evolution theory in media, science

Darwin in the media

The theory of evolution with its millions of years is considered true in the media, although there is constant evidence that refutes this theory.

This text was inspired by different articles in Etelä- Suomen sanomat newspaper. Especially Martti Myllärinen's article Tiedonvälitys tukee ateismin todellisuutta [Communication supports atheism] got my thoughts moving. Henrik Sawela took a stand on this article by Martti Myllärinen and I myself participated in the discussion. I submitted the following article, which was published in ESS on 30/08/2017. In a short article, I discussed the fact that Darwin and the naturalist concept of the beginning of the universe and life dominates the media. It plays a major role in nature programs, newspaper articles and also in universities. However, it does not take into account that these naturalistic concepts have never been proven correct, just as God's work of creation cannot be proven. Both are unproven things because we cannot go back in time and check what actually happened. However, several lines of evidence point to creation rather than chance in the origin of everything. Several leading scientists have been honest enough to admit that they do not have the answers to how the galaxies, the solar system, the Earth, and life formed, or that where are the intermediate fossils.

Here is my newspaper article:

In the West, you can criticize rulers, but not Darwin

Henrik Sawela took a stand on Martti Myllärinen's article Tiedonvälitys tukee ateismin todellisuutta [Communication supports atheism]. He disagreed.

The fact is, however, that naturalism/atheism is strong in the media in one area: explaining the beginnings of the universe and life. The theistic alternative, i.e. that God created everything, is almost never presented in the mainstream media. It is also not taken into account that these things cannot be proven scientifically afterwards. Atheism/naturalism and theism are both faith-based views in this area. They are not science.

The question is in which direction the evidence points. I've read comments from many scientists admitting that they don't know how galaxies, the solar system, Earth, and life formed, or that there are intermediate fossils. For example, we know from life that only life creates life, and no exception to this rule has been found, so isn't the most logical option God's creation work?

One example is also the transmission of information about dinosaurs. They are said to have appeared more than 65 million years ago. However, radiocarbon has been found in dinosaur fossils, although its official half-life is 5730 years. Similarly, soft tissues, proteins and DNA have been found in them, which is not always found even in human mummies or mammoths. Why is this not being told? I think the reason is the statement of a Chinese scientist: according to him, in China you could criticize Darwin, but not the rulers - in the West it's the opposite. Atheist communication prevents Darwin's critique.

Jari Iivanainen

I also wrote another article on the subject. It was a response to Kari Kuitunen's article, where he took a stand on my previous article. Kari wrote, for example, 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 lean on researched information. For in the media, a naturalistic understanding of the origin of life by itself, is presented almost as a matter of course. However, the very serious research that Kari wanted has shown that it is problematic. No scientist has been able to show that life could arise by itself. The clear rule is that life is born only from life, and no exception to this rule has been found.

Everyone can imagine this thing. It only takes common sense to understand that a stone or other inanimate substance does not become alive by itself, start breathing, eating, feeling emotions and reproducing. The only thing that can happen is the transformation of inanimate matter into solid, liquid and gas with external temperature changes. Nothing else happens. This is true experiential science.

What about Darwin's theory? If this theory is correct, two things should happen:

• Life should exist because if evolution is true, it requires life. Evolution cannot even start if there is no life first.

But as stated, life cannot arise by itself, but it requires the existence of a Creator. On the other hand, if the Creator has made life, he has made everything ready, as the Book of Genesis shows, not half-finished.

• Second, evolutionary theory requires the existence of intermediate forms. They should appear in the fossil record. However, just the very research that needs to be taken seriously has shown the lack of intermediate forms and gradual evolution. Here are some comments on the topic. They show that the image of evolution given in the media ("from the first primitive cell to human" -theory) is not true. Although Darwin is accepted in the media, his hypothesis of gradual development from a simple primitive cell has not been proven true:

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)

On the basis of paleobiological facts, it is not possible to draw up even a caricature of the evolution of some organism. The fossil material is now so complete that the absence of intermediate series cannot be attributed to the scarcity account of the data. The gaps are real and will never be filled. (Statement by Swedish botanist Heribert Nilsson about 50 years ago) (2)

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 same 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)

So the following is my second public article related to the topic (ESS 14.9.2017). I originally posted it in the following format. The newspaper did not include the last paragraph that contained a link to the appearance of radiocarbon and soft tissue on dinosaur fossils. The title was also slightly changed in the magazine. In the newspaper, the title was "I consider theism the only logical alternative" while my own title was originally "Darwin and the media”.

This text also brings up the shortcomings naturalistic theory has about life’s beginning, and how the world's most famous origin of life researcher Stanley Miller has admitted it. Likewise, the gradual evolution expected by Darwin has not been observed in fossils. It was granted by Stephen Jay Gould, one of the world's most famous paleontologists.

Darwin and the media

Thanks to Kari Kuitunen for the criticism and the follow-up speech, which dealt with the transmission of information related to Darwin.

Kari mentioned the following in her article: "I think it's right that the media relies on researched information, and not on opinions."

I totally agree with this, but will this happen? Let me take a couple of examples. First, the birth of life. It is often taken for granted in the media that life arose by itself, but this is opinion, not researched information. It is a naturalistic belief that has never been proven. To make the point clear, I quote J. Morgan's interview with Stanley Miller towards the end of his life. He has become famous for experiments related to the origin of life. J. Morgan said of 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 changes and Darwin's theory? It is important to emphasize that adaptations and variation are true, and examples of this can be found, for example, in Darwin's books. In contrast, the "primordial cell to human" theory has never been proven, and there are no observations of it in fossils. Stephen J. Gould, an atheist and perhaps the most famous paleontologist of our time, has stated: “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, pp. 182,183).

What can be concluded from the above? At least the fact that naturalistic theories of origin and Darwin's theory are at odds with actual practical science and evidence. I am not saying that God's work of creation can be scientifically proven to be true. It won't work because we can't go back to the past. However, when it comes to two options for the origin of the universe and life – naturalism and theism – I consider theism to be the only logical option.

Then to the dating. Kari wanted information about radiocarbon and soft tissues in dinosaurs. E.g. at the address

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html is told how a German team of researchers reported radiocarbon in several dinosaur fossils. According to the results, the samples were 22,000-39,000 years old. I have also discussed the topic on my own website in the articles When did the dinosaurs live and Fictional history – why millions of years are not true?

Jari Iivanainen

Then we examine a few newspaper articles related to the topic of evolution. They clearly show the importance of evolution and millions of years in the media. At first, it will be discussed how Darwin's theory is presented in a rather vague form. Then the reader does not always get clarity on what evolution really means. Then dinosaurs and their dating are discussed. Finally, the subject is man.

What is meant by evolution? One newspaper article described evolution as follows:

Evolution is the best idea mankind has ever come up with. No other idea explains as much from such small starting assumptions.

Because of its elegant simplicity, it's amazing that we had to wait until the days of Charles Darwin before someone put the wonders of evolution into words. All life on Earth is part of this wonderful scientific experiment. And if there is life elsewhere in the universe, it too is moving forward along the path determined by evolution... Evolution fascinates me because it offers us the answer to our existence. It binds us to life. It sheds light on the origins of our species and can also show us the way to the future. (ESS 6/9/2017 Jaakko Kinnunen)

The above was part of a newspaper article. It brings out well how evolution is a respected thing in the media.

The author is also right about one thing: there really is evidence for evolution. The question is precisely how evolution is defined. If it means changes within the framework of the basic species, everyone admits this. In these species, natural selection and evolution really happen. There are good examples of that in Darwin's books and other evolutionary literature. Usually mentioned e.g. bacterial resistance, the different colors of the peppered moths, or the finches of the Galapagos Islands. They are all variations within the framework of the basic species, because the species in question are at the beginning and at the end bacteria, peppered moths and finches. They are about adapting to different habitats, but not about real species changes or the increase of information. Only an increase in information could push evolution forward, but several heredity researchers admit that there are no observations of that. Dr. John Sanford, a geneticist at Cornell University, has stated: “It must be understood that scientists have a very sensitive and extensive network for detecting information-increasing mutations. Most geneticists keep their eyes open for them. - - However, I am not convinced that there is even one clear example of a mutation that would have undoubtedly created information." (Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, New York, p. 17).

Other comments continue on the same topic. The birth of new organs, structures and information is a vital condition for the theory of evolution (from primitive cell to man) to be true, but researchers deny that such a thing has been observed. Instead, the observations fit better with the creation model, in which plants and animals were already perfect 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)

In this area, what is meant by evolution, should be precisely defined. Does it mean the single-cell-to-human theory, which requires the birth of new information and new organs, or only adaptations and normal variation? Everyone admits the latter, but there is no evidence for the first. In the media, this distinction is hardly ever made, and problems arise from it.

It is interesting that when evolutionists want to prove the single-cell-to-human theory to be true, they use examples from another group, i.e. the area of adaptations. What is causing this?

Surely the best explanation is that they have no evidence of true species changes, only adaptation. More than a hundred years of experiments with bacteria and banana flies and centuries of breeding have also shown that there are certain limits that cannot be crossed. Species do not change, but for example bacteria and banana flies remain bacteria and banana flies. Therefore, we must distinguish between changes and adaptation that have occurred within species from the notion that all current species are derived from the same stem cell. They are two different things, of which only one has convincing evidence. (It was already pointed out earlier how no gradual development can be observed in the fossils. This has been admitted by several leading 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. Then a small quote from a newspaper article about a dinosaur fossil that was found. It was in good condition, 7000 hours of extra stone was scraped off it and its age was estimated to be 110 million years. The article also suggests that this dinosaur apparently died in a river, drifted from it to the sea, and sank into the bottom mud there:

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 apparently died in the river and the body drifted to sea. There it sank into the bottom mud. The minerals on the seabed helped preserve the shapes of the monstrosity lizard, as layers of rock of millions of years piled up on top of the carcass. (Helsingin sanomat 4.8.2017)

What should be brought up from the previous article? First, the age of the fossil is 110 million years. How is a fossil known to be so old? From nowhere. The fossil itself shows no sign that it lived 110 million years ago. There is no tag on it to say when it lived. Anyone who looks at fossils can see this.

So how do scientists think they know the age of a fossil? It is based on a geological chart prepared in the 19th century. The age of the fossils is determined on the basis of this chart, because it is assumed that Darwin's theory is correct and that different groups of species have appeared on Earth at different times.

The idea that the species have appeared on Earth at a different time, i.e. within hundreds of millions of years, is refuted by one observation: radiocarbon, which occurs in fossils considered to be ancient. The official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, but it is found in the oldest Cambrian organisms, dinosaurs and other organisms. Also, no coal has been found that lacks 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 tissues, 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 renowned paleontologist Jack Horner how she noticed that the T. rex skeleton (Hell Creek, Montana) smelled distinctly like a corpse. This one replied back, "That's right, all the bones in Hell Creek stink." A good question is how can bones over 65 million years old smell. This is hardly possible. On the other hand, if it is a matter of short periods, it might be possible.

What should researchers do? It would be best to abandon the geological time chart drawn up in the 19th century and focus directly on the fossils. If there are still soft tissues, proteins, DNA and radiocarbon left in them, it cannot be a question of millions of years. The presence of these substances in fossils indicates short periods. These are good metrics for estimating the age of fossils.

It is also worth considering that dragons are referred to in human lore and art (E.g. Job 30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls). The term dinosaur was only invented in the 19th century, but dragons have been known for much longer. The following quotations from a book about the Middle Ages show that the name dragon was still known some centuries ago. Similar "hero animals" to dragons have also been, for example, lions and eagles.

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 14^th 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 one belief, a cursed soul had to cleanse itself of sins by wandering the earth in the form of a werewolf for seven years. It was also widely believed that devils particularly favored the figure of a wolf, along with a dragon, a snake, and a monkey, although they could take any form they wished. (6)

A good example is also the Chinese zodiac. It has 12 animals, 11 of which are still familiar today (rat, bull, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig). Instead, the 12th animal is a dragon, which does not exist today. A good question is that if the 11 animals have been real animals, why would the dragon be an exception and a mythical creature? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that it once lived among humans, but has become extinct like many other animals? The following quotes tell more about 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, s. 265)

Since the beginning of recorded history, dragons have appeared everywhere: in the earliest Assyrian and Babylonian accounts of the development of civilization, in the Jewish history of the Old Testament, in the old texts of China and Japan, in the mythology of Greece, Rome and early Christians, in the metaphors of ancient America, in the myths of Africa and India. It is hard to find a society that did not include dragons in its legendary history…Aristotle, Pliny and other writers of the classical period claimed that dragon stories were 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 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)

Then a further review of the previous newspaper article. It told how the extra stone had to be chipped off the fossil for 7000 working hours. It was also reported that the fossil had apparently died in the river, then drifted into the sea and sunk into the bottom mud there.

First of all, it is worth paying attention to the chipping of the stone from the fossil and the finding of several dinosaur fossils inside the hard rocks. Why are dinosaur fossils found inside hard rocks and why it takes years to separate them from the rest of the material? Dinosaurs can't go inside hard rocks when they're alive. It's impossible.

However, there is a simple explanation for this: the Flood. In itself, the article was on the right track when it was suggested that the fossil fell into bottom mud. However, under normal circumstances, such burial does not occur. Instead, a disaster like the Flood can explain how large animals have been covered by mud. That is why dinosaur fossils can be found today inside hard rocks. It can take years to extract a single fossil from a rock. More about the Flood at the end of the article.

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 scale), i.e., 5,7 million years old:

An ape-man footprint found in Crete challenges the concept of human evolution

In the light of research, it has been thought that man's original home is in Africa, and that man also stayed there for millions of years, until he began to migrate to Europe and Asia.

Polish and Swedish researchers have now made a discovery that may change the understanding of the course of human development.

A fossilized footprint has been found on the beach of the island of Crete, which is 5.7 million years old and appears to have belonged to an ape-man who already had a human-like foot at that time.

Based on sedimentary rocks and microfossils, the discovery has been dated quite precisely. This is significant, because according to current theories, ancestors walking on human-like legs should not have been in Europe or even in Africa until 5.7 million years ago. In Africa, the tracks of this age are more ape-like.

The Crete discovery stirs things up, as it shows that early apes walked on human-like legs in Europe as early as 5.7 million years ago. Ape-people have therefore migrated from Africa much earlier than previously thought.

If the discovery is true, it would mean, among other things, that Ardipithecus, considered the ancestor of man, cannot be our ancestor, and even that man may not have developed in Africa. However, this requires further research.

Results were published by the Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association. (Helsingin Sanomat, 5 September 2017)

What is strange about this discovery that completely resembles a human footprint (the article talks about an ape-man, but it is misleading language if the footprint is no different from a modern human footprint)?

It disproves at once the notions of human inheritance from ape-like creatures and the origin from Africa. It "challenges the notion of human evolution", as stated in the title. Hundreds of books have been written on this subject, but they can be immediately thrown away because modern man is at least as old, or in fact almost 2 million years older, than his ape-like ancestors. For example, the ape-like Lucy, which belongs to the Austalopithecus class, (the Ardipithecus mentioned in the article is often grouped in this same class), is usually defined as only 3-4 million years old, so the time difference is considerable, even if evolutionists' own dating are used.

What effect does this discovery have on the esteem and status of the theory of evolution? Nothing. There have been plenty of similar discoveries in the past, and they haven't been significant either. The next couple of quotes from scientific publications tell about even older human footprints than the previous magazine article. Based on these quotes, humans lived 100-200 million years before the dinosaurs. This shows how scientists do not take into account their own observations. They stick to the theory of evolution and the assumption of millions of years of development, even if the observations show 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 man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)

The human-like footprints in the rock are a puzzle to scientists. They can't be human because they're far too old - but what strange, bipedal, amphibious animal could have made them?

What is it that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs with 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 foot prints were found by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

Recently prof. Burroughs was visited by some Kentucky mountain men who took him to 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. (...)

The footprints are extremely strange. They are just the right size to be human - nine or ten inches tall - and almost the right shape. Almost everyone who sees them first thinks that they are made by a human foot and it is almost impossible to convince someone that they are not human...

But even the boldest estimates of human presence on earth are only a million years - and these traces are 250 times that old...

Such is the riddle. A quarter of a billion years ago, this human-like animal left footprints in a wide spread of sand, which time hardened into rock. Then he disappeared. And now scientists are scratching their heads. (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)

Human dating also faces problems with other discoveries. For instance, coal deposits from “300 million years” back have revealed man-made 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 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).

But as stated, discoveries like this do not usually affect the appreciation of the theory of evolution. People will stick with this theory, despite there being dozens of contrary pieces of evidence. Evolution always wins, even if the practical observations are against it.

So what is real history? The following quotes refer to this. They show how suddenly Civilization has appeared in the world, and it is by no means millions of years ago. In the first of the statements, the developer of the radiocarbon method, professor W.F. Libby, who said at the time in the Science magazine on March 3, 1961 (p. 624) that verified history only goes back about 5,000 years. He was talking about the ruling families of Egypt, where they too can have errors of hundreds of years. (This was mentioned, for example, in the television series “Faaraot ja kuninkaat” [Pharaohs and kings], which was shown on Finnish television in 1996).

Libby also stressed that claims about long periods of time should not be taken seriously. This is consistent with the fact that several regions of the world such as North America, Australia and remote areas have mainly been inhabited only in the last 200-300 years (It is estimated that, for example, Australia had only 6,000 inhabitants on the entire huge island in 1800, in North America had a maximum of 3 million inhabitants in the early 18th century and 10 million inhabitants in South America at the same time.). They were very sparsely populated 500 years ago, and also elsewhere there was only a fraction of the current population. You don't have to go back many millennia when you come across a zero point, when there were no inhabitants on earth. In fact, the current population could be born in less than a 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 time of the First Dynasty of Egypt is in reality the oldest historical point of time confirmed with some certainty." (9)

"The earliest notes we have of human history go back only about 5000 years." (The World Book Encyclopedia, 1966, 6th volume, p. 12)

In the recent excavations, the most surprising thing 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 diggers 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 newspaper article also mentioned the general evolutionist belief that man originated in Africa. Evolutionists assume that the first humans lived in Africa and moved from there to other places.

But what is the historical and correct understanding? Decades ago, it was much more clearly understood that man's original home is from the Middle East, not Africa. This was indicated by the people's traditions, that the first buildings were built in this area and that the world's cereals originate from the same region. This view also appears in Genesis. The following quote tells more about the subject. The concept of Africa, to which e.g. Darwin believed, can be dismissed as unscientific.

William Dawson asserts in his book Modern Science that he and other eminent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region, geologically speaking, must have been the only place where man could have lived in the beginning.

Dr. Armstrong says much the same in his book Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of mankind? On this, as well as on the question of racial unity, scholars are more or less in agreement. The high altitude regions where the sources of the Euphrates and Tigris are located are considered to have been the cradle of mankind. This is proven by many facts, e.g. the fact that the genealogies of almost all tribes mention this corner of the world as their original home. In addition, all the grain species used for human consumption in the world come from there. And geological studies also lead to the same result." (11)

Even more about human classification. In the previous magazine article, ape-people were mentioned as a difference from ordinary people. In reality, however, fossil finds only point to two classes: humans and common apes. The first category is represented by Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and ordinary modern humans. The latter category is represented by Australopithecus, which contains almost all remains of "ape-men" (Lucy, Taung's skull, Ardipithecus...).

Why such a division into only two categories? There is a clear reason for that. Many leading researchers have said outright that the Australopithecus class is clearly more similar to modern apes than to ordinary humans. The size of their skull (e.g. the size of the Ardipithecus skull mentioned in the article is only 300-350 cm3, which is a quarter of the size of the modern human brain) and body structure are similar to modern monkeys.

Second, several leading researchers have admitted that there is not enough of a difference between Homo Erectus, Neanderthal man, and ordinary modern man. This is supported by several cultural finds, skull size and body structure. Some researchers, such as Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, have therefore long said that Neanderthals and erectus should not be classified as different species than us. They should be considered ordinary people. What makes this evolutionist paleontologist's statement remarkable is that he is said to have seen more of the original hominid fossil record than anyone else.

Lastly, I want to include my own writing, which was published in a newspaper (ESS 19/9/2017). In it, I took a stand on the historicity of the Bible, for which there is plenty of evidence in archeology and geology. It is better to believe in the historicity of the Bible - e.g. regarding the beginning of the universe and the life of Jesus - than in fables that appear in the name of science. I consider, for instance, life’s beginning by itself, and million-years evolution from a simple stem cell, as such fiction. I believed in these notions when I was an atheist, but now I consider my former beliefs unfounded.

History and geology speak for the truth of the Bible

In Näppis (16.9), one writer mentioned how "the Bible is man-made and nonsense".

Has the writer thought about it further? For example, several of the New Testament characters are mentioned in other historical sources. Such are John the Baptist, Jesus, Herod, Pilate, Peter and Paul, the high priest Caiaphas, the teacher of the law Gamaliel, the officers Sergius Paulus and Gallion, the high priest Ananias, the governor Felix, etc.

What about the Flood? There are almost 500 stories about it in people's folklore. 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.”

One indication of the flood is also the remains of marine life in all the high mountains. Geologist Pentti Eskola told in his book Muuttuva maa already decades ago about the remains of marine animals in the Alps. A group of Japanese researchers found similar remains of marine animals in the Himalayas, even on top of Everest (Maapallo, ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55). Similarly, in ESS (8.9) there was a reader's picture of the signs of a wave at Pyhätunturi, a Finnish fell. If these are not proof of the Flood, what is? The "father of geology" James Hutton has also stated: “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 is the content of the Bible, especially the teaching of Jesus. Is it 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). Of course, these things must be tested. However, if a person already decides in advance that the matter is not worth exploring, he will hardly find anything new.

Jari Iivanainen

REFERENCES:

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