WHAT IS SCIENTIFIC CREATIONISM?
Creation Science is the practice of science with the assumption and acknowledgment that there is a creator God. The current, prevailing assumption in much of the scientific community is Naturalism, the belief that life and the formation of galaxies are the result of random, chaotic events. Both systems agree on the basic facts. The dispute lies in the interpretation of those facts. Since no scientist was present to observe either the creation of any star or any species, and since no one can replicate the conditions when life or planets began, reputable investigators are left to interpret the data. Creationism is not opposed to legitimate scientific inquiry! In fact, the biblical mandate to "subdue" the earth (Genesis 1:28) requires us to understand the physical processes at work in the universe, which is the general purpose of science. Once we leave the realm of data, however, and enter in a discussion of interpretation, science ends and religion begins. At the beginning of this new millennium, two opposing belief systems are being offered as valid descriptions of scientific evidence. This article outlines 50 types of evidence contrary to Naturalism, or macro-evolution. Examine the data yourself and arrive at your own conclusion.
WHAT IS EVOLUTION?
The term “evolution” requires immediate clarification before intelligent discussion can occur. The word is often used interchangeably to describe widely different processes, thus leading to confusion. If we were to witness an increase in organic complexity over eons, such as reptiles mutating into birds, we would properly call this “macro-evolution.” To describe small changes that occur in a species over time, such as alterations in color or bone structure, the proper term is “micro-evolution”. No one, including creation scientists, disputes the occurrence of so-called "micro-evolution", or the variation within a type of organism, caused by natural selection. This genetic function may be responsible for the large number of species found within a type. Almost all evidence for evolution falls into this category. Examples include Darwin’s finches or the British peppered moths. However, "micro-evolution" is a misnomer, as it implies that "a little" evolution is taking place. In actuality, NO evolution is occurring, as no increase in complexity, such as the development of a new organ, is being generated. “Micro-evolution” merely describes how some existing genetic traits are emphasized over others. Large-scale change of one type of organism into another cannot be produced simply through mutation coupled with natural selection. Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue". Even non-creation scientists, such as Denton, Behe and Spetner have written books providing hard, scientific facts that document why macro-evolution is impossible. Take another example. The geologic column, that layering of rocks which is seen in canyons and mountain ranges, is cited as physical evidence of evolution. However, these layers are better explained as the result of a devastating global flood. Such a flood occurred approximately 5,000 years ago and is fully described in the Bible. Even evolutionists acknowledge that the fossil record is one of "fully formed abrupt appearance" and "stasis" (i.e, no change over time). There is precious little in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form. When apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record. Looking to the creation of the stars, we are taught that the lifeless atoms of a "Big Bang" eventually produced humans ALL BY THEMSELVES without any intelligent guidance. This assertion is contrary to the well-proven Second Law of Thermodynamics and the fundamentals of Information Theory. The universe is known to be "running down" yet evolutionary theory postulates that it is "building up". In your experience, do things left untouched become more orderly over time, or more chaotic? “Atoms-to-people” evolution is much more a "religious belief" than a scientific fact. There is ample evidence to believe that a God created our universe, earth, plants, animals, and people just as described in the book of Genesis. Please read on and give each point careful thought as to which religious view sounds more reasonable -- special creation or evolution.
1. PARACONFORMITY:
Evolutionary geologists contend that rocks were laid down in a uniform, predictable manner over billions of years. These scientists label and date these rock layers with familiar names such as Jurassic and Pre-Cambrian. The term Paraconformity describes those rock formations that are missing certain layers which are predicted by evolutionary geology. None of the typical gullying and weathering is visible in these examples, unlike what we see when the ground has been exposed for long periods. At several places in the Baltic region, clays of the so-called Pleistocene age rest directly on clays that contain Cambrian age fossils, creating an evolutionary gap of 400 million years. Yet in some places the break between layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays. Creationists say that the evidence from these anomalies indicates that the traditional, evolutionary dating methods for rocks are faulty. What do you say?
2. GEOLOGY REVERSED:
Around the world, we see rock layers out of normal evolutionary sequence. Naturalist geologists believe the earth’s rocks were laid down in a uniform manner over billions of years. In Glacier National Park, however, a block of Precambrian “old” rock sits on top of Cretaceous “newer” rock. Why is this important? Evolutionists have a hard time explaining this embarrassing example of 1 billion year-old rock sitting on top of 100 million year old rock. Perhaps the rocks have moved since they were laid down? Unfortunately, when geologists look for signs of movement such as scrape marks or tallis piles they find none. Additionally, the tensile strength of rock makes it highly unlikely that the older block of rock moved across the newer without shattering to dust. Looking at the evidence, creationists say that both rocks were created at the same time. What do you say? 3. RADIOMETRIC DATING:
This process attempts to place an accurate date on the age of rocks by measuring the decay of radioactive minerals trapped within. Scientists first examine the relative ratios of various minerals in the host rock. Three basic assumptions are made when dating a piece of rock; A. the rock contained no “radioactive “daughter-product” atoms in the beginning, only parent atoms. B. since the moment of its creation no parent or daughter atoms were either added to or taken from the sample rock. C. the rate of decay has always remained constant (uniform decay).
These assumptions cannot be proven with any degree of accuracy. To make a scientific claim, one must be able to reproduce results. What do you think? In your experience, can an algebraic equation with three unknown variables yield a predictable, verifiable result? 4. OIL AND COAL ARE YOUNG: When the carbon-14 test was first created, scientists used the process to date all sorts of things. Two examples included oil and coal. Tests of these two substances by the carbon-14 dating method reveal them to be only several thousand years old instead of millions of years old, as predicted by evolutionary theory. Once this method was shown to predict recent dates for oil and coal, scientists stopped dating these products using this method. Do you think it is intellectually sound to reject a process that fails to yield the results you so badly wanted? Is this good science? 5. PERMANENCE OF KINDS: Also called stasis, this field of observation has determined that most animals have remained relatively unchanged throughout the fossil record. Despite millions of (supposed) years and billions of chances to evolve into higher life forms, no evidence exists for this theory. Many fossils from “older” rocks, when compared to their modern counterparts, are often identical in form. Worms still look like worms, not some hybrid creatures. Not one change of one life form into another has ever been recorded, yet evolution is regarded in most circles as fact. 6. TRANSITIONAL LIFEFORMS: If life has always been in a continual stream of transmutation from one species to another, as evolutionists insist, then we would expect to find many fossils intermediate between all the species. Yet, we do not find any transitional species. Instead of finding fish growing limbs and reptiles sprouting wings in the fossil record, what we actually see are gaps. Creationists continually ask evolutionists to explain the following gaps; non-living matter to protozoan, protozoan to metazoans, metazoans to invertebrates, invertebrates to fish, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to fur-bearing quadrupeds, quadrupeds to apes, and apes to man. Have you ever seen or heard of a transitional fossil? Of course not. They don’t exist! 7. PETRIFIED LOGS: Petrified logs represent something of an enigma for evolutionary scientists. These logs point to a rapid, catastrophic event, such as a massive worldwide flood, rather than a slow burial. These trees all have their branches stripped off and yet their bark is intact. This would indicate a very different method of deposition than we currently find in forests and it speaks of an event of enormous power. Creationists believe much evidence exists for a worldwide (Noah’s) flood. Which belief system best explains petrified logs to you, evolution or creationism? 8. POLYSTRATIC TREES: Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers (“many strata”) of rock, sometimes penetrating 20 feet deep. According to evolutionists, a 20 feet deposit of rock would take place slowly and uniformly, over a great many years. However, no one doubts that these trees were buried rapidly, from top to bottom. Otherwise, the top of the trunks would have decayed well before new rock layers had a chance to surround them. An example of polystratic trees can be seen at Spirit Lake in Washington State. The observable, catastrophic events at Mt. St. Helens buried thousands of trees rapidly. Sometimes evolutionists try to explain polystratic evidence as a reburial event, but this can hardly be the case when the rock layers are situated directly against the trunk of the tree. 9. EPHEMERAL MARKINGS: How long do animal tracks last in the woods? Does rain leave an imprint for millions of years? Ephemeral markings include ripple-marks, rain imprints, worm trails, and animal tracks. These fleeting emblems are found in great abundance in the fossil record. As you can well imagine, such fragile marks are very easily disturbed, yet the fossil record yields a large amount of them. Most of these imprints were made in soft, wet sand that hardened into rock. These marks must be buried very fast or they will just wash away with the next wave. Furthermore, they must be buried at least to the depth of the imprint or the rock above the imprint will squash it away to nothing. This is ample proof that these ephemeral imprints were buried in a fast-moving, catastrophic environment such as Noah’s flood. 10. BIOTURBATION: Bioturbation is evidence of animal activity left in rock. This phenomenon would be expected in the upper few feet of most layers of rock. Rapid bioturbation is seen on the East Coast of the U.S., where hurricanes regularly deposit fresh new layers of sediments along the exposed beaches. These sediments are thoroughly inhabited by creatures within a few weeks time to a depth of many feet. If the top few feet of rock layers have been exposed for thousands or millions of years, as evolutionists maintain, we should find profound evidence of animal life, as well as root tracts from plants. Yet, as we look carefully at the geologic column, we find precious little evidence of bioturbation. How can we explain the absence of these animal “tracks?” Consider the expected results of a worldwide flood as described in the Biblical book of Genesis. Such an event would deposit rock layers so quickly that no bioturbation could occur. What do you think? Why can’t we find evidence of bioturbation in so-called “ancient” rocks? 11. SOIL LAYERS: Another concern for evolutionists is the lack of extensive soil layers in the fossil record. With layers of earth exposed for what is proposed as "millions" of years you would expect to find many soil layers. Even in desert environments soil layers would build up after eons of time. Yet, in the fossil record very little evidence exists. Creationism predicts that only certain selected areas on earth would present soil layers; exactly what you would expect after a worldwide flood, and exactly what the earth reveals. 12. FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The first law of thermodynamics, also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy, states that there can be no creation or annihilation of mass or energy. Certainly, one form of energy can be converted into another, one state of matter can be converted into another, and matter/energy interconversions can occur. But, the total amount of matter and energy combined always remains constant. This law has application to the creation sciences by verifying that the universe could not just spring into existence by accident. The Big Bang theory, proposed and repeated as an article of faith by naturalists, violates this fundamental law of physics. What do you think: could matter and energy mysteriously appear without a Prime Mover, a Creator God? 13. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: The Second Law, also called the Law of Entropy, states that anything which is organized tends, with time, to become disorganized. Any physical system left to itself will decay; that is, it will lose energy and organization inside the system. Instead of remaining highly organized, as earth’s systems, everything tends to become gradually less organized. For example, over time, chemical processes will reach equilibrium and become inert. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can be expressed in different ways, all of which are equivalent. Three applications include: A. Classical Thermodynamics: The energy available for useful work in a functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant. B. Statistical Thermodynamics: The complexity or order of a structured system tends to become disorganized and random. C. Informational Thermodynamics: The information that is conveyed by a communicating system tends to become distorted and incomplete over time.
This fundamental law of physics clearly states that the incredible increase of information required for a lifeform to evolve from amino acids could never happen. Does it make sense to you that evolution could repeatedly violate the Second Law by organizing more complex forms of life from “simpler” versions? [Also See There Ought To Be A Law Against Evolution... And There Is!] 14. BIOGENIC LAW: This law has two provable concepts to it: A. Life can only come from life. B. Like kinds always give rise to like kinds. (reptiles produce other reptiles, and do not magically become birds.)
More than a century after it was first proposed, scientists have never seen this law violated. 15. ANGULAR MOMENTUM: Evolutionary astronomers calculate the universe to be 10-12 billion years old. They postulate that the solar system appeared after enough particles gravitated together. However, given this hypothesis, the sun should have 700 times more angular momentum than all the planets combined. Instead, the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the sun. How is this possible? Celestial physics won’t conform to the “Big Bang” theory. 16. INCLINED ORBITS: Again, if we are to believe the naturalists, the orbit of each of the solar systems 63 moons should lie in the equatorial plane of the planet it orbits, but many, including the earth’s moon, are in highly inclined orbits. Why? 17. BIG BANG: A big problem exists with the Big Bang, the evolutionists’ view of how the universe came into existence. The Big Bang violates the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. Physics does not confer the title “Law” unless an inviolable concept is at stake. Is it not absurd for scientists to twist these Laws in order to deny the existence of a Creator? The very idea of producing matter and energy from nothing is absurd to the highest extreme. Only by adding energy and information to an existing early universe could one expect to initiate an evolving universe. But the evidence does not exist to support this ludicrous idea. 18. POYNTING-ROBERTSON EFFECT: The sun, acting like a giant vacuum cleaner, sweeps up close to 100,000 tons of inflow per day. The sun’s radiation pressure also serves to push small, interplanetary dust particles outward into space. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect. If the solar system is truly billions of years old, and if uniformitarianism is true, then the solar system should have been swept clean by now. Unfortunately for evolutionists, tons of space dust remains in the solar system. How does that evidence square with naturalistic theory? 19. STAR CLUSTERS: Star clusters serve to indicate a young age for the universe. A star cluster contains hundreds or thousands of stars moving, as one author put it, "like a swarm of bees." These heavenly bodies are held together by gravity. But in some clusters, the stars are moving so fast that they could not have held together for millions or billions of years. Star clusters tell us that the age of the universe should be measured in thousands of years. 20. SUPER NOVAS: When big stars run out of fuel, they explode. A certain number of these “super nova remnants” are visible from the earth. According to astronomical theory, in galaxies of our size, approximately 7,250 super nova remnants should be visible. Using the creationist age of the galaxy, we should expect to find between 125 and 200 super nova remnants. The actual number of super nova remnants visible from the earth is 205, which is very close to the creationist numbers. Where are the thousands of predicted remnants? 21. THE HUMAN EYE: The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process. Darwin himself was troubled by the design shown in this marvelous organ. The eye is known to be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Interestingly, the evolutionist has a deeper problem with the eye. Five different types of eyes exist: man, squid, vertebrate, arthropod, and trilobite. Are we to assume that chance mutations created not one, but five separate viewing systems? 22. TRILOBITE EYE: Trilobites were bottom dwelling creatures that are now thought to be extinct. Because they lived at the ocean’s bottom, great numbers were preserved. Trilobite eyes had lenses made out of calcite. Because these lenses are made out of "rock" and therefore don’t decay, paleontologists have been able to study the design of trilobite eyes. Unlike human eyes, which are composed of a single lens, the trilobite eye is composed of a double lens with up to 15,000 separate lens surfaces in each eye. This allows the trilobite to see under water perfectly without distortion. Precise application of several laws of optics, including Abbe’s sine law and Fermat’s principle, is inherent in the design of these lenses. How did a trilobite grow a second lens? How did the eye function before the second lens was present? Did a grand engineer design the eye or did it develop by chance? 23. SEA SLUG: The sea slug is an impressively designed creature that can be used to show evolution as false. The sea slug feeds on the sea anemone, is an animal with poisoned harpoons that paralyze anything they contact. The sea slug’s stomach puts these little darts into a sack inside its body and stores them to use in its own defense. All these abilities need to be present from the very start or the slug would die when it first encountered the sea anemone. How did multiple survival mechanisms arise in the sea slug by chance? Why did the slug evolve the dart storage if the anemone wasn’t edible? Natural selection wouldn’t favor a slug with the dart storage capacity because no need for storage would exist until the slug could devour the anemone. Which came first? Or was everything designed simultaneously? 24. GARDENING ANTS: One of nature's most impressive symbiotic relationships exists between the gardening ant and the Bull’s horn acacia tree. The tree supplies the ants with food in pods specifically for the ants. The tree also provides shelter for the ants. The ants reciprocate by clipping all the growth that competes with the acacia tree. Consequently, the acacia tree never has any competition, and therefore gets plenty of sunlight in a dense rain forest. If the ants are removed from the tree, the acacia dies within two to fifteen months. How would this partnership arise in a survival of the fittest competition between the plant and animal kingdoms? 25. BOMBARDIER BEETLE: The bombardier beetle is a small insect armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened, this beetle blasts the aggressor with a spray of irritating and noxious high temperature gases. This beetle keeps two highly dangerous chemicals, (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide) separated in its little body by the use of a chemical inhibitor. The inhibitor happens to be the exact chemical needed to balance the other two. The beetle also has a fourth chemical that, when introduced to the mixture, suppresses the inhibitor. Also, this beetle has twin tubes exiting out its backside that can be aimed in any direction like a gun turret. Finally, this insect can recognize friend from foe. The bombardier beetle must be fully functional from the moment of inception. Without the inhibitor, the chemicals would dissolve the insect. Without a well-designed mixing chamber, the pressurized gas could not form. Without the tubes, the animal would explode. How did the beetle acquire all the right mechanisms simultaneously? Can evolution explain that? Are we amazed that a jet has all of the systems working harmoniously? Of course not. A jet is designed to work from the blueprint stage. Likewise, the bombardier beetle can only survive because its systems were designed correctly from inception. 26. FLIGHT: Insects are the only invertebrates with the ability to fly. Different than other winged creatures, their flight involves a sculling motion similar to rowing a boat, whereas other flyers use straight flapping. The one exception is the hummingbird. What makes flight so interesting for creationists is that flight did not evolve just one time, as the evolutionists would have you believe. There are four different flyers in the fossil record, each with unique characteristics. They are: reptiles (represented by the pterodactyls), modern birds (which could not emerge from a reptilian ancestor), mammals (represented by the bat), and flying insects. There are too many different characteristics for these to have a common ancestor. The odds against four parallel evolutionary tracks for flight are impossible. 27. DESIGN OF HAWKS: For birds to be able to fly, the ratio of weight to bone strength must be exactly right or the bird will be grounded. While hollow bones are good enough for most birds, the bone structure of hawks and a few other birds are much more advanced in their design. A hollow bone design does not allow for high gravity turns. The Creator added to the hawk’s bones a design that includes diagonal struts, which provides the very best strength-to-weight ratio. This structure, known as the Warren Truss, is very advanced, having been discovered only in the last 50 years by flight engineers. 28. DECOYS AND ANGLERS: Did you hear about the Hawaiian fish that uses a lure to catch its meals? It’s true! This animal uses a dorsal fin to attract other fish. This fin even has a set of fake eyes and mouth. The fish just shakes his "lure", acting like a little fish in trouble, and waits for the predator to move in. At times, this lure is bitten off, but built into this fish's DNA is the ability to grow a new one. How did mutated genes learn to paint so well? 29. MIMICRY: Mimicry is the ability of a creature to imitate another so that it is hard to tell the fake from the real. Most mimicry is found in the insect world. An example would be the praying mantis, which looks like a stick, or certain spiders, which pretend to be ants. How does a creature evolve the ability to change color to the point that it represents an advantage? Some insects even imitate things that are normally lethal. This mimicry seems to cry out that the creatures were created fully formed, not evolved. 30. GECKO LIZARD: This lizard has several features that are hard to explain by evolution. It can run across ceilings and walls without falling off. Looking at the feet of the gecko under a microscope, we find tiny little hairs. Certainly, these could not hold the lizard to the ceiling. When examining hairs under an electron microscope, scientists found tiny little suction cups attached to these hairs. Scientists estimate there are more than 500 million suction cups on each gecko. How would these evolve? [Also See Animals That Prove Creation] 31. NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets. Unfortunately, this rush to judgment is a consistent and disingenuous theme of the evolutionary science community. 32. PILTDOWN MAN: This ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. For more than 50 years we were led to believe this “truth.” Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original “discoverers “ had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution. 33. NEBRASKA MAN: One ancient tooth was discovered in Nebraska. Eager evolutionists built a whole imaginary society and lifestyle around this single tooth! When they found the rest of the skull some two years later, it was clear that the tooth belonged to a pig. For many years, evolutionists described Nebraska Man as a missing link. The only thing missing was thorough research. 34. JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock. 35. PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site. 36. LUCY: Lucy is the latest find by Leakey that has been almost universally accepted as mankind’s ancestor. Lucy is an Australopithecus, which is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations. This is an example of poor anthropology being used in an attempt to convince the public that God does not exist. 37. LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey. 38. FOSSIL HORSE SERIES: Horse fossils have been used for years by naturalists to “prove” evolution. There are a number of problems with this series. A. A complete series of these horses in the correct order has never been found in any rock anywhere in the world. B. The sequence of small toes to big-toed horses does not exist in the fossil record. C. The teeth of the animals found are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types of teeth. D. Two modern horses are found in the fossil record at the same level as the earliest types.
Horse evolution is now a discredited theory. This is not a proof of evolution! 39. VESTIGIAL ORGANS: These human body parts were thought by evolutionists to be remnants of formerly important organs. At one time, more than 200 organs of the human body were classified as such. In the last 100 years, all but four of these organs have been found to have important functions for the body. It appears that every part of the human body has functionality. This implies masterful design, not chance evolutionary processes. 40. PEPPERED MOTHS: This case study is widely used in textbooks to describe evolution. It does describe micro-evolution, that is change within a kind, but does not describe a new kind of animal arising from another. In England, as the industrial revolution turned the trees darker through air pollution, more black moths survived simply because they blended in with the darker trees. Predators attacked the whiter moths as they contrasted with the background. Natural selection took place, but moths remained moths. No new species arose. [Details] 41. ARCHAEOPTERYX: This species was originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds. It is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx. Some evidence points to this being another evolutionary fraud. 42. MILLER-UREY EXPERIMENTS: This was an experiment to see if mankind could create life from scratch. These scientists created a few amino acids under tightly controlled circumstances, unlike those conditions you would find in a primordial earth. Also, the amino acids they created were a long ways from being alive, and the solution contained both left and right-handed amino acids. In nature, only left-handed amino acids are used to make proteins. In fact, if even one single right-handed amino acid occurs in a protein, it renders the entire chain useless. Miller himself has stated that no useful conclusions can be drawn from his experiments. Besides, it took intelligent design to construct the experiment in the first place! 43. COMPARATIVE ANATOMY: This theory states that similar features found in two different creatures indicate that these animals are distant cousins on the evolutionary tree. The problem with this concept is that many of the anatomical features that scientists point to appear in different areas on the DNA strand. Like an architect, an intelligent designer could certainly make multiple use of well-constructed organs or skeletons. Comparative anatomy points to design, not chance evolution. 44. HUMAN POPULATION: The human population can be extrapolated backwards to see how long it would have taken to achieve present-day numbers. Using even conservative growth figures of one-half percent per year, earth’s population would have been eight people about 5,000 years ago. That compares nicely with the number of people on Noah’s Ark. Starting with evolution’s claim for the origin of man, and using the same ˝ percent growth figure for the human race, we calculate a huge present day population that can not be justified by the fossil record or current statistics. [Also see The Mathematical Impossibility of the Theory of Evolution] 45. INFLUX OF ELEMENTS INTO THE OCEANS: The oceans receive tons of effluent every year from rivers. Scientists know with a fair degree of accuracy the quantity of each element’s influx. They also know the current concentration of these elements in the oceans. By simple division, they can calculate the time it took to reach present levels, even accounting for sedimentation and dissipation. None of these elements give an age of the earth even coming close to billion of years. 46. MAGNETIC FIELD: The earth’s magnetic field is decaying at a rate of one half strength every 1,400 years. If we extrapolate backward from current levels over several half lives, we arrive at a maximum age for the earth of about 10,000 years. If the earth were any older, the magnetic field would have been too strong to sustain life. 47. OIL FIELDS FLUID PRESSURE: The pressure in modern day oil fields is too high for them to be very old. Current estimates indicate that the longest a rock layer could keep oil under pressure would be 100,000 years. Our oil is simply not as old as evolutionists’ claim. 48. ORIGIN OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION: No verifiable record of human civilization is older than 5,000 years. Civilization, like everything else, appears suddenly in the historical record. 49. EARTH SPIN SLOWING DOWN: The Earth is slowing down its spin at a rate of one third of a second every year. If we extrapolate this back billions of years we obtain an unreasonable spinning speed for the earth. 50. ROTATION OF SPIRAL GALAXIES: The rotation of spiral galaxies eventually makes them stretch out due to differential rotation. They lose their spiral shape given enough time. Since these galaxies obviously retain their spiral shape, they cannot possibly be billions of years old.
(Article is a production of Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship). | 
