Questions about science
If we reject creation and accept the theory of evolution with its millions of years, questions will arise to which it is impossible to give sensible answers
Modern people are prejudiced against Christianity. They are not interested in it and easily reject it. They have many arguments and ideas that seem wise, which they use to reject any discussion about faith or turning to God. These attitudes and ways of thinking prevent them from wanting to study the Bible’s teachings in more detail.
The reason people are prejudiced against Christianity is that they are influenced by specific ideas, such as the evolution theory, liberal theology and the philosophy according to which God has not had any influence in the early stages of the universe and in history. These theories and philosophies have been spread by the popular media and influenced people’s minds. When people see and hear these claims constantly, everywhere they look, they begin to accept them as truth. They have embraced the ideas without thinking critically about them; they don’t consider that people can make mistakes.
Next, we will ask some questions and look at some viewpoints that are rarely considered. People do not dig very deeply into these questions and their answers because they hold naturalistic ideologies and prejudices. However, if the various theories and philosophies noted above are true, then we should easily be able to find answers. This should be no problem. If you are a person who believes that the universe came into being by itself, and think that the biblical description of the human race’s origin (Creation) is false, then you should be able to give a good answer to all the questions below. There are more than thirty questions in all.
Why does something exist? Our first question concerns the existence of matter and life. Why isn’t everything pure emptiness? Why do we have the abiotic and the living world – the Sun, stars, the Earth, mountains, oceans, water, humans, lions, mosquitoes, trees, flowers, and other things – instead of a void of emptiness? We need an explanation for this. We should actively search for answers, rather than consider our world to be self-evident. Since there are only two possibilities: something exists or nothing exists, there needs to be an explanation as to why the former one is true. This realization is fundamentally so basic that we might easily overlook it. We might take it for granted, but it’s actually an extremely important matter. One should not disregard it lightly.
The first point, which each of us comprehends before he even starts to think, is that something exists. In other words, all outlooks on life assume that something exists instead of that nothing exists. This presumption is in its primitiveness so elementary that many of us are not even conscious of it. We regard it as too self-evident even to be mentioned. Of course something exists! Indeed, so it does. And that is just the point! If we do not realize this, we will not get anywhere. However, this point may be extremely significant, just as many simple "facts” that are directly under our noses. (1)
Why was there a beginning to the universe? The beginning of the universe is another puzzling event. Even scientists acknowledge this fact, because the second law of thermodynamics indicates that celestial bodies cannot radiate forever. The fact that the Sun and stars still radiate energy suggests that they have had a beginning. There must have been a moment in time, when these celestial bodies began to function.
Therefore, a good question is, why does the universe have a beginning and what caused it? This is difficult to explain through materialistic philosophy.
William Jevons (an English philosopher in the 1870s): We cannot trace the heat history of the universe too far into the past. At some point, we will get impossible results referring to such heat distributions, which cannot, according to the laws of nature, come from any preceding distribution. (...) The theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time. (John D. Barrow:Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 36, 37)
Why is there complexity and beauty? After the question of why something exists, we must also explain why there is beauty and complexity in nature. Why is the earth not full of some kind of a simple mass of cells instead of the complex and beautiful structures we see all around us? Creation is an easy explanation for them, serendipity is not.
The same topic was considered centuries ago by the philosopher Socrates, and in modern times by Darwin. Both of them understood that human senses are complex and their self-development seems irrational. However, only Socrates made the right conclusion and understood the influence of a designer:
Darwin: The presumption that the eye with all its inimitable structures that focus images at different distances, regulate the amount of light, fix spherical and chromatic aberration (color aberration) could have been formed as a consequence of natural selection is, I do admit openly, absurd to a great extent. (...) The idea of an organ like the eye forming through natural selection is more than enough to confuse anyone. (2)
Socrates: Does it not strike you then that He, who made man from the beginning, gave him some useful senses – eyes to behold the visible world, and ears to catch the intonations of sound? (...) And besides all this, do you not think this looks like a matter of foresight that the eyes are closed by eyelids like doors, which, when there is need to use them, can open? They close in sleep and even the winds of heaven may not visit them too roughly, because the eyelashes are as a protecting screen. The eyebrows are like an eave so that sweat falling from the head won’t injure eyes. Besides, the ear catches all sounds but never becomes filled. (...) I ask you, when you see all these things constructed with such show of foresight can you doubt whether they are products of chance or intelligence? (3)
How can the current universe be born of the space the size of a pinhead? The most common explanation of how everything started is the big bang, which is a theory that all matter was concentrated into a space the size of a pinhead, and the current universe exploded from this space. However, we might ask, how could the billions of galaxies, the Sun, the planets, oceans, mountains, mosquitoes, huge trees, humans, fish, apples, strawberries, crocodiles, cheetahs, beautiful flowers, birds and everything else in our surroundings have come into being from something the size of a pinpoint? It would be the greatest miracle, had these things appeared on their own from one singular tiny point. How many actually believes that a “pinhead” could transform into the universe and into living beings by itself?
Where did intelligence, thought, consciousness, movement, speech, hearing, smell, taste, feeling, sight, tiredness, irritation, hunger, joy, love, sense of humour, sexual drive and genitalia come from? If life was formed from inanimate rock or physical material, these features are difficult to explain. Sen sijaan, jos kaiken takana on elävä ja persoonallinen Jumala, selittää se näiden piirteiden olemassaolon.
How did life start? If life could have started on its own, why have we not been able to resolve its mystery at some point in the past 100 years? The more information we get, the harder it becomes to explain the beginnings of life. There is a huge gap between living and inanimate materials.
Let’s study a related quote about Stanley Miller. Miller was made famous by his scientific examination into the creation of life. He was interviewed shortly before he died by J. Morgan. Morgan described Miller’s response to questions:
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. (4)
How could hydrogen gas condense into planets? If there was only hydrogen gas at first, how could it condense to form the planets? We know from physics that a gas will always fill a space as large as the space provided. Thus, it would spread deeper into the space and no planets would be formed. Many scientists recognize the problematic nature of this issue.
But an even greater issue arises from this, because we cannot understand how the hydrogen gas could have evolved into living beings that have the ability to laugh, cry and express other emotions? Has anything of the sort been detected these days where hydrogen gas evolves into a living being on its own? This kind of notion is not supported by common sense, and one doesn’t need a university degree to understand the irrationality of it.
Why can we not detect the creation of galaxies? There are many problems related to the early stages of the universe, and one of them is the birth of galaxies. How did they come to be, since there isn’t any certain proof or observations? Astronomers have admitted that this is one of the unresolved problems in astrophysics. Steven Weinberg, among others, has commented on the issue:
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)
Where did the rotation and orbital motion come from if there was only the centrifugal motion generated by the big bang at first? What caused these new ways of moving? After all, no rotating or circulating motion can start without an external influence from some force. If the Big Bang ever happened, it couldn’t have caused these new orbital motions.
Why does the consistency of the Sun and the planets differ? There is a theory that the solar system was generated from a single cloud of gas. The problem with this theory is that the composition of each planet greatly differs from others, and from the Sun. There are different elements in each of them. The moons circulating the planets also consist of entirely different elements than the Sun or planets. What causes these differences, or could we perhaps assume they didn’t come from the same gas cloud, but instead were created by God?
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)
What was the consistency of the early atmosphere? The most common theory about the primordial atmosphere is that it contained hydrogen, ammonia and methane but no free oxygen. This is not the same as the consistency of the atmosphere now: 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% of other gases.
It’s good to ask, what caused such a radical change in the atmosphere that it changed into something almost completely opposite? Modern-day observations do not support the notion that the early atmosphere was oxygen-free. Precambrian rock types, which are considered to be the oldest, contain oxygenated iron minerals; thus, there must have been free oxygen when it formed.
"There is one problem related to the studies of the early Precambrian age. On one hand, it is admitted that there was no gaseous oxygen in the beginning and that life started in such an environment. On the other hand, many Precambrian rocks, including the oldest known layers, include oxygenated iron minerals. Therefore, at the time they were formed, there was free oxygen. Where did it come from?" (p. 115, Jim Brooks Näin alkoi elämä / Origins of Life)
How did eukaryotic cells come into being? There are eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells, the former being cells with a distinct nucleus and the latter cells having no distinct nucleus. The difference between these two cell types is huge: eukaryotes are much more complex and almost a thousand times larger in terms of volume than prokaryotes.
The question is, where are the intermediate forms between these two cell types? They should be present in fossil records, as well as in current day organisms, but why haven’t we found them? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to say that God created all the species, and that is why we cannot find any intermediate forms between these two cell types or between any basic kinds.
Even though the evidence supports the idea of the eukaryotes evolving from the prokaryotes, the differences between these two groups are so large that it seems that something other than just time and mutations would have been needed for a simple prokaryote to evolve into a complex eukaryote. (John Reader: Alkumerestä maalle, p.36 / The Rise of Life)
How were multicellulars created? The birth of multicellulars is a mystery. It has not been solved, and intermediate forms between uni -and multicellulars have not been found. This clearly indicates that species have been separate from the beginning. It is indicative of creation rather than gradual development.
What conclusions can be drawn from the possible relationship between monocellulars (Protozoa) and multicellular (Metazoa) organisms? The only fact is that we are not familiar with the relationship. Almost all possible (as well as many impossible) relationships have been proposed, but the information available to us is insufficient to justify drawing any scientific conclusion about such a relationship. If we please, we may believe that one of these theories is more correct than the others, but we do not have any real evidence. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, p. 49)
How have the more complex organs, such as the circulation and the respiratory organs, hands, feet, senses, reproductive organs and the digestive system been created? If these parts were not complete right from the start, then the organism in question would have quickly died. We can only understand the successful functioning of these organs through God’s creation. Half developed organs presupposed by evolution wouldn’t work.
Why have dinosaur bones been found among bones that are very similar to those of horses, cows and sheep*, even though mammals are thought to have inhabited the earth long after dinosaurs? (*Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.) And why are the dinosaur fossils often in good condition – with non-petrified bones, soft tissue and traces of blood cells, albumin and DNA? This should not be possible if the fossils are tens of millions of years old. And why does almost every native tribe have mythologies about dragons that closely resemble dinosaurs?
Why does the written history of the human race extend only around 4,000 or 5,000 years in the past? If humans have inhabited the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, why did writing, ceramics, agriculture, buildings, etc. enter the picture only around 4,000 or 5,000 years ago? These time estimates fit well within the Bible description of the early human history, whereas they are contradictory with the notion of humans having inhabited the earth for hundreds of thousands of years.
The earliest notes we have of the history of man date only approximately 5,000 years to the past. (The World Book Encyclopaedia, 1966, volume 6, p. 12)
In the recent excavations, the most surprising issue has been how suddenly civilization appeared in the world. This observation is quite at odds with what had been expected. It had been thought that the older the period in question, the more primitive the excavators would find it, until all the traces of civilization would disappear and the primitive man would appear. This has not been the case neither in Babylon nor in Egypt that are the oldest known human settlements. (P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28)
Why was the Earth inhabited only during recent millennia and not 100,000 years ago? For example, 500 years ago the population of North/South America and Australia was around a hundredth of the current population. This suggests that the human race could not have come into being very many millennia ago, as the Bible indicates. The fact that our current population size can be reached in one thousand years, also indicates that tens of thousands of years cannot be accurate.
Why does radioactive dating give the same age for top and bottom strata? Discrepancies are typical for radioactive dating methods. New volcanic rocks serve as an example of this, as they have been dated back hundreds of millions of years with radioactive methods. Those ages cannot be possible with new rocks.
The following examples illustrate radioactive dating in Grand Canyon. It is commonly believed its layers were built up on top of each other, as a result of processes that lasted for hundreds of millions of years, but if we look at scientists’ measurements, we can see that they contradict the common belief. According to some measurements all the layers of Grand Canyon are the same age. Some measurements indicate that the upper layers, the younger layers, are “270 million years” older than the lower layers. What causes such discrepancies? If anything, they show us how unreliable radioactive methods can be. On the other hand, they suggest that layers, which have been thought to be very old, aren’t necessarily that much older than layers, which have been considered young. These layers were most likely formed during a massive catastrophe, which could be the Flood from the Bible.
Dr Steve Austin has extensively measured the lava-based rocks of the Colorado canyon (Austin, S.A., ed. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe, pp. 111-131,1994) proving that the K-Ar method dates very young layers as clearly too old, around the same age as results from very old layers. (5)
Lava rock that was generated in a volcanic eruption on Hualalai Island approximately 170 years ago was studied, and its age was determined using the new methods. By these “reliable” radiometers, the age of the 170-year-old rock was measured at millions of years, starting at 160 million up to three billion years. The same has happened also with other similar measurements. An attempt to measure the age of the layers of the Grand Canyon with these already mentioned new methods was also made. The researchers were yet again surprised with the results. The age of the “young” basalt rock in the uppermost layers was measured at 270 million years more than “the thousands of millions of years old stone layer” at the bottom of the canyon. After these measurements were taken, some of the ages given to the canyon’s rocks and layers by evolutionists before have been transferred into the group of “old beliefs”. (6)
Why has radiocarbon been found in “ancient” strata and fossils? Radiocarbon, whose half life is only about 5,730 years, has repeatedly been found in coal, peat, natural gas and crude oil deposits, and even in fossils of the Cambrian period (which is assumed to have started 600 million years ago). What do these findings suggest? They at least tell us that the strata and the fossils cannot even be 100,000 years old.
In the early years of the invention, it was believed that all the preconditions needed to make accurate age measurements were now present. Researchers gathered all kinds of things to measure: items from the tombs of pharaohs and Neanderthals, teeth of sabre-tooth tigers and mammoths, fossils, crude oil, etc. Radiocarbon was found in all of them. These observations regarding age were published in Radiocarbon magazine. Many of the samples had previously been dated as being millions of years old. (7)
Another piece of evidence showing that dating methods are contradictory is that rocks taken from the earth have been dated as tens- or hundreds of millions of years old but a fossil that was found right next to the rocks was dated using the C-14 method as only a couple of millennia old. Such discrepancies should not occur if the methods were reliable. It is also clear that the C-14 method produces results that are closer to the truth because no radiocarbon could be present after 100,000 years – its half life is only about 5,730 years.
We have published detailed reports in which wood found in sandstone that was “250 million years old” or in volcanic rock that was “tens of millions of years old” was dated with radiocarbon as only being a couple of thousands of years old. When (...) geologists take samples of volcanic rock that is known to have come from a specific eruption and send them to a highly respected laboratory doing radiometric dating, the "dating" almost always gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions on which the dating method is based are erroneous. (8)
Why have trilobite fossils – the fossils of creatures that supposedly became extinct “230 million” years ago – been found under human sandal prints? Such findings prove that humans and trilobites lived at the same time.
William Meister made a surprising finding on 1 June 1968 in Utah. He found several trilobite fossils inside a fossilized sandal print! However, based on the geological stratigraphic sequence, arranged according to the evolutionary periods, the trilobites became extinct approximately 230 million years before the appearance of man!
(…) Geologist, Doctor Clifford Burdick found evidence to support the idea about humans and the trilobites living at the same time. He found barefooted footprints of a child, one of which contained a flattened trilobite. (9)
Why have the fossils of normal birds been found in strata that are older than those in which the fossils of Archaeopteryx have been found even though they should be in the opposite order according to the theory of evolution? Furthermore, an ancient Mayan relief depicts a bird that resembles the lizard bird Archaeopteryx, a bird that is thought to have lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. Such findings suggest the lizard bird cannot have been the ancestor of birds, and in all likelihood, it coexisted with the humans.
Furthermore, an ancient relief by the Mayas has been found that resembles the lizard bird or Archaeopteryx. This means that there is an error of 130 million years in the dating. If the geological series of layers were correct, these two – the Mayas and the Archaeopteryx – could never have met. It is evident that the geological series of layers is wrong. (10)
Why do long tree trunk fossils penetrate several strata? The consensus is that the strata have formed over a period of millions of years. Tree trunk fossils that penetrate several strata indicate, however, that these strata must have formed quickly, within a few weeks. Otherwise, tree trunk fossils should not exist, because normally trees decay before fossilization can even take place.
Many signs refer to several overlapping strata being formed as a consequence of a continuous and world-wide process, since the fossils of many plants and large animals in an upright position penetrate several different strata without any signs of being exposed to erosion over thousands of years at their upper or lower end. Therefore, a trunk has remained in an upright position in the middle of quickly accumulating layers of sediment. Large dinosaurs have also been found in similar positions. A 24-metre-tall tree trunk going through more than ten strata was found near Edinburgh, and everything indicated that the trunk had been quickly carried in place. Neither have any signs indicating erosion between various geological periods been found between the different strata. (11)
Why are Precambrian and Cambrian strata on top? Why are Precambrian and Cambrian strata that should contain the simplest life forms located on top in many areas? Ammonites and other marine fossils that are considered to be very early life forms have been found high up on the slopes of mountains. They should not appear in such places according to the theory of evolution. A good question is, why are these marine animals, which have been thought to be considerably old, high up in the mountains? Perhaps, because these animals are not hundreds of millions of years old, and because these areas have been under water, as told by the Bible was the result of the Flood.
Why are the strata defective? One idea is that there are complete geological strata all around the world, series of layers in which the layers of the geological time scale are exactly on top of each other. However, it is rare to find even three to four layers on top of each other. The Grand Canyon is often used as an example, and even there only five of the twelve (or thirteen) most important strata have been found. What can we learn from this? If anything, we can see that the geological series of million-year-old layers can only be true on paper and in people’s imagination. Nature does not carry proper signs of this series of layers.
Why have human footprints been found in rocks that are “250 million years old” in, for example Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky and other states of the United States? Such findings cannot be possible if the geological time scale is accurate. Furthermore, a gold chain, an iron pot and other man-made items and human fossils have been found in mineral coal strata.* These findings prove that humans must have lived 250–300 millions years ago or the periods in question occurred only a couple of thousand years ago. (*Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115–116; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, pp. 36–39.)
Why cannot any intermediate or newly developing forms be found in nature that reveal the formative stages of legs, arms, etc., or sensory organs, be found? Even Darwin stated that the natural world consists of clearly definable species. If we draw conclusions based on fossils and current species, Darwin’s gradual development -theory does not seem possible.
The greatest mystery of the fossil materials is that we have not found any clear factor that takes evolution forward in the history of life. (…) We have set the findings in order based on our wishes, but this order cannot actually be found in the real world. (Stephen J. Gould, The Ediacaran Experiment. Natural History, vol. 93, Feb. 1984, p.23)
It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)
No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)
Why have fossils of marine animals and plants been found in all the tall mountain ranges (the Himalaya, the Alps, the Andes, the Ural Mountains, the Rocky Mountains, the Altai Mountains, etc.)? Darwin found the remains of a whale in the mountainous part of Peru, and marine fossils have been found even on top of the Himalaya. What can be learnt from this? It clearly seems that these areas have been under water. The most fitting explanation would be the Flood from the Bible.
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. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)
There is reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in the mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. If we were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there – we would find fossilized remains of marine creatures. They are often badly damaged, but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)
Why have dinosaur fossils been found inside hard rock? How could such large animals get there? The only way is that soft silt has surrounded and covered them and then the silt has hardened to rock. There is no other way any fossils could have been retained of such large animals. The same applies to other fossils: soft silt must have quickly covered them. This could have occurred during the Flood.
Why do animals not build houses, fly planes, drive cars, write letters, practice agriculture, read newspapers or use all the variety of technical solutions that are so characteristic of people? Why are humans so radically different from the rest of creation if everything was generated by the big bang or from a single cell? Or does the Bible’s explanation that humans were created by God, in His image, unique from all others, provide the answer to that question?
- (Gen 1:27) So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Why are stories about the Fall, the Flood, the mixing of languages, the Tower of Babel and the Creation commonly found around the world? For example, a story of the Miao tribe says that woman was made from man, as the Bible explains. The same story also describes how the land started to fill up with tribes and peoples:
On the earth he made a man from mud,
From this he created a woman.
Then patriarch Loka made a scale from stones
estimating the weight of the earth down to the bottom,
counting the mass of the orbits,
contemplated roads of the divinity, roads of God.
To patriarch Loka was born patriarch Se-teh.
To patriarch Se-teh was born son Lusu,
and Lusu had Kehlo and to him was born Lama.
To patriarch Lama was born the man Nuah.
His wife's name was ancestress Kau Po-lu-en.
Their sons were: Lo-Han, Lo-Shen and Jah-hu.
Like this the earth started to fill with tribes and families.
In creation the families and nations were formed. (12)
Why are there several theories about the origin of the Ice Age, but all of them contain clearly discernible errors? The theories cannot explain why summers suddenly became 10 or even 20 degrees Celsius cooler but it still snowed more in the winter. If the winters were colder than now, like the summers, the rainfall would have radically decreased because moisture could not have evaporated from the seas because of the ice cover. It is a well-known fact that it rarely snows when the temperature is freezing.
The Flood is a more likely explanation for the signs that are being used to point to the Ice Age. Cuneiform writing and traditions mention the Flood, but the stories do not mention the Ice Age.
1. James W. Sire: Missä maailmassa? (The Universe Next Door. A Basic World View Catalog), p. 14
2. Shute, E., "Flaws in the Theory of Evolution", Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey, 1961, pp. 127-128
3. Ksenofon: Sokrates (1985, Helsinki, Otava), s. 30
4. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley
5. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 300
6. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 102
7. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92
8. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34
9. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus [The Collapse of Evolution], p. 25
10. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus [The Collapse of Evolution], p. 25
11. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, p. 121
12. E.V. Koskinen: Alusta loppuun, p. 12
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!