Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

17 "EVIDENCES" AGAINST EVOLUTION [AND FOR CHRISTIAN IGNORANCE] -------------------------------------------------------------- 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)


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank