Is the earth 4,600,000,000 years old? Or, is the earth only 2,191,000 days (6,000 years) old?

In various previous articles I have discussed specific Geochronometers which scientifically show that our earth, solar system, galaxy and universe are young, perfectly consistent with 6,000 years. The reason that I have gone to such great lengths about this subject is simple. The question of age, great or small, is the key issue in the evolution-creation debate. If the earth were old, it would not make evolution true. It would only mean that there might have been enough time for evolution to have occurred. If the earth is young, then no theory of evolution could possibly be true.

The general public has accepted the great ages of the earth and universe espoused by evolutionists because they are poorly informed. The public school system, dominated as it is by secular humanists, has taught their religion and its tenets. The liberal press and equally liberal Hollywood has furthered their cause of secularism by uniting behind a great age for the earth and universe. Even Christian schools are no guarantee that a young earth position will be taught scientifically in their curriculum.

In a more general way than before then, let us look at the indicators of the age of the earth and universe. Why do we challenge the established and generally accepted evolutionary views anyway?

First, people tend to be wrong about things. The study of human thought over time tends to indicate that the majority opinion is usually (perhaps always) wrong. Please remember that truth is not determined by voting. Truth is truth regardless of how few know what the truth is. Also, things which are mutually contradictory cannot both be true at the same time.

Second, it is the regular process by which we move forward and increase in knowledge. In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1996), Thomas Kuhn noted that science always progresses by the established paradigm being questioned and someone bringing forth evidence for a new view which becomes so compelling, that the new view becomes the new, established paradigm. In real science we question, challenge and test all things.

Let us question, challenge and test evolutionism. Is it a view which the burden of truth supports or demolishes?

Who tests and decides such things? Who is qualified to take on such a task? Are scientists who wear white lab coats and sit in ivory towers, sequestered away in the world of academia, the only ones worthy of such a task? NO!

There are five methods of proof used by rational human beings to test and establish what is true. Briefly, these methods are: Scientific, Mathematical, Logical, Statistical and Berean. In order for something to be true it must be proven true by one or more of these methods and cannot be disproven by any of those remaining.

The scientific method, in which I was trained, is a good method, but highly limited because it can only deal with the here and now. It cannot test historical and non-repeatable events. For this reason, it cannot be used to prove either evolution or creation true.

If we are to question, challenge and test evolutionism versus creationism how else may we do it? We may use the legal method which relies upon rules of evidence and testimony presented before a jury who will judge and establish the truth.

Who may sit upon such a jury? Any person who has full use of their normal human intelligence and reasoning powers may sit upon such a jury. Any person picked to sit upon any jury has preconceived ideas, bias and opinions, but they are sworn to be as impartial as any human may be and they are to judge solely upon the evidence and testimony given, not upon their personal prejudices. Therefore, almost anyone is competent to sit upon a jury, unless they are so prejudiced that they would not change their preconceived opinion, even if they were given sufficient evidence that their preconceived opinion was wrong. In essence, anyone who says "do not confuse me with facts my mind is made up," is a poor candidate for a jury. You do not have to be a scientist to judge what truth is.

Let us apply the legal method of proof to a jury sworn to go only where the evidence leads them, and present to them the indicators of the age of the earth and universe. What would their joint decision be? What would be their judgment beyond a reasonable doubt?

A jury looks at and compares evidences, displays and hears the conflicting positions carefully told by lawyers presenting their cases. The jury makes a decision based upon evidence to determine which position they have heard is correct, which position is the more cogent one.

What, today, is the dominant assumption of evolutionism? They MUST assume great periods of undocumentable prior time, i. e., millions and billions of years.          

It behooves us to interject a quick discussion on what is myth and magic. The word "myth" means "story."  The word derives from the Greek word "mythos." A myth or story does not have to be negative, bad, evil or deceitful in nature. A myth is always an alternative historical account (supposed occurred in the past), whatever else it is. All myths that have been accepted by people have always been "proven" by stage magic, not black magic.

The myth, the story, of the great age of the earth and universe as told by evolutionists is exactly the same sort of a scenario. There is a myth told about the great age of things and a stage magic art of sorts is applied to the story to give the illusion of evidence. How is this done?

First, they tell the story. Second, they carefully suppress or hide the real facts that would create a problem for the story. Third, they embellish the facts that are supposed to support the story. Fourth, they claim proof of their story.

We all know that the magician we are watching is manipulating the playing cards he is handling in order to show us a card trick while he tells us a story and waves his "magic" wand over them. He is creating an illusion which we enjoy seeing, because we cannot do it; but, we all know that he is doing it, although we cannot see him do it. He makes the illusion seem real so we enjoy it as entertainment.

The magician says, "See, the card you chose has miraculously risen to the top of the deck!" You saw the evidence, so it must be real. The magician has used real science and personal skill and applied them together to produce an illusion to support a myth. If you are not on guard, if you are not sensitive to the wiles of the magician, anyone may be deceived by a well executed magic show.

The story of the great age of the earth and universe is a collection of magic shows done to deceive the gullible and those who are willfully ignorant. There is a considerable body of censored scientific information which contradicts evolutionism. There is a lot of knowledge about this subject which is not readily available to most people. They "suppress the truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18)

Never, ever, get your scientific education and knowledge from: the Public Broadcasting System, Hollywood, The Learning Channel, Planet Kingdom, Discovery Channel, National Geographic or Time-Life Publishers. They will give you the presentation that favors the dominant myth without telling you the other known facts of science.

Today, evolutionists are knowingly and intentionally telling textbook publishers to NOT put facts in the public school textbooks, especially those facts that create a problem or are difficult for their dominant mythology to overcome.

The ancient Romans had an expression that translates to: "To list some, is to exclude all others." If you only publish those facts and stories that support your worldview, you are excluding those facts that refute it. There is a great deal of censored science!

What are the age indicators for the earth and universe? The age indicators are the same for evolutionists and creationists. The difference is whether or not you are willing to consider all the details or whether you must suppress facts in order to exaggerate others. The whole thing is based upon the extrapolation of observed data, an extrapolation from real facts. This data is then extrapolated into past time through the use of a myth, a story.

Apply this to the various supposed scientific dating technologies, such as radiometric dating methods, those based solely upon the decay of radioactive elements. These methods propose to use current known decay rates of radioactive materials, like Uranium into Lead, in order to draw conclusions about the ancient age of the earth.

Evolutionists look at a rock weighing one pound. If the ratio of Uranium-238 and Lead-206 in the rock were 50% to 50%; the measured rate of radioactive decay for Uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years per half life; the evolutionists tell everyone that all the Lead-206 came from the decay of the Uranium 238: therefore the rock (and the earth in which it was found) must be 4.5 billion years old. This all sounds quite plausible.

The myth (story) transforms the rock (by stage magic) into evidence for an ancient earth age. We have seen the evidence, so it must be true. It seems so simple, it must be true!

Understand that extrapolation is not a bad thing and it has many beneficial uses. Over simplified extrapolation which leaves out important facts becomes misleading and intentionally deceptive!

Many little truths lead to knowing the truth. One definition of science is: "Accepted, elected, systematized, formulated facts which can be useful in work, life or the search for truth." The more little truths we have the closer we get to the big truth.

If you read as many scientific research grants, reports, projects and study programs as I do, you will reach the obvious conclusion that most of it is research designed to explain away evidence, rather than research designed to explore evidence more deeply. Worse yet, science as practiced by evolutionists today is no longer in the pursuit of greater knowledge, but is solely in pursuit of the next grant!

We need to revisit radiometric dating processes. Evolutionists suppress evidence by selecting dates which, when published, create the illusion that they have "rock" solid evidence. What the general public is unaware of is that evolutionists do not use radiometric dating processes to determine the age of anything; but, they use selected radiometric dates to support a prior conclusion through the use of stage magic.

If you add back in the information suppressed by the evolutionists the whole subject of the reliability of radiometric dating techniques is drastically changed.

What are the false necessary premises that evolutionists use to support their previously made conclusions? First, they have to know, or pretend to know, the original state of the isotopes involved. They have to know how much Uranium and Lead were there to begin with. No one can know that with certainty because they weren’t present when the rock originated. Evolutionists look at what they have and then choose to project backwards what they believe it ought to have been originally, in order to support their previously desired results.

Second, they assume a steady consistent decay rate over time. Third, they assume a closed system. They assume that the Uranium and Lead cannot migrate into or out of the rock over time. Of course, no one may know these things to be true, they are only assumptions.

A researcher in Australia did an experiment in which he  put rocks containing Uranium into a trough of running water and observed that the Uranium to Lead ratios were changing so fast that - according to evolutionary beliefs - the rock was aging at the rate of 100,000 years for each month the rock was exposed to the running water.

There are serious flaws in radiometric dating techniques!

A noted expert in radiometric dating techniques was once asked which method was the best method to use to determine the age of a rock. His response? "It depends on the age of the rock." What? He went on to explain that the method he selected depended upon the assumed age of the rock! In other words, you have to know the age of the rock before you test it! If you use the wrong technique it will give you a wrong date, that is, a date that doesn’t coincide with what you desire to "authenticate."

How do they authenticate, how do they validate, their "accepted" age for any rock? Since they select which radiometric method to use based upon the presumed age they want to validate, they cannot use one of the other methods to validate the first results, because the two will not agree with each other. They are in an untenable situation. If they chose one method, they exclude all other methods.

How do they authenticate their "accepted" age for a rock? They can only do it one way. By faith they assign an age to a rock. They then select a specified radiometric method known, more often than not, to yield a date which will line up with what they wanted. Last, they pray, to whatever god they pray to, that no one will find out what they have done.

Since they really cannot claim legitimate proof using radiometric dating processes, what is the primary method of proof which evolutionists use to assign ages to rock layers and formations? They fall back on the stratigraphic method.

What is the stratigraphic method and how does it work? It works like this. The evolutionists have fossils which they "know" to be a certain age, according to "their" particular evolutionary theory. Whenever they find these specified fossils, which they say are 295 million years old, in a particular rock layer, a certain stratum, then obviously, that rock layer must also be 295 million years old.

Of course, we may rightly ask how they "know" that this particular fossil species represents a time period which occurred 295 supposed millions of years ago. Well, that is simple. We found it in a layer of rock which is 295 million years old!

This is all pure circular reasoning which is self perpetuating.

Please review this all again. Evolutionists date the strata (rock layers) by the fossils which were found in the rock layers. Then they date the fossils by the strata in which they were found.

Conclusion: What do we observe about the way in which evolutionists obtain "proof" for an old earth? It is all based on an obviously false form of circular reasoning. No where in the world are the fossil bearing rock layers found in the order illustrated in their textbooks. In reality, the fossil layers are, according to evolutionary philosophy, found upside-down, backwards, out of order, and interlaced all over the world. The whole thing is myth, story, assumption and fairy tale, proven by good stage magicians.

Evolution is based upon a long string of unproved and unprovable assumptions built up to support a doctrine that has nothing to do with real factual scientific evidence. Evolution is based upon a long string of unproved and unprovable assumptions in order to prop up a philosophical worldview which they want to believe is correct, but is patently illogical.

Evolutionists use continuous circular logic to adamantly "prove" their previously determined outcome, because of the preference of those who develop and maintain their philosophical system.

How does an evolutionist defend his position? They defend their position by faith, and faith alone!

We are conducting a jury trial.

What are some of the other indicators of the old age of the earth; the evidence given by the evolutionists in support of these indicators; and, what is the information that they suppress or hide which contradicts their myth, story?

The radioactive decay sequence, the decay chain, of unstable Uranium 238 into stable Lead 206 requires 14 steps ( links) with a half life of 4.5 billion years. Since rocks are found which contain Uranium and Lead, the evolutionists assumes that the rocks must be very old.

What are they leaving out? Eight of the 14 steps in this decay process occur when an alpha particle is emitted from the various radioactive isotopes contained in the rock. Each time an alpha particle is emitted, it is with a certain specific force, which causes the alpha particle to travel a certain specific distance within the rock. If the rock is clear rock, i. e., mica, quartz, topaz or zircon, then when the particles stop they will leave a darkened spherical outline surrounding the radioactive center. By slicing through the center of the darkened spheres it exposes the center surrounded by concentric circles, called halos, or "rings" around it.

Every one of the intermediate radioactive isotopes which comes from the decay of Uranium 238 ends up producing Lead. All of them produce Lead! Many of these intermediate isotopes decay quickly from one to the next because they have very short half lives.

Working backwards from Lead 206 up to Uranium 238 the complete decay sequence would have eight halos surrounding the radioactive center. If we find fewer than eight then the initial radioactive material was not Uranium 238, but one of the other isotopes down line along the decay chain. If we find less than eight halos then the rock is younger than evolutionists would claim. Simply because we have Lead 206 doesn’t mean that it had to come from an isotope of Uranium!

We have found trillions of tiny Lead centers in the clear rock portions of granites and other rocks found all over the surface of the earth that have only three halos present. This physical evidence proves that the initial radioactive isotope was Polonium 218, not Uranium 238. These three halos were produced when alpha particles were emitted by the decay of Polonium 218, Polonium 214 and Polonium 210 leaving Lead 206.

Polonium 218 has a measured half life of 3.05 minutes. An initial quantity of this isotope of any size would completely decay in less than one hour. Polonium 214 has a half life measured in ten thousandths of a second. An initial quantity of this isotope of any size would completely decay in less than the time it takes to blink your eye. Polonium 210 has a measured half life of 138 days. An initial quantity of this isotope of any size would completely decay in less than five years.

It is obvious that for Polonium halos to be visible, they must occur in clear hard rock. These halos cannot form in a gas or liquid. For initiating Polonium 218 halos to be found, the radioactive material and the clear hard rock must be created at the same time, because the radioactive decay clock starts to tick immediately.

In order for the Polonium 218 halo to be visible, it must start to darken the rock during the first half life or there will not be enough alpha particles emitted to visibly darken the rock. The first two halos of Polonium 218 and 214 must form completely within one hour of their creation because of their incredibly short half lives. The halo of Polonium 210 must darken the rock within the first 138 days from its creation. Of course, all these overlap in time as well, so all three halos must become visible within 138 days of initial creation.

The trillions of Polonium 218-Polonium 214-Polonium 210-Lead 206 systems that are found on the surface of the earth and within its hard crust scientifically tell us that the earth’s surface and crust were created cool and hard within one second to 3.05 minutes from the beginning of time. Polonium 218 halos do not tell you how old the earth is, but they do tell you that the earth was formed instantaneously.

These Polonium halos are the fingerprints of the Creator found all over the world. These are His fingerprints to prove that His hand formed the earth "At the beginning."

We have also shown that the many short term radioactive isotopes decay into Lead 206 within minutes or days. In non-clear rock (this describes most of the rock on and in the earth) we cannot see halos, but we can measure the amount of Lead present. Since we cannot see the halos, we cannot know if the Lead present was created as Lead, or if it was produced by the decay of short half life isotopes. In other words, much of the Lead that we find, especially in Uranium deposits, may have come from the decay of these short half life isotopes, but their decay would have been complete in the past. This decay would leave no physical evidence that these short half life isotopes ever existed in the rocks.

What is our conclusion to be?  What would a jury say to this physical evidence?

If the earth were one year old, then almost 100% of the Lead found on the surface and within the crust of the earth was produced as the result of the radioactive decay of unstable chemical short half life isotopes.

If the earth were 6,000 years old, then almost 100% of the Lead found on the surface and within the crust of the earth was produced as the result of the radioactive decay of unstable chemical short half life isotopes.

All that glitters is not gold and all Lead produced by radioactive decay did not come from Uranium!

Only if you suppress or neglect the existence and effect of short half life isotopes in the past may you force the assignment of a great age to the earth.

If you correct the Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium and other radioactive decay methods that evolutionists use to support great age for the earth, and include the effect of all the short half life isotopes in their respective decay sequences, they all yield a very young age for the earth.

Correcting the Uranium-Lead method, the oldest rocks on earth would only be 9,600 years old!

Correcting the Potassium-Argon method the oldest rocks on earth would only be 7,800 years old!

Correcting the Rubidium-Strontium method the oldest rocks on earth would only be 5,600 years old!

None of these methods yields a perfectly accurate age for the earth, because we do not know how much of the final product was created or was produced by decay. We do know that they are all consistent with a young earth!

We have discussed Carbon 14 before (please see the article on the web site). Based upon the amount of Carbon 14 in the earth system; knowing the amount of Carbon 14 that is being produced and decaying in nature; starting with zero Carbon 14 in the earth’s atmosphere; then the earths atmosphere must be less than 12,000 years old. If there was some Carbon 14 created to begin with on the earth, then the earth could easily be younger, perfectly consistent with an age of about 6,000 years.

Dr. Robert Whitlaw, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, recalibrated 20,000 randomly chosen Carbon 14 ages published by evolutionists. He found that correcting the Carbon 14 method, almost nothing sampled had died more than about 6,000 to 7,000 years ago, and that 90% of all samples had died about the same time - just under 5,000 years ago!

The Bible records that a total global flood of the earth, which reportedly killed almost all life on earth, occurred about 4,500 years ago. This would be a perfectly adequate cause for the effect that Dr. Whitlaw describes.

If you include the suppressed or neglected information that we have about Carbon 14, it would appear that life on earth started about 6,000 years ago and that vast amounts of life forms all perished about 4,500 years ago. This information is perfectly consistent with a creation of all life forms about 6,000 years ago, and the catastrophic flooding of the earth by Noah’s Flood about 4,500 years ago.

What is the next presentation to the jury?

In the solar system we have short period comets. Comets, regardless of their initial size, lose about 5% of their mass each time they orbit the sun. Obviously, it would require only about 20 to 25 orbits to destroy any short period comets. No known, visible or proven source of new comets exists and all short period comets would be destroyed in less than 10,000 years.

What is our conclusion to be?

Our conclusion must be that the solar system is less than 10,000 years old because short period comets still exist!

What is the next presentation to the jury?

The planet Jupiter has a moon named Io. Io is the only other object in our solar system besides earth that is known to have active volcanoes on its surface. Io's volcanoes, however, are much bigger than ours.

One of Io’s volcanoes ejects material 240 miles above its surface. Looking from the surface of Io, our sun looks like a star point in our sky. The heat of our sun cannot possibly warm Io sufficiently to cause volcanoes. Io is much smaller than earth. The smaller an object is, the faster it loses heat. Volcanism on Io proves that Io is young. The remnant heat inside Io must come from the time of its initial creation with cooling occurring in the present. If Io were old it would already be stone cold to the center.

What is our conclusion to be? What would a jury say to this physical evidence?

Based upon the volcanic activity on the surface of Io, and the heat loss from the interior of Io into outer space, Io must be young! If Io is young, then the planet it orbits, Jupiter, must also be young!

What is the next presentation to the jury?

When we went to the Moon in 1969-1972, we found out four things that indicate a young age for our moon.

Many people discuss the lack of dust on the Moon. In the 1960s evolutionists thought there should be anywhere from 30 to 300 feet of dust on the Moon. This was a natural conclusion of their assumption that the Moon was 4.5 billion years old and that it had been accumulating dust from within the Solar System for that period of supposed time. What we found was only one to three inches of accumulated dust on its surface. Many people were too quick to jump on this information and declare that this "proved" the Moon was only 6,000 years old.

Since the 1960s the actual amount of dust within the Solar System has been much more accurately determined and it has been realized that the 1960s estimates were quite inflated. There is far less dust in the Solar System than had been thought at one time. This fact, however, still stands as a testament to a young Moon/Earth/Solar System. While it does not categorically prove that the Moon is only 6,000 years old, it does prove that the Moon is young, less than 200,000 years old, much too young for evolutionary time frames to be true.

Second, we found three radioactive isotopes on the surface of the Moon, part of original Moon rock and not added later by impact, which could not possibly be there if the Moon were old. We found abundant amounts of Thorium 230 (Half Life calculated at 75,400 years), Uranium 236 (Half Life calculated at 23,400,000 years) and Neptunium 237 (Half Life calculated at 2,144,000 years). After nine or ten Half Life decays there should not be enough material left to get a significant reading. The existence of these isotopes on the Moon demonstrates that the Moon is young.

You may remember from your high school science classes that the smaller an object is the faster it loses heat. As a comparative size illustration, if the Earth were the size of a basketball the Moon would be the size of a softball. We are able to measure the amount of heat being absorbed by the Moon from sunlight and the amount of heat being radiated into space by the Moon every day. The Moon is still warm on the inside and it radiates more heat than it receives. If the Moon were old it would already be stone cold to the center. So, the Moon must be young.

I am sure that you have looked at one time or another at the Moon. I am also sure that you have all noticed that it is moving away from us. If not, where are your powers of observation? The Moon is 220,000+ miles from the Earth. The force of gravitational attraction between the two is 2 x 1016 (20,000,000,000,000,000 = 20 quadrillion tons) tons of force. Yet the Moon is moving away from the Earth at the staggeringly fast rate of two inches per year.

Perhaps you do not feel staggered, but you ought to be. If the Moon is only 6,000 years old then it has only moved about 12,000 inches further away, or about 1,000 feet since its creation. That amount is not much compared to the present distance of 220,000+ miles. If we use evolutionary assumptions concerning time and allow the Moon to move back toward the Earth initially at two inches per year; then the force of gravity would continuously increase as the Moon receded toward the Earth.

The Moon would "rapidly" spiral into the Earth slightly less than 1.4 billion years ago. The Moon could never have been closer to the Earth than 11,500 miles (the Roche limit) or the gravitational forces would have caused the Moon to beak up into pieces and we would have a ring, not a Moon. In addition, there is the effect of the Moon on ocean tides. If you have 20 quadrillion tons of force you can move a lot of water. If the Moon were to proceed backwards in time getting closer and closer to the Earth, then when it reached 50,000 miles away the tides would rise one mile high.

If tides were ever much greater than they are today the consequent increase in erosion would eliminate the continents in a short time. At the current rates of erosion every continent on earth would be eroded flat to sea level in only 14,000,000 years.

We have over 270 of these scientific arguments for a young earth, solar system, galaxy and universe. You decide!

Evolutionists claim that the earth is old because of the fossils which are contained in the sedimentary rock layers that are found on the surface of the earth. You only find fossils in sedimentary rock layers.

Where does the word "sedimentary" come from? It comes from the word "sediment" which is a big word for "mud." Sedimentary rock may be accurately described as dried out consolidated mud. Sedimentary rock layers may be described as layers of dried out muds which have consolidated into layers of stone.

What do we observe about the fossil layers which cover the earth? Between 75 and 80% of the entire earths surface is covered with dried out mud layers containing the fossilized remains of billions of dead plants and animals that have all drowned. Does that sound like the slow and gradual accumulation over millions and billions of supposed years, or the result that you would expect to find after a one-year long global flood?

What else do we observe about the fossil record? All fossil types are found in a fully developed form. We have never found a transitional animal, plant or human; that is, we have never found a fossil which is part one kind and part another kind. We have never found a half cow-half whale even though evolutionists claim that cows changed into whales. In spite of all the claims that evolutionists have made in newspapers, TV or textbooks, we have never found a transitional form in the fossil record.

Many claims are made that transitional forms have been found but what is seldom heard are all the retractions which have occurred months or years later. Even the three greatest evolutionary believing paleontologists of the past 100 years, Drs. Stephen J. Gould (the Marxist at Harvard), Niles Eldridge (American Museum of Natural History) and Colin Patterson (British Museum of Natural History), have all stipulated in their writings that there are NO transitional forms found in the fossil record.

Charles Darwin wrote in Origins that the lack of transitional fossils were, in fact, the greatest problem for his theory. In 1979, Dr. Colin Patterson wrote a letter containing this statement:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct 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 visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?

I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet [Dr. Stephen J.] Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived. I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.

So, much as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defense of gradualism, and fleshing out the transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job . . ."       

At least Dr. Patterson was an honest evolutionist. Let us give credit where credit is due.

In addition, the fossils and the layers of dried out mud in which they reside are not found in the neat and orderly sequence shown in public school textbooks. According to evolutionary theory the sedimentary layers are actually found out of order, upside-down, missing from between layers where they ought to be and interlaced with "old" and "young" repeating in sequence.

The illustrations of the neat orderly evolutionary fossil sequence, the so-called Tree of Life presentation, that shows the evolution of rocks to living organisms, and living organisms evolving from simple to complex is just that - an illusion. Nowhere on earth may the sequence illustrated in the textbooks be found in the ground. It doesn’t exist! The orderly sequence of evolution occurring in the past is a fabrication of imagination. It doesn’t exist!

An examination of the fossil sequences made by Dr. Kurt Wise, previously of Bryan College in Tennessee and now at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, showed that there was an almost random sequence of fossils in the ground compared with the order of evolutionary sequence. The physical evidence refutes evolutionary claims. What evolutionists think and claim about the fossil evidence is irrelevant to what is actually in the ground.

Is the jury considering the evidence presented carefully? 

How do evolutionists construct the fossil record in an attempt to prove that evolution is true?

First, those who believe in evolutionism state that by faith evolution is true and that the earth is billions of years old. Second, they dig up fossils in various locations around the world. Third, they arrange those fossils in the order that they want them! Finally, they claim that the rearranged order of fossils proves that they are right!

Well it would wouldn’t it! If you allow me to rearrange the evidence I may prove anything I want to. Couldn’t I?

One of the single greatest differences between an evolution believing scientist and a creation believing scientist is that the creation believing scientist does not rearrange the evidence and the evolution believing scientist does! The creationist has no incentive to rearrange the evidence. The creationist doesn’t care what evidence you find; whether or not he understands it; whether or not he ever understands it; nor whether or not he has to wait for the Creator to come back and reveal its meaning to him. The creationist believes that whatever evidence is found honestly will be consistent with a Creator God. 

The evolutionist, however, must rearrange the evidence before he claims proof and that is a monstrous difference!

Would the jury of readers please render their verdict? Does the evidence conform to an old earth or a young earth? Does the fossil record conform to evolutionism or creationism? What do our observations tell us? 

The Apostle Paul wrote in Romans 1: 18-25:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident to them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen."

Paul was a lawyer, a lawyer of the Torah. He used legal methods of persuasion to convince people of the truths of creation, their need to recognize the Creator revealed in the Bible and their need of a Savior.

Paul said that the wrath of God comes against those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. How can he justify his statement that there are those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness? He says that God has made Himself evident to them. How can Paul say that God has made Himself evident to them? He says because that which is known about God is made obvious to them through the things that He has made. Paul uses the argument from design. He says that since we see obviously created objects we must know that there is a Designer/Maker.

Paul argues that evolutionists are without excuse, reason, or defense. Paul says that they blindly hold fast to their beliefs in spite of the evidence to the contrary. In counter argument Paul points out that Christians have an evidence based faith. Christians have an excuse, reason and defense.

Paul presses his argument further to point out that those who are evolutionists become futile in their speculations, in their fable telling. Their hearts, their spirits, become darkened. They claim wisdom and knowledge that they do not have. They invent stories which they cannot support. They build a house of cards trying to defend their position. Their stories are plausible and logical, but all things that are plausible and all things that are logical are not necessarily true.

Paul writes that those who accept evolutionism are fools. Today the word "fools" is not necessarily a strong word. Even the most intelligent person might make a foolish mistake now and then. If you drive up to a street corner and turn right when you should have turned left, it might be said that you did something foolish. But, that is not the word Paul used 2,000 years ago. In Greek, Paul wrote that those who accept evolutionism are "morons." A more modern translation would be that they become idiots.

Those are harsh words, indeed. How can Paul justify such harsh rhetoric? He says it because those who knowingly reject the truth of Gods existence have exchanged the worship of the One true Creator for the worship of those things which He has created. They worship trees and animals instead of God. They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

If you exchange a lie for the truth, that is a good idea. If you exchange the truth for a lie, that is a bad idea. Paul declares in no uncertain terms that those who accept evolution have exchanged the truth for a lie. They have made an obviously poor decision.

There is hope, of course, for those who will be open to learn and correct previously held beliefs. We must believe that a man or woman can change. If people will be willing to look at things which they were not allowed to see before, if they are open to learning about interpretations that they were never before allowed to consider, then they can change. An intellectually honest person must accept truth when they find it whether they like it or not. An intellectually honest person must do that even if that is not what they originally started out to do.

I was educated in public schools and secular universities to be an evolutionist. I earned my science degrees as an evolutionist. I believed it and taught it from the seventh grade level through the college level. Why did I do that?

I was taught by men and women who suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. Some of them did it innocently and without malice; they didn’t think about it for themselves, they simply repeated what they had been taught to memorize. Some of them did it just to get a paycheck and did not concern themselves about whether it was right or not. But, some of them did it knowing exactly what they were doing. For them it was intentional and with malice.

I was not taught to think critically; I was taught to memorize information. I was not taught to compare things and to make a decision for myself as to which I would believe in cases which required faith. I was not taught to think with circumspect, that is to look at things from all sides. I was not taught that there were two sides to the issue of origins. I was not taught with good educational technique. I was not educated; I was indoctrinated.

It is not wise for people to try to suppress the truth, nor is it wise to deceive oneself or others. It is not wise to try and complicate the facts in order to distort the truth and support the unrealistic worldview of evolutionism.

An intellectually honest person cannot reject truth simply because they do not like the truth. If a scientist or layman looks at the evidence with an open mind, able to learn and assess the known facts and evidences, he must accept that a recent creation by the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-judicious Creator God of the Bible is the only adequate cause for the existence of everything in the universe. This is completely justified by the most universally accepted principle in science, the Principle of Cause and Effect.

In I Thessalonians 5:21-22, Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil."

If evolutionism does not line up with what the Bible says, then it is evil. It is evil because it is in opposition to Gods declared purposes. There is only one standard for right and wrong and that is Gods opinion. If your opinion does not line up with Gods opinion then your opinion is wrong. Every thought you think is either going to be done in obedience to God or in disobedience to God.

Paul commended the Bereans in Acts 17:11: "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so."

Everyone is to test everything against the truths of the Bible and accept or reject things accordingly. In the debate about origins we may make the following statements. All the known Laws of Science, all the known natural processes and all the known physical evidence may be predicted or explained by the Theory of Special Creation. Not one Law of Science, not one natural process nor the physical evidence (without making up pretty little stories about them) may be predicted nor explained by the various theories of evolution.

Please login or register to comment