Looking into creation
Creation or the birth of the universe and life by itself and the idea of evolution? Which view is true? The evidence clearly points to creation
If we go back 100 – 200 years in time, Christian theism was undoubtedly the most common worldview in the Western world. Only few doubted the existence of God, creation and Bible’s historical reliability in terms of its narration about the past. Even though, some people might not have had a personal belief in Jesus Christ, they still possessed an outward respect towards Christianity and spiritual matters.
This has changed in the Western countries, however. We live in a time, where more and more people begin to abandon basic principles of Christianity. It has happened throughout the whole of society and within churches. It has been a long process and some major factors for such movement include, e.g., evolution and liberal theology. They have slowly fractured the place of Christianity in society. It has also affected moral: people don’t believe anymore that the teachings of Jesus and the disciples concern and bind us.
This text is specifically going to go over creation and the beginning stages. If we find these concepts unclear, and have difficulties accepting that the First Book of Genesis might be true, it is not going to be easy for us to trust other things from the Bible, such as the significance of Jesus. That is why we take on the investigation of creation and its opposing view – a view premised on the world and life coming about by themselves.
DENYING CREATION. The primary view of Western non-Christians is atheistic and agnostic evolutionism. This perception denies God’s creation and, instead, believes that everything began from nothingness in the so-called Big Bang. After that, billions of years later, life began by accident, and from there on has evolved into more complex forms. God has no significance in this view, and He is no longer needed to account for anything.
But what is the truth and what is suggested by evidence? It would seem these new theories are rooted on a weak premise. It is difficult to prove their accuracy and they are plagued with a multitude of issues. We shouldn’t trust them blindly. For example, the following points should be considered:
Nothing can come from emptiness. When some people believe everything came from nothingness during the so-called Big Bang, they fail to see how this view can be compared to magic. It requires bigger faith than believing in God’s creation.
The reason for that is simple: No practical observation indicates objects having the ability to appear out of nowhere. Bicycles, planes, rocks, cliffs and street signs do not simply appear from nothingness. Why would the universe be an exception, when it is so much larger than anything else? Why would only the universe possess the ability of exerting itself into existence, but nothing else doesn’t? Choosing to believe in this theory, which goes against logic and real science, is rather irrational. It is much more reasonable to stick with the idea that an almighty God has created everything (creation cannot be the work of any “small god”). Beauty and diversity in the nature also serves as proof of this. It is difficult to associate them with the Big Bang.
- (Gen 1:1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
- (Rev 10:5,6) And the angel which I saw stand on the sea and on the earth lifted up his hand to heaven,
6 And swore by him that lives for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer
- (Rev 14:7) Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
Expansion is not detected. In addition to the absurdity of the world’s self-caused appearance from nothingness, there is yet another problem concerning the Big Bang: the universe does not seem to expand according to current observations. Expansion is assumed by the common belief, but cosmologists admit there is no direct evidence or observations to support the idea. Instead, they attempt to support expansion theories with discordant red shift observations. Some cosmologists talk about this issue, and how expansion theories lack any direct evidence (bold in the text has been added afterwards):
I do not want to imply that everyone is of the same opinion regarding the interpretation of the red shift. We do not actually observe the galaxies rushing away from us; the only issue that is sure is that their spectrums have moved towards red. Famous astronomers doubt whether the red shift has anything to do with the Doppler shifts or with the expansion of space. Halton Arp of the Hale Observatory has emphasized that groups of galaxies can be found in space where some galaxies have quite different red shifts; if these groups are really composed of galaxies that are close to each other, they could hardly move at very different velocities. Furthermore, Maarten Schmidt noticed in 1963 that certain kinds of objects resembling stars had enormously high red shifts, up to more than 300 per cent! If these "quasars" are at the distances that can be deducted from their red shifts, they must radiate an extremely large amount of energy in order to continue being so bright. It is also very difficult to measure the correlation between velocity and distance when the objects are really far away. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The Three First Minutes, p. 40)
The mystic nature of dark energy has led some critical researchers to question, whether it could be an illusion. That is, no one has ever detected the expansion of the universe. We can only measure the properties of light and, especially, the redshift of light transmitted by far away objects. (Kari Enqvist kirjassa Kaikki evoluutiosta [Kari Enqvist in the book All about Evolution], p. 40)
How about using red shift as evidence for the Big Bang? It has been considered as one of the most convincing evidence of the phenomenon, as stated in previous quotations, but there are some issues. The following aspects serve as examples:
• The light of all stars is not red shifted. For example, the Andromeda Galaxy and certain other galaxies show blue shifted light, which means that they should be approaching us. These kinds of exceptions indicate that there may be some other explanation to the red shift values than drawing away from us. Maybe the values have nothing to do with their movements.
• The values of adjacent galaxies. Another problem with the red shift is that some adjacent galaxies may have completely different red shift values, even though they are in connection with each other and quite close to each other. So, if the red shift value could be really used to tell the distance, there is no way these galaxies could be close to each other: instead, they should be far away from each other. And yet, they are not. This indicates that the red shift must be caused by some other facts, such as internal reactions and radiation of stars, which can also be detected from the Earth.
The following quotations will further the subject. They give
us an illustrated view as to why it can be questionable to
use red shift as a support for expansion.
Another interconnection between galaxies that immediately lets us to determine their distance, is a connection where two galaxies are attached to each other by a visible filament. Zwicky was one of the first to find discordant red shifts in this kind of system. In this case two galaxies, whose red shift corresponded to 7000 km/s, were attached to each other by a filament that led to a third galaxy, whose red shift only corresponded to some hundreds km/s. Recently, there has been further examples of discordant red shifts in interconnected galaxies. (Arp, Evidence for Discordant, in the Redshift Controversy 15, 54-55 / G. Field, et al. eds. 1973)
It can hardly be emphasized enough that these discordant red shifts don’t only appear in one or two independent and separate cases. They appear in any case that can be tested: in large clusters, groups, neighboring galaxies, neighboring galaxies with medium-sized distances, visible filaments in attached neighboring galaxies, galaxies in gravitational connection, and in galaxy sequences. In all these imaginable cases we arrive at the same conclusion: discordant red shifts to the same common younger and dimmer galaxy classes… (Arp, Evidence for Discordant Redshift Controversy 15, 54-55 / G. Field, ed. 1973)
• Red shift periodically changing. One peculiarity with some quasars is that their red shift changes periodically – often in the course of one day: sometimes the value is higher, sometimes lower. Why are there changes like these?
If we were to draw a conclusion based on these changing red shift values, the conclusion would be that they are sometimes moving away faster, sometimes slower. However, this phenomenon has never been found in the universe. It is more probable, therefore, that changing red shift values are due to internal reactions or unknown physical phenomena and not any escaping motion, as far as these quasars are concerned.
Perhaps the red shift is not caused by escaping radiation sources, but by some physical phenomena that are still unknown. This view can be justified most of all by observations made of the so-called quasars. In these objects, which were regarded as distant, quickly drawing away, and large material formations because of their red shift, quick variations were noted in the intensity of radiation. Actions of this kind are very strange, because it is difficult to imagine a mechanism that could affect those formations that are at least the size of the Milky Way in a couple of months. As comes to galaxies, the scale of their red shifts proved to be dependent on their type or position among all galaxies. Furthermore, cases were found in which objects with small and big red shifts seemed to be in physical connection, close to each other. (Antti Jännes, Koululaisen uusi tietosanakirja, p. 1012)
Challenging the theory. As noted, many astronomers disagree that red shifts can be proper evidence for the Big Bang (See Steven Weinberg’s comment above). They believe red shifts have nothing to do with the matter, which is why they find it reasonable to doubt the Big Bang theory. This theory is no longer seen as believable in their eyes.
We will look at some astronomers’ comments on the matter. It is in our best interest to dismiss such theories with weak evidence.
As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)
There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelisti [nobelist] H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)
The birth of galaxies. When it comes to the world’s beginning, the origin of galaxies is heavily related, as they must have formed sometime after the Big Bang. Some publications let us believe that this issue is also solved much like the Big Bang. We are led to believe the origin of galaxies has already been clarified, and it is not to be questioned. And, many truly believe celestial bodies formed by themselves without God’s creative power.
Contrary to common belief, scientists struggle to find answers in this department, however. They don’t have a clear understanding of the beginning, which is understandable, since they weren’t there to witness the offset. How celestial bodies came to be, is still an unsolved mystery, despite some claiming otherwise. The birth of galaxies is regarded as exceptionally problematic in nature. There simply isn’t any proper evidence to give us any clues:
I do not want to claim that we really understand the process that created the galaxies. The theory on the birth of the galaxies is one of the major unsolved problems in astrophysics and we still seem to be far from the actual solution even today. (Steven Weinberg, Kolme ensimmäistä minuuttia / The First Three Minutes, p. 88)
It is almost certainly true that this is exactly how stars are created from the sparse condensations of gas between the stars. We can hope that the same would take place in the whole universe and thus, the formation of galaxies would begin. However, there is a huge problem here – this does not take place. (…) We need better evidence based on observations regarding how galaxies and large structures of the universe were born. At this point, it is not yet possible to make such observations regarding ordinary galaxies. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 99,109)
Books are full of stories that feel rational, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not know, how the galaxies were born. (L. John, Cosmology Now 85, 92 / 1976)
The birth of our Solar System and earth. When people deny God’s creation, they are forced to come up with alternative explanations to our beginning. People do admit that the universe, Solar System, and everything else have had an offset at some point, but their refusal to acknowledge creation forces them to look for answers elsewhere.
The problem with their theories is, however, that they are more heavily based on fiction than real findings and science. This is also the case with the beginning of our Solar System and earth. There are such large-scale issues that some researchers believe the whole Solar System should not even exist. This demonstrates how a theory of their self-caused existence is rooted on a weak foundation. It is much easier to believe in God’s creation, than to assume things of such magnitude could exert themselves into existence.
Firstly, we notice that the matter detaching from our Sun, is not at all capable of forming such planets that are known to us. The composition of the matter would be utterly wrong. Another thing in this contrast is that the Sun is normal [as a celestial body], but the earth is strange. The gas between stars, and most of the stars, consists of the same matter as the Sun, but not the earth. It must be understood that looking from a cosmological perspective – the room, where you are sitting right now, is made out of wrong materials. You are the rarity, a cosmological composer’s complilation. (Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951)
Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)
All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)
The birth of life. As already discussed, theories about the world’s offset, the birth of galaxies, our Solar System and earth are plagued with numerous problems. We are faced with these issues, whenever we attempt to deny creation by God. These are simply empty theories. That is why it is not advised to rely on such unproved theories, which go against findings and common sense.
What about the beginning of life? It also poses a similar issue as the other theories. The more knowledge we have gained about the matter, the bigger the issues around it have grown. Naturalistic theories believe dead matter has these supernatural qualities, which clearly is not true. That is why it is so strange that some would deny the miracles mentioned in the Bible, yet they would believe in fictional theories, where dead matter gives life. They believe in miracles without a miracle maker, which doesn’t seem to be the most coherent choice.
Many scientists have admitted the scale of the problem. They simply do not have answers to the offset of life. It is known that life can only come from another life, which is the rule with no known exceptions:
I believe that we should go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this thought is ostracized by physicists and, actually, by me as well, but we should not reject it only if empirical data supports it and we don’t like that. (H. Lipson, ” A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980)
Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)
Experimentation of over 30 years in the field of chemistry and molecule evolution has introduced the monumental nature of the issue with the beginning of life, rather than a solution for it. Nowadays practically only these theories and experiments and them leading to dead ends is discussed or the lack of knowledge is admitted (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)
As we try to compile a summary of what we know about the deep history of life on Earth, the origin of life and phases of its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around us now, we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not know how life began on this planet. We do not know exactly when it began and under what conditions. (Andy Knoll, a professor of Harvard University) (1)
Changes in species. According to atheistic and naturalistic model, all current species descent from the same shared original cell originating from the sea or some type of water. This notion of evolution is one of the major reasons why people doubt the reliability of the Bible and the existence of God. This evolutionary theory gained popularity after Charles Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species.
What evidence is there for evolution? There are two notions that should be separated first. Evolutionists often call two different phenomena evolution, but only the latter of the two truly captures the essence of evolution:
• 1. regular variation and adaptation
• 2. molecule-to-man theory
It is imperative to emphasize that the first phenomenon is supported by an abundance of evidence. Evolutionists are absolutely right, when they say that variation, mutations and natural selection can be detected in living creatures. It would be impossible to deny this fact, and evolutionary literature is filled with great examples of these phenomena. Examples can be found in Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species, as well as, in other works in the field of evolution. They include cases like the resistance of bacteria, variation in the beak sizes of birds, resistance of insects to pesticide, change in the growth speed of fish due to overfishing, light and dark colored peppered moths, and variation due to geographical changes. All these cases are examples of population adapting to environmental changes, which means we are looking at adaptation. Yet, basic kinds remain the same, they never seem to change into other species. Bacteria are still bacteria, dogs stay as dogs, cats are still cats, etc. Variation does occur, but within in certain limits. On the other hand, when variation and adaptation take place, we are losing some parts of the rich genetic information that the first ancestors had. The more organisms deviate, for example, due to breeding or geographical isolation, the smaller their chances at variation get in the future. Our evolutionary train is going backwards with the passing of time. Genetic information becomes poorer, but new basic kinds aren’t emerging.
The molecule-to-man theory is the other notion coined with evolution. It is often pictured with an evolutionary tree, where all species originate from one original cell. And this idea of a unicellular organism transforming into fish, reptiles, birds, mammals and even humans is particularly the source of disputes. Whereas, adaptation, which was first coined under the term evolution, rarely causes disagreement. This is largely agreed by all.
The most interesting part is that when evolutionists want to prove the molecule-to-man theory, they provide examples of our first phenomenon, which is adaptation. Why is that?
Probably, since they don’t have evidence for species transforming into another, but only evidence for adaptation. Over hundred-year lasting experiments on bacteria and fruit flies, and also centuries of breeding have shown certain limits to variation that cannot be crossed. Basic kinds don’t transform into other kinds, since e.g., bacteria and fruit flies still remain the same species after many years of experimentation. That is why we need to differentiate variation and adaptation within basic kinds from gradual development from one single original cell. These two are two completely different phenomena, and only one of them is backed up with evidence. Hence, people who believe in evolution should read up on these evolutionary works. They should really have another look at the examples and think, whether they belong in the category of variation and adaptation, or the category of basic kinds transforming into a whole new line of species, as posed in the molecule-to-man theory. If they were willing to open their eyes, they should be able to admit that all their examples belong to the former category.
How accurate is the evolutionary tree? A more accurate tree would follow the creation model, which would include hundreds if not even thousands of separate trees with their own branches. These branches represent regular variation, which can be caused due to geographical isolation, for example. Basic kinds never transform into a new basic kind, as there hasn’t been any evidence of this ever occurring. If it had within the 150 years after evolution theory was accepted, science magazines would have already made a big number of it. Yet, it hasn’t happened.
Next, we are going to look at some relevant comments. It will come apparent that Darwin and his followers do not possess any evidence to support the molecule-to-man theory. Darwin had to admit it himself, and the situation hasn’t changed since. We can still acknowledge changes in organisms but should abandon the prerequisite for evolution that all current species descent from one shared original cell. It is best if we believe God created everything; the universe, plants and animals fully developed from the beginning. It is the only logical explanation.
Darwin: I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it. (2)
Encyclopedia Britannica: It must be emphasized that Darwin never claimed to have been able to prove evolution or the origin of species. He claimed that if evolution has taken place, many inexplicable facts can be explained. The evidence supporting evolution is thus indirect.
”It is rather ironic that the book, which became famous for explaining the birth of the species, does not actually explain it at all.” (Christopher Booker, writer of Times when quoting Darwin’s magnum opus the Origin of Species)
Recently, it has been admitted that Darwin’s ”proof” was actually philosophical reasoning without a great deal of scientific basis. I quote from the most presticious recent evolutionist, Ernst Mayr (Harvard University): “One must grant Darwin’s opponents the validity of two of their objections. First, Darwin produced embarrasingly little concrete evidence to back up some of his most important claims.” (Nature 248, 22 March 1974, p. 285) The evidence for evolution has never been strong, nor is it strong today.
Perhaps the most staggering point about the current situation is the following: although in the mass media Darwin is considered to be a secular saint and evolution theory is thought to be an unbeatable challenge to religious claims, the leading biologists consider it to be self-evident that the origin of species is still not discovered. In the Nature –magazine Eörs Szathmary wrote an evaluation of Jeffrey Schwartz’s efforts to construct such a theory and he began his evaluation like so: “The origin of species has for long fascinated biologists. Although this is the heading of Darwin’s magnum opus, it does not provide a solution to the problem. Will Jeffrey Schwartz provide a solution? I’m afraid that generally speaking he does not.
What about species transformations in fossils? Possibly the most famous fossil researcher in the world, late atheist anthropologist Stephen Jay Gould, acknowledged the lacking evidence, when he examined fossils. He tells the fossils didn’t carry any signs of gradual development, although this would have been necessary for the evolution theory. Another well-known fossil researcher, Niles Eldredge, refers to the same issue:
Stephen Jay Gould: The extreme rareness of intermediate forms in fossil material continues to be the trade secret of palaeontologists. The evolution trees appearing in our textbooks include facts only at the heads and folding points of the branches. The rest is reasoning, no matter how reasonable it is, not evidence of fossils –- 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. (...) (6)
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. (7)
The issue of developing new information. Genetics allows for great variation. A case in point would be people’s individual outer appearance. We don’t all look the same, since looks can vary greatly, even within one family.
Bears offer us another great example of variation. It is apparent that all current bears – polar bears, black bears, grizzlies... – come from the same original population. This original population and its genetic information have allowed such genetic variation, which has enabled the development of our current bears through speciation and isolation. They had the capacity within their genetic information to change and adapt to different environments. However, this is not a case, where a completely new basic kind emerges, but variation within one basic kind.
Genetic information seems to be confined by certain restrictions. This has been demonstrated by breeding and mutation experiments that have lasted for over centuries. Variation does occur, but only within certain limits. For example, breeding can affect the length of dogs’ legs or plants’ size and composition, but a limit will be reached at some point, and there is no crossing it. There are no signs of a wholly new species breaking out, and no traces of any new genetic information emerging.
Breeders usually find out that after a few generations of refining, an extreme limit is reached: advancing beyond this point is not possible, and no new species have been created. (…) Therefore, breeding tests cancel the theory of evolution rather than support it. (On Call, 3 July 1972, p. 8, 9)
The biggest issue for evolution theory revolves around developing new genetic information. It is something natural selection and mutations cannot create.
First, let’s look at natural selection. It cannot bring about anything new, because it only chooses from an already existing selection of information. It cannot be responsible for developing any new species or creating new information, because pure survival cannot bring this about. Natural selection cannot do more than preserve the already existent, or take something away from it, but there is never a development of completely new information. That is, an organism, which exists, can no longer transform into something else. At that point, it is too late. A giraffe will be a giraffe and lions will be lions until they die:
It is here that Darwin's principle decisively fails. Natural selection may perhaps explain how those who are best equipped remain alive, but it can in no way explain how the best equipped have come into existence. Natural selection is not able to produce new properties: the process can only, given the chance, select from already existing properties. A new organ cannot be "selected", it must be created! Already existing genetic properties and possibilities can be artificially refined, but neither natural nor artificial selection is able to produce anything new. Natural selection may perhaps explain how some individuals are destroyed, but not how some are created. (8)
What about mutations? When evolutionists were faced with the limits of natural selection, they turned to mutations.
However, mutations lead to an opposite direction in terms of evolution. They cause degeneration, which means development has been for the worse. If mutations had the capacity to lead development forward, scientists should be able to point out thousands of examples of mutations that add information and develop the species further, but they have not been able to do so. Changes can happen – deformed wings and limbs, pigmentation loss... – but clear cases, where new information is being added, remain unfound.
Many experts in the field also oppose the claim that mutations could cause widespread change or bring about new information. This has been made clear by mutation experiments carried out for decades on fruit flies and bacteria, among other experiments. Below are some relating comments from researchers:
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)
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)
The results of experimental mutation research tell nothing about macro evolution. So far, the well-known facts regarding the mutation event refer to mutations taking place within narrow limits. The changing of organisms outside the borders of micro evolution cannot be explained by the well-known mutations. (Siegfried Scherer ja Reinhard Junker, Evoluutio, kriittinen analyysi, p. 69)
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).
MATTER OF TIME. Evolution theory is comprised of defaults, like fish changing into a fisherman, or fish changing into a rat-like land creature, which suddenly wants to go back to the sea and then changes into a massive whale. Traditional evolution theory is filled with these kinds of unbelievable narrations, and they are being presented in a serious light disguised as science in schoolbooks and in other forms of media.
What causes people to believe such fabrication? Time is one reason. Many think that an infinite amount of time allows for any change to happen, even major changes. The story of a girl kissing a frog, which then changes into a prince, is considered fiction. However, the same idea turns into science, when enough time is added, which in our case would be hundreds of millions of years.
Since the notion of extended time periods is such an essential part of evolution, it is good to familiarize oneself with the topic. We will begin with space.
Space. The age of our universe and space are based on the idea of a Big Bang, which is believed to have taken place approximately 13,8 billion years ago. However, if the Big Bang is fictional – which it is, because nothing can appear out of emptiness – the number 13,8 billion no longer carries any significance. It is a number we can forget right away.
What could be the concrete age of space if the Big Bang proves to be completely made up? We cannot determine the age by purely looking at space. However, it is much more likely that the universe is rather young than super old. The fact that we can see millions of stars and galaxies radiating light in the space, indicates a young universe. If the universe truly was millions and billions of years old, it would likely be a much darker place, because stars and galaxies would have run out of their radiating energy. But because they still radiate, it raises suspicions of a young world.
What about our Solar System? Some scientists have been open about not knowing its age. They have also stated that the age of the Sun is tied to the supposed age of our planet, and they have turned to paleontology for evidence. Below are some insights from well-known astronomers. Simply looking at the Sun and space will not allow us to determine their age:
Eddington: When it comes to this kind of important question, we should not only trust the astronomical arguments blindly, but should turn to other, perhaps even more convincing, evidence from sister sciences… The age of the oldest rocks have been stated to be 1200 million years… Of course the Sun must be much older than the earth and its rocks.
George Gamov yr. 1953: The Sun is now only 3 or 4 billion years old… why is that?... because the estimated age for earth is approximately in the same range.
Sun expert John Eddy: It is possible that the Sun is 4,5 billion years old. However, based on some new unforeseen conflicting results, frantic recalculations and theoretical revision, I suspect that the number (the age of the Sun and the earth) could be closer to bishop Ussher’s estimates. I don’t think that there is much observational astronomical evidence coming against this. Astrophysicists are now turning to paleontologists, when it comes to determining the age of the Solar System.
Earth. It was noted above that scientists do not know how old the space is. There is no certain information about the age, everything is based on assumptions.
What about our planet? Some have the idea that its age has been determined using rocks from our planet, which has revealed an age of 4,5 billion years.
That is not accurate, however, since the age was actually detemined by using meteorite rocks. The reasoning behind this was that it is believed the earth formed at the same time as the meteorites. However, not single rock as old as the previous figure of 4,5 billion years has been found on the planet itself. The oldest rocks from earth have been less than 4 billion years old.
However, there are numerous problems concerning radioactivity meausres, some of which are highlighted. Although concentrations can be measured accurately, it is questionable to associate the results with age.
Concentrations in different parts of a rock. One important consideration is that different concentrations can be obtained form different parts of a rock, which means there are a number of different ages that can be assigned to the tested rocks. For example, the famous Allende-meteorite has yielded many different results, ranging from 4480 million to 10400 million years. This shows how a small area of one sample can have different concentration levels. It is incoherent to associate concentrations with age.
Old ages of new rocks. Another severe issue with radioactivity measures is that fairly new rocks have yielded ages that reach up to millions and even billions of years.
One of the most drastic examples can be found in Hawaii and the measures taken from volcanic rocks of the Hualalai volcano. The results varied between 160 million and 3 billion years, which means these results are very close to the oldest measures received from any rocks on the planet. The problem is that Hualalai volcanic erruption happen during the years of 1800 and 1801, meaning that these “age-old” rocks were only less than 200 years old in reality. We cannot still think these measures are reliable, when such inconsistencies are present. Another remark about these volcanic rocks is that if they were all less than 200 years old, why was their age range so vast? This goes to show how unreliable these rock measures can be. The results from Hualalai were as follows:
1. 160 million years
2. 791 million years
3. 960 million years
4. 1500 million years
5. 1580 million years
6. 2040 million years
7. 2470 million years
8. 2960 million years
Radiocarbon disproves the long time periods integral to evolutionary theory. As stated, evolution theory is based on lengthy time periods. People assume these long time periods automatically prove evolution to be correct, thus making creation wrong. This is the general understanding, despite the insurmountable problems within the evolutionary theory, which people haven’t been able to solve. Regardless of how much time has been spent on research, the following factors are examples of problems that remain unsolved:
• The beginning of life. It is practically observed that life can only come from another life, and there are no exceptions to this rule. Therefore, naturalistic evolution loses its basis for how everything began.
• Where did genetic information come from? There isn’t a proper explanation. DNA contains much more information than any computer programs.
• Which mechanisms enabled the shift to new and complex structures?
• Where are the intermediate forms between basic kinds of current and fossilized species? Around 250 000 fossilized species have been collected and categorized, but there is not a single intermediate form among them. This is acknowledged by many front-line paleontologists.
• Why aren’t there any simpler forms beneath the layers of the Cambrian period, as the creatures seem to have appeared fully developed and complete in these layers? This is clearly an indication of creation and not evolution.
The foregoing evidence indicates that there are numerous problems with the conventional evolutionary theory. However, there is also another way to disprove evolution: through radiocarbon dating. While evolution theory specifically deals with the evolution of living creatures throughout hundreds of millions of years, it can easily be refuted should radiocarbon remain in the fossils. Since radiocarbon method measures the remains of living creatures, and the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, there should not be any remaining after 100 000 – 200 000 years.
The fact is, however, that radiocarbon can be found in these “ancient” fossils, as well as, in coal, oil, natural gas, oldest life-forms in deep sea strata (Cambrian fossils), and even in dinosaurs and diamonds. These kinds of findings would not be possible if we dealt with tens or hundreds of millions of years. The Radiocarbon -publication from 1969 examined the results of 15 000 radiocarbon measures, and reported the following, e.g.:
- from 9671 samples (trees, animals and humans) only 1146 (12 %) gave a radiocarbon age that went over 12530 years.
- Only three cases were determined as ’infinite’ in age.
- Some coal -, oil - and natural gas samples gave radiocarbon ages less than 50 000 years.
- What were expected to be the oldest samples from creatures in the deep-sea strata, were only ca. 40 000 years old. (9)
Another quotation tells us how radiocarbon has been found in samples believed to have been tens or hundreds of years in age. The existence of radiocarbon proves, however, that we are dealing with thousands, not millions of years. If the results are taken as they are, the history of life on earth seems to be much shorter than expected. This also wipes the ground from evolutionary theory, as it relies on million-year periods.
However, scientists have not been able to find a single organic remain, which would have reached the lower limits of AMS resolution. Normally, radiocarbon content will be 0,1-0,5 % from the present level, even in samples, which should be tens or hundreds of millions of years old. The issue with old fossils containing radiocarbon has been discussed in the literature since the 1980s. Physicist Paul Giem conducted an extensive survey of the 1980s’ -and 1990s’ scientific literature and found over 70 articles reporting significant amounts of radiocarbon detected in “ancient” organic samples (De Young, p.49).
In a partial RATE study, ten coal samples were sent for analysis to one of the world’s best regarded AMS laboratories, which had 20 years of experience in removing exterior 14C contamination from samples. Three of the samples were from the Eocene epoch, another three from the Cretaceous period and the other four from the Carboniferous period. All samples came up with clear concentrations of 14C, and all the concentrations were highly similar (0,12-0,27 % from the present level). The results speak for the young age of these samples and that they are all nearly the same age. This means that the ages are approximately between 40 000 – 50 000 years. (But if we consider the apparent low concentration of radiocarbon compared to the present level, it would seem the real age of these samples might even be a few thousand years.)
No one had previously thought of measuring the 14C concentrations in diamonds. It is presented that they were formed between one and three billion years ago inside the earth’s crust, from where explosive volcanic forces have pushed them near the surface. However, the RATE group concluded an agreement with the formerly mentioned AMS laboratory, and radiocarbon concentrations were measured from 12 diamonds. The laboratory was able to detect measurable 14C concentrations in all the diamonds, which led to estimates that the diamonds are less than 58 000 years old. (The diamonds came from Australia, South Africa, Russia, Canada and Brazil.) This is also significant in the sense that the crystal structure of diamonds completely rules out the possibility of exterior contamination. The diamond can, thus, be considered perhaps as the only absolute “closed-system” (10)
Human discoveries. It was noted above how radiocarbon has been found in coal samples. These kinds of discoveries have been made in coal layers all over the globe. The common view has been that coal formed 300 million years ago, but the radiocarbon found in the samples debunks this view.
Another indication of the relatively young age of coal layers is marked by human related findings. “300 million-year-old” coal layers have revealed a golden chain, iron pot, other items and also human fossils (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). In his book Time Upside Down (1981) Erich A. Von Frange has listed more items that have been found in coal layers, some of which can be found underneath. If we consider these findings from an evolutionary standpoint, human existence must have taken place 100 – 200 million years before dinosaurs, because the Carboniferous period is believed to have taken place that much earlier than dinosaurs. Only one discovery of this nature – no more is necessary – is enough to cancel the evolutionary theory and the millions of years that go with it.
1. a small cast iron cube
2. an iron hammer
3. an iron instrument
4. a nail
5. a bell-shaped metal box
6. a bell
7. child’s jawbone
8. a human skull
9. two human molars
10. a fossilized human foot
DINOSAUR DISCOVERIES. These animals that are thought to be prehistoric are usually estimated to date back around 65 million years, which is when they are believed to have gone extinct. It is seen as impossible that these magnificent creatures might have coexisted with humans.
If we assume that they lived millions of years ago, we must reject a lot of material which contradicts long time periods. We would have to reject findings like the soft tissue of dinosaurs, and some other discoveries we are going to look into. They are suggestive of short, not long time periods.
Soft tissue. For example, Yle uutiset [Yle news] reported on December 5, 2007: “Dinosaur muscle and skin found in USA.” This is not the only news reporting about such incident, as there are plenty of similar reports and discoveries. According to one report, soft tissues have been extracted from about every other dinosaur bone from the Jurassic period (from 145,5 – 199,6 million evolutionary years ago) (11). Well preserved dinosaur fossils are a big mystery; provided that they are 65 million years old. That is, because they contain substances that should not stay preserved for hundreds of thousands of years in the nature, not to mention millions of years. Such discoveries include, blood cells containing leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus Rex, blood vessels, and proteins, such as collagen, albumin, osteocalcin and DNA. These substances should not exist anymore, because microbes are quick to break down any soft tissues. Similar findings apply to mammoths and other organisms from 500 million years ago (according to an evolutionary time scale), which is when it is believed evolution of the animal kingdom took place.
Collagen and other proteins. Proteins, such as collagen, albumin and osteocalcin have been extracted from dinosaur remains. Interestingly, these substances cannot always be found in present day animal fossils. For example, a mammoth’s bone sample, which had been estimated to be 13 000 years old, did not contain any collagen anymore (Science, 1978, 200, 1275). Yet, we have been able to extract collagen from fossilized dinosaurs. According to the Biochemist -professional journal, collagen cannot stay preserved for 300 million years, not even in the most ideal conditions of zero Celsius (12).
DNA. Some news have reported cases of found DNA in dinosaurs. DNA has been extracted, e.g., from the bone matter of a Tyrannosaurus Rex (Helsingin sanomat 26/9/1994) and from dinosaur eggs in China (Helsingin sanomat 17/3/1995). These discoveries are difficult for evolution, because after 10 000 years there should not be any remaining DNA (Nature, 1 Aug, 1991, vol 352). However, DNA and other rapidly decaying substances have been found in dinosaur fossils. If these animals lived millions of years ago, this should not be possible. Yle uutiset reported (yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012) relating to this topic that the preservation time for DNA is very limited, since its half-life is only 521 years. This proves that ten-million-year-old fossils cannot contain it. The news reported the following:
Survival time of DNA got solved – dreams of cloning dinosaurs shattered
Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago. DNA does not survive nearly as long, not even in the ideal conditions, according to a recent study…
Enzymes and micro-organism start to break down the DNA of the cells right after an animal dies. However, the primary reason for this is thought to be the reaction caused by water. Because there is groundwater nearly everywhere, DNA should, in theory, decay at a steady rate. To determine this, however, prior to this date we were not able to find large enough amounts of fossils that still had DNA left.
Danish and Australian scientists have now solved the mystery, as they received 158 shinbones of the giant Moa bird in their laboratory, and the bones still had genetic material left in them. The bones are 600 – 8000 years old and originate approximately from the same area, thus they have aged in stable conditions.
Not even amber can provide DNA with extra resistance
By comparing the age of the samples and the decay rates of the DNA, scientists were able to calculate a half-life of 521 years. This means that after 521 years half of the nucleotide joints in the DNA have broken apart. After another 521 years this has also happened to half of the remaining joints and so on.
Researchers noted that even if the bone rested in an ideal temperature, all the joints would have broken apart no later than after 68 million years. Even after one and a half a million years, DNA becomes unreadable: there is too little information left, because all the essential parts are gone.
Radiocarbon. We discussed previously how radiocarbon has been found in coal layers, oil sources and also in Cambrian fossils, among other things. Since the half-life of radiocarbon is only 5730 years, there shouldn’t be any remaining if these samples are several million years old. The only possibility is that the time of death of these creatures was much closer to our present day, likely thousand, and not millions of years ago.
The same issue affects dinosaurs. Radiocarbon method is not often used on dinosaurs, because they are considered too old for this method. However, a few measures have been made, and surprisingly the results have shown some remaining radiocarbon. This, as well as the previous findings, suggest the extinction of these large animals happened rather recently, rather than millions of years ago.
It is not common for fossils that are thought to be very old to get a carbon-14 dating, because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that all of it has practically decayed in under 100,000 years.
In 2012 during August a group of German scientists in the convention for geophysicists reported carbon-14 dating measurements, which were made from many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the measurements, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! The presentation can be seen in written form on YouTube. (19)
How were the measurements received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The measurements can be found here: http://newgeology.us/_presentation48.html. This incident tells us, the impact of naturalistic paradigm. It is nearly impossible to be able to publish measurements conflicting it in the science community dictated by naturalism. It is more likely that pigs fly. (14)
Dinosaurs and mammals. When reading biology books and evolutionary literature, we are constantly being fed the idea that all life evolved from a simple original cell to our current forms. The process required fish to evolve into frogs, frogs into reptiles, and dinosaurs to evolve into mammals in their final stage. However, an important discovery shows dinosaur bones among other bones that seem to have belonged to horses, cows, and sheep (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.), which means dinosaurs and mammals must have coexisted.
The following quotation refers to the same issue. It tells how Carl Werner decided to test Darwin’s theory in practice. He did 14 years of research and took thousands of photographs. His research shows how an array of mammals and birds lived at the same time as dinosaurs:
Without any specific prior knowledge about living fossils, American paramedic doctor Carl Werner decided to put Darwin’s theory under a practical test… He conducted extensive 14-year research on fossils of the dinosaur era and the possible species that might have coexisted with them… Werner familiarized himself with professional paleontology literature and visited 60 natural history museums around the world, where he took 60 000 photographs. He only focused on fossils that were dug up from the same strata, where dinosaur fossils can be found (Triassic -, Jurassic -, and Cretaceous periods 250-65 million years ago). He then compared the thousands of equally old fossils he had found in museums and seen in the literature with current species and interviewed many experts in the field of paleontology and other professionals. His result was that the museums and paleontology-based literature displayed fossils of every group of species that currently exist…
We have been told that mammals began to slowly develop during the “prime era” of dinosaurs, that the first mammals were “small shrew-like creatures living in hiding and only moving during the night in fear of the dinosaurs.” In the professional literature, however, Werner discovered reports of squirrels, opossums, beavers, primates and platypuses that had been dug up from dinosaur strata. He also referred to a work published in 2004, according to which 432 mammal creatures have been found in the Triassic -, Jurassic -, and Cretaceous strata, and almost a hundred of them are complete skeletons…
In Werner’s video interview the administrator of Utah’s prehistoric museum, Dr Donald Burge, explains: “We find mammal fossils in almost all of our dinosaur excavations. We have ten tons of bentonite clay containing mammal fossils, and we are in a process of giving them to other researchers. Not because we wouldn’t find them important, but because life is short, and I am not specialized in mammals: I have specialized in reptiles and dinosaurs”. Paleontologist Zhe-Xi Luo (Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh) stated in Werner’s video interview in May, 2004: “The term ‘dinosaur era’ is misleading (misnomer). Mammals constitute a significant group that coexisted with dinosaurs and also survived”. (These comments are from the book: Werner C. Living Fossils, p. 172 –173). (15)
Humans and dinosaurs. Evolution theory sees it impossible that humans would have existed as early as the dinosaurs. This coexistence is not recognized, although we have knowledge of other mammals living simultaneously with dinosaurs, and despite some discoveries even suggesting that humans must have existed before dinosaurs (items and human fossils in coal layers, etc.).
However, history is full of tales about dragons, which share a striking resemblance to dinosaurs (the name dinosaur was not coined until the 19th century). The World Book Encyclopedia (Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265) reports these accounts as follows: " 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."
Moreover, old cave paintings, figurines and paintings contain depictions of dragons. These images closely resemble dinosaurs (see pictures, e.g., on the website https://www.biokemia.fi/_Dinosauruslegendat.htm.), which means the extinction of these large, and small, animals must have taken place thousands, not millions of years ago. We are currently also experiencing a flux of extinction with our current species.
The following quotation will explain further. The writer reveals how images of dinosaurs have been found, e.g., in the Incan empire:
Did dinosaurs and humans coexist
An interesting story from Peru. A few days ago, they aired a program, which discussed different unsolved cases that scientists are still trying to figure out.
One of the cases came from Peru, Ica, from the Ica district, where people had found stones in tombs, and these stones were filled with images of currently well-known dinosaurs battling with the Incas and praying, etc. Over 11 000 similar stones have been found. According to official sources the first “dino”-stones were found by a Spanish priest in 1525, and he described the fantastic animals in the Peruvian stones of Ica. This is how some of the stones found their way in Spanish museums and archives.
The term dinosaur was officially used in 1841, when the first dinosaur skeletons were officially found. The most interesting part in all this is that the stones of Ica depicted living dinosaurs in different situations, and not just skeletons.
Paleontologist Stephen Czerkas published Skin based on the 1993 discovery of a dinosaur’s skin fossil, which allowed scientists to determine the kind of skin surface the herbivore dinosaur had had. Or more specifically, what size and shape had the spines on the skin been and how they had gone along the body. More information at (12/1992, v.20 website 1068) http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/peru-tomb_art.htm#geology
Interestingly, the Incas had already known 2000 years before Christ, what kind of skin the herbivore dinosaur had, for example, and they had known many other currently known dinosaur species. Read more about the herbivore dinosaur and the Incas from this link: http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/peru-tomb-rock_art-man-fighting-dipodocus.jpg
General view of today considers the story of these stones impossible, but it is also considered impossible that these stones would be fake and intended to mislead paleontologists to determine them as coming from 2000 years before Christ, or that these stones were found before the first official dinosaur discoveries.
If the age of these stones is correctly estimated, they tell us that the Incas lived with dinosaurs.
From the link below you can find more images of the dino-stones, and the Peruvian geologist (Dr. Don Patton): http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm
Furthermore, images of dinosaurs have been found in carvings of ancient temples: http://www.bible.ca/_tracks/_tracks-cambodia.htm (16)
- (Gen 7:10) And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were on the earth.
- (Gen 10:1,32) Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and to them were sons born after the flood.
32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and by these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood
- (Matt 24:38,39) For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
- (2 Peter 3:5,6) For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
When it comes to the universe and the beginning of life, the same evidence is available to people who believe in creation and to those who believe in evolution. They have the same fossils and other material in use, based on which they make their interpretations.
The way we see the world affects our interpretations, however. Therefore, when an evolutionist interprets structures, genes and proteins that resemble each other, he concludes them as evidence for shared ancestry. Whereas, creationists would interpret it as indicative of one designer, a Creator, who has utilized similar structural solutions and has created the organisms for a specific world. Hence, our preconceptions affect the way we see and interpret the same evidence material.
A good example of a preconception can be seen in the statement of Jacques Monod, who is the most distinguished biochemist, Nobel prize winner, and he is considered to be the creator of modern molecule biology. He admitted that it is illogical to believe in living cells coming about by accident. However, he could not see any other alternative, because he refused to consider the only rational explanation for the birth of life, which is creation by God:
It is completely illogical to believe a living cell could come about by accident. However, I believe it happened, since I cannot see any other possibilities.
Another good example of a preconception is the opinion of Stephen Jay Gould – who is perhaps the most well-known paleontologist and a Marxist atheist – on the Behemoth mentioned in the Book of Job. He admitted that the only animal that fitted the description was the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). However, since he thought dinosaurs had gone extinct millions of years before the book was written, he imagined the writer must have gained his knowledge about dinosaurs from their skeletons. He did not take into consideration that the Book of Job, which is one of the oldest books in the Bible, clearly talks about living and not dead animals.
- (Job 40:10-18) Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach to him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lies under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinks up a river, and hastens not: he trusts that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
What about evidence for the Flood? We are again faced with the issue of interpreting evidence. Geological deposits and their history can be interpreted in different ways. These days many evolutionists are willing to admit that catastrophes have affected the formation of strata – although they often believe everything happened through slow processes. However, due to their preconceptions, they find it difficult to acknowledge that the majority of earth’s strata might have formed during the Flood. Their evolutionary perspective influences their interpretation and they end up forcing millions of years into their theories.
Nevertheless, there are many reasons to see the Flood as a historical fact. Some reasons are provided below:
• Traditions do not only include dinosaur -like dragon stories, but they also include many stories of the Flood. According to some estimates, there are around half a thousand traditional flood stories:
Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, s. 78)
• Many think Noah is nothing more than a legend, but Josephus and Berossus, for example, talk about the remains of Noah’s ark. Furthermore, many other books in the Bible, besides the First Book of Genesis, refer to him several times.
- (1 Moos 6:9-11) These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.
10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.
11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.
- (Isa 54:9) For this is as the waters of Noah to me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with you, nor rebuke you.
- (Eze 14:14) Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, said the Lord GOD.
- (Matt 24:37) But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
- (Luke 3:36) Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
- (Hebr 11:7) By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.
- (1 Peter 3:20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
- (2 Peter 2:5) And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly;
• Many television programs describe how currently dry areas, like the Sahara, have been under water. Many geologists have admitted that a substantial number of strata originate from the sea. J.S. Shelton referred to this peculiar paradox and how the majority of continents are covered with oceanic rocks:
On mainland, oceanic sediment rock foundations are far more common and wider than all the other sediment rock foundations combined. This is one of the simple facts that requires explanation, as it is in the core of everything that is associated with humans’ continuous efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (17)
James Hutton, who has been called the father of geology, noticed this as well a few decades ago. In his book he wrote how oceanic fossil remains can be seen in continental strata:
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)
• Mountain tops are filled with oceanic fossils. They can be found in the Alps, Andes, Himalayas, and in other mountain ranges. The following descriptions talk about Mount Everest, the highest mountain in the world. The first quotation from 1938, tells how you can find remnants of fossilized fish at the top of Mount Everest. Our other quotation refers to the same phenomenon:
There are bones of oxen and horses in the Himalayan glaciers. An ice slide starting at a glacier at the altitude of 5,000 metres (three miles) brought such bones with it.
A large British expedition that almost reached the peak of Mount Everest found petrified fish lying on the mountain. (18)
Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three kilometres above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals, and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the mountains. (…)
At an altitude of two kilometres above sea level, the geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike rock surface, similar to that which is formed by waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have been found even on the peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water. (19)
• The Flood would explain the abundance of fossil discoveries on land. Fossils can only form if the organism is promptly buried; otherwise they decay within a few weeks. For example, dinosaur fossils that appear inside solid hard rocks (drills and other heavy equipment are often required to detach them from the rock) can only be understood by knowing that they must have been covered in loose mud, after which the mud has hardened around them, like cement.
The following depiction tells how dinosaurs can be found inside hard rocks, which proves they must have ended up buried under loose mud. After that the mud has hardened around them. We could only expect something like this to happen in a great flood, but not in a natural cycle (the text also mentions how whirlpools might have gathered stacks of dinosaur bones). Boldface in the text was added later to clarify the message:
He went to the deserts of South Dakota, where there are bright-colored red, yellow, and orange cliffs and rocks. Already in a few days, he found from the cliff some bones he assumed to be what he had gone to search for. When he dug the rock around the bones, he noted that the bones were the skeleton of an animal. They were not together, as the bones of dinosaurs often are. Many of these piles seemed as if created by a powerful whirl of water.
These bones were now in blue sandstone that is very hard. The sandstone had to be removed by a road scraper and loosened by explosives. Brown and his assistants made a hole of almost seven and a half meters deep to get the bones out. Getting one large skeleton out took them two summers. By no means did they remove the bones from stone. They transported these blocks of stone by train into the museum where the scientists were able to chip the stone material away and set up the skeleton. This tyrant lizard now stands in the exhibition hall of the museum. (s. 72, "Dinosaurus" / Ruth Wheeler ja Harold G. Coffin)
• The fact that there is no noticeable erosion between several strata, indicates that most of them were formed in a short amount of time; in a matter of days or weeks. The boundaries between strata can often be completely smooth. However, it is not possible that wind, water and rain would have not impacted the formation at all during longer time periods, since they heavily shape landscape by forming uneven surfaces. For example, one heavy rain can cause deep grooves on a surface.
Another example of rapid formation of strata comes from the process that took place during the volcanic eruption of St Helena in 1980. It only took a few weeks for nearly 200 meters of soil layers to form on top of each other. This occurrence didn’t take millions of years. Similar rapid processes might have taken place during the Flood, which would explain the formation of most of the strata on this planet.
FINDING A CONNECTION TO GOD. Above, we dealt with the early stages of the universe and life. We concluded that scientists with naturalistic views do not have clear answers to everything. They have theories, which oppose experimental science (the universe exerting itself into existence out of nothing, life giving birth to itself, etc.), and are filled with clumsy attempts to replace God as the creator. It is much wiser to keep on believing in God’s creation. As Paul said it, we can see the existence of our Creator God by looking at the world around us. If someone refuses to see it and rejects it, they have been spiritually blinded:
- (Rom 1:19-22) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
How can you find a connection to God? Some might think this is not a serious matter at all, but why shouldn’t it be? That is, if God truly exists, wouldn’t it be of the utmost importance to connect with Him and be assured of His acceptance. That feels more important than the acceptance from other flawed humans. We are dealing with the Creator of the world, after all.
How can we be united with God and receive His acceptance? To answer these questions there are a few things to keep in mind:
We as people are flawed. Firstly, it is important to realize that we cannot receive forgiveness of sins by ourselves. That is because we are not perfect. ”For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23). It means some might have sinned less than others, but everyone still has sins on their consciousness, and no one can ever measure up to God:
- (Rom 3:9) Tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man that does evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
- (Gal 3:22) But the scripture has concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
God has drawn close to us. Although every one of us is flawed and we cannot save ourselves, the good message of the Bible lets us know that God approached us and removed obstacles from between people and Him. God was within His Son, Jesus Christ, and He atoned the world through Himself, as can be seen from the following passages. He did what none of us could. His motive was, and is, His love for people and to give us a chance at salvation:
- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- (1 John 4:10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
- (2 Cor 5:19,20) To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be you reconciled to God.
We can receive salvation as a gift without having to atone our sins. It is possible, because our sins have already been atoned and removed through Jesus Christ. That is good news for those, who have realized their own flawed nature. They can receive the gift of salvation without the pain and suffering. In addition, after accepting the gift of salvation, you will be accepted under the grace of God:
- (Rev 21:6) And he said to me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give to him that is thirsty of the fountain of the water of life freely.
- (Rev 22:17) And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that hears say, Come. And let him that is thirsty come. And whoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
- (Rom 5:1,2) Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Therefore, if you want to be the receiver of eternal life and have your sins forgiven, don’t look past the following important aspects:
Turn to God! If you have been separated from God, it is crucial for you to turn to Him. Do as the prodigal son in the allegory of Jesus. The prodigal son did not stay away from his father but returned to him. As a result, his father welcomed him back with open arms:
- (Luke 15:13,17-20) And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,
19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
Confess your sins! You must have sins on your consciousness. It could be adultery and extramarital affairs (Hebr 13:4), bitterness, accusations and unforgiveness (Matt 6:14,15), occultism (Deut 18:10-12), indifference, selfishness or any other sin. Confess all your sins that you can think of to God. You don’t deserve salvation because of your confession, but your confession will give you peace of mind:
- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
- (Prov 28:13) He that covers his sins shall not prosper: but whoever confesses and forsakes them shall have mercy.
Accept God into your life! The third important aspect to understand is that salvation and eternal life are only in the Son of God, Jesus Christ. He is the Way, not only someone who shows you the way. You can only enter God’s kingdom through Jesus Christ, but not through Buddha, Muhammed, the Pope, or the church – only through Jesus Christ, who’s arrival was prophesized, who lived a sinless life for us, and who took our sins to the cross. (Many understand these things in theory, but they have never surrendered themselves to God, or put their faith in Jesus Christ. It is as if God is in a closed box in their life). That is why you need to turn to Him and accept Him in your life, for you to receive an eternal life. Don’t reject Him, instead surrender yourself to Him and welcome Him into your life. The following has been written about this important topic:
- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
- (Rev 3:20) Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
So, if you have turned to Jesus Christ and received Him in your life, you are a child of God and have eternal life. You have the eternal life regardless of what you feel right now. Do not base your assurance of salvation on your ever-changing emotions, but rest in the word of the Bible and on Jesus Christ, just like the anchor of a ship is never thrown inside the ship but always outside.
- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.
13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The prayer of salvation. Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
1. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. toukokuuta 2004, sit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne
2. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.
3. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19
4. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 257
5. Rodney Stark, p. 184
6. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
7. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” in book Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution
8. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: "Puuttuva rengas", p. 46
9. Information from:
10. Koulubiologian analyysi osa 2 / Evoluutioteorian analyysi, Mikko Tuuliranta
11. Many dino fossils could have soft tissue inside, Oct 28 2010, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue_2.html
12. Nielsen-March, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist 24(3):12-14, June 2002;
14. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146
15. Mikko Tuuliranta: Koulubiologia jakaa disinformaatiota, kirjassa Usko ja tiede, p. 131,132
16. Keskustelu / Kauppalehti. 5.2.2012, jkorpi
17. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated
18. Raamatullinen aikakauskirja, p. 17
19. Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta, p. 55
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!