Evolution Versus Minor Variation
Old Mother Earth?
The Fossil Record
The Dinosaur Dilemma
The Missing Link is Still Missing
The Genesis Flood
The Ark of Noah
The Importance of Truth
Many years ago a man by the name of Dr. Richard Goldschmidt decided to devise an experiment that would ultimately prove the concept of evolution. He began experimenting with an organism called the fruit fly, chosen because of its very rapid rate of reproduction. He believed that by altering the environment of these rapidly producing flies, he would eventually develop an organism drastically different than the original strain, perhaps a completely new species.
He began a process of genetic tampering via x-rays, ultra violet radiation, and chemical testing so as to produce mutational changes in the genetic code, thus altering the physical characteristics of the offspring. As the flies continued to reproduce, the experiment yielded offspring which varied from the parent strain in eye color, wing size, body length, and so on.
Unfortunately, Dr. Goldschmidt was never able to produce anything that was unlike a fruit fly. In fact, as he continued to breed the mutant offspring, the result was a tendency to revert back to the characteristics of the original parental stock, thus suggesting that the altered characteristics did not become dominant.
Somehow, the results of Dr. Goldschmidt's experiment did not correlate with the evolutionary model which claims that these minor changes, through the process of natural selection, will eventually result with one species changing into another. After twenty-five long and disappointing years, Dr. Goldschmidt sadly concluded that the process of evolution simply does not work.
There just isn't a solid base of scientific evidence to support the claim that all life descended a single cell. We must, however, recognize the fact that minor genetic changes do occur resulting in new varieties, but never new species.
The genetic system was designed to insure that each organic species would maintain its own identity while at the same time change. For example, through selective breeding and reproduction, we can successfully produce a new strain of dogs, a variation within the canine family. However, through canine breeding we can never produce anything but a dog because we cannot violate certain fixed genetic boundaries.
We are well aware that crossbreeding and genetic control has resulted in wide variation within certain families. This is especially true in the areas of agriculture and livestock where selective breeding experiments are very common.
Like all of the other life forms, man was fashioned with the genetic capability to achieve variation with his own rank. This potential has obviously developed through the ages as is evident by the many differing human characteristics. We observe people with black skin, white skin, brown skin, yellow skin, and red skin, round eyes and slanted eyes, straight hair, curly hair, and kinky hair, blue eyes, brown eyes, and green eyes, black hair, yellow hair, and red hair. We differ a great deal in our appearance, but we are all distinctly human and always have been.
The observations that we are able to draw from nature seem to be in total harmony with the concept of creation as recorded in the Genesis account, while no evidence is available to confirm that one single species has evolved from another.
Old Mother Earth?
Geologists and other scientists tell us that the earth is at least five billion years old. We are told that life appeared spontaneously on this planet about three billion years ago and that man supposedly emerged from the evolutionary past at least one million years ago.
Since it would require literally billions of years to accommodate the evolutionary mode., the age of the earth becomes an important factor to consider. Here, again, we find that the evolutionist is relying on speculation rather than actual facts.
The truth is we cannot determine an accurate age for the earth. However, we do have some physical evidence that may indicate whether our planet is young or old. Actually, the earth could be relatively young and it would still be able to accommodate the Biblical record of creation.
According to Stuart Nevins, a reliable geologist, the present rate of sedimentary erosion upon the earth's surface is such that the continents would have been reduced to sea level in 14 million years.(8) Scientists report that the comets in our solar system are disintegrating at a rapid rate suggesting that they could not possibly be as old as evolutionists claim. The earth's magnetic field is decaying at a rate suggesting its origin would have been about 10,000 years ago.
If man has occupied the earth for at least one million years as the evolutionist suggests, then it is incredible to think that 25,000 generations produced a population of only four billion people. With this in mind it is interesting to note that, in the area of population statistics, objective scientific studies suggest that the most likely date for the beginning growth of the human family is around four thousand years ago or about the time of the great Genesis flood.(9)
Finally, we shall consider some information regarding the accumulation of cosmic dust from space. Due to the elements of erosion (wind, water, etc.), there is no appreciable build-up of cosmic dust upon the earth's surface. However, at the present rate of influx of debris from space, in five billion years, without erosion, cosmic dust would have covered the entire earth with a 54-foot layer.(10)
Now, if the moon is about the same age as the earth (most scientists believe it is), then the moon having no erosion, should possess a very deep layer of cosmic debris upon its surface. Our expense and effort in placing a man on the moon was good for something because we now know that the accumulation of dust upon the lunar surface is only about 1/8 inch deep.
The studies we considered here are only a few of the indicators which suggest to us that our earth is actually very young compared to the commonly accepted date of five billion years. Therefore, it is unlikely that the evolutionary process would have had the required time span to progress at all.
The Fossil Record
A fossil is the remains or visible trace of a plant or animal organism from the past that has been preserved in the earth's crust. Fossilization only takes place under certain ideal conditions. Apparently, those conditions are not found on the earth today because no appreciable fossilization is taking place at the present time.
Fossil formation speaks to us of rapid death and sudden water burial. This process only occurs when the proper ingredients of lime, sand, water, pressure, and fossilizing chemicals are present. The whole procedure must occur very rapidly, otherwise the agents of decay such as scavengers, bacteria, and erosion will destroy the organism. It is obvious that fossilization must occur within a very short time in order to preserve organic remains that are readily destroyed by the process of decay. Fossils have actually been discovered containing the remains of jellyfish and other soft tissue organisms. At any rate, we have a museum of history preserved in the earth's crust. Therefore, we must look to the fossil record to learn about the past.
If the fossil record supports the broad claim of evolution that the simplest forms of life should be encrusted deep in the earth with the more complex organisms near the surface, then we have some very interesting questions to present.
First of all, why is it that the fossil record is out of order, almost without exception, throughout the world? The evolutionists are hard pressed to explain why millions of years of predicted geologic column are missing at various sites the world over.
One particular location in England was pointed out by geologists as having the correct order of fossil deposits according to the evolutionary forecast. However, during a quarrying operation, a huge petrified tree was found to be embedded across the geologic column at a forty degree angle. The base of the tree reached very near the bottom of the fossil deposits, while the top extended close to the surface.
If it took billions of years to deposit a progressive geologic column of fossil organisms, as the evolutionists claim, then how in the world could this whole tree be preserved without any sign of decay? This discovery seems to tell us that the entire geologic column of fossil containing sediments were deposited within a very short period of time.
According to Henry Morris, an authority on creation research, the evolutionary claims are not supported by the testimony of our fossil record. He states, "The very existence of fossils in any significant size and number seems to require rapid processes of sedimentary deposition, burial, compaction, and lithification. Otherwise, normal decay processes would soon eestroy and dissipate such organic remains. Furthermore, the fossil record does not show a continuous evolutionary progression at all, as the theory requires. The same great gaps between the major kinds of plants and animals that exist in the present world are also found in the fossil world."(11)
This brings to mind our next question. If the fossil record supposedly conforms to the evolutionary concept, why do we not find a clear-cut fossil record of transitional life forms connecting the distinct kinds of plant and animal organisms? This universal absence of intermediate forms (missing links) is very strong evidence that evolution is not a valid explanation for life as we know it today.
Another puzzling question is, who do we find marine fossils deposited high up on the major mountain ranges throughout the world? It is certainly difficult to see how this can be explained in terms of evolution. However, this information conforms quite well with the Genesis account which tells us of a great flood that once covered the whole earth.
Having examined the fossil record in general, let us once again consider the words of Dr. Duane T. Gish. He writes:"it is our contention that the fossil record is much more in accord with the predictions based on creation rather than those based on the theory of evolution, and actually strongly contradicts the evolution theory."(12)
The Dinosaur Dilemma
To be more specific about the fossil record, let us consider the topic of dinosaurs. Everything we read about dinosaurs indicates that these noble creatures became extinct 70-100 million years ago. This is reported as a fact in many textbooks and scientific journals. Very few people have questioned the validity of such reports. However, we shall examine this question to see if the evidence fully supports the claim that scientists have made.
A closer look at the procedure used in dating dinosaur fossils tends to cast serious doubt on the accuracy of these reports. For instance, it is quite common for geologists and anthropologists to date both rocks and fossils by means of circular reasoning. This procedure involves dating fossils by the rocks in which they are found and dating the rocks by the fossils they contain. The whole process is based on preconceived evolutionary assumptions.
In other words, a geologist will say that a rock formation is 70 million years old because, according to the evolutionary scale, the fossils contained were deposited at least 70 million years ago. The anthropologist, on the other hand, will date the fossils at 70 million years because, according to the evolutionary scale, they were found in sedimentary strata that was deposited 70 million years ago.
This method of dating is a disgrace to the integrity of modern science. Nevertheless, this procedure is admitted to by men of science who, unfortunately, have been programmed to think only in terms of the evolutionary concept.
It is a fact that fossils are the sole means by which rocks are assigned to a certain geologic age. Therefore, if the assumption of evolution is incorrect and the fossils are not nearly as old as claimed, then the whole geologic age system of dating must be discarded.
Why then are scientists dogmatic about the age of dinosaur bones when, in fact, there is not a single valid method of accurately dating either fossils or sedimentary rock? When we consider some of the experimental dating techniques used by scientists, we find that there are many problems and variables which make the presently used methods very unreliable.
For example, the dating method familiar to msot people is that of Carbon 14 analysis. At one time this method was considered to be reliable. However, when the accuracy of Carbon 14 becam in doubt, tests were conducted to determine just how valid this procedure was. The results were very interesting. For example, when living penguins were dated by this technique, the system responded with an unbelievable age of 3,000 years. Other similar tests also produced results that were quite unacceptable.
Since we really don't know for sure how old dinosaur fossils are, let us consider some interesting evidence that you will not find in the scientific journals.
Actually, it is very doubtful that dinosaurs became extinct as long ago as most people think. In fact, strong evidence suggests tht man and dinosaurs man have co-existed at one time in the distant past. If man and dinosaurs were indeed contempories at one time, this would strongly refute the bold claims of the evolutionist.
In the Bible, the book of Job (chapters 40 and 41) describes two creatures called behemoth and leviathan. This description doesn't seem to fit any animals that exist today, but in many ways it sounds like the description we might expect for a dinosaur. Why would God question Job about two animals man had never seen? It would certainly be hard for Job to relate to animals that had been extinct for 70 million years.
Ancient Chinese literature abounds with references of encounters with dragons. Could these ancient tales actually be based on real episodes involving men and dinosaurs?
According to evolutionary thinking, it took several billion years for the sedimentary strata of the earth's crust to be deposited. They also contend that the rock deposited in each geologic age should contain the fossil record of the life forms which prevailed during that age. Therefore, the fossil remains of animals that existed in the distant past should not be found with the more recent and advanced forms of life such as man.
Now. scientists claim that dinosaurs became extinct at least 70 million years ago. They also claim that man evolved at least one million years ago. This leaves a gap in time between the last dinosaur and the first man of at least 69 million years.
These dinosaur and human tracks were discovered in the Paluxy River bed near Glen Rose, Texas. Evidence such as this raises serious doubt concerning the accuracy of scientific dating based upon the evolutionary time scale. Many modern geologists report that dinosaurs lived 70 million years before man, but these and other tracks would seem to indicate that they were contemporaries.
C.N. Doughtery
Let us turn our attention, for a moment, to the Paluxy River basin near Glenrose, Texas. At this site, centuries of flooding has eroded the sedimentary surface down to the hard limestone base. The evolutionary claim of such a vast time gap between man and dinosaurs would certainly be subjected to doubt in light of the fact that both dinosaur and human footprints have been discovered side by side in the limestone base rock of this particular river bed. This area has been examined and photographed over and over. However, when National Geographic magazine printed photographs of these dinosaur footprints, they were very careful to exclude the human prints beside them. It seems as though the media is being very selective about what material is presented to the public.
It is also interesting to note that ancient paintings have been discovered on the walls of caves in Rhodesia depicting what appears to be a Brontosaurus. This example, along with pictographs in Arizona, strongly suggests that man and dinosaurs were indeed contemporaries, since ancient cave-dwelling tribes only painted the animals which they themselves had seen.