|
|
|
Fictional history – why millions of years are not true?
Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables
Everyone knows what a fairy tale is. It is a fictional story that is often told to children because of an entertaining or perhaps educational purpose. A fairy tale may feature real people or imaginary creatures and tell the story of their adventures. However, in general, the child always knows that it is not about real events and real history, but about imaginary stories. The child knows that the fairy tale should not be taken seriously, because the events of the fairy tale have never actually happened. From here it is good to move on to another topic, i.e. the question of eras. Many people seriously believe in the concept of millions and billions of years (as the author himself used to believe when he was an atheist). They think that the universe has existed for billions of years, that the solar system and Earth have existed for billions of years, and that life has existed on Earth for billions of years. Likewise, they think science has proven that today's diverse life has evolved over millions of years from a simple primordial cell. So they consider it a fairy tale if a girl kisses a frog and it turns into a man in one moment. However, in their opinion, the same thing is science if enough time is allocated for it, i.e. 300 million years, because in that time the frog is assumed to have turned into a human. At least this is what is assumed in the traditional theory of evolution. But what is the reality of this assumption? What if millions and billions of years are similar to fairy tales told to little children? What if the long-term history of the universe and the earth is just a history of imagination? For modern people, this view may seem unbelievable and many laugh at it, but it must be taken into account that numerous practical observations are against long periods of time. It is also not appropriate to forget that the idea of millions and billions of years is a relatively new view. It only became common in the 19th century in the wake of Darwin's theory. In the past, it was generally taken for granted that the history of the Earth does not extend back many thousands of years. The purpose of this article is to delve into long periods and whether they are only a matter of imaginary history. First, let's familiarize ourselves with what scientists don't know and what they actually know.
WHAT DO SCIENTISTS DON'T KNOW? It is generally assumed that scientists have the answer to everything and know everything. This is certainly true in some areas, such as experiments in the laboratory, but in one area they are ignorant: in explaining the beginning of the universe and life. Many people have the impression that scientists know and are familiar with this area, and scientists themselves may express strong opinions in their own books, but in reality they are very ignorant. They have no real answers to these questions because none of them were there to watch the events. However, some famous scientists have been honest. They know their ignorance and have admitted it. They know that they have no valid explanation for the origin of the universe, galaxies, stars, solar system and life, and no evidence of species changes. In other words, the question is about all the most essential things regarding the history of the universe and life. So why pay attention to these points when dealing with the validity of millions of years? Of course, because if the previous theories are not true, it is questionable to believe the dates presented in connection with them, such as: the self-birth of the universe 13.8 billion years ago, the self-birth of the solar system 4.5 billion years ago, the self-birth of life 3-4 billion years ago, the Cambrian period approx. 550 million years ago, and an assumption that dinosaurs lived over more than 65 million years ago. If the things in question - especially their self-birth - never happened, the years attached to them can be questioned. You shouldn't believe them right away. So what do scientists know and not know? Next, some of the most important areas will be explored.
Scientists do not know how the universe began. As for the beginning of the universe, scientists generally agree that it had a beginning. This is what they have arrived at with the second main law of thermodynamics. They know that the universe is heading towards heat death - towards a state where all temperature differences have disappeared and where the amount of usable energy will decrease and eventually run out. This decrease in the amount of energy can be compared in principle to when the wood in a campfire burns out. Once they burn out, they cannot be burned again - they are unusable. The conclusion that can be drawn from the decrease in the amount of usable energy is that somewhere in the past there was a date and time when it all began. There must have been a moment when the clock ticking towards heat death started to act; the moment when it all began. Otherwise, we have to abandon the second law of thermodynamics. The following quotes bring out the same point. The heat theory forces us either to believe that the world was created at a certain moment, or else we must assume that the laws of nature were different in the past than they are today:
Arthur Eddington (an English astrophysicist in the 1930’s): When we go back in time, we will come to a more and more organised world. Finally, we will come to a moment where all materials and energy are as organised as can be. We cannot go beyond this point. We have come to a point in time and space that cannot be crossed, and that can only be described by the word "beginning" (...) To me, it is completely natural to accept the conclusion that the current natural science offers for the future – the heat death of the universe. (1)
William Jevons (an English philosopher in the 1870s): We cannot trace the heat history of the universe too far into the past. At some point, we will get impossible results referring to such heat distributions, which cannot, according to the laws of nature, come from any preceding distribution. (...) The theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time. (2)
Do scientists then know how the universe began, if it must have a beginning? The answer is that many of them think they do know, but the fact is they don't. The reason is simple: none of them were there to see the birth of the universe. They can try to come up with the best options and explanations for how it all started, but they still don't have definite information about it. An indication of how scientists do not know the beginning of the universe is that they disagree with each other on the matter. The standard theory for the beginning of the universe is the Big Bang theory, but others vehemently deny it because they see the big bang theory as being against the laws of mathematics and science. This is easy to understand even through ordinary logic. Because when the big bang theory assumes that everything appeared by itself out of nothing, it is contrary to practical observations and science. E.g. stones, road signs and other inanimate materials do not appear by themselves out of nowhere. Why would a universe many times larger constitute an exception? Why can only the universe appear by itself out of nothing, when no other things appear? There is an obvious contradiction here. The following comments from scientists raise this issue. They see the Big Bang theory as contradicting real science:
As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)
There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelist H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)
Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).
David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)
Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere. (3)
What does the former mean in practice and how does it relate to the age of the universe? At least it means that if the Big Bang never happened, the figure of 13.8 billion years can be dismissed and forgotten immediately. The number 13.8 billion years is irrelevant if no explosion ever happened. This figure is not based on practical observations and cannot be proven correct by any means. The idea of long periods of time cannot be built on it.
Scientists do not know how galaxies and stars were formed. Many popular science books or science programs may often explain with great certainty and in a few sentences the supposed initial stages of the universe, including the birth of galaxies and stars. People are led to believe that the authors of these books and the creators of the programs are clear about how these structures have arisen. Are these perceptions based on reliable information? They are not based because no scientist witnessed the birth of these celestial bodies. They only have speculations and theories about how they could have arisen through long processes lasting millennia, but no one has any definite answers. The following comments highlight the problem. What is particularly problematic is that the pressure of the gas causes the gas to spread out into a wider space and not to condense. This makes the birth of heavenly bodies impossible.
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)
Books are full of stories that feel rational, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not know, how the galaxies were born. (L. John, Cosmology Now 85, 92 / 1976)
It is almost certainly true that this is exactly how stars are created from the sparse condensations of gas between the stars. We can hope that the same would take place in the whole universe and thus, the formation of galaxies would begin. However, there is a huge problem here – this does not take place. (…) We need better evidence based on observations regarding how galaxies and large structures of the universe were born. At this point, it is not yet possible to make such observations regarding ordinary galaxies. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 99,109)
A major problem, however, is how did everything come into being? How did the gas from which galaxies were born initially accumulate to start the birth process of stars and the large cosmic cycle? (…) Therefore, we must find physical mechanisms that bring about condensations within the homogenous material of the universe. This seems quite easy but as a matter of fact leads to problems of a very profound nature. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 93)
“Not all nebulas in the Milky Way can constantly form stars all the time. Most times the nebula is puzzled by, what it needs to do next. Actually, it is the astrophysicists, who are puzzled here. We know that the nebula would want to implode due to its own weight to form one or more stars. But the rotation of the nebula and the vortical movement inside the nebula are fighting against this faith. So does also the normal pressure of gas, which we read about in our chemistry class in high school. Magnetic fields of the galaxies are also fighting against imploding: they infiltrate a nebula and clutch onto any freely moving particles that are charged, thus restricting the chance of the nebula to counter its own gravitation. 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)
Scientists do not know how the Solar System and the Earth were born. What about the birth of the Solar system and the Earth? Here is exactly the same problem as in the previous theories: no one was there to see what really happened. Scientists can come up with different explanatory models and alternatives, but in reality they are based on their imagination and not on what can be certain. So, when we see an animation on TV about the early stages of the Earth, the Sun and the planets or read about the same thing in books, they are only people's own imagination-based models of how everything could have happened. They have no scientific and experimental basis. In addition, these models ignore a large number of factors that contradict the theories. Especially the different composition of the planets, moons and Sun creates a problem for which no solution has been found. It is not possible to explain why these heavenly bodies are composed of completely different elements if they have the same starting point. Theories about their spontaneous birth are not on solid ground, as well-known astronomers have admitted:
Firstly, we notice that the matter detaching from our Sun, is not at all capable of forming such planets that are known to us. The composition of the matter would be utterly wrong. Another thing in this contrast is that the Sun is normal [as a celestial body], but the earth is strange. The gas between stars, and most of the stars, consists of the same matter as the Sun, but not the earth. It must be understood that looking from a cosmological perspective – the room, where you are sitting right now, is made out of wrong materials. You are the rarity, a cosmological composer’s complilation. (Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951)
Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
What can be concluded from the above? If scientists do not know anything certain about the beginning of the universe, the birth of galaxies and stars, and the birth of the Solar System and the Earth, then it is doubtful to trust the notions of long periods of time regarding space. These notions have no solid foundation because none of us were there to witness and see these things. Long periods of time cannot be proven scientifically. What about the concrete age of space, if the Big Bang and the self-birth of galaxies and stars are just imagination? If we look into space, we cannot directly see its age. However, it is much more likely that the universe is very young than that it is very old. Because when we can see millions of stars and galaxies in space that emit light, they point to a young universe. Or if the universe really was millions or billions of years old, it would probably be a very dark place because the stars and galaxies would have stopped radiating in space. The fact that they are still emitting, however, points to a young universe. Of course, we cannot directly prove this, but the more stars we see still in action, the more likely it is that the universe is young. What about our own Sun? Some scientists have honestly admitted that they don't know its age. They have also admitted that the age of the sun is tied to the assumed age of the earth, and that evidence has been sought in this matter from the side of paleontology. Here are some comments from famous astronomers on the subject. By looking at the Sun and space, we cannot know their age:
Eddington: On such an important issue, we should not blindly rely solely on astronomical arguments, but should turn to other, perhaps more convincing, evidence from the sister sciences... The age of the oldest rocks has been recorded as about 1200 million years... Of course, the sun must be much older than the earth and its rocks.
George Gamov yr. 1953: The Sun is now only 3 or 4 billion years old… why is that?... because the estimated age for earth is approximately in the same range.
Sun expert John Eddy: It is possible that the Sun is 4,5 billion years old. However, based on some new unforeseen conflicting results, frantic recalculations and theoretical revision, I suspect that the number (the age of the Sun and the earth) could be closer to bishop Ussher’s estimates. I don’t think that there is much observational astronomical evidence coming against this. Astrophysicists are now turning to paleontologists, when it comes to determining the age of the Solar System.
Scientists don’t know the Earth’s real age. It was previously stated that scientists have not been able to determine the exact age for space. There are only assumptions, but not certain knowledge. The age of the Sun also remains unknown. How old could our planet be then? One of the major reasons why the Earth is estimated to be many billion years old, comes from radioactive measurements, i.e., measurements applied to rocks. These rocks have led to billion-years estimates for the Earth’s age. Do these rocks really prove the planet to be that old? They don’t prove. These rocks do not come with age tags; we can only measure their concentrations, which have led to conclusions about long time periods. However, there are numerous problems with radioactive measures, some of which we are going to look at. Indeed, it is possible to conduct precise concentration measurements, but it is questionable to associate the results with the age of the rocks.
Concentrations in different parts of the rocks. One important note is that different results can be obtained from different parts of radioactive stones, i.e. different concentrations, which also means different ages. For example, several different results have been obtained from the well-known Allende meteorite, with ages ranging from 4480 million to 10400 million years. In a very small area, the same piece can therefore have different concentrations. The example also shows how shaky the radioactivity measurements are. How can one part of the same rock be billions of years older than the other part? Everyone understands that such a conclusion cannot be trusted. It is uncertain to relate the concentrations of rocks to their age.
Old ages of fresh stones. When it comes to methods based on radioactivity, they can be tested in practice. This is really the case if scientists know the actual moment of crystallization of the stone. If they know the actual moment of crystallization of the stone, radioactivity measurements should support this information. How have radioactivity measurements fared in this test? Not very well. There are several examples of how ages of millions, even billions of years have been measured from fresh rocks. This shows that the concentrations of stones do not have to have anything to do with their actual age. Rocks have from the beginning contained daughter elements besides mother elements, and this renders the measurements unreliable. Here are some examples:
• One example is the measurements made after the eruption of the St. Helens volcano - this volcano in the state of Washington, USA, erupted in 1980. One rock from this eruption was taken to an official laboratory to determine its age. What was the age of the rock? It was 2.8 million years! This shows how badly the age determination was wrong. The sample already had daughter elements, so the same is possible for other rocks. The concentrations do not necessarily indicate the real age of the rocks.
• Another example is about igneous rocks (Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand) that were known to have crystallized from lava only 25-50 years ago as a result of a volcanic eruption. So behind it were the observations of the eyewitnesses. Samples of these rocks were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). The results, which contradict the practical observations, can be seen in the following account:
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory whose P-Ar laboratory director has done a dissertation on P-Ar dating. The laboratory was not informed of the exact collection location of the samples or their assumed age. However, they were reported to be likely young and that there were very little argon in them. This ensured that the analytical work would be particularly careful. The "ages" obtained from the P-Ar analyzes are listed in Table 1. The "ages" of the rocks range from <270,000 years to 3.5 (+- 0.2) million years, although they have been found to have cooled from lava 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow gave an “age” of <270,000 years or <290,000 years, while all other samples gave an “age” of millions of years. The laboratory processed the samples with a low "age" in the same batch, which indicated a systematic error in the laboratory. So the lab manager checked his equipment again. The results were similar. This ruled out a systematic error by the laboratory and confirmed that the low results were correct. Furthermore, repeated measurements of samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not yield similar results, but given the analytical uncertainties associated with low argon concentrations, this was not surprising. Clearly, the argon content varies in these rocks. Some geochronologists may say that <270,000 years is indeed the correct "age" for these samples, but how would they know that 3.5 million years would not be the correct "age" unless they already knew that the lava flows were recent ?! ... We know the true ages of the rocks because, according to observations, they had formed less than 50 years before the age determination. Still, their "age" was estimated at up to 3.5 million years. Ages are therefore incorrect. How can we trust this 'age-determination method' when it is used for rocks whose age we do not know? If the method fails to determine the age of rocks, the genesis of which we have an unbiased eyewitness description, why should we rely on it when it comes to rocks whose age we cannot independently verify from history? (4)
• When it comes to human-related discoveries, several of them are based on the potassium-argon method. It means that a potassium-argon age determination has been made on the rock immediately near the fossil, and the age of the human fossil has also been determined from it. However, the following example shows how unreliable this method is. The first rock sample gave a result of no less than 220 million years. So when several human fossils considered to be old have been determined using this method, these ages should be questioned. The previous example also showed how determining the age of fresh rocks can go wrong millions of years when using this method.
In theory, the potassium-argon method can be used to date younger stones, but not even this method can be used for dating fossils themselves. The ancient “1470 Man” discovered by Richard Leakey was determined to be 2.6 million years old by this method. Professor E. T. Hall, who determined the age, told that the first analysis of the stone sample gave the impossible result of 220 million years. This result was rejected, because it did not fit in with the evolution theory, and therefore another sample was analyzed. The result of the second analysis was a "suitable" 2.6 million years. The ages dated for samples of the same find later on have varied between 290,000 and 19,500,000 years. Therefore, the potassium-argon method does not seem to be especially reliable, and neither does the way researchers of evolution interpret the results. (5)
• One of the most dramatic examples is the concentrations measured in the lava rocks of the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii, which ranged from 160 million to 3 billion years old, so these results or concentrations are close to the oldest measured rocks on Earth. The problem, however, was that the Hualalai volcano erupted in 1800 and 1801, so the rocks defined as ancient were actually only less than 200 years old. When such discrepancies occur in measurements, they cannot be considered reliable. Another observation is that if all the rocks were really only less than 200 years old, why was there such a large discrepancy in their ages? This shows how unreliable measurements from rocks are. Hualalai's measurements gave the following results:
1. 160 million years 2. 791 million years 3. 960 million years 4. 1500 million years 5. 1580 million years 6. 2040 million years 7. 2470 million years 8. 2960 million years
When the results using the same method are in conflict with each other. One indication of how the concentrations of stones do not have to have anything to do with their age is the fact that, according to measurements, lava stones considered old are actually millions of years younger than recently crystallized lava stones. Such examples also exist, one of which follows. It tells about the famous Grand Canyon. The samples measured on its base gave an age, which was 270 million years younger than the recently formed lava flow. Such examples show how questionable it is to connect the concentrations of rocks with their age:
Geologist Dr Steve Austin collected basalt from the floor of the Grand Canyon and lava spilled over from the edge of the canyon. According to evolutionist calculations, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt taken from the bottom. Isotopes are analyzed by reliable laboratories. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 million years older than the basalt samples taken from the bottom of Grand Canyon - a result that is impossible. (6)
When the methods conflict with each other. As stated, measurements taken from rocks can be tested. One starting point for this is the measurements made of fresh rocks, i.e. measurements in which the actual moment of crystallization of the rocks is known. However, the previous examples showed that these methods do not pass this test very well. Fresh or fairly fresh rocks have given ages of millions, even billions of years, so the methods are badly mistaken. Another starting point for testing measurements made from rocks is to compare them with other methods, especially the radiocarbon method. There are interesting examples of this, of which the following is excellent. It tells of a tree that has been radiocarbon dated to be only thousands of years old, but the stone around it has been dated to be up to 250 million years old. However, the wood is inside the stone, so it must have existed before the stone crystallized. The tree must be older than the stone crystallized around it. How can this be possible? The only possibility is that the radioactivity methods, especially the rock measurements, have been greatly mistaken. There is no other option:
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. (7)
There is yet another similar instance. A tree was buried under a lava flow and the tree yielded a completely different age to the basalt around it:
In Australia, a tree found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow formed by the basalt, because it had been charred by contact with the fiery lava. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon analysis to be about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by the potassium-argon method to 45 million years old. (8)
Scientists don't know how life was born. Only the non-organic world and its age have been discussed above. It was found that the age of space cannot be deduced, nor can reliable measurements be made of rocks. There is no convincing evidence that the world is billions of years old. From here it is good to move to the organic world, that is, to deal with the living world and its age. We are often told that life arose by itself 3-4 billion years ago in some warm pond or sea. Again, however, there is a problem with this idea: no one has ever witnessed the origin of life. No one has seen it, so it's the same problem as with the previous naturalistic theories. People may have an image that the problem of the birth of life has been solved, but there is no concrete basis for this image: This is wishful thinking, and not an observation based on science. The idea of the spontaneous birth of life is also problematic in a scientific sense. The practical observation is that life is born only from life, and not a single exception to this rule has been found. Thus, when it is presented that life arose by itself, it is argued against real science and practical observations. Many scientists have acknowledged the magnitude of this problem. They have no solution to the origin of life. They admit that life on earth had a beginning, but they are deadlocked on the matter because they do not admit God's work of creation. Here are some comments on the subject:
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)
Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)
More than 30 years of experimentation in the field of chemical and molecular evolution have highlighted the immensity of the problem associated with the beginning of life rather than its solution. Today, basically only relevant theories and experiments are discussed and their drift into a dead end, or ignorance is acknowledged (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)
In trying to bring together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life, and the stages of its formation that led to the biology that appears around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in obscurity. We do not know how life began on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances. (Andy Knoll, a Professor of the University of Harvard) (9)
The following quotation addresses the same issue. It tells about an interview with Stanley Miller at his later age. He became famous for his experiments relating to the birth of life. J. Morgan talks about the interview:
He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (10)
What can we conclude from the former? If scientists don’t know how life began, they certainly won’t be able to tell you, when it began. They might confidently present many kinds of numbers, but these numbers have very little credibility, because they have not witnessed the birth of life. Therefore, claims about life having begun 3-4 billion years ago seem to be similar unproved claims like the Big Bang 13,8 billion years ago. We can put aside these numbers, as they cannot be proved.
Scientists cannot prove that life on Earth is millions or billions of years old. Previously, we discussed inanimate things, space and rocks, and how you can't directly deduce the age of billions of years from them. Long periods are mere speculation that cannot be proven. The same problem is with the beginning of life. If we don't know the answer to the origin of life itself, it is questionable to make certain claims about long periods of time. There is no solid basis for them. What about other life on earth? Often the Earth's past is grouped into different historical eras; at first there was only single-celled life in the precambrian period, then about 550 million years ago, in the cambrian period, multicellular life appeared, then there was the carboniferous period, the era of dinosaurs over 65 million years ago, and numerous other periods. Finally, man appeared on Earth. At least this is how it is generally explained according to the traditional evolutionary model. How reliable are these speculations? One good time meter is the radiocarbon method (C-14), which can be considered the most important radioactivity method. It only measures the age of organic samples, while most other methods are intended for measuring rocks and other inorganic materials. What have radiocarbon measurements shown? Has it become clear through them that life has existed on Earth for hundreds of millions of years, as shown in the theory of evolution? Has the millions of years been proven correct? The direct answer is that it is just the opposite. Because the theory of evolution deals specifically with the development of living things over hundreds of millions of years, it is possible to prove this wrong because of radiocarbon found in fossils. Because when the remains of living organisms are measured using the radiocarbon method and the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there shouldn't be any of it left after 100,000 to 200,000 years. However, the fact is that radiocarbon is repeatedly found in fossils classified as ancient, as well as in coal, oil, natural gas, the oldest life forms in deep-sea deposits (fossils from the Cambrian period), even dinosaurs and diamonds. Such discoveries would in no way be possible if it were a question of tens or hundreds of millions of years. The Radiocarbon publication in 1969 examined the results of 15,000 radiocarbon datings, stating, among other things, that
• Out of 9671 samples (trees, animals and humans) only 1146 (12%) gave a radiocarbon age of more than 12530 years • in only three cases the age was defined as 'infinite'. • some samples of coal, oil and natural gas gave a radiocarbon age of less than 50,000 years. • the samples representing the supposedly oldest life forms in the deep sea deposits gave an age of approx. 40,000 years. (11)
Although it is not possible to know exactly, at what moment e.g. Cambrian organisms or other so-called ancient species became extinct, so there is clear evidence that extinction times cannot be behind millions of years. Rather, it is only a matter of thousands of years. In addition, the numbers are further reduced by the fact that the earth's magnetic field is constantly weakening. It has been calculated to halve once every 1400 years, and if this is true, the samples cannot be as old as radiocarbon dating has shown. Because if the magnetic field was stronger in the past, it would have reduced the formation of radiocarbon in the past. It means that the samples immediately looked old in the past because they had less radiocarbon. In order to make the matter clear, we bring up more comments on the same topic. They refer to how radiocarbon occurs in ancient fossils, including dinosaurs. Even more remarkable is that no coal has been found that does not contain radiocarbon. This is a remarkable observation, because the coal deposits are assumed to have been formed a couple of hundred million years before the dinosaurs appeared:
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. (12)
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. (13)
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. (14) 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. (15)
Fossils older than 100,000 years should no longer contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, but dating laboratories routinely find levels of 14C well above background levels in fossils assumed to be many millions of years old. For example, coal that lacks 14C has not been found at all, but still this fossil fuel is estimated to be hundreds of millions of years old. Using radioisotope methods suitable for long periods, for fossils found in rocks dated to be 1-500 million years old, an average radiocarbon "age" of about 50,000 years was obtained, which is far below the measurement limit of modern carbon dating. Furthermore, there was no younger-to-older pattern in the carbon dating that correlated with evolutionist/uniformitarian "ages". (16)
Scientists cannot prove transformation of species into another. Above, an important observation was made regarding the appearance of life on Earth. It was established how the radiocarbon remaining in the samples indicates the young age of the samples. They cannot even be millions of years old, but their age is measured in thousands of years. What is the significance of the previous observation in terms of the theory of evolution? It changes the whole thing. Because if the theory of evolution requires periods of hundreds of millions of years, but the radiocarbon observations only point to thousands of years, the idea of the evolution of organisms over hundreds of millions of years cannot be correct. Evolutionists themselves do not believe that development from a simple primitive cell to today's diverse life would have been possible in such a short time, i.e. only thousands of years. However, do millions of years matter in terms of evolution? What if it could be shown that there really was life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years? Would this prove the theory of evolution true? The most devout evolutionists themselves believe this, but is there any basis for these claims? One good starting point is to study the fossil record, because it is the only history of life from which observations can be made. When more than a hundred million fossils have been excavated from the ground, the material should be comprehensive enough. No one can claim anymore, as in Darwin's day, that the fossil record is incomplete. Therefore, if no gradual development has been observed in the material excavated from the ground, it certainly does not appear in the material that is still inside the ground either. So what have scientists found out based on the fossil record? An important observation is that there is no gradual development. Animal species appear in the fossil record immediately complete and there are no simpler forms below them. Transition forms between different groups are also missing, so the evidence is clearly suitable for creation, where all species were created immediately as complex and separate from each other. In order to make the matter clear, we take the comments of scientists related to the topic. They clearly show how unreliable the theory of evolution is. It is not true even if there are millions of years of time available:
George Paulin: According to Darwin’s own explanation, transitional forms were exceedingly more numerous than the fully developed forms. The incompleteness of geological evidence should be the same in both cases. It would be a downright miracle, if all the transitional forms were perfectly missing, and the fully developed forms were largely existent. But this is exactly the case… Pieces of geological evidence have gradually led us to know many more fully developed forms than were known during Darwin’s time, but when it comes to transitional forms, they are still tabula rasa, i.e. a blank slate… It is not possible to escape from the conclusion that if development has happened from lower forms to higher forms, it had to have occured so fast that it did not leave any marks behind. But, even the fastest possible development cannot provide an explanation that would even suggest the sudden occurrence of fully developed fishes, birds and mammals around different organisms. – These facts have had a major impact on me, on a person, who has believed in evolutionary theory throughout their whole life. If anyone were to ask me after this, to which conclusion I have come to, my only response would be that I know nothing. However, I have to honestly admit that the matter being like this, the circumstances speak crucially for those, who believe in special creational acts, like our fathers did. (17)
When talking about actual macroevolution changes, there is practically no evidence available. Regardless of opposing claims, the mechanism of macroevolution is unknown. (...) Scientific literature of the field does not even try to seriously explain the mechanisms with which complex biological molecules, mechanisms and structures came into being. A fictive story of a possible path of evolution is usually considered sufficient proof. (18)
Ever since Darwin’s times, people have argued whether macroevolution is only an uninterrupted continuum of microevolution – as claimed by Darwin and his followers – or whether they are separate from each other, in which case separate theories would be necessary to explain macroevolution – as claimed by Darwin's opponents. According to this view, there is a clear gap between a species and the corresponding higher groups of species. There is no solution to this argument to this day, because there seems to be an astounding contradiction between the theory and the observations made. According to the Darwinist theory, evolution is a phenomenon of populations and thus it should be gradual and continuous. This does not refer only to microevolution but also to macroevolution and the transition stage between the two. Unfortunately, this principle contradicts the observations made. Gaps seem to be very common when studying higher groups of species or when studying individual species. Even today, we do not see the missing link between whales and land mammals, reptiles and birds, or reptiles and mammals. All the main groups are separated from each other by a gaping gap. There seems to be a gap also between flowers and their closest relatives. These gaps are even clearer in fossils. New species appear in the fossil layers all of a sudden without any evidence of intermediate stages in between a new species and its basic form. Actually, there are only a few examples of species having evolved stage by stage (Ernst Mayer in his book Evoluutio [What Evolution Is], p. 288).
Austin H. Clark: Since its first appearance, the animal kingdom has been essentially the same as we know it today...Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, those who believe in creation are on the better side of the dispute. There is not the slightest proof that any of the large groups [of the animal kingdom] originated from another. (19)
What about Darwin's book On the Origin of Species? Doesn't that prove the theory of evolution true? However, people have the wrong idea here. Darwin was certainly a competent scientist, but the cases he presented are not examples of species changes, but examples of variation (the size of birds' beaks, etc.) and adaptation. They are two completely different things. That is, if the size of finches' beaks varies, or if one bacteria is more resistant than another, it does not make them a new species. They are still finches or bacteria. The examples that appear in the scientific literature are all limited to this area. They are examples of variation and adaptation. As an indication of the level on which Darwin's examples move, are the following quotations. Although Darwin had good observations, he was unable to prove that species changes had occurred. They are not in his book On the Origin of Species, nor in other evolutionary literature. This is consistent with the denial of the existence of intermediate fossils by several leading paleontologists. So, if the evidence is taken as it is, and not viewed through evolutionary lenses, it does indeed confirm the teaching of Genesis about how species have been separate from each other from the beginning. Changes do occur in them, and in their originally rich gene pool and inheritance, they have had the opportunity to adapt to different conditions. However, it does not change them into other species. In addition, when adaptation and specialization take place, the gene pool of organisms becomes depleted, and they have less and less opportunities for variation in the future. Cheetah and other specialized species are examples of this. They are at risk of extinction because their gene pool is depleted.
Darwin: I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it (20)
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. (21)
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. (22)
"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) (23)
Scientists cannot deny that diverse life existed from the beginning. As stated, the earth's past is often grouped into different historical eras; at first only single-celled life appeared in the Precambrian period, then around 550 million years ago, in the Cambrian period, multicellular life appeared on the bottom of the seas, such as trilobites. After that, fish appeared, then frogs, reptiles and birds and mammals, and last of all man. The geological table is thus based on the assumption that the previous groups of species have appeared on earth in different eras. It is not considered possible that they have existed simultaneously since the beginning of history. At least this is how it is generally explained according to the traditional evolutionary model. Can scientists prove this view to be true? Are there grounds to believe in the view of the emergence of different forms of life on Earth at different times? The direct answer is that this cannot be proven. Anyone who picks up a fossil can notice that. Fossils themselves do not tell us anything, and there are no notes about when they lived on earth. Instead, people can draw conclusions based on e.g. the burial order. Otherwise, it is impossible to prove that there were significant differences, such as millions of years, between the appearance of different species on Earth.
There is no man on this Earth who knows enough about rocks and fossils to be able to prove in any way that a specific type of fossil is truly essentially older or younger than another type. In other words, there is no-one who could truly prove that a trilobite from the Cambrian period is older than a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period or a mammal from the Tertiary period. Geology is anything but an exact science. (24)
The idea that the species have appeared on Earth at a different time, i.e. within hundreds of millions of years, is also refuted by the observations mentioned earlier:
- Radiocarbon remains in the oldest Cambrian organisms, dinosaurs and other organisms. Also, no coal has been found that lacks radiocarbon. (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background materal, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989). So when radiocarbon occurs in the most ancient deposits and organisms, even in approximately the same amount, it strongly suggests the simultaneity of organisms on earth. There are no grounds to believe in their occurrence at different times. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be millions of years since they became extinct, but only thousands of years. Another reason to be negative about the idea of species appearing on Earth at different times - over millions of years - are fossils. Earlier, it was stated that several leading paleontologists have admitted that there is no discernible gradual development in the fossils. So if there is no gradual development, then where is the evidence of evolution and how can one prove the development from the primordial cell to man over hundreds of millions of years? It is much more reasonable to believe that several species have been on earth at the same time since the beginning. This is what is required in the creation model. Why then the so-called Cambrian trilobites (animals of the seabed), dinosaurs and humans usually do not appear or are not found in the same strata? Evolutionists explain this by the fact that they lived at a different time on Earth, but there is a much more logical explanation: ecological compartments - just as today there are ecological compartments and their characteristic fauna and flora (sea-, marshland-, highland-, and mountain zones with their own typical animals and plants). Because when trilobites were seabed animals, dinosaurs and humans could not even live in the same environment. It is impossible that man and animals of dry land could live for long periods at the bottom of the sea. Similarly, humans and dinosaurs certainly wouldn't have lived very close to each other either, because even today humans may be far from forest animals (bears, lions, tigers...). Thus, there is a logical explanation for the presence of organisms in different strata: different places of residence, just as in modern times, there are different zones at the same time. The following quote tells more about the subject:
The trilobites of the Cambrian period are usually not found together with the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period. Why is this? According to the theory of evolution, this is due to the fact that the trilobites became extinct millions of years before the dinosaurs developed. However, there is a much more plausible explanation: if trilobites and dinosaurs lived nowadays, it is not likely that they could be found in the same place. This is because they would live in different ecological zones. The dinosaurs are land animals, while the trilobites are inhabitants of the sea bed. (…) Therefore, there is no reason to reject the idea that all life forms buried in the strata lived almost at the same time but in different ecological zones. Catastrophism could be the explanation for the entire geological stratigraphic sequence, just as the founders of geology supposed. (25)
Scientists cannot prove that the strata were formed over millions of years. Evolutionists have long thought that the strata of the Earth's crust have been formed over tens and hundreds of millions of years. This view of millions of years was brought up, e.g., by Charles Lyell in 1830 in his publication Principles of Geology, on which book, for example, Charles Darwin based his theory. Can evolutionists prove this view true? Is it reasonable to believe that most strata were formed over millions of years? The answer is that there is a much better explanation for the formation of strata, i.e. catastrophism. It explains dinosaurs and other fossils in strata, because fossils can only be born by rapid burial. It's only a question of a few weeks and days, not millions of years. Otherwise, fossils could not be born. In soil there can also be fossilized trees, which can penetrate through more than ten layers. The only possibility for wood fossils to exist is that mud have quickly accumulated around them. So what does the rapid generation of fossils point to? The best explanation is a sudden catastrophe, which explains both the rapid formation of the deposits and the fossils in them. This could happen, for example, in the Flood. It is interesting that many scientists have come to accept catastrophes in the past and no longer take it for granted that everything happened at a steady rate over millions of years. Evidence better supports disasters than a slow process. The well-known atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould refers to Lyell's studies:
Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession… [and he] resorted to two cunning means to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw mannequin so that he would destroy it… In fact, the proponents of catastrophism were much more experimentally oriented than Lyell. Indeed, the geological material seems to require natural disasters: the rocks are fragmented and twisted; entire organisms have been wiped out. To ignore this literal manifestation, Lyell replaced the evidence with his imagination. Secondly, Lyell's uniformity is a jumble of claims… ... Lyell was not a pure knight of truth and fieldwork, but a deliberate propagator of an enchanting and peculiar theory anchored in the steady state of the cycle of time. With his speaking skills, he tried to equate his theory with rationality and sincerity. (26)
As stated, the most likely option for the rapid formation of strata would be a flood-like catastrophe. What in the geological chart is explained by millions of years, or perhaps by many disasters, can be explained by one catastrophe only: the Flood. It would account for the destruction of dinosaurs, the existence of fossils, and many other distinct features in our soils. It would also strengthen the finds of radiocarbon dating, which has suggested many species’ extinction to have taken place some thousand years ago, and not millions of years ago. A good reason to consider the Flood as the main cause of the catastrophe, is the fact that oceanic sediments appear common all around the world, as can be seen from the following quotations. The first of the comments is from a book by James Hutton, cited as the father of geology, from more than 200 years ago:
We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)
J.S. Shelton: On the continents, marine sedimentary rocks are far more common and widespread than all other sedimentary rocks combined. This is one of those simple facts that demands explanation, being at the heart of everything related to man's continuing efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (27)
Coal deposits serve as another indication of the Flood, as they are known to have been stratified by water. In addition, the presence of marine fossils and fishes shows that the deposits cannot be the result of slow peating in some bog. Instead, a better explanation is that the water has transported the plants to the places where the coal has formed. The force of water has torn plants and trees from the ground, piled them in certain places, and also mixed marine animals with terrestrial plants. This kind of phenomenon can only be caused by a strong flood, like the Flood from the Bible.
When the forests were buried in the sludge for some reason, coal deposits were create. Our current machine culture is partially based on these strata. (Mattila Rauno, Teuvo Nyberg & Olavi Vestelin, Koulun biologia 9, p. 91)
Under and above the mineral coal seams there are, as has been said, regular layers of clay stone, and from their structure we can see that they have been stratified from water. (28)
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that mineral coal was generated quickly when large forests were destroyed, layered and then quickly buried. There are huge lignite strata in Yallourn, Victoria (Australia) that contain plenty of pine tree trunks – trees that do not currently grow on marsh land. The sorted, thick strata that contain up to 50% of pure pollen and that are spread over a huge area clearly prove that the lignite strata were formed by water. (29)
It is taught in schools that carbon is gradually created from peat, although nowhere can it be observed that this is happening. Considering the extent of the coalfields, the different plant types, and the upright multi-layered trunks, it appears that the coal deposits were formed by huge drifting rafts of vegetation, during a very large flood. Corridors carved by marine organisms are also found in these carbonized plant fossils. Fossils of marine animals have also been found in coal deposits ("A note on the Occurrence of Marine Animal Remains in a Lancashire Coal Ball", Geological Magazine, 118:307,1981)... Considerable sea animal shell deposits and fossils of Spirorbis, which lived in the sea, can also be found in coal deposits. (Weir, J., ”Recent Studies of Shells of the Carbon Measures”, Science Progress, 38:445, 1950). (30)
Prof. Price presents cases where 50- to100 mineral coal layers are one top of each other and between them there are layers including fossils from deep sea. He deems this piece of evidence so strong and convincing that he has never tried to explain these facts on grounds of Lyell’s uniformity theory. (31)
Also, the appearance of marine fossils high up in mountain ranges, like in the Himalayas, the Alps, and in Andes, indicates the occurrence of the Flood.
While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true], p. 127)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…) At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)
We can also count flood stories as proof of the Flood, as there are nearly 500 of them according to some estimates. The commonality of these stories around the world is one of the strongest evidence we have of the Flood:
Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (32)
Lenormant says in his book "Beginning of History": "We have the opportunity to prove that the story of the Flood is a universal tradition in all branches of the human family, and such a certain and uniform tradition as this cannot be considered an imagined fable. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a strong impression on the minds of the first parents of the human family that even their descendents could never forget it. (33)
Peoples of different races have different heritage stories about the enormous flood catastrophe. The Greeks have told a story about the Flood, and it is centered around a character named Deukalion; even long before Columbus, the natives of the American continent had stories that had kept alive the memory of the great flood. Tales about a flood have been moved on from generation to generation up until this day also in Australia, India, Polynesia, Tibet, Kašmir and Lithuania. Are they all just tales and stories? Are they all made up? It is presumable that they all describe the same great catastrophe. (34)
Scientists cannot prove that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. If you had to name the animals most associated with millions of years, dinosaurs would be first on the list. The common belief is that these hulking animals (Size is relative. A modern blue whale can weigh twice as much as the heaviest dinosaurs.) ruled the Earth for over 100 million years until they became extinct 65 million years ago. This issue has been constantly emphasized through evolution literature and programs, so the idea of dinosaurs living on earth millions of years ago has been strongly etched into most people's minds. It is not considered possible that these huge animals lived in the very recent past and at the same time as humans. Will scientists be able to prove the vision of millions of years to be true? Can they prove that dinosaurs lived on earth more than 65 million years ago? There is a direct answer to the question: scientists cannot do that. In addition, in this area, important factors such as the problems of the geological time chart are often ignored. When the time of the extinction of dinosaurs and other animals is determined according to the geological time chart drawn up in the 19th century, it is possible to prove this time chart to be false, e.g. due to the following reasons:
• As stated earlier, radiocarbon can be found in Cambrian organisms, dinosaurs and other ancient life forms. Also, no coal has been found that lacks radiocarbon. (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989). This brings these strata and life forms considered old only thousands, not millions, of years away. Moreover, there lies another issue for evolutionists: there won’t be enough time left for their supposed evolutionary processes. Time in itself does not enable anything, as some scientists might mistakenly believe. However, if only a few thousand years are available, the ideas of millions of years of development and the geological time chart should be abandoned.
• The geological time chart is based on the idea of development. The assumption is that all current life forms have evolved from the same primordial cell over millions of years. As a result, fossils should show a gradual development from a simple beginning to increasingly complex life forms. But as stated; several leading paleontologists have denied the existence of gradual evolution. It has never been observed. Even the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted the same thing in his book The Blind Watchmaker (Sokea kelloseppä, p.240,241): "Since Darwin's time, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in age order do not form a series of small, barely noticeable changes." Therefore, if there has been no gradual development, the geological time chart cannot be correct. There is no reason to believe that the current species originated from the same primordial cell as a result of millions of years of processes. It is much more likely that all species have lived on earth at the same time, as required by the creation view. Instead, many species, such as dinosaurs, have become extinct. Even today, several species become extinct every year.
• Earlier we noted how fossils don't have age tags stating their time of extinction. This also applies to dinosaurs. However, we can still make some conclusions based on their fossils. The problem is that many scientists are stuck to the 19th century Geological time chart, and do not directly study the fossils themselves. It is possible to get a lot of information about fossils if we do not look at them through evolutionary glasses and millions of years:
• Earlier it was brought up how radiocarbon has been found in dinosaur fossils. It means that dinosaurs could not have lived for millions of years, but at most thousands of years ago. The method based on radiocarbon dating was not known when the geological time chart was drawn up, but it is known now. So it is justified to reject the geological time chart because it is blatantly inconsistent with the fossils themselves.
• DNA has also been found in dinosaurs. These discoveries have been made since the 1990s. What does this mean? DNA cannot survive in nature for very long. For example, DNA samples from old human mummies or mammoths are often not obtained at all due to their spoilage. Yle uutiset (Yle news) reported in its science department only a few years ago that the half-life of DNA was calculated to be only 521 years (news about half-life was reported in an article called DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat [The final limit of DNA preservation was revealed - dreams of cloning dinosaurs ended]; yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012). So, if DNA is still left in dinosaur fossils, as well as radiocarbon - of which an official half-life of only 5730 years - the age of the fossils can only be a few millennia at the most.
• As stated, the problem with evolutionists is that they look at everything through evolutionary glasses and the geological time chart of millions of years. They don't directly study the fossils and draw conclusions from them and that creates problems. However, the fossils themselves show clear signs that they cannot be from millions of years ago. Radiocarbon and DNA are a couple of indications of this. In addition, the fossils themselves are often in good condition. They can contain muscles, soft tissues, skin, even nucleated blood cells. They might even emit a rotting smell. Jack Horner, a scientist who believes in the theory of evolution, stated about a large dinosaur fossil discovery site that "all the bones in Hell Creek stink." How can bones stink after tens of millions of years? If they were that old, surely all the smell would have left them by now. The following quotes further bring up the same problem. It's about proteins, which also shouldn't last many millennia. However, they are found in dinosaur fossils. It would be time for researchers to abandon the geological time chart and instead do research directly on fossils:
On the other hand, it is known that biomolecules cannot be preserved for more than 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, [1379 ]). This is the research result of empirical science. Collagen, which is a biomolecule of animal tissue, i.e. a typical structural protein, can often be isolated from fossils. It is known about the protein in question that it breaks down quickly in the bones, and only its remains can be seen after 30,000 years, except in very dry special conditions. The Hell Creek area is sure to get some rain from time to time. Therefore, collagen should not be found in "68 million" year old bone that has been buried in the soil. (35)
If the observations about proteins isolated from dinosaur bones, such as albumin, collagen and osteocalcin, as well as DNA are correct, and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefullness, based on these studies, the bones must be re-dated to no more than 40,000-50,000 years old, because the maximum possible preservation time of the substances in question in nature cannot be exceeded. (36)
• It is well known that evolutionists deny the simultaneous presence of humans and dinosaurs on Earth. Here, however, these researchers ignore numerous facts that prove the opposite. These kinds of finds include, e.g., dinosaur-looking old paintings and statues. All around the world they share nearly identical details of anatomy. Images of dinosaurs have been captured, e.g., in shields (Sutton Hoo) and in decorative wall ornaments in churches (e.g. SS Mary and Hardulph, England). Ancient Babylonian city Isthar holds a gate that depicts not only bulls and lions, but also dragons. Early Mesopotamian cylinder seals depict hugging dragons with long tails and necks (Moortgat, A., The art of ancient Mesopotamia, Phaidon Press, London 1969, pp. 1,9,10 and Plate A.). More dragon/dinosaur containing images can be seen here: www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dinosauruslegendat.htm One example is also the stories related to dragons (it's good to remember that the name dinosaur was only invented in the 1840s by Richard Owen), which have been preserved in the folklore of different peoples around the world. Here are some comments related to the topic:
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)
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. (38)
Also in the Bible the name dragon is mentioned several times (for example, Job 30:29: I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.). Relating to this, we can find an interesting comment from the distinguished late fossil researcher Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that when the book of Job talks about the Behemoth, then the only animal to which this description fits is the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist he assumed that the writer of Job must have seen dinosaur fossils and gathered his knowledge through them. However, the Book of Job clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you…). What about the Chinese horoscope? A good example of how dinosaurs may have actually been dragons is this horoscope, which is known to be centuries old. So when the Chinese zodiac is based on 12 animal signs that repeat in 12-year cycles, there are 12 animals involved. 11 of them are familiar even in modern times: rat, ox, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. Instead, the 12th animal is a dragon, which does not exist today. A good question is that if the 11 animals have been real animals, why would the dragon be an exception and a mythical creature? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that it once lived at the same time as humans, but has become extinct like so many other animals? It is good to remember again that the term dinosaur was only invented in the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, the name dragon was used for centuries.
Scientists cannot prove that humans appeared on Earth later than other life forms. Then to human history. We are often taught in schools, TV shows and evolutionary literature that humans appeared on Earth much later than other life forms. Let's assume that there was life on Earth hundreds of millions of years before us. Can evolutionary scientists prove this view to be true? They can't, it's more of a philosophical than a scientific observation. The reason for this is that numerous discoveries suggest that humans lived on Earth at the same time as the early life forms. One indication that man has been on earth from the beginning and at the same time as other life forms are human footprints in strata considered to be ancient - strata whose age has been considered to be tens or hundreds of millions of years. Such discoveries fit Jesus' words that man was created at the beginning of creation (Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.):
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)
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)
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)
There are other reasons to believe in the coexistence of humans and the earliest life-forms, such as the finds of humanmade objects – golden chain, iron pot, and other man-made items – in the coal deposits "300 million years" behind. Likewise, human fossils have been found in them (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). Many such discoveries have been made. In his book Time Upside Down (1981), Erich A. von Frange has listed more objects found in coal, which are in the following list. If the discoveries are viewed according to the evolutionary scale, man should have appeared on Earth 100 to 200 million years before the dinosaurs, because the Carboniferous period is believed to have been so long before the dinosaurs. One discovery of this type – no more is needed – is enough to disprove the theory of evolution and the millions of years it requires.
1. a small steel cube 2. an iron hammer 3. an iron instrument 4. a nail 5. a bell-shaped metal vessel 6. a bell 7. child's jawbone 8. a human skull 9. two human molars 10. a fossilized human foot
Without going into millions of years any more, it's good to move on to real history. Many question the history of Genesis, but its descriptions is confirmed by other sources. Such are e.g. mentions in other sources about the Fall, the Flood and the confusion of languages. However, they will not be discussed in depth here. Instead, we will highlight 6 reasons why man appeared on earth only a few millennia ago (like other life forms. It was stated above that there is plenty of evidence for the simultaneous existence of man with the early life forms) and in a fully developed form. This is indicated by the following points:
• A seven-day week • Woman was created from man • The definite history of man is only approx. 4000-5000 years • Population growth • First humans lived in the Middle East • Complexity right from the start
Seven-day week
- (Gen 2:2) 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.
- (Ex 20:11) 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.
One remarkable fact is that we have a seven-day week. It occurs around the world in all cultures. This practice is thousands of years old. Where did the seven-day week come from? Evolutionists can hardly give a good answer to this, but there is an explanation in the Bible: God created everything in seven days and that is why people celebrate a seven-day week. This custom has been known to peoples living in different parts of the world since ancient times, so it is an early inheritance from common ancestors, as the following quote shows. If God had not created everything in seven days and only a few millennia ago, this practice would certainly not have occurred:
Woman was created from man
- (Gen 2:20-23) 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. 21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Then to the order of creation. Genesis shows that woman was created from man. Modern evolutionists usually laugh at this notion, but they shouldn't. Because the Miao people in China have preserved a similar order about the creation of man. According to them too, woman was created after a man and from the man. Their order is the same as in the Bible's creation story. The similarities do not end only in the correct order of human creation. Miao nation’s stories include similar names as can be found in the first chapters of the Bible, such as Seth, Lamech, Noah and Noah's sons Shem, Ham and Japhet; or they at least share a striking resemblance to these names. Such similarities to the Bible's narrative strongly point to a common early history of mankind. Similar descriptions of these initial stages can be found in the folklore of nations. They include stories and heritage knowledge about the Fall, the confusion of languages, the Flood, and dragons.
On the earth He made a man from mud. From a man thus created He formed a wife. Then the patriarch Loka made a scale out of stones, estimating the weight of the earth to the bottom, calculating the mass of the heavenly bodies, meditating on the ways of the deity, God. To patriarch Loka was born patriarch Se-teh. To patriarch Se-teh was born son Lusu, and Lusu had Kehlo and to him was born Lama. To patriarch Lama was born the man Nuah. His wife's name was ancestress Kau Po-lu-en. Their sons were: Lo-Han, Lo-Shen and Jah-hu. Like this the earth started to fill with tribes and families. In creation the families and nations were formed. (41)
The well-known fossil researcher Richard Leakey has given a somewhat similar description in his book Ihmisyyden synty, p. 322 (Origins Reconsidered). There is a question about an Indian tribe in South America, whose old tradition refers to both, the Flood and a woman appearing from a man's body. This suggests that this people has had a vague knowledge of the early stages of humanity. There are similar stories in many nations:
There were only a few original creatures left after the Flood. Periboriwa (the Spirit of the Moon) was one of the few that survived… The narration goes on to explain that women originally appeared in a fully finished form from a man’s body.
The definite history of man is only approx. 4000-5000 years. Attempts have often been made to push human history behind long periods of time, as has been done with other forms of life. In the media, some places of discovery, e.g. cave paintings, may have been presented as being 10,000, 30,000 or 50,000 years old (many cave paintings are so fine that not even many modern humans can do this. How could ancestors who had just risen from the monkey's level have been able to do this? This idea makes no sense). It is claimed that human history goes back so far. However, the question is, are these findings based on reliable information? They are not based because they are impossible to check. Usually, discoveries are based on radiocarbon measurements, but these measurements can show numbers that are higher than their actual age, e.g. due to the continuously weakened magnetic field (The strength of the magnetic field has been calculated to halve once every 1400 years.) The following comments will illustrate how human history that we can be certain of only goes back a few thousand years, and not much further than that – as can be interpreted from the Bible. Findings assumed to be older than that are questionable. The first statement comes from the developer of radiocarbon method, W.F. Libby, who stated in the Science magazine (3/3/1961, p.624) that documented and sure history only extends about 5000 years back. He talked about the ruling families 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." (42)
"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. (43)
Population growth neither supports the idea that human’s origin took place millions of years ago. According to calculations, the population doubles every 400 years. (Shorter times for this doubling have also been mentioned. We must also note that abortions and contraception were not possible in the past as they are nowadays.) If we use this doubling factor and assume that humans existed 16,000 years ago then our current population should be more than one trillion people (1,099,510,000,000) which is almost 200 times the current population .. It is such a huge figure that such a population could not even exist on Earth. This also suggests that the beginning of mankind cannot be pushed too far into the past. Otherwise the surface of the Earth would have filled up with dead bodies and the present population would be many times larger. If the above doubling rate were used as a basis (the population doubles every 400 years) and we went back in time 4000 years, then the Earth would have had more than 1000 times fewer inhabitants than today, i.e. only about 5 million inhabitants. That seems like a right estimate. It fits with the idea that the first humans lived on earth only a few millennia ago, and that all present-day inhabitants are descended from them. The matter is mentioned in the First Book of Moses (Gen. 10:32: These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.) In addition, it is good to note that when people have originally left the Middle East to spread elsewhere and when the population has grown (Gen 1:28: ”…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,..."), such places as the North and South America and Australia became mainly populated only after the 18th century, when they gained inhabitants due to migration. The fact that the earth was filled with inhabitants only this late shows that the beginning of humanity cannot be more than a few millennia behind.
First humans lived in the Middle East. When it comes to the origin of man, one idea in the evolutionary literature is that man's original home was in Africa. Evolutionists assume that the first humans lived in Africa and moved from there to other places. But what is the historical and correct understanding? Decades ago, it was much more clearly understood that man's original home is in the Middle East, in the region of the Euphrates and Tigris. This was indicated by the traditional information of the peoples that the first buildings were built in this area and that the world's cereals originate from the same region. This is real science and the same as the history of the Bible. The following quote tells more about the topic:
William Dawson asserts in his book Modern Science that he and other eminent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region, geologically speaking, must have been the only place where man could have lived in the beginning. Dr. Armstrong says much the same in his book Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of mankind? On this, as well as on the question of racial unity, scholars are more or less in agreement. The high altitude regions where the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are located are considered to have been the cradle of mankind. This is proven by many facts, e.g. the fact that the genealogies of almost all tribes mention this corner of the world as their original home. In addition, all the grain species used for human consumption in the world come from there. And geological studies also lead to the same result." (44)
Complexity right from the start. As is known, such things as buildings, ceramics, the use of metals, language and agriculture appeared in the world only a few millennia ago. They appeared in the Middle East region as Genesis shows. One indication of how Civilization suddenly appeared in the world is also mathematics. For example, the square root was already known 4000-5000 years ago. A good question is, why was it not known before or why did it appear at this particular time? These kinds of historical facts go well with the narrations of Genesis: humans have been complex from the beginning, and we have not been here that many thousand years. The following quotation will explain further the matter. We will look at mathematics:
Around 2000 BC, the schoolboys of the small Sumerian settlement of Šadippur had a 'textbook' in which the solution to Euclid's famous triangle problem was presented 1700 years before Euclid... The 'textbooks' made of clay by Šadippur schoolboys contain, like an encyclopedia, the main features of the scientific knowledge of the time, which forces a thorough review of the history of the development of science and therefore also the history of the development of the human mind... This suggests that around 2000 BC, mathematics reached a level of development that archaeologists and historians of natural science had never imagined possible. (45)
TAKE A PINHEAD IN YOUR HAND!
- (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.
The ages of the universe, the Earth and life have been discussed above. It has been established that the idea of millions and billions of years is a figment of the imagination with no basis. People believe in this notion, even though there is no proper scientific evidence for it. Numerous observations point in the opposite direction. What about the beginning of the universe? It was stated above how it is based on the concept of the Big Bang. In this theory, it is assumed that everything started from a point smaller than a pinhead. For example, Joseph Silk has explained this in his book "Big Bang":
All material that we know to be in billions of galaxies, was compressed to a pinhead-sized point. Our own visible Milky Way was smaller than an atom in it.
Dear reader! Carefully think about this; if you take a pinhead in your hand, can you believe that it could generate talking humans, singing birds, elephants, lions, soaring eagles, tasty strawberries, bananas, tall trees, fish, oceans, and our glowing hot Sun? Can you believe the pinhead in your hand could transform itself into these things, because that is exactly what is being proposed by the Big Bang theory? Or maybe you realize that Scientists may be wrong this time, and very wrong indeed? Perhaps they are in the grip of false images and lies, as they believe in millions and billions of years. Why then can supposedly wise scientists believe in such absurd “pinhead theories”? However, there is a spiritual reason for this: Satan's deception towards humanity. Satan deceives people so that we would not believe in God and turn to Jesus Christ. It comes up e.g. in the following verses:
- (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 1:19-22) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
- (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.
Dear reader! Don’t let the lies deveive you anymore, instead turn to our loving God! Confess your sins to Him and tell Him you want to surrender your whole life to Him! Do as the prodigal son in the allegory told by Jesus! When he turned to his father, his father welcomed him with open arms:
- (Luke 15:18-20) I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you, 19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants. 20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
You must understand that you also need a mediator and a savior, for your sins! Jesus is this mediator and the only way to God. When you turn to Him and welcome Him in your life as the Lord, you will receive forgiveness of sins and an eternal life:
- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
- (Acts 13:38) Be it known to you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins:
So, if you have turned to Jesus Christ and received Him in your life, you are a child of God and have eternal life. You have the eternal life regardless of what you feel right now. Do not base your assurance of salvation on your ever-changing emotions, but rest in the word of the Bible and on Jesus Christ, just like the anchor of a ship is never thrown inside the ship but always outside.
- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life. 13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The prayer of salvation: Lord Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and I have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement work and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation You have given me. Amen.
REFERENCES: 1. John D. Barrow : Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 37 2. Same, p. 36-37 3. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) teoksessa In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122 4. Andrew A. Snelling: Radioaktiivisen iänmäärityksen epäonnistuminen, Luominen-magazine nro 3, p. 34,35, http://luominen.fi/_ajoitusmenetelmat/_radioaktiivisen-ianmaarityksen-epaonnistuminen 5. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, edited finnish by Pekka Reinikainen, p. 104,105 6. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 83 7. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34 8. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 84 9. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. toukokuuta 2004, sit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne 10. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley 11. Information from: www.kreationismi.fi 12. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92,192 13. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194 14. http://creation.com/redirect.php?http:// www. youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ 15. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146 16. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 85 17. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 18. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution 19. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19. 20. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94 21. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 100,101 22.Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 10,11 23. Norman Macbeth: Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33 24. Austin H. Clark: Quarterly Review of Biology, joulukuu 1928, p. 539 25. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 26. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 257 27. Rodney Stark, p. 184 28. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19 29. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, lainaus A.M Rehnwinkelin kirjasta Flood, p. 267, 278 30. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 173, 184 31. Stephen Jay Gould: Catastrophes and steady state earth, Natural History, 84(2):15-16 / Ref. 6, p. 115. 32. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated 33. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 114 34. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 11 35. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 179, 224 36. Wiljam Aittala: Kaikkeuden sanoma, p. 198 37. Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78 38. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 5 39. Werner Keller: Raamattu on oikeassa, p. 29 40. Pekka Reinikainen: Darwin vai älykäs suunnitelma?, p. 88 41. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111 42. Francis Hitching: Arvoitukselliset tapahtumat (The World Atlas of Mysteries), p. 159 43. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366 44. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24 45. Tri John Kitto kirjassa Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, II, hakusana "Sabbath", p. 655 46. E.V. Koskinen: Alusta loppuun, p. 12 47. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624 48. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28. 49. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175 50. The New York Times, 8.1.1950, p. 1, 28
When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence
How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question
Is the Earth old or young? Is the earth and life billions of years old or not? Learn how the evidence does not support atheistic birth theories or long periods of time
Slowly or quickly? Nature programs often tell about processes over millions of years. However, several facts are against millions of years
How old is it, that is, the age of the earth and life on earth? Dozens of facts point to millions of years as lies
|
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
|
When did the Dinosaurs Live? Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence
How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question
Is the Earth old or young? Is the earth and life billions of years old or not? Learn how the evidence does not support atheistic birth theories or long periods of time
Slowly or quickly? Nature programs often tell about processes over millions of years. However, several facts are against millions of years
How old is it, that is, the age of the earth and life on earth? Dozens of facts point to millions of years as lies
|
