Facts & Evidence Against Evolution

While many people feel sure that the Bible’s account of creation and the flood of Noah are mere fables, they will believe anything about evolution without question. Whether or not we believe in God, surely we are all after the truth? This article points out facts and evidence against evolution: examining the theories and methods used in dating the age of rocks and fossils, experiments in evolution through mutation, evidence against evolution that is ignored, and how a cataclysmic global flood fits perfectly with the facts that we do have. Ignoring things because they don’t fit in with our beliefs is not going to change the fact that they are true — the question is, ‘Do we want to believe them?’

Evolution

Evolution is the widely-accepted explanation of our existence, being the only solution that is acceptable to modern man. Arguments as to whether or not evolution is fact-based are pointless, as there are two main scales:

Microevolution is where species adapt and change in various small ways (e.g. colour, size, shape), and are sometimes classified as new species (a term referred to as speciation) — we have evidence of this.

Macroevolution is the belief that the small changes can gradually cause a species to adapt into a completely different kind of species on a large scale (e.g. fish to mammals) — for which there is no conclusive evidence.

These are not scientific terms. To evolutionists, and to science, there is just ‘evolution’, and the fact that small changes occur is claimed to be proof that the large changes can also occur; however, there is a need to distinguish between what is proven, without doubt, and what is based upon speculation. While we have witnessed adaptation in species, even to the point of breeding our own variations of dog, we have never witnessed one kind of organism evolving into another (e.g. a dog evolving into a horse).

Microevolution

There is evidence of species evolving into other species on a small scale. Some changes in organisms are due to the mutation of genes, where the DNA sequence is altered. Other changes are known as epigenetic modifications, which are influenced by environmental changes, among other things. Epigenetic modifications are chemical tags added to or removed from DNA. The tags determine which genes should be switched on or off, and if activated, at what intensity they are expressed. Both gene mutation and epigenetic modifications can be inherited, but neither adds information to the gene pool that can develop new functions.

Microevolution occurs mostly due to changes in environmental conditions, via natural selection. For example, in different habitats the most abundant food source will likely be different. Darwin’s Finches, due to being separated in different habitats and having different food supplies, evolved different behaviour and different beaks.  Although the finches are considered separate species, they are still birds, and they are still finches.

Some birds will have a variation in beak size through genetic mutation, and natural selection will mean that the fittest birds — with beaks best suited to the food — will pass on their genes, out-breeding birds with less suited beaks.  In the case of Darwin’s Finches, mutation of one particular gene, which became inactivated, resulted in the change of their beaks. Epigenetics is also said to have possibly played a part, with changes occurring in the environment and the birds’ diet.

The peppered moth, native to Britain, is naturally a light grey colour, peppered with specks of black. Their colour was the perfect camouflage when resting on tree trunks covered in lichen. During the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s there was a great deal of pollution, and everything turned black from soot — including the trees. Later on it was noticed that the moths had changed to an almost black colour. Evolutionists claimed this to be evidence of evolution, almost as though the moths themselves had decided they needed better camouflage against their new backdrop and changed colour by choice.

What actually occurred was that the lighter coloured moths were more visible against a black background, and were therefore predated by birds. Some of the moths had a mutation in their genes, making them darker: whereas this would have made them more vulnerable in a natural environent, they had now become less visible, meaning that they passed on their genes and took precedence over the lighter moths due to the higher survival rate. The Clean Air Act of 1956 meant that there was a great cut in pollution levels, and now, due to the environment once again being a natural colour, the peppered moths are turning back to their original shade. This is nothing more than natural selection, and no new information was added to the gene pool through the mutation.

Unless they find that their environment has altered, and natural selection plays a part, wild creatures don’t often change.  Domesticated creatures, on the other hand, frequently change. There are many different breeds of dog, sheep and other cattle — many of which have been bred specifically by man, taking advantage of microevolution via artificial selection. Rather than fitness and environment playing a part in the adaptation of the species, cattle are selectively bred in order to increase the amount of wool, milk or meat that can be obtained.

One issue with artificial selection is that quite often these variations do not perform well in the wild. Whereas wild sheep shed their wool naturally, selective breeding has prevented domesticated sheep from shedding their wool, so that they now require shearing. Artificial selection has brought about many other detrimental effects, such as cattle having trouble giving birth. Dog breeds have changed vastly over the years; for example: British bulldogs have been bred to look nothing like their original form, and while breeders find the new look appealing it introduces defects that bring many health problems with them.

There is no doubt that creatures do evolve naturally on a small scale; however, evidence shows us that such changes are limited: there is no factual evidence of a bird changing into anything other than a bird, and we find no observable evidence to show that any organisms have changed into any other kind than what they originally were.

Macroevolution

There is no factual evidence supporting macroevolution. A species changing into a completely different species on a large scale would have to take place over millions of years, and the only purported evidence of this occurring is through fossil records.

Scientists claim that fossils reveal the transition of one species to another, with simple organisms found at the lowest rock layers, becoming more complex with each higher layer. This is pure speculation, and ignores the fact that complex organisms can be found at the lowest rock layers, and simple organisms found in the highest. Also, in many cases supposed transitional fossils are found to be the same organism at different stages in life, or separate species of the same kind.  Some supposed transitional fossils have now been discovered to persist unchanged throughout the same timelines, proving that the separate organisms lived at the same time rather than one evolving into another, which reveals just how unsubstantiated the claims of evolution are.

If a dinosaur evolved into a bird, as evolutionists suggest, we would expect to find many peculiar fossils of dinosaurs in different transitional stages, having feathers either partially formed or only covering certain parts of the body. All fossils of reptilian creatures with feathers have had fully-formed feathers; there is none that has anything in-between.

In Germany, fossils have been discovered of a lizard-like bird named Archaeopteryx, which scientists claim lived in the late Jurassic Period (around 150 million years ago). The fossils were previously considered to be the missing link between dinosaurs and birds. The main reason for this is that Archaeopteryx has claws at the end of its wings, and reptilian teeth instead of a beak. Each fossil varies slightly in size, and has varying sizes of claws and teeth, which scientists believe show stages of evolution.

Regardless of having some reptilian features, Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird, had fully formed feathers like modern birds, and was able to fly, albeit rather poorly. Some fossils of dinosaurs have been found that are claimed to have feathers, and it is suggested that birds evolved from them. What seems to have been ignored is the fact that Archaeopteryx, a bird with fully formed feathers, is supposed to have appeared millions of years before them.

Evolutionists often claim that birds dropped their teeth — via evolution — in order to attain flight by losing the extra weight. Although there are no living birds that have teeth, fossils of birds named Ichthyornis and Hesperornis, which scientists claim lived in the Cretaceous Period (around 85 million years ago), have been found to have teeth. Apart from the teeth, these birds are no different to modern birds.  Hesperornis was unable to fly, being more like a penguin, and therefore didn’t need to drop its teeth for flight.  Ichthyornis was similar to a gull and was able to fly, even with its teeth.  The fact that a toothed flying bird existed proves that birds losing their teeth was not related to the evolution of flight.

Although not commonly known, ostriches have wing claws, even as adults. A ‘primitive’ bird alive today in South America called the hoatzin, which is very similar to Archaeopteryx, has wing claws that are lost at adulthood.  Like Archaeopteryx the hoatzin has a small sternum (breast bone), meaning that it cannot fly very well. It is a vegetarian, and has an enlarged esophagus and crop to digest its food, different from any other bird, and yet it is obviously nothing more than a bird.

Archaeopteryx could have been just like the hoatzin, and the fossils may be birds of varying ages rather than different stages of evolution. Also, the birds may have been different species, with slight variations — similar to those in Darwin’s finches — resulting in the different sizes. Treating Archaeopteryx as a link between dinosaurs and birds is nothing more than speculation.

The fact that the birds were fossilised, rather than decomposing or being predated, indicates that they must have been buried in mud; the likelihood is that they were buried in a flood. Twelve fossils of Archaeopteryx have been discovered over several decades, in various locations in Germany, and the only difference between them is the very slight variation in the size of claws and teeth. The fact that all of the fossils are so similar is a blow to the theory of evolution — offering no visible evidence of a gradual transition.

The fossil record itself does not provide any real evidence of species gradually evolving into other species on a large scale: in fact, there is hardly anything in between that resembles transition between species. Even Darwin himself, the man who brought us the theory of evolution, wrote in his book ‘The Origin of Species’ that he had doubts concerning evolution:

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” — Darwin, The Origin of Species

Many evolutionists pooh-pooh Darwin’s statement, saying that we now have information that wasn’t known in Darwin’s time, and that fossils of possible transitions have been found; however, Darwin’s point was not that there were no fossils of possible transitions, but that he would expect to find “every stratum full” of “finely graduated” fossils at various intermediary stages of transition, which we still cannot find today. The fossils that we do have might seem to be transitional phases of a species, but there is no evidence to prove that the fossils are linked at all.

DNA similarities and evolution

Scientists claim that similarities in DNA are proof that species have a common ancestor – at least this is what everyone is led to believe. It is claimed that humans and chimpanzees have somewhere between 95% – 99% similarity in DNA — there are arguments as to the exact percentage, due to varying interpretations of the data. Regardless of this, basing evolution on DNA similarity is speculative, and if we hold to this theory it would mean that bats are more closely related to horses than cows are. When promoting evolution it is rarely mentioned that humans and mice have about 85% similarity in DNA, and the Abyssinian domestic cat has about 90% similarity in DNA with humans.

Another claim that seems to be ignored is that humans and pigs also have about 99% similarity in DNA, and that pigs are considerably similar to humans both biologically and psychologically. Scientists claim that this does not suggest they are closely related to us, but that the similarities are due to convergent evolution, where separate organisms evolve in a similar way based on their environment. Having two organisms with such high DNA similarities, and the fact that scientists do not consider them to be closely related, is in conflict with the claim that similarities in DNA (e.g. humans and chimpanzees) are proof that they have a common ancestor.

One issue that seems to be completely overlooked regarding DNA is that the proteins making up a DNA sequence are all but useless on their own. Proteins are vital for all of an organism’s biological functions, and DNA contains instructions for all of these functions.  The fact that an organism’s cells can read the genome in order to construct proteins is amazing.  The entire process surrounding DNA is complex, and to suggest that both instructions and cellular interpretations evolved from the simple components that make up proteins (amino acids) is absurd.  How can instructions be performed unless there is an interpreter?  How can an interpreter work without instructions?  While we may consider cells to be very simple parts of an organism, looking into their complexity brings about many questions that scientists can only explain through speculation.

Facts and theories — interpretations of observable evidence

The definition of the word ‘fact’ is “a thing that is known or proved to be true,” the operative word being ‘true’. Our ultimate aim is to find the truth, and when we claim that something is a fact we are claiming that, beyond all doubt, we have discovered the truth. If something that we believe in turns out to be untrue then it was never a fact in the first place.

Obviously some facts are temporary, such as the Empire State Building in New York being the tallest building in the world. It was for a forty year period, but no longer is. Certain facts such as this are short-lived, and are things that are naturally susceptible to change, unlike major scientific theories we claim to be facts.

There are also things claimed to be factual that are never true: they seemed to be facts until further evidence appeared that disproved them. Academics believe that “there is no such thing as a fact,” and that half of the things we learn will be considered untrue in about 10-20 years time. This is known as ‘the half-life of facts’. What such academics are really saying is that facts as we know them are mostly speculation, and that anything we believe to be a fact could very well be untrue.

Science is claimed to be the opposite of religion, being fact-based rather than faith-based. The truth of the matter is that some scientific theories (e.g. the existence of parallel universes) are as far-fetched as the idea of God and heaven, and yet, as they are labelled ‘scientific’, people believe in them with a faith equal to that of the deeply religious. Even though many scientific theories have been proven false over time — by science itself, might I add — most people continue to have a blind belief in them, and seem unable to let them go.

Belief in scientific theories requires faith purely in that which is observed, and for this reason the theories are unreliable. While the theories may be ‘based’ upon facts, this doesn’t make them factual — as we can never be sure that we have all of the facts. Regardless of the speculation involved, we have treated unproven scientific theories as though they are 100% true, and everyone, from young to old, is taught to have faith in them.

People who speak out against popular theories are usually ridiculed, and when certain theories are later proved to be false we are told that our knowledge about science is always expanding, and that it is natural for theories to change as we discover more about the universe. We are expected to accept scientific theories as being 100% true, and also expected to accept that we don’t have all of the facts, whereby the theories may later be proved false. These things are in conflict with each other.

Scientific estimates should always be taken lightly: even within the space of about three decades scientists have reduced their estimation of the earth’s age by two thirds, and each time we accept their estimate as though it is indisputable.

Theories that scientists provide us with, such as the theory of gravity, are usually accepted as being facts, although they are unproven. We know that objects fall downwards, but we cannot prove that the reason for this given by scientists is completely true. The following are theories that were once considered factual but have now been proven false:

Evolution of the horse

In 1879, Othniel Marsh presented the theory of horse evolution. It showed the gradual change from smaller mammals to the present day horse. As fossils of the smaller mammals were found in lower layers of the geologic column, becoming larger in the higher layers, the assumption was made that they represented evolutionary changes from the original mammals.

In 1980, at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, a four-day conference was held by 150 evolutionists who admitted that, as written in the Houston Chronicle of November 1980, “Instead of gradual change, fossils of each intermediate species appear fully distinct, persist unchanged, and then become extinct.”

Even though it has been proven false, the theory of the evolution of the horse is still promoted in literature and on Websites today.

Reproduction of nerve cells in the brain

For years it was believed that the nerve cells in a creature’s brain start dying from the day it is born, never to be replaced. In 1984, neuroscientist Fernando Nottebohm discovered that dying nerve cells in the brains of songbirds were replaced, yet we still blindly ignored the evidence and accepted the original ‘facts’ we had been told. Only in February 2009 did scientists announce that other creatures, including humans, are able to produce new, functioning nerve cells in their brains. The so-called ‘fact’ that these cells are not replaced has been proven to be mere speculation.

The direction of a planet’s orbit must follow the rotation of its star

The rotation of the sun is anticlockwise, and all planets in our solar system orbit the sun in the same anticlockwise direction. Because of this it was believed that the direction of a planet’s orbit should always follow the rotation of the star it is orbiting. In 2010, planets outside our solar system (extrasolar planets) were found to have orbits in the opposite direction to the rotation of their star, going completely against theories on the formation of planets purported by evolutionists.

There is no water on the moon

For years it was believed that the moon was dry, and that there was no water on it at all. The only reason for this theory was that no water had been found on it, even though very little testing had been done. In 2009, NASA fired a rocket into the moon, blasting out a hole, and then sampled the particles from the blast. In 2010, after a detailed analysis, Peter Shultz of Brown University, a lead author of one of the studies, said, “All the books on the moon say that the moon is dry, and now we have to rewrite that chapter.”

Human evolution

The theory of human evolution is based upon the discovery of various skull fragments, carbon dated at different ages. As the skull fragments alter throughout history it was assumed that there were various human species that evolved at differing rates.

On October 18th 2013, Science Magazine contained an article regarding a complete skull that was found in Dmanisi, Georgia in 2005. The skull was dated as being almost 2 million years old, and yet the structure was similar to modern human skulls.

The discovery of this new evidence has led researchers to believe that the skulls previously considered to be from different human species are from a single species, and that there was a greater diversity in the size and shape of skulls in the past. This new evidence has disproved the ‘fact’ of human evolution, which was based only upon the meagre evidence that was available at the time.

The earliest engravings by mankind were claimed to have originated about 100,000 years ago, on a pebble discovered in the Klasies River Cave in South Africa. In 2014, the journal Nature published an article where a fossilised shell from Java dated between 430,000 and 540,000 years ago was found to have engravings by humans. Stephen Munro, from the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at The Australian National University, said, “It rewrites human history.”

Even with these new discoveries, evolutionists still claim that mankind originated 200,000 years ago, and still believe that the skull fragments are from various human species. It is strange to think that those who claim to follow science are ignoring it in order to follow their own beliefs.

Time has proven that theories we considered to be unshakable facts, which were really false, were only considered factual because we lacked the ability to delve deep enough in order to find the truth.

Macroevolution is a theory based upon speculation, and although there are no facts to back it up it is accepted and taught as though it is factual. The deeper one delves into the facts used to explain macroevolution the more one has to question whether it can be true.

Observable evidence — flaws in the theory of macroevolution through mutation

For evolution to occur, information that develops new functionality needs to be added to the gene pool — which would have to occur through mutation.

If a mutation occurs in an area of the genome that has no function, one could say that information had been added, but it would be useless information, and no new functionality would result. If a mutation occurs in an area that does have a function, the function may alter, but only within limitations of its original structure. The latter type of mutation will cause instability in the genome, and can only degrade functionality — even though this degradation may end up being beneficial.

The fruit fly has a gestation period of just twelve days, which means that many generations of fruit fly are produced within a very short space of time. Because of this, scientists have chosen to use them in experiments related to evolution, using radiation to dramatically increase the rate of mutation. Within a few years, scientists have witnessed the number of generations of fruit fly equal to what would take mankind millions of years to achieve. In over 80 years of experiments there is no evidence of fruit flies evolving into anything other than flies. In fact, many mutations that did evolve became weak or sterile, and either died out or reverted to their original state after several generations.

E. coil bacteria has a gestation period of between three and nine days, and experiments similar to the fruit fly have been performed on it. Evolutionists often cite the experiments of Richard Lenski as proof of macroevolution. The most discussed experiment is where E. coli bacteria, through mutation of its genetic information, was able to digest citric acid where it could not do so before. The reason for this ‘beneficial’ mutation was not due to the addition of genetic information. On the contrary, the mutations occurred from the loss of genetic information.

When mutation causes a gene to lose specificity (i.e. the ability to perform a specific function) the organism can adapt to suit a different environment. E coli can naturally digest citric acid in low-oxygen environments. In this case, the mutation caused a gene to lose specificity, which allowed the digestion of citric acid in any environment.

When mutation of genetic information occurs, the change is random, and the only result of this can be instability. While a mutation may appear beneficial in laboratory conditions, the bacteria also lose functions, such as the ability to repair their DNA, or the ability to digest sugar. If these organisms were let loose outside the laboratory they would not survive. Even in Lenski’s work, most mutations were detrimental, and none added information to the gene pool that developed new functionality.

The idea that macroevolution occurs through mutation is unproven. In fact, quite the opposite is true: experiments on fruit flies and bacteria have done more to prove that mutation does not lead to macroevolution; also, it is clear that mutation and natural selection can only remove functional information from the gene pool, and do not add any information that develops new functionality. Without this Macroevolution cannot occur.

Organisms cannot willingly create changes within themselves (e.g. dinosaurs could not develop feathers because they wished to fly): any changes occurring within a creature would be random mutations. Although some mutations would be of benefit, many would be worthless, and many would become an encumbrance that wiped out the variation. Surely if macroevolution was taking place we would see more evidence? Not only in fossils, but we should see evidence in organisms alive today with seemingly unnecessary, horribly mutated, partially-formed appendages, which would appear during a stage of metamorphosis. Consider the transformation of a caterpillar to a butterfly: while in its cocoon the caterpillar goes through gradual changes to its appearance, both externally and internally, at an incredibly fast rate. If it took a caterpillar millions of years to evolve into a butterfly then we would expect to see many gradual transitions of the caterpillar to the final form, and most of the intermediate transitions would look far from perfect.

Rather than seeing many cases of flawed mutations, we see a vast number of creatures with perfect features that seem incredible. It is shockingly hard to believe that, purely by chance, an accidental mutation of a reptile’s body caused structures (feathers) to appear that were miraculously perfect for achieving flight. It would be more likely for a single person to win the lottery 100 times than for dinosaurs to gain mutations so perfect for flying. Birds have 6 different types of feather, each appearing in just the right place, developing the perfect shape for flight, and causing the wing to act as an aerofoil to provide lift. There isn’t much chance of that happening accidentally, even over billions of years.

Animals have a gene known as a plasminogen activator that causes the production of proteins that break down and prevent blood clots. The vampire bat is different in that this gene is activated in its saliva, allowing it to continue feeding off creatures it has caused to bleed. Then there is the fact that it has extremely sharp teeth, perfect for perforating even the thick hides of cattle; and its tongue is perfectly developed for extracting blood, having a groove in which blood is drawn via a capillary action. The chance of such mutations occurring randomly and being in such harmony with each other is unbelievable.

Fossils of creatures claimed to have originated in the Late Cambrian Period (around 500 million years ago) have been found whose descendants are still living today, showing no significant evolutionary changes. Three examples are the Horseshoe Crab, Tadpole Shrimp and the Nautilus. If evolution through mutation occurs at the level evolutionists claim, it is almost impossible for a creature to have hardly evolved in this way. For three of them to be found is miraculous. The explanation given by evolutionists is that the creatures didn’t need to evolve in order to survive.

While most people accept this explanation, we must ask the question: if these creatures didn’t need to evolve in order to survive, are we claiming that all evolutionary changes in creatures must occur out of necessity? According to evolution, changes do not occur out of necessity, they naturally occur through genetic mutation — as there can be no natural selection without first having variation. If a mutated form of creature benefits from its mutations it is likely to out-breed the original form — via natural selection. If a mutated form of creature neither benefits or is hindered by its mutations then the two forms should either combine, which would still alter the form of the creature, or split into separate species — such as Darwin’s finches.

Calculating the age of the earth — fossils, geological layers and dating methods

New layers of the earth are constantly covering over the old, either through decomposition of matter or sediment deposits. Digging down a few feet can reveal artefacts from Roman times. Digging further down can reveal artefacts from hundreds of years before that. Considering the depth of some layers, and due to the fact that layers are constantly building up, scientists assume that all of the earth’s layers have formed in this way over billions of years.

Geologists use a scale, known as the geologic column, showing how different layers of rock were laid down in succession, each covering a specific time period. Fossils of ‘primitive’ life forms have been found in sedimentary layers of the earth estimated to be millions of years old, and it is believed that mankind evolved from these life forms. Scientists have shown that fossils of organisms become more complex as we go up the layers, which supports macroevolution.

Contrary to the claims of scientists, some layers that are considered many millions of years old have been found to contain fossils of complex organisms, and some young layers contain fossils of more primitive organisms. These discoveries are disregarded as erroneous, purely because they do not fit in with the theory of evolution.

Sometimes rock is dated by the fossils found in it, and sometimes fossils are dated by the rock they are found in, and any date arrived at using this circular method is purely speculative.

Evidence against sedimentary layers being millions of years old

At Glacier National Park in Montana a limestone formation from the Precambrian Era (1 billion years ago) is on top of a shale formation from the Cretaceous Period (100 million years ago), quite significantly the wrong way round.

In Kingoodie Quary, Scotland, in 1844, Sir David Brewster discovered what is known as the ‘Kingoodie artefact’: an iron nail within a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic Era (between 65 and 250 million years ago), millions of years before man is supposed to have existed — according to evolution. The sandstone block was formed around the nail, with the head completely embedded in the rock.

In the Grand Canyon, rock representing three main stages of evolution (the Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian periods) claimed to span 150 million years is missing, where it should sit between the Muav Limestone and Redwall Limestone layers. It is impossible that no sedimentary layers were formed over the extremely long period of 150 million years, and the reason geologists give for the missing layers is that erosion took place. One problem with this is that the layers either side of the 150 million years of missing rock are flat against each other, rather than having the uneven surface one would expect from erosion.

The geologic timescale is unreliable. Fossils only found within certain layers are referred to as ‘index fossils,’ which evolutionists then use to date specific rock layers. On many occasions index fossils are discovered in layers far earlier or later than they were supposed to have existed: in these situations the fossils are no longer used as index fossils, proving that any dating via index fossils is purely speculative, and is only based upon what is known at the time. Perhaps fossils have only been found within certain layers, and not others; however, the fossils may very well exist in other layers, but nobody has found them. And what about the fact that life forms may have existed during certain periods without having left any fossils at all?

Scientists claim there is evidence that mass extinction events have occurred in the past. The Permian-Triassic extinction event, claimed to be the biggest mass extinction, is said to have wiped out about 95% of species. Reasons for this occurrence are listed as volcanic activity, climate change, and changes in sea level. These reasons would fit in with a global catastrophic flood.

The theory that all of the sedimentary layers formed over millions of years has no factual evidence to back it up. It is more likely that a catastrophic flood, along with volcanic activity, deposited large amounts of sediment, creating a vast proportion of the stratified layers we see today. This theory fits in with the account of the flood in the Bible, which scientists go out of their way to disprove.

Scientists have always told us that crude oil takes millions of years to form. On December 18th, 2013, Engineers at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) came up with a process that converted algae to crude oil within minutes. Previous processes used dried algae, but the new process can be used in a mixture that is up to 90% water. The new process uses high pressures and temperatures to convert the algae, which fits in nicely with the conditions scientists claim to have occurred during the Permian-Triassic extinction event, and also fits in with the flood theory.

In 1965, at Bijou Creek in Colorado, flooding occurred after 48 hours of rain. The flooding left sediment that made up to twelve feet of stratified layers. The layers created by this flood were identical to others evolutionists had claimed to be millions of years old.

Two-thirds of the geologic column consist of mud rock — sedimentary rock formed from silts and clays, such as mudstone and shale. Geologists claimed that mud deposits required mostly still water in order to form; therefore, according to the geologists, it was a fact that mudstone and shale formations must be millions of years old. Evolutionists often give this as a reason why a young earth is impossible, due to the many separate layers of mud rock in the earth.

In 1946, millions of fossils of soft tissued organisms resembling jellyfish were discovered at the Ediacara site in Adelaide, Southern Australia. The fossils were within marine limestone spanning an area of around 200 miles. Scientists claim that these organisms became trapped rapidly in a large quantity of fine silt, which then rapidly hardened. The silt layer must have formed almost immediatley, rather than taking the millions of years geologists claim mud rock requires; also, fossilisation must have occurred within days, as the soft tissue of jellyfish easily decomposes or is destroyed.

This disproves the claim that mud rock layers must form slowly over millions of years; also, due to the quantity of fossils and the area they cover, the event leading to the organisms being trapped must have been catastrophic — which would fit in with the flood theory. Scientists previously believed that only hard-bodied organisms could fossilise, until the discovery of these fossils disproved this speculation.

In Science magazine, 14 December 2007, a report was published on the deposition of mud, covering research performed by Juergen Schieber, John Southard, and Kevin Thaisen — supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation. Separate experiments were performed using calcium montmorillonite and kaolinite (extremely fine clays), and natural lake muds. The experiments revealed that mud starts to form in rapidly flowing water within a short time period, and also that the presence of organic matter with the mud enhances mud deposition from fast moving currents.

The reason for the research, according to Schieber, was that “In many ancient mudstones, you see not only deposition, but also erosion and rapid re-deposition of mud — all in the same place;” also, “The erosive features are at odds with the notion that the waters must have been still all or most of the time. We needed a better explanation.”

The fact that many mudstones hold evidence that they were created in rapid flowing water again reveals the general attitude of scientists, whereby any data going against a widely-held theory is disregarded.

The observable evidence mentioned here disproves the ‘fact’ that mud deposits cannot form in rapid flowing water, and bring doubt on the supposed age of mud rock. This evidence also supports a global catastrophic flood, which is probably why it is largely ignored by scientists.

Polystrate fossils — proof of rapid formation of layers

Some rock layers that evolutionists claim to have been laid over thousands of years have been found to contain fossils of upright trees extending through them, suggesting that they were actually formed within days. Fossils extending through multiple rock layers are known as ‘polystrate’. Scientists admit — when it suits their theories — that some sediment layers can be formed rapidly. A common theory offered by scientists to counter the argument that a flood caused the rapid burial is that the trees could have been buried over a period of thousands of years while still alive, which would explain why the trees did not rot during that time, and why they remained in an upright position.

Some of the strata in which the polystrate fossils occur are mud rock (such as shale); therefore, as evolutionists claim that the layers around the fossils were formed rapidly, it would further contradict their theories that mud rock is formed slowly over millions of years. To contradict the theory that the trees were alive during burial, some polystrate tree fossils have been discovered to be upside down, and many of the fossils have no roots: such examples cannot have been living while the layers built up around them over thousands of years, as they would have rotted away before fossilisation could occur.

Written in 1882 by Charles Lyell, the man who influenced Charles Darwin, the book ‘Elements of Geology’ describes polystrate tree fossils, and suggests that the fact they are upright disproves the flood theory. Contrary to this speculative opinion, observable science has shown us how a cataclysmic event can produce such fossils. The landslides caused by the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 tore trees from their roots and deposited them into nearby Spirit Lake. A recent study of the lake revealed that over a short time period almost 20,000 trees sank into an upright position at the bottom of the lake and became fossilised. In 1983, an article ‘Erect floating stumps in Spirit Lake, Washington’, by Harold G. Coffin, describes this in detail. The observable evidence reveals how upright trees with no roots can be deposited in a short time period, allowing fossilisation. Shockingly, many evolutionists still cite Lyell’s opinions and disregard observable scientific evidence, going against their own principles.

Scientists claim that coal is formed over millions of years by vegetation that has slowly accumulated and been compacted by pressure. One thing that contradicts this theory is that the fossilised vegetation found within coal seams is similar throughout, showing no expected evolutionary changes. To counter this claim that coal can only be formed over a very long period, a form of coal has been created in laboratory conditions within months, using very simple methods. In 1972, the book ‘Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries’, by Reginald Daly, mentions a situation where the wooden piles supporting a railway bridge near Freiburg in Germany were found to have partially turned to coal.

A polystrate tree fossil near Catherine Hill Bay in Australia was discovered extending through two separate coal seams, suggesting that either the tree remained alive for millions of years or that coal was formed quickly. In Germany, in the 1800s a fossilised human skull was discovered in coal; also, in Tuscany, in 1958 a child’s jaw bone was discovered in coal. These discoveries suggest that either humans were around many millions of years before evolution claims man existed, or that coal has been formed within man’s lifetime and therefore doesn’t require millions of years to form.

The unreliability of carbon dating

Carbon dating is a process used to measure the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 atoms in organisms, in order to calculate their age. Although accuracy beyond 4,000 years cannot be proven, it is claimed that carbon dating is accurate to within 50,000 years.

Even with the claim of 50,000 years accuracy it has still been used to date things estimated as being millions of years old. Many scientists have agreed that this process is unreliable, and dates could be affected by changes in the atmosphere and in the earth’s magnetic field, which scientists say is decreasing.

It is claimed, via sediment records, that the Arctic once had a sub-tropical climate, being free of ice. Fossils of life forms that live in warm climates have been discovered from the Arctic to the Antarctic, suggesting that in the past there was a warm climate globally. This also suggests that the earth’s atmosphere was different, bringing into question the accuracy of carbon dating.

It is held by scientists that organic remains containing radiocarbon must be at most 100,000 years old. Organic remains, including coal, which are claimed to be millions of years old, have been found to contain radiocarbon, and the ratio between them is similar, concluding that these things were living around the same time period.

In 1971, an article in the Antarctic Journal of the United States, titled “Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land,” revealed that freshly killed seals had been dated as having died 1,300 years ago, and some that died up to 30 years ago were dated at 4,600 years. Recently, carbon dating of ‘live’ mollusc shells off the Hawaiian coast revealed that they had died 2,000 years ago, and in Australia a 50-year-old felt miners hat that had fossilised was calculated as being 6,000 years old. Is this evidence reliable?

The unreliability of potassium-argon dating

Potassium-argon dating is a process used to measure radioactive potassium decay within volcanic rock in order to determine its age. Radioactive potassium decays to argon gas, and the date of volcanic rock is based on this rate of decay. The age of the rock presented by this method is attributed to any fossils found within or near it. The technique assumes that no argon gas existed within the lava, and that the decaying radioactive potassium was fully contained when the lava hardened into rock.

There is evidence that quite frequently argon gas is present before lava hardens, giving amazing results. Volcanic rock produced by an eruption at Mt Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, in 1954, was potassium-argon dated as being up to 3.5 million years old. In 1968, rocks known to have been created from an eruption in 1800 by the Hualalai volcano in Hawaii were dated by scientists to be 160 million to 3 billion years old. In 1980, in the space of just one day, the volcanic eruption of Mt. St. Helens created 17 mile long canyons up to 140 feet deep, and deposited stratified layers over 100 feet thick. The sedimentary layers of Arizona’s Grand Canyon and those from the eruption of Mount St. Helens are stratified in the same way and yet scientists claim those in the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form. The lava dome formed by Mount St. Helens in 1980 only took about five years to solidify into rock, and these rocks were potassium-argon dated as being 350,000 – 2.8 million years old.

Conclusion of radiometric dating

Along with carbon and potassium-argon dating techniques, there are several others, such as rubidium-strontium dating (radioactive rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87) and uranium-lead dating (radioactive uranium decays to lead).  All of these methods require that the element they decay to is not present in lava before it solidifies.  There are always estimates related to dating via these methods, and accuracy is always in doubt.  Flawed results have been obtained through all of these techniques, but are usually discarded as erroneous.

The definition of science, provided by the Oxford dictionary, is:

“The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

Carbon, potassium-argon, and other dating techniques have been proven unreliable by using them against items created within a known date in human history, as shown above. In fact, observable science has never proved the bible wrong, but has proved many theories of evolution wrong. Regardless of this, the observable is mostly ignored if it goes against the theory of evolution.

Evidence backing up the flood theory and young earth

Fossilisation is not a common occurrence. Dead things naturally decompose and are recycled back into the dust from which they came. To become fossils dead life forms must be buried in matter containing water that is rich in minerals and high in carbonates: this prevents decomposition and causes tissue to be replaced by the minerals. Scientists agree that the process of fossilisation can take place quickly. Bones, for example, can fossilise within five to ten years.

Before they get a chance to fossilise, dead life forms could decompose, be eaten, or be destroyed by other life forms; therefore, in order to become fossilised they must be buried quickly. A flood is the perfect way to create fossils: it provides large amounts of both water and mud in which to rapidly bury things, and there is plenty of geological evidence that supports a global catastrophic flood of enormous proportions.

If a global cataclysmic flood did occur, taking just days to create sedimentary layers estimated as being millions of years old, it would disprove the theory of evolution or suggest that man evolved extremely quickly — at a speed of which we find no evidence today.

Evidence suggests that carbon dating and potassium-argon dating are flawed, and it is speculation that stratified layers have formed over billions of years, leading us to believe that the earth could easily be far younger.

Scientists have taken fragments of factual evidence and attempted to piece them together in order to prove the theory of macroevolution; however, discoveries such as those mentioned here take away any stability the theory has. Regardless of the facts, anything that does not fit in with macroevolution is brushed under the carpet by scientists. The reason the flood theory is dismissed is that, along with the religious connection, it suggests that the sedimentary layers are not millions of years apart and neither are the fossils within them. Without millions of years there can be no macroevolution.

The Bible mentions the story of Noah and the ark, whereby eight people and various creatures were the only living things saved from a great flood that destroyed the rest of mankind. As well as the Bible mentioning that a great flood occurred, there are literally ‘hundreds’ of legends from ancient civilisations all over the world that mention a flood of such catastrophic proportions, where the survivors escaped by a boat. Many of these stories, including that in the Bible, claim that the flood was a punishment for the wickedness of mankind.

The Central American Maya Civilisation was extremely advanced in its study of celestial activity, and had the most accurate calendar in the world — which retained its accuracy many hundreds of years after their demise. Every 5,125 years the Mayans believed that a cataclysmic cycle comprising heightened solar activity occurred, which caused a displacement in the rotation of the earth. The next cycle was calculated to occur on December 21st, 2012.

The Mayans claimed that the previous cycle (5,125 years prior to 2012) resulted in a great flood that left few survivors. This is very interesting as the beliefs of the Mayan civilisation not only support the flood theory but further suggest that the reason for it was due to displacement of the earth’s rotation. This could also offer an explanation of why the once warm climate at the Arctic and Antarctic suddenly turned cold.

By following timelines within the Bible the age of the earth is presented as roughly 6,656 years old: with the time of the flood presented as exactly 1,656 years after the earth was created, and the time from after the flood until now as roughly about 5,000 years. This fits in perfectly with the Mayan calendar. The oldest known historical records only go back roughly 5,000 years, which would make sense if a global cataclysmic flood occurred at that time.

Dating trees by their rings has shown that the oldest tree was a bristlecone pine in Nevada, dated at 4,800 years old, well within the 5,000 years since the flood. We have no strong evidence that any tree has lived beyond 5,000 years.

Scientists have claimed that other trees currently still living in Tasmania and Sweden are up to 10,000 years old. They claim that the trees themselves have not lived for 10,000 years, but are part of root systems that have been alive for 10,000 years. As there is no way of dating living root systems, the highly unreliable carbon dating methods were used to determine the age.

Mitochondria are energy producing structures within cells, and they contain their own DNA — separate to our nuclear DNA. While our nuclear DNA is inherited from both parents, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is inherited only through the mother. While each person’s mtDNA remains mostly identical to their mother’s, there is a rate of mutation that occurs. From this rate of mutation, the mtDNA of two people can be compared in order to determine how closely related they are. It was originally calculated from this rate of mutation that mankind originated around 200,000 years ago — which is still the widespread belief. The fact that this figure is speculation, calculated against estimated rates of mutation, doesn’t stop evolutionists holding on to it as though it is a fact.

The First International Workshop on Human Mitochondrial DNA, held in October 1997, researched mtDNA mutation rates. Taking recent measurements into account, the researchers found that mutation rates in mtDNA were much higher than first thought, and the original estimate was changed from 200,000 years to 6,500 years — which is in line with the Biblical age of the earth.

In ScienceDaily, 27 October 2015, a report was published where scientists at Oxford University’s Research Laboratory for Archaeology, led by Professor Greger Larson, studied the genes of White Plymouth Rock chickens. The research brought about the discovery that two mutations had occurred in the mitochondrial genomes of the birds in only 50 years. This rate of mutation was 15 times faster than the accepted rate of change, being 2% per million years. Evolutionists have cited this as evidence of evolution, even though no information developing new functions had been added to the gene pool. The more important issue that has been ignored is that the observational evidence of a faster mtDNA mutation rate in the birds backs up the research on mtDNA in 1997 (above), revealing that the origin of mankind is far earlier than the estimate of 200,000 years.

Based on its rate of decay, scientists claim that DNA is unable to exist beyond 10,000 years, and yet DNA has been successfully extracted from fossils of dinosaurs claimed to have last been alive 65 million years ago. Scientists discard the evidence that suggests mankind is 6,500 years old, and also ignore the decay rate of DNA, as both things go against evolution.

Conclusion

It is strange how modern man prefers to teach evolution and hold it as fact, yet completely dismisses the idea of a global cataclysmic flood so readily, especially as it has far greater scientific evidence supporting it, and is backed up by stories from all around the world. It is for the sake of evolution that flood evidence is ignored. Mankind will dismiss anything that could back up the existence of God.

“There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution.” — George Wald, PhD, Harvard University (Nobel Prize Winner), Scientific American Vol. 199, 1958

For more detailed information the following Websites are recommended for reference:

https://www.creation.com/qa#Creation

https://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/creationism