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)