17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

 17 EVIDENCES AGAINST EVOLUTION

------------------------------

By Kevin Martin

   1. Moon Dust

   2. Magnetic Field

   3. Fossil Record

   4. Embryonic Recapitulation

   5. Probability

   6. Second Law of Thermodynamics

   7. Vestigial Organs

   8. Fossil and Fossil Fuel Formation

   9. Punctuated Equilibria

  10. Homology/Molecular Biology

  11. Dating Methods

  12. Dinosaurs

  13. Sun's Diameter

  14. Nile River's Overflow

  15. Earth's Rotation

  16. Written Record

  17. The Bible

   1. MOON DUST

    Meteoritic dust falls on the earth continuously, adding up to

thousands,  if not millions, of tons of dust per year.  Realizing

this,  and knowing that the moon also had meteoritic dust  piling

up  for what they thought was millions of years, N.A.S.A.  scien-

tists  were worried that the first lunar ship that  landed  would

sink  into the many feet of dust which should  have  accumulated.

However, only about one-eight of an inch of dust was found, indi-

cating a young moon.

    Meteoritic material contributes nickel to the oceans.  Taking

the amount of nickel in the oceans and the supply from meteoritic

dust yields an age figure for the earth of just several  thousand

years, not the millions (or billions) expressed by evolutionists.

This, and the lack of meteoritic dust piles on the earth, lend to

the belief in a young earth.

   2. MAGNETIC FIELD

    The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant

(if  not  decreasing)  rate. At this rate,  8000  years  ago  the

earth's  magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star,  a

highly  unlikely occurrence.  Also, if electric currents  in  the

earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the  heat

generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have dissolved

the earth.

   3. FOSSIL RECORD

    Charles Darwin stated, in his Origin of Species, "The geolog-

ical record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a  large

extent  explain why we do not find intermediate  varieties,  con-

necting  together all the extinct and existing forms of  life  by

the  finest  graduated steps. He who rejects these views  on  the

nature  of  the geological record, will rightly reject  my  whole

theory."

 Now,  130 years and billions of fossils later,  we  can

rightly reject the view of an incomplete fossil record or of  one

"connecting together all . . . forms of life by the finest gradu-

ated steps." 

Out of the millions of fossils in the world, not one

transitional  form  has  been found. All known  species  show  up

abruptly  in the fossil record, without intermediate forms,  thus

contributing  to the fact of special creation. Let's take a  look

at  Archeopteryx,  a fossil that some evolutionists claim  to  be

transitional between reptile and bird.

    Archeopteryx is discussed in evolutionist Francis  Hitching's

book, The Neck of the Giraffe - Where Darwin Went Wrong.   Hitch-

ing speaks on six aspects of Archeopteryx, following here.

    (The  following  six  points are quoted from  Luther  Sunder-

land's  book,  Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other  Problems,  pp.

74-75,  the  facts of which points he  gathered  from  Hitching's

book.)

     1. It had a long bony tail, like a reptile's.

          In  the  embryonic stage, some living  birds  have

     more tail vertebrae than Archeopteryx. They later  fuse

     to become an upstanding bone called the pygostyle.  The

     tail  bone  and feather arrangement on swans  are  very

     similar to those of Archeopteryx. 

     One authority  claims

     that  there is no basic difference between the  ancient

     and modern forms: the difference lies only in the  fact

     that  the caudal vertebrae are greatly  prolonged.  But

     this does not make a reptile.

     2. It had claws on its feet and on its feathered  fore-

     limbs.

        However,  many living birds such as the  hoatzin  in

     South  America, the touraco in Africa and  the  ostrich

     also have claws. In 1983, the British Museum of Natural

     History displayed numerous species within nine families

     of birds with claws on the wings.

     3. It had teeth.

        Modern  birds  do not have teeth  but  many  ancient

     birds did, particularly those in the Mesozoic. There is

     no  suggestion that these birds were transitional.  The

     teeth  do not show the connection of Archeopteryx  with

     any  other animal since every subclass  of  vertebrates

     has some with teeth and some without.

     4. It had a shallow breastbone.

        Various modern flying birds such as the hoatzin have

     similarly  shallow breastbones, and this does not  dis-

     qualify them from being classified as birds. And  there

     are,  of course, many species of nonflying birds,  both

     living and extinct.

        Recent  examination of Archeopteryx's  feathers  has

     shown that they are the same as the feathers of  modern

     birds  that are excellent fliers. Dr. Ostrom says  that

     there  is  no question that they are the  same  as  the

     feathers of modern birds. They are asymmetrical with  a

     center  shaft and parallel barbs like those of  today's

     flying birds.

     5. Its bones were solid, not hollow, like a bird's.

        This idea has been refuted because the long bones of

     Archeopteryx are now known to be hollow.

     6. It predates the general arrival of birds by millions

     of years.

        This also has been refuted by recent paleontological

     discoveries.  In  1977 a geologist from  Brigham  Young

     University, James A. Jensen, discovered in the Dry Mesa

     quarry of the Morrison formation in western Colorado  a

     fossil  of an unequivocal bird in Lower Jurassic  rock.

     This  deposit is dated as 60-million years  older  than

     the  Upper  Jurassic  rock in  which  Archeopteryx  was

     found.  He first found the rear-leg femur  and,  later,

     the  remainder  of the skeleton. 

     This was  reported  in

     Science  News 24 September 1977. Professor John  Ostrom

     commented,  "It  is obvious we must now  look  for  the

     ancestors  of  flying birds in a period  of  time  much

     older than that in which Archeopteryx lived."

   And  so it goes with the fossil that many textbooks set  forth

as the best example of a transitional form. No true  intermediate

fossils have been found.

   In  a letter to Luther Sunderland, dated April 10,  1979,  Dr.

Colin Patterson, of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote: 

   "...I  fully agree with your comments on the lack of  di-

    rect illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.

    If  I  knew of any, fossil or living, I  would  certainly

    have included them. You suggest that an artist should  be

    used  to visualise such transformations, but where  would

    he get the information from? I could not, honestly,  pro-

    vide  it, and if I were to leave it to artistic  licence,

    would that not mislead the reader?"

   Just  think  of it! Here is a man sitting amidst  one  of  the

greatest  fossil collections ever and he knows of  absolutely  NO

transitional  fossils. So convincing I believe this quote  to  be

that it will sum up this discussion on fossil evidence. 

   4. EMBRYONIC RECAPITULATION

    Darwin  said that embryological evidence was "second to  none

in  importance."  The idea of embryonic  recapitulation,  or  the

theory that higher life forms go through the previous  evolution-

ary chain before birth, was popularized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866.

It was later found that Haeckel forged the diagrams which he used

is evidence for the theory.

    The main arguments for embryonic recapitulation are the  sup-

posed  "gill slits" (left over from fish), "yolk sac" (left  over

from  the  reptile stage), and "tail" (from the monkeys)  in  the

human embryo. The gill slits, so called, are never slits, nor  do

they  ever function in respiration. They are actually four  pairs

of  pharyngeal pouches: the first pair become  germ-fighting  or-

gans; the second, the two middle ear canals; the third and fourth

pairs become the important parathyroid and thymus glands.

    The yolk sac  does not store food  because the  mother's body

provides  this to the embryo.  In fact,  the "yolk sac" is not  a

yolk sac at all,  but its true function is to  produce  the first

blood cells.

    The "tail" is just the tip of the spine extending beyond  the

muscles of the embryo. The end of this will eventually become the

coccyx, which is instrumental in the ability to stand and sit  as

humans do.

    Also arguing against recapitulation is the fact that  differ-

ent  higher life forms experience different stages  in  different

orders, and often contrary to the assumed evolutionary order.

   5. PROBABILITY

    The  science of probability has not been favorable to  evolu-

tionary theory, even with the theory's loose time restraints. Dr.

James Coppedge, of the Center for Probability Research in Biology

in California, made some amazing calculations. Dr. Coppedge 

     "applied  all the laws of  probability  studies  to  the

      possibility  of a single cell coming into existence  by

      chance. He considered in the same way a single  protein

      molecule,  and even a single gene. His discoveries  are

      revolutionary. He computed a world in which the  entire

      crust of the earth - all the oceans, all the atoms, and

      the whole crust were available. He then had these amino

      acids  bind at a rate one and one-half  trillion  times

      faster than they do in nature. In computing the  possi-

      bilities,  he  found that to provide a  single  protein

      molecule  by  chance combination  would take 10, to the

      262nd power, years." (That is, the number 1 followed by

      262 zeros.) "To get a single cell - the single smallest

      living cell known to  mankind - which is called the my-

      croplasm hominis  H39, would take 10,  to the 119,841st

      power, years.  That means that if  you took thin pieces

      of paper and wrote 1 and  then  wrote zeros after (it),

      you would fill up the entire  known universe with paper

      before you could ever even write that  number.  That is

      how many years it would  take  to make one living cell,

      smaller than any human cell!"

    According  to Emile Borel, a French scientist and  expert  in

the  area  of probability, an event on the cosmic  level  with  a

probability of less than 1 out of 10, to the 50th power, will not

happen. The probability  of producing one human cell by chance is

10, to the 119,000 power. 

    Sir  Fred  Hoyle, British mathematician  and  astronomer, was

quoted  in  Nature  magazine, November 12, 1981,  as saying  "The

chance  that  higher life forms might have  emerged in  this  way

(evolution) is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping

through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the  materi-

als therein."  

As one can readily see, here is yet one more  test

that evolution theory has flunked.

   6. SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS

    The  second  law of thermodynamics states that  although  the

total  amount  of energy remains constant, the amount  of  usable

energy is constantly decreasing.  This law can be  seen  in  most

everything.  Where work is done, energy is expelled. That  energy

can  never again be used. As usable energy decreases,  decay  in-

creases.  Herein lies the problem for evolution. If  the  natural

trend  is toward degeneration, then evolution is impossible,  for

it demands the betterment of organisms through mutation. 

    Some try to sidestep this law by saying that it applies  only

to  closed environments. They say the earth is an  open  environ-

ment, collecting energy from the sun. However, Dr. Duane Gish has

put forth four conditions that must be met in order for  complex-

ity to be generated in an environment.

      1. The system must be an open system.

      2. An adequate external energy force must  be  avail-

         able.

      3. The system must possess energy  conversion  mecha-

         nisms.

      4. A control mechanism must exist within  the  system

         for directing,  maintaining and  replicating these

         energy conversion mechanisms.

   The second law clearly presents another insurmountable barrier

to evolutionary idealism.

   7. VESTIGIAL ORGANS

    Vestigial  organs are supposed organs in the body  which  are

useless,  left over from evolutionary development. The  following

arguments for vestigial organs are based on those taken from  the

"Bible Science Newsletter," August 1989, p. 16.

      1. Just because we don't yet know the role of an organ

     does not mean it is useless and left over from previous

     stages of evolution.

      2. This view is plain false. In the 1800's, evolution-

     ists listed 180 vestigial organs in the human body. The

     functions for all  have now been found.  Some of  these

     were  the pituitary gland (oversees  skeletal  growth),

     the  thymus  (an  endocrine gland),  the  pineal  gland

     (affects  the development of the sex glands), the  ton-

     sils, and appendix (both now known to fight disease.)

      3.  The fact that an organ must sometimes  be  removed

     does not make it vestigial.

      4. The fact that one can live without an organ (appen-

     dix, tonsils) does not make it vestigial. You can  sur-

     vive without an arm or a kidney but these are not  con-

     sidered vestigial.

      5.  Organs are not vestigial based upon your  need  or

     use of them.

      6.  According to evolution, if an organ has  lost  its

     value,  it should, over time, vanish completely.  There

     has been enough time to lose these "vestigial"  organs,

     but we still have them.

      7. If organs do become useless, this would back up the

     second law of thermodynamics and the degenerative proc-

     ess, not evolution, which requires adaptation of organs

     for new purposes.

      8. Vestigial organs prove loss, not evolutionary  pro-

     gression. Evolution theory requires new organs  forming

     for useful purposes, not "old ones" dying out.

      9. Evolutionists have, for the most part, given up the

     argument over vestigial organs.

   8. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION

    Evolutionists  like  to tell us that at  least  thousands  of

years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal  and

oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried  rapidly

in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of

fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to  indi-

cate  a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you  guessed  it,

Noah's flood.

    Ken  Ham,  director of the Australia-based  Creation  Science

Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which  he

gives.  Oil  can now be made in a few minutes  in  a  laboratory.

Black  coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate.  Ham  also

has  in  his overlay presentation a photograph  of  a  fossilized 

miner's  hat,  about fifty years old. All that is  necessary  for

fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thou-

sands of years.

   9. PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIA

    Seeing  the problem of gradual evolution with the fossil  re-

cord, and the obvious abrupt appearances of species, Drs. Stephen

Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge have formed the theory of punctuated

equilibria. Punctuated equilibria, is, by example, a bird  giving

birth  to a mammal, thus leaving no transitional fossils  in  the

geological record.

    Many top evolutionists disagree with this position. And punc-

tuated  equilibria  has its problems, too. For instance,  in  the

above  case,  of a bird bearing a mammal, another mammal  of  the

same  kind of the opposite sex must be born at the same  approxi-

mate  time in the same area in order for the new species to  con-

tinue.  The  odds of just one organism appearing  this  way,  let

alone two fulfilling the circumstances above, are astronomical.

   10. HOMOLOGY/MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

    Homology  is the similarity of structures  between  different

types of organisms. Some have argued that these similarities  are

evidence  of one common ancestor. However, as  Sunderland  points

out,  when the concentration  of red blood cells is used, utiliz-

ing the ideas of homology, man is more closely related to  frogs,

fish, and birds than to sheep.

    But  now,  with the development of molecular biology  we  are

able to make a comparison of the same cells in different species,

which adds a whole new dimension to homology. Unfortunately,  for

the evolutionists, molecular biology does as all other  evidences

do: presents greater argument against evolution theory.

    In molecular biology, proteins of the same type in  different

organisms can be tested for difference in amino acid makeup.  The

figure  resulting is converted into a percentage. The  lower  the

percentage,  the less difference there is between  the  proteins.

Dr. Michael Denton,  in experiments with Cytochrome C, a  protein

that converts food into energy, and hemoglobin, found the follow-

ing.

       Cytochrome C Differences       Cytochrome C Differences

      Bacterium to Six Organisms       Silkmoth to Vertebrates

      to yeast . . . . . . . 69%       to lamprey . . . . .27%

      to wheat . . . . . . . 66%       to carp. . . . . . .25%

      to silkmoth. . . . . . 65%       to pigeon. . . . . .26%

      to tuna. . . . . . . . 65%       to turtle. . . . . .25%

      to pigeon. . . . . . . 64%       to horse . . . . . .30%

      to horse . . . . . . . 64%

       Cytochrome C Differences        Hemoglobin Differences

   Carp to Terrestrial Vertebrates  Lamprey to Other Vertebrates

      to bullfrog. . . . . . 13%       to human . . . . . .73%

      to turtle. . . . . . . 13%       to kangaroo. . . . .76%

      to chicken . . . . . . 14%       to chicken . . . . .78%

      to rabbit. . . . . . . 13%       to frog. . . . . . .76%

      to horse . . . . . . . 13%       to carp. . . . . . .75%

   Dr. Denton states, "There is not a trace at a molecular  level

of  the  traditional evolutionary series: fish  to  amphibian  to

reptile  to mammal. Incredibly man is closer to lamprey than  are

fish."  The evidence is clear;  evolution is struck another  hard

blow!

   11. DATING METHODS

    Many  of the radiometric dating methods used for  determining

the  age  of fossils are quite unreliable.  Carbon-14  dating  is

usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But  there

are  exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was  dated

using  the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had  been  dead

for 3000 years.

    Lava  rocks  from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted  in  1801

were  tested,  using  the potassium-argon  method.  The  readings

showed  them to be  nearly 3 billion years old.  Moon rocks  were

tested  by  various radiometric methods, yielding  dates  ranging

from 700 million to 28 billion years.

    Dating  methods  such as potassium-argon,  uranium-lead,  and

rubidium-strontium,  are based on assumptions. These methods  are

based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent

material  (ie.,  uranium) is converted to the  daughter  material

(ie.,  lead) at a known rate, called a half-life.  These  methods

cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order

to come up with a correct date, you must know:

   1. how much of the parent material was in it at the start,

   2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &

   3. if there has been some type of contamination since.

   In  obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers  to  or

ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a

specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.

   12. DINOSAURS

    Evolutionists  insist  that dinosaurs died  out  millions  of

years  before  man appeared. However, there are many  reasons  to

disbelieve this. There are the stories of animals much like dino-

saurs  in the legends of many lands. These creatures were  called

dragons.  

Many times in the recent past, explorers have  recorded

sightings  of  flying reptiles much like the  pterodactyl.  Human

footprints were found along with those of a dinosaur in limestone

near the Paluxy River in Texas.

    Also  not to be tossed aside is the possibility of  dinosaurs

living today. Consider the stories such as the Loch Ness  monster

(of which many convincing photographs have been taken). Some have

claimed  to see dinosaur-like creatures in isolated areas of  the

world. 

Recently, a Japanese fishing boat pulled up a carcass of a

huge  animal  that  intensely resembled a dinosaur.  A  group  of

scientists  on an expedition into a jungle looking  for  dinosaur

evidence  claims  that they witnessed one, but their  camera  was

damaged. 

However, they tape recorded the roar of the beast.  This

recording was checked. The voice patterns on it did not  resemble

those of any other roaring. You decide. At any rate, the evidence

that man and dinosaur did live together at one time poses another

problem for the evolutionists.

    "But  if  the dinosaurs lived at the same time as  man,  they

would  have had to have been on the Ark, and that's  impossible!"

Is  it? The ark was about one and one-half football fields  long,

75  feet  wide,  and  45 feet tall. It had  a  cubic  footage  of

1,518,750.  

There would have been plenty of room on the  Ark  for

the dinosaurs (especially considering that only a few were of the

enormous  size  of Tyrannosaurus or  "Brontosaurus.")  Also,  the

Bible  states  that Noah was to take two of every kind  onto  the

Ark. Many dinosaurs and reptiles were of the same kind, but  much

smaller. Dinosaurs pose no problem for creation science.

   13. SUN'S DIAMETER

    The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet  per

hour.  At  this rate, life could not have existed  on  the  earth

100,000 years ago.

   14. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW

    Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of  Nile's

flooding  each  year leads to the conclusion of  an  earth  under

30,000 years old. Considering a few larger than normal  overflows

would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.

   15. EARTH'S ROTATION

    The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If

the  earth were the billions of years old that the  evolutionists

say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed  the

earth.

   16. WRITTEN RECORD

    The 22nd edition of Robert Young's concordance lists  thirty-

seven ancient written accounts which all place the date for crea-

tion at no earlier than 7000 B.C.

   17. THE BIBLE

    Lastly, and most importantly, the Bible says that God created

the universe and every living thing, so the world must have  been

created.  In denying this we call God a liar. And so you can  see

how  evolution  theory undermines the omniscience  and  even  the

existence  of  God. And if there is no God, why not  do  our  own

thing? Or if God is not all-knowing, indeed, a liar, why put  our

trust in Him? Evolution theory logically leads to these  humanis-

tic  ideas. Christians must take a stand for the Word of God,  or

be  accountable on that judgment day for the souls of those  whom

we did not warn.

                             SOURCES

    Baker, Sylvia, Evolution: Bone of Contention (Phillipsburg,

       NJ: Evangelical Press, 1986) Second Edition, p. 25

    

    Sunderland, Luther D.,  Darwin's Enigma, Fossils and  Other

       Problems (El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 74

    

    Parker,  Gary,  Life  Before Birth (El  Cajon,  CA:  Master

       Books, 1987), pp. 41-44

    Kennedy,  D.  James, Why I Believe (Waco, TX:  Word  Books,

       1980), p. 56

    Chick, Jack T., Primal Man? (Chino, CA: Chick Publications,

       1976), p. 23

   

    Cook, Charles, "God's Young Earth Signature," Bible-Science

       Newsletter, August 1989, p. 5

                   OTHER BOOKS ON CREATION/EVOLUTION

    Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (El Cajon: Master Books, 1987)

    Chittick, Donald E., The Controversy, Roots of the Creation-

      Evolution Conflict (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1984)

   Morris, Henry, The God Who Is Real (Grand Rapids, MI:  Baker

      Book House, 1988)

    Wysong,  R.L., The Creation-Evolution Controversy  (Midland,

      MI: Inquiry Press, 1976)

    Denton, Michael, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 1985

    Taylor,  Ian T., In the Minds of Men (Toronto,  Canada:  TFE

      Publishing, 1984)

    Morris, Henry, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science  (Grand

      Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984)

    Morris,  Henry,  The Genesis Record (Published  by  Creation

      Life  Publishers, Santee, CA, for Baker Book House,  Grand

      Rapids, MI, 1986) Eleventh Printing

    Gish,  Duane  T.,  Evolution: The Challenge  of  the  Fossil

      Record (Santee, CA: Creation Life Publishers, 1985)

    Ackerman,  Paul  D.,  It's A Young World  After  All  (Grand

      Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986)

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

°°                                                                           °°

°°  This file passed through Abba II - Where Christians find Information,    °°

°°  Resources and Fellowship, and where non-christians find honest answers   °°

°°  to their questions about what (and why) Christians believe.              °°

°°                                                                           °°

°°              Call us today: (619) 487-7746.  And remember:                °°

°°                          Jesus Still Loves You!                           °°

°°                                                                           °°

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°