Darwin in the media
This text was inspired by different articles, especially by the piece Tiedonvälitys tukee ateismin todellisuutta [Communication supports the world of atheism] by Martti Mylläri. Henrik Sawela commented on this piece, and I too, took part in the conversation. I sent the following comment and it was published in the ESS on August 30th, 2017. In my short reply I addressed the dominance of Darwin, and naturalistic worldviews on the beginning of the universe and life, in the media. It has the biggest presence in nature documentaries, articles, and in universities. Yet, no one acknowledges that these naturalistic assumptions have never been proved, similarly like we cannot prove God’s creation. Both are unproved, because we cannot go back in time and see for ourselves what really happened. However, several pieces of evidence prove to be more favorable towards creation than accidental beginning. Many front-line researchers have been brave enough to admit that they do not have answers to how galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth, and life came about, or that there would be intermediate fossils.
Here is my reply in the magazine:
In the West you are allowed to criticize the ones in power, except Darwin
Henrik Sawela commented on the piece Tiedonvälitys tukee ateismin todellisuutta [Communication supports the world of atheism] by Martti Myllärinen. He disagreed on the matter.
The reality is, however, that naturalism/atheism has the upper hand in the media, when it comes to explaining the beginning of the universe and life. You almost never see the main media presenting a theistic alternative that is creation by God. People also pay no attention to the fact that it is scientifically impossible to afterwards prove the initial events that took place in the universe. Atheism/naturalism and theism are both belief-based views in this aspect. They are not scientific.
The question is, what is suggested by evidence. I have read many comments by scientists, where they admit to not knowing how galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth and life came about and whether there even exists intermediate fossil forms. For instance, about life, we know that only life can create more life; a rule we know no exceptions to, which makes me wonder, wouldn’t the most logical option in that case be creation?
Another example is what we are being told about dinosaurs. It is claimed they lived 65 million years ago. Yet, dinosaur fossils have been found to contain radiocarbon, which’ official half-life is 5730 years. Similarly, they have contained soft tissues, proteins, and DNA, which we might not even be able to find in some human mummies or mammoths anymore. Why is no one telling us about this? I believe a certain Chinese scientist said it quite well: according to him, people are allowed to criticize Darwin, but not the ones in power – but in the West it is quite the opposite. Atheistic information transfer prevents any criticism for Darwin.
I also wrote another piece on this topic. It was a reply to Kari Kuitunen’s writing, in which he commented on my previous text. He wrote, e.g., that “as a matter of fact, Iivanainen and his fellow thinkers criticize science for not taking seriously unreliable studies. I think it is right that the media relies on researched information rather than opinions.”
This is exactly my point; we should rely on researched information. That is, media presents the naturalistic idea of life beginning by itself as something that is self-evident. However, serious research, which is what Kari wants, has brought out the problematic nature of this naturalistic concept. No scientists have ever been able to prove that life could begin by itself from nothing. Clearly the rule is that life can only begin from another life, to which no one has found an exception.
Everyone can imagine this for themselves. You only need common sense to realize that rocks or other lifeless substances do not become alive by themselves, or begin to breathe, eat, feel, nor procreate. The only change that can happen is solid turning into liquid and liquid into gas when temperatures shift. Nothing else happens. This is real experimental science.
What about Darwin’s theory? For it to be true, these two things should be met:
• Life needs to exist, because for evolution to be true, we need life. Evolution cannot take place without life first.
But as we realized earlier, life cannot begin by itself, we would need a creator for that. On the other hand, if a creator did breathe life into this world, He would have made everything complete, like stated in the First Book of Genesis. He would not have left partially finished creations.
• Secondly, evolution theory necessitates the existence of intermediate forms. They should be visible in fossil records. However, serious studies have proven that intermediate forms and gradual development do not exist. Below we have some related comments. They address how the image of evolution (molecule-to-man theory) presented in the media, is not accurate. Even though Darwin is dominant in the media, scientists have not been able to prove his assumption about gradual development from a simple original cell:
Niles Eldredge: We palaeontologists have said that the history of life supports [a story about changes that promote gradual adapting], even though we know all the while that it does not. (1)
It is not possible to even compile a distorted picture of an organism's evolution based on paleobiological facts. The fossil materials gathered are so perfect now that the lack of intermediate forms cannot have been caused by insufficient data. The gaps are real, and can never be filled in. (A statement of Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson approximately 50 years ago. )
It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)
No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)
Here is another one of my letters to the editor addressing this matter (ESS 14/9/2017). It was originally sent in this form. The magazine did not include the last paragraph that contained a link to the appearance of radiocarbon and soft tissue on dinosaur fossils. The heading had also been slightly altered by the magazine. The magazine titled the letter as “I consider theism as the only logical option”, when the original heading said, “Darwin and the media”.
This text also brings up the shortcomings naturalistic theory has about life’s beginning, and it tells how abiogenesis researcher Stanley Miller has admitted the existence of these shortcomings. Similarly, gradual development, which Darwin waited to be proven right, has not been detected in any fossils. This was acknowledged by Stephen Jay Gould, who is one of the most famous paleontologists in the world.
Darwin and the media
I would like to thank Kari Kuitunen for his criticism and the continued platform, addressing Darwin in the media.
Kari said the following in his writing: “I think it is right that the media relies on researched information rather than opinions.”
I fully agree, but is this being actualized? I will bring up a few examples. First, I will address the beginning of life. The media often sees it as self-evident that life began by itself, but it is an alternative idea, and not researched information. It is a naturalistic belief that has not been proven correct. To make matters clearer, I will quote J. Morgan’s interview with late aged Stanley Miller. He became famous for his experiments related to the birth of life. J. Morgan told about the interview: "He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted.
What about species transformations and Darwin’s theory? It is important to emphasize that adaptation and variation are real phenomena, and you can find examples of them, e.g., in On the Origin of Species by Darwin. Whereas, the molecule-to-man theory has never been proved, and there are no signs of it in fossils. Stephen J. Gould, an atheist and perhaps the most famous paleontologist of our time, has stated the following: “I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks. (...)” (The Panda’s Thumb, 1988, s. 182,183).
What can be deduced based on this? If anything, naturalistic origin theory and Darwin’s theory contradict real experimental science and evidence. I am not saying that we can scientifically prove creation. It cannot be done, as we have no means of seeing the past. However, in the presence of two alternatives for the world’s beginning – naturalism and theism – I see theism as the only logical option.
Moving on to chronological timing. Kari was hoping for some information about radiocarbon and soft tissue in dinosaurs. For example, this website: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html tells how a German research team reported the presence of radiocarbon in several dinosaur fossils. According to the results, the samples were 22 000-39 000 years old. I have also discussed this topic in my own website in texts called “Milloin dinosaurukset elivät” [When did dinosaurs live] and “Mielikuvitushistoria” [Imaginary history].
Next, we have some magazine articles relating to evolution theory. They illustrate well the significance evolution and millions of years have in the media. First, we are going to discuss how Darwin’s theory is often presented in a vague manner. This ensures that the readers don’t always fully understand what is being meant by evolution. After which we move on to discuss dinosaurs and how they are usually dated. Lastly, the final topic will be humans.
What is meant by evolution? A magazine article explained it like this:
Evolution is the best thing mankind ever came up with. No other idea explains so much based on the little amount that we do know.
Since it is so elegantly simple, it amazes me how we had to wait till Charles Darwin, before someone conceptualized the wonders of evolution. Everything on this earth is a part of this wonderous scientific experiment. And if there is life somewhere else in the universe, it also grows on the path set by evolution… Evolution fascinates me, because it provides an explanation to our existence. It ties us with life. It brings light into our origin and it can also show us the future. (ESS 6/9/2017 Jaakko Kinnunen)
This was a snippet from the article. It illustrates well how evolution is praised in the media.
The writer of the article is also right about one thing: there is evidence for evolution. Only, it is a matter of how we define evolution. If we mean variation within basic kinds by it, everyone will agree. Basic kinds do go through natural selection and evolution. There are good examples of it in the works of Darwin and in other evolutionary literature. For instance, the resistance of bacteria, different colored peppered moths, and the finches of Galapagos islands are usually mentioned. These are all cases of variation within the basic kind, since the species still remain the same. They have only adapted into a new environment, but they have not transformed into a wholly new basic kind, nor have they gained any new genetic information. New genetic information would be the only driving force for evolution, but several geneticists have admitted that there is no evidence that new genetic information could emerge out of the blue. Geneticist in the Cornell University, Dr. John Sanford has stated the following: It should be realized that scientists have a very vulnerable and broad network for detecting mutations that add information. The majority of geneticists are constantly on the lookout for such mutations. - - However, I am not convinced that even one clear example of a mutation, which would have undeniably created information, has been identified. (Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, New York, p. 17). Below, you can find a few other related comments. Appearance of new organs, structures, and information is a prerequisite for evolution (molecule-to-man), but researchers have not detected this kind of emergence. Instead, what they have observed, favors creation model, according to which plants and animals were fully developed from the beginning:
Jean Rostand: Is it really definite, like Neo-Darwinists like to claim, that the major question of evolution is… solved…? Personally, I do not think so, and with so many others I must present some age-old remarks against Neo-Darwinism…
The mutations we know – that are thought to be responsible for the creation of the living world – are generally either losses of an organ, disappearances (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or reduplications of an existing organ. In no case do they create anything genuinely new or individual to the organic system, anything that could be regarded as the basis of a new organ or as the beginning of a new function. (Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution, 1961, p. 79)
Steven M. Stanley: Known fossil records do not contain any examples, where a species would have had a new important structural feature under development (Steven M. Stanley: Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W.M. Freeman and Co. 1979, p. 39)
Robert E. D. Clark: Even though thousands of mutations have been examined in our time, we have found no clear case in which mutation would have changed an animal into a more complex one, produced a new structure, or even caused a deep, new adaptation. (R.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After, p. 131)
It should be clearly defined in biology what is meant by evolution. Does it stand for the molecule-to-man theory, which requires the emergence of new information and new organs, or is it only used to mean adaptation and regular variation? The latter is agreed by everyone, but the former lacks evidence. The media rarely makes a distinction between these two, which causes issues.
Interestingly, when evolutionists want to prove the molecule-to-man theory, they use examples of the other group, adaptation. Why is that?
Probably because they don’t have any evidence of real species transformations, but only of adaptation. Experiments extending over 100 years on bacteria and fruit flies and centuries of breeding have also shown that there are certain limits that cannot be crossed. Species do not change into another, as in our case, bacteria and fruit fly remain bacteria and fruit fly. That is why we need to differentiate variation within basic kinds and adaptation, from the notion that all current species stem from the same original cell. These are two wholly different notions, and only one of them has convincing evidence to support them. (As already mentioned, fossil records do not carry any signs of gradual development. This has been admitted by many front-line paleontologists).
British bacteriologist Alan Linton: Science makers reject theories, which have been proven to be untrue. Based on this, Elredge claims that science has not been able to cancel the evolution theory in 150 years and that is why the evolution theory has won. In other words, the evolution theory is based on the idea that science has not proven the theory false. He believes that the evolution theory can be scientifically tested.
But where is the experimental evidence? In scientific literature, there is no evidence that one species would have evolved from another species. The bacteria are the simplest examples of independent life and they fit ideally well to this kind of study. The age of one generation is 20–30 minutes. A population can be achieved in 18 hours. However, the history of bacteriology of 150 years does not offer any evidence that one bacteria species would have changed into another in spite of the population having been exposed to powerful chemical and physical mutative genes and that only the bacteria have outside DNA molecules of the chromosomes (plasmids) which can move from a bacterium family to another. Because there is no evidence of species changes in the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence of evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, not to mention species changes between higher multicellular organisms. (3)
Dinosaurs in the headlines. Here we have a small snippet from a magazine article, which reported on a found dinosaur fossil. The fossil was in good condition, 7000 hours was spent on scraping excess rock from it, and it was estimated to be 110 million years old. The article also suggests that the dinosaur likely died in a river, got carried into the sea and then sank to the bottom:
Dinosaur fossil found nearly intact
Six years ago, an excavation worker, who had worked in oil sand fields in Canada, noticed some strange shapes in the quarry walls.
Researchers called on site realized that it was a thick-skinned dinosaur fossil. 110-million-year-old remains of a dinosaur were detached from the pit…
The scientific name of the dinosaur is Borealopelta markmitchelli. It was named after the laboratory technician, Mark Mitchell. He scraped excess rock from the fossil for 7000 working hours…
The fossil has stayed remarkably intact. The Nodosaurus likely died in a river and its body got swept into the sea. There it sank to the bottom. Seabed minerals helped to preserve the shape of the dinosaur, when millions of years’ worth of soil layers piled on top of it. (Helsingin sanomat 4/8/2017)
What should we note from this article? Firstly, the fossil’s age that was 110 million years. How do they know it to be that old? They don’t. The fossil itself does not have any signs telling that it lived 110 million years ago. It doesn’t come with an age tag. This can be realized by anyone who has seen the fossil.
What makes the researchers think they know the age, then? Their assumptions are based on a geological time chart that was drawn up in the 19th century. Fossils are dated based on this chart, because the common presumption is that Darwin’s theory is accurate and that different groups of species have appeared on the planet at different times.
The idea that species appeared on the planet at different times, meaning over the course of millions of years, is, however, debunked by one observation: radiocarbon that still remains in what have thought to have been millions of years old fossils. Half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, but it can still be found in the oldest Cambrian organisms, dinosaurs, and in other organisms. Also, every sample of coal has contained radiocarbon. (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989).
Moreover, it is typical for dinosaur fossils to be well preserved. They might still contain real bone that has not fossilized yet. More surprisingly, scientists have found blood cells inside the bones [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], hemoglobin, soft tissue, fragile proteins, and DNA [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation(1):10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, 11 december 2012] and radiocarbon (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html).
Mary Schweitzer also told the well-known paleontologist, Jack Horner, how she noticed a T.rex skeleton (Hell Creek, Montana) to smell clearly like a dead body. He replied: “That’s right, all Hell Creek bones smell”. A good question is, how could 65-million-year-old bones still smell like that? If we were talking about more recent bones, however, the smell would be more understandable.
What should we do as readers? It would be best if we just forgot about the 19th century geological time chart and only paid attention to the fossils. If they still contain soft tissue, proteins, DNA and radiocarbon, we know that there aren’t millions of years at play. These substances’ presence in the fossils indicates towards short time periods. They are good indicators, when it comes to fossil dating.
It should also be noted that heritage knowledge and art also contain references to dragons. (Neh 2:13: And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.). The term dinosaur was not coined until the 19th century, but people have known dragons for much longer. The following quotations from a book, about the middle ages, show how the term dragon was still known some centuries ago. For instance, lions and eagles have been similar “heroic animals” like the dragons.
Knights’ lifestyle, honorary notions and values were widely idolized in Medieval literature. The ideal knight concepts and deeds were told in songs, poems and knight novels. These heroes rescued damsels in distress, searched for treasures, defeated dragons and so on. (4)
Secular chivalric orders began to arise in Europe during the 14th century, and rulers of the time invited their noblemen friends and allies to join the orders. The most famous ones were the Order of St. George founded by King Charles I of Hungary in 1325, the Order of the Garter founded by Edward III of England in around 1348, the Sacred Order of the Dragon of Saint George founded by Milos Obilic in around 1370, the Order of the Dragon founded by Sigismund von Luxembourg in 1408, the Order of the Golden Fleece founded by duke Philip the Good of Burgundy in 1430 and the Order of Saint Michael founded by Ludvig XI of France in 1469. (5)
According to some beliefs a cursed soul had to be purified of sins by roaming the earth for seven years in the form of a werewolf. It was also commonly believed that demons, especially preferred the form of a wolf over the forms of dragon, snake and ape, although, they could have taken any form they wanted to. (6)
The Chinese zodiac sign is also another good example. It has 12 animals, 11 of which are still known today (rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog, and pig). Whereas, the twelfth animal is a dragon, an animal that no longer exists. Why would 11 of the animals be real with one exception with dragon as a mythical creature? Wouldn’t it be more logical to assume it roamed the earth with humans, but has since gone extinct, like so many other animals have? The following quotations will elaborate more on dragons:
The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265)
Since the time of documented history, dragons have always been present: in the Assyrian and Babylonian earliest tales about the rise of civilization, in the Old Testament’s Jewish history, in old Chinese and Japanese texts, in the mythologies of Greeks, Romans and early Christians, in ancient American allegories, and in African and Indian myths. It is difficult to find a society that would not have mentioned dragons in their legendary history… Aristotle, Plinius and other authors of the classical times claimed that dragon stories are based on fact, and not imagination. (7)
Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola wrote decades ago about dragons’ resemblance to dinosaurs in his book Muuttuva maa [The changing world]:
The varying forms of lizard-like animals seem so funny to us because many of them resemble – in a distant and often caricature-like way – modern mammals living under similar conditions. However, most dinosaurs were so very different from the modern life forms that the nearest analogues can be found in the depictions of dragons in legends. Strangely enough, the authors of the legends had naturally not studied petrifactions or even knew of them. (8)
Now we are going to dive more deeply into the previous article. It explains how excess rock had to be scraped off the fossil for 7000 working hours. Additionally, it was mentioned how the animal may have died in a river and then gotten carried away to the sea, where it sank to the bottom.
Firstly, we should consider the fact they had to scrape rock from the fossil and that dinosaur fossils are often found inside solid rock. Why are these fossils inside hard rocks, and why do we need to detach them from surrounding material? Dinosaurs cannot go inside these rocks when they are alive, can they not? It is impossible.
All this can be simply explained by the Flood. The article was close when it suggested that the fossil had ended up at the bottom of the sea. However, in normal conditions, this kind of burial would not happen. Instead, a flood-like catastrophe could explain, why such large animals have been buried in soil. That is why we can find dinosaur fossils inside hard rocks these days. It could take decades to detach a fossil from the rock. More about the Flood at the end of this text.
Humans on earth. The third article is about humans and our supposed evolutionary tree. The article refers to a trace that looks like a human footprint, but the discovery location is a problem and the fact that the trace seems to be too old (according to evolutionary time scales), i.e., 5,7 million years old:
Footprint of an ape man found in Crete challenges the notion of human evolution
Research has led people to believe that humans originate from Africa, and that we stayed there for millions of years before beginning to migrate to Europe and Asia.
Polish and Swedish researchers have now made a discovery that could change our understanding of human evolution.
A footprint has been found ashore a Crete island, and it appears to be 5,7 million years old and seems to have belonged to an ape-man that already had a human-like foot.
Based on sediment rocks and microfossils, the discovery has been dated rather precisely. This is significant, because according to current theories, human feet possessing ancestors should not have been in Europe 5,7 million years ago, and not even in Africa at that time. In Africa these kinds of prints are more ape-like.
This Crete discovery confuses things, as it shows that early ape-men walked with human-like feet in Europe as early as 5,7 million years ago. Thus, ape-men have migrated from Africa earlier than we have thought.
If this finding is true, it would mean, for example, that Ardipithecus we believed to have been our ancestor, cannot be that, and even that humans possibly do not originate from Africa. This requires further study, however.
Results were published by the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. (Helsingin sanomat, 5/9/2017)
What is strange about this discovery that fully resembles a human footprint (the article talks about an ape-man, but that is a misleading term if the footprint is completely human-like)?
It fully cancels the notion of humans originating from Africa and being descendants to ape-like creatures. “it challenges our understanding of human evolution”, as stated in the heading. There have been hundreds of books addressing this topic, but we rather quickly discard them, because modern human is as old, at least, if not even older by 2 million years, than its ape-like ancestors. For instance, ape-like Lucy, which belongs in the Australopithecus genus, (Ardipithecus mentioned in the article is usually categorized into the same genus as well), is commonly dated only as being 3-4 million years old, meaning there is a considerable time difference, despite applying evolutionists’ own timing methods.
How will this discovery affect evolution’s value and position? It won’t affect it in any way. There have been plenty of similar findings, and none of them held any significance. The next couple quotations from science publications tell about human footprints that were even older than in the previous article. According to these quotations, humans lived as early as 100-200 million years before dinosaurs. This illustrates how scientists do not take into consideration their own observations. They will stick to their evolution theory and to millions of years, despite all observations suggesting the opposite.
If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of a man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)
Human-like prints on rock are a mystery to scientists. They cannot belong to a man, since they are too old – but what kind of an odd, two-footed, amphibious animal could have made them?
What is this animal that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs that had human-like feet?
(...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found. Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These prints were uncovered by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.
A few men from the Kentucky mountains recently visited Professor Burroughs. They took him into their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)
These footprints are extremely peculiar. They are just the right size to be human – being nine or ten inches in length – and almost the right shape. Almost anyone seeing them will at first think that they have been made by human feet and it is almost impossible to try to convince anyone to the contrary. (...)
But even the boldest estimations regarding the appearance of man on the Earth refer to a million years – and these prints are 250 times as old. (...)
Such is the mystery. A quarter of a billion years ago this animal, walking like a man, left footprints on the widespread sand that hardened into rock over time. Then he disappeared. And now the scientists are scratching their heads." (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)
There are also other issues in chronologically dating humans, when it comes to other findings. For instance, coal deposits from “300 million years” back have revealed human objects, and even human remains inside them (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39.) Erich A. von Frange has listed more of these items in his book Time Upside Down (1981).
These discoveries show that humans have lived on the planet for as long as other life-forms have, and that the evolutionary process never took place. These are practical observations, which place the whole evolution theory under question. They also tie in with the words of Jesus, when He said that man was created at the beginning (Mark 10:6 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. / Matt 19:4: And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female).
However, as stated earlier, these kinds of discoveries don’t seem to have much of an effect on evolution. People will stick with this theory, despite there being dozens of contrary pieces of evidence. Evolution always comes out on top, although practical observations go against it.
What can be considered real history? The following quotations will help us understand. They illustrate how suddenly civilization has emerged, and not so long ago. The first statement comes from the developer of radiocarbon method, professor W. F. Libby, who stated in the Science magazine on March the 3rd, 1961 (p. 624), that documented history only extends around 5000 years back. He spoke about the ruler families of Egypt, and how their listings might contain errors of up to hundreds of years. (This was reported, e.g., in a TV series called “Faaraot ja kuninkaat” [Pharaohs and kings], which was presented on Finnish television in 1996).
Libby also emphasized that people should not take claims about long time periods too seriously. This ties in with the fact that many locations on earth, like North America, Australia, and other secluded areas have primarily been inhabited over the last 200-300 years (It is estimated that, e.g., there were only 6000 inhabitants in the whole of Australia in the year 1800, North America had 3 million inhabitants at most in the beginning of the 18th century, and South America was inhabited by 10 million people at that time). These areas were extremely sparsely inhabited 500 years ago, and the rest of the world only had a fraction of the amount of people that we have today. We do not need to go back too many millennia to find ourselves at point zero, when there were no people on earth. In fact, the current population number could be reached in less than thousand years.
Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the first dynasty of Egypt is, as a matter of fact, the oldest even somehow confirmed historical date. (9)
The earliest notes we have of the history of man date only approximately 5,000 years to the past. (The World Book Encyclopaedia, 1966, volume 6, p. 12)
In the recent excavations, the most surprising issue has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the excavators would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (10)
The previous article also mentions a common evolutionary view, according to which humans originate from Africa. Evolutionists assume that first humans resided in Africa and then migrated to other areas.
But what is the historical and real view? Decades ago, it was far better understood that humans originate from the Middle East, and not Africa. This is suggested by nation’s heritage knowledge telling that first buildings were constructed in this area and that the world’s crop species originate from there as well. This view can also be found in the First Book of Genesis. The following quotation will explain further. The Africa-notion, which for example Darwin believed in, can be discarded as unscientific.
William Dawson assures in Modern Science that he and other prominent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region must – from a geological perspective – have been the only place where people at first could live.
Dr. Armstrong says the same in Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of the human kind? The learned pretty much disagree on this and on the question of racial integrity. The high regions giving birth to the Euphrates and the Tigris are considered to be the cradle of the human race. This is proven by many facts, such as the fact that the traditions of almost all tribes mention this part of the world as their original home. Furthermore, all of the types of grain used as human food originate here. Geological studies also lead to the same conclusion.” (11)
A little more about human categorization. The former article mentions ape-like humans, as different from regular humans. When in reality, fossil discoveries only suggest to two categories: humans and regular primates. The first category is represented by the Homo Erectus, Neanderthal, and modern humans. The latter category includes the Australopithecus, which contains nearly all “ape-man” remains (Lucy, Taung skull, Ardipithecus…).
Why such a division into two categories only? There are clear reasons as to why. Many front-line researchers have directly stated that the Australopithecus category is clearly more reminiscent to modern primates than to modern humans. Their skull size (e.g., the Ardipithecus mentioned in the article has a skull volume of only 300-500 cm3, which is a fourth of that of a modern human) and body structure are the same as with modern primates.
Secondly, several front-line researchers have admitted that there are not enough differences between the Homo Erectus, Neanderthal and modern humans. This is supported by many cultural discoveries, skull size and body structure. That is why some researchers, like Milford Wolpoff from Michigan university, have for a long time now said that Neanderthals and Homo Erectus should not be classified as different species from us. They should be considered as regular humans. What makes this statement by an evolutionist paleontologist significant, is that he is said to have seen more original hominid fossil material than anyone else.
Lastly, I want to include my own writing, which was published in a magazine (ESS 19/9/2017). I commented on the historicalness of the Bible, for which there are plenty of evidence from archeology and geology. It is advised to believe in the Bible’s historical accuracy – e.g., in terms of the world’s beginning and the life of Jesus – rather than to believe in fiction that represents itself as science. I consider, for instance, life’s beginning by itself, and a million-year evolution from a simple original cell, as such fiction. I used to believe in these notions when I was an atheist, but now I think my former beliefs were ungrounded.
History and geology speak for the Bible’s truth
In Näppis (16/9) a writer mentioned, how “the Bible was made up by someone and that it is complete nonsense”.
Has the writer given this idea any further thought? For instance, several people from the New Testament are mentioned in other historical sources. Such people include, John the Baptist, Jesus, Herod, Pilate, Peter and Paul, high priest Caiaphas, Doctor of Law Gamaliel, governors Sergius, Paulus and Gallion, high priest Ananias, prefect Felix, etc.
What about the Flood? There are almost 500 stories telling about it in nations’ heritage knowledge. For example, the work Earth mentions these stories: “We could dismiss any of these individual legends and think it was only imagination, but together, from a global perspective, they are almost indisputable.”
Another indication of the Flood is remains of marine life high up in mountain ranges. Geologist Pentti Eskola told in his book Muuttuva maa decades ago about the oceanic remains in the Alps. a Japanese research team found similar oceanic remains in the Himalayas, even from the top of Everest (Maapallo, ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55) Similarly, ESS (8/9) included a reader’s photo showing signs of waves at Pyhätunturi, a Finnish fell. If this is not enough to prove the Flood, then what is? We even have a statement from the father of geology, James Hutton: “We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay.” (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)
Another thing I’d like to address is the context of the Bible, especially teachings by Jesus. Are they true or false? Jesus Himself said: ”Which of you convinces me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do you not believe me?” (John 8:46) and “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17). You need to of course test these by yourself. However, if you decide before even looking into anything that it is not worth investigating, I doubt you’ll find anything new.
1. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution
2. Heribert Nilsson: Synthetische artbildung, 1953, p. 1212 - cit. from: "Evoluutio - tieteen harha-askel?", Mikko Tuuliranta.
3. Alan Linton: ”Scant Search for the Maker”, Times Higher Education Supplement, April 20, 2001
4. Hannele Klemettilä: Keskiajan julmuus, p. 67,68
5. Hannele Klemettilä: Keskiajan julmuus, p. 72
6. Hannele Klemettilä: Keskiajan julmuus, p. 281
7. Francis Hitching: Arvoitukselliset tapahtumat (The World Atlas of Mysteries), p. 159
8. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366
9. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624
10. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28.
11. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!