr: Evoluutio (What evolution is), p. 371

31. Robert L. Lehrman: The Long Road to Man, 1961, p. 115

32. Journal of the royal college of surgeons of Edinburgh, tammikuu 1966, p. 93 - cit from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. wit. p. 93,94.

33. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 - cit. from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. wit. p. 94.

34. Russell H. Tuttle: The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet, Natural History (maaliskuu 1990); 64

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

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

37. http://creation.com/redirect.php?http:/

/www. youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

38. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146

39. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24

40. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366

41. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624 - Sit. kirjasta: Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. wit.

42. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28. Sit. kirjasta Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. wit.

43. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 286

44. Uuras Saarnivaara: Voiko Raamattuun luottaa, p. 175-177

45. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 23

46. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

47. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92,192

48. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194

49. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 27,28

More on this topic:

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

Looking into creation. Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of ​​evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation

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.

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?