Main page | Jari's writings

Theistic evolution under inspection



This text discusses theistic evolution. It is a view that adds evolutionary belief to Christianity. The existence of God and Him having created all life do get acknowledged, but at the same time it is believed that He used evolutionary processes to achieve His creations. In that way theistic evolution does not differ from the atheistic theory; they have only added God into their account. Millions of years are also essential for both views.

Interestingly enough, many sincere Christians believe in this theistic evolution. They rely more on this view than they do on the traditional understanding, according to which God created everything in within a few days a few millennia ago. This goes to show how the grace of God can reach people, despite their drastic views on fundamental aspects. God cares more about people’s sincerity and their willingness to turn to Him, than whether their views are entirely correct.


1. Theistic evolution and the Bible
2. Beginning, evolution and millions of years under inspection



1. Theistic evolution and the Bible


Inconsistencies with the Bible. If we look at theistic evolution, we can find countless inconsistencies it has with the Bible. Many people who support this view may consider the Bible valuable and as the word of God, but the problem is that the Bible does not support their views. The following points create conflict:

 Man was in the beginning of creation. In theistic evolution, as well as in atheistic evolution, it is presumed that humans’ appearance on earth occurred rather late, which is after millions of years of evolution. It is assumed that long evolutionary processes had to take place before the modern human could eventually appear on the planet. (There is a similar theory, which is a so-called gap theory that places a million-year period between the First and the Second Book of Genesis.).

Jesus taught differently, which brings us to our first major conflict between the Bible and theistic evolution. That is, Jesus taught that man was created in the beginning of world’s creation, and not at a later stage. If He is the Son of God, who created everything (John 1:3, Col 1:16), you would think that He knows. That is why many teachers today claim that Jesus was a liar or that He didn’t know. Are these teachers wiser and more correct than Jesus?


- (Matt 19:4) And he answered and said to them, Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female


- (Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


Man is fully developed from the beginning. Another difference between theistic evolution and the Bible is that according to theistic evolution man was not fully developed in creation, but instead became a man through long evolutionary processes. Whereas, the Bible teaches the creation of man happened in an instant, and that he was not any more primitive than the modern human, because he was fully developed. Man could talk, make music and different objects, and he named all the animals, which demonstrated his difference to the rest of the creations.

The same difference still stands. Animals remain unable to speak and build items, and they still don’t measure up to human intelligence. There is a physical and mental gap separating humans from the rest of the created kinds.


- (Gen 2:7) And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.


- (Gen 2:20) And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.


- (Gen 4:20-22) And Adah bore Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of such as have cattle.

21 And his brother's name was Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

22 And Zillah, she also bore Tubalcain, an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.


Creation has ended. Theistic evolution presumes that creation has lasted for millions of years. In fact, it should still be ongoing if we follow this logic. However, according to Bible, creation has already ended:


- (Gen 2:1-3) Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.

2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.


Famous atheist Richard Dawkins referred to this, when he talked to theistic evolutionists. He stated that it would be odd if God existed and He had created everything through million-year processes. Dawkins is not wrong with his comment:


I believe it is a major case of beating around the bush. If God wanted to create life and humans, it would be slightly odd if He chose to go about it with an unusually undirect method by waiting 10 billion years before any life would even begin, and then proceed to wait another 4 billion years for humans to appear, who then can worship God, sin and do other things that are of interest to religious people. (1)


The origin of sin and death. The origin and starting point of sin, death and disease are one of the greatest causes of conflict between theistic evolution and the Bible. In the former it is presumed that the world was filled with death and disease for millions of years before humans, and the Fall of Adam. However, the Bible says that these things came to earth through the Fall of Adam. It is clear that these two views oppose each other, and that only one of them can be correct.

Bible’s standpoint comes apparent from the following words of Paul. He teaches that death came to earth through the Fall of Adam, not before that. Theistic evolutionists claim these verses to be false:


- (Rom 5:12,17) Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

17 For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)


- (1 Cor 15:16,20-22) For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.


There are other verses that also explain this. They teach that the curse and disease, death and other detrimental things following the curse entered the world only after the Fall of Adam – not, for example, millions of years before it. The world that was made good by God (Gen 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good…), fell under corruption, as stated in the Romans. The good news is that all the suffering that came with the Fall of Adam will be permanently removed in the coming kingdom of God. There will be no more curse, disease, death or mourning, for the former things are passed away.


- (Gen 3:17) And to Adam he said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for your sake; in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life;


- (Rom 8:20-22) For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who has subjected the same in hope,

21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

22 For we know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now.


- (Rev 22:1-3) And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.

2 In the middle of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bore twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:


- (Rev 21:3,4) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


The following speech will illustrate just how illogical it is to support evolution, millions of years and at the same time believe in Christianity. The speaker is an atheist, who sees that the basis for the whole life and death of Jesus were foreseen in the life of Adam and in the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve. If there is no original sin, which came through Adam, who would need to redeem themselves? If the Fall of Adam wasn’t real, and there was disease and death before him, what significance would the Bible teaching about the first and second Adam, and the atonement of Jesus hold? These two things would be false, and we would no longer need to consider them. Or, alternatively, supporters of theistic evolution are misconstrued in this department.


Christianity is – it must be – completely tied to that special creation described in the First Book of Genesis. Christianity must fight with everything they have, for better or for worse, against evolution… It has become clear that Jesus’ whole life and death were prophesized in the life of Adam and in the forbidden fruit eaten by Adam and Eve. Without original sin, who needs redemption? If Adam hadn’t fallen and by that sin wouldn’t be in this world until we die, what meaning would Christianity hold? None. (2)


There is another atheist, who has commented on the matter. If Adam and Eve weren’t real people and there never was original sin, the whole foundation of Christianity would be destroyed. There wouldn’t be any need for salvation or the savior. It would make Jesus and His work redundant.

This atheist is absolutely right. If we don’t acknowledge Adam and Eve as the first humans on earth, as presumed in theistic evolution, the atonement of Jesus would become questionable.


The most devastating finding in biology for Christianity was … discovering evolution. Now that we know Adam and Eve were never real people, this fundamental myth in Christianity is crumbling down.

If there never was Adam and Eve, there was never original sin either. If original sin never existed, there is no need for salvation. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for a savior. And in my opinion, this classifies Jesus, historical or not, as unemployed. (3)


Some theistic evolutionists might acknowledge the historicalness of Adam and Eve. The problem is, however, that they are unable to specify when they appeared on the planet and at which evolutionary stage. Were they ape-like, as supposed in the evolutionary theory, or were they like modern humans? These are the kinds of questions we are faced with if attempt to combine the Bible narration with evolution.


The real creation days. Theistic evolution presumes that God worked through evolution for millions of years. As a result, creation days are also considered to have been considerably longer than normal days, for example, as long as thousand- or million-year periods. People argue for this, e.g., through this verse: 2 Peter 3:8: But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

Is this view accurate, however? Could the days of creation be longer than normal days? The following aspects, for example, would suggest otherwise:


• There is a good demonstration in the Second Book of Genesis illustrating that normal creation happened through normal days. It is said that God created everything in six days and rested on the seventh. In the same way people should work for six days and rest on the seventh day.

There appears to have been a weeklong period that applied to both God and people. God could have created everything faster, but through his creation He also set an example for work and rest for people:


- (Ex 20:9-11) Six days shall you labor, and do all your work:

10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates:

11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: why the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


What is more, a seven-day-week is recognized all around the world among all different cultures. It shows that it is shared heritage of the whole mankind. God created everything in seven days and the first humans were aware of it:


We can find information about the seven-day week from very ancient times to be in the knowledge of all nations – including Ethiopians, Arabs, Native Americans – all nations in the East have at all times used this seven-day week which is difficult to explain without admitting that this information has been received from the common ancestors of mankind. (4)


• Another reason why we should take a more critical approach to abnormally long creation days is the fact that reading the Bible with context does not lead into this conclusion. If we read the scriptures as they are, a person reading the Bible for the first time would conclude that the creation days were normal days. A distinguished professor of Hebrew and Bible interpretation from Oxford University, James Barr, wrote about this in his personal letter (23/4/1984):


To my knowledge, there is no such professor of Hebrew or the Old Testament in any world-class university, who would not believe that the writer/writers of chapters 1-11 of the First Book of Genesis did not mean to express the following concepts: (A) Creation lasted for six days and those days were equal to our 24 hour days. (B) Genealogical records from the First Book of Genesis give us a simple chronology from the beginning of the world to later events in the Bible. (C) The Flood was a global event that destroyed all people and animals, except the ones on the Ark.


• When Peter says that ”that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”, it is not about creation, as some supporters of theistic evolution might think. Instead, we can deduct

from this piece of text that God is not bound to time. For Him thousands of years are equal to short time periods. I believe this is the original meaning of the text.


• When we try to combine evolution with the First Book of Genesis, the sequence of events will pose a problem. One such problem is the creation of plants on the third day and creation of the Sun on the fourth day. In other words, if creation days lasted for millions or thousands of years, the plants would have had to survive without the Sun for quite a long time. It probably wouldn’t have worked out.


• Where theistic evolution contradicts the Bible, it also contradicts the common evolution theory. The reason is simple: common evolutionary theory has always considered evolution as an accidental process. If it was directed by God, meaning that God created everything through evolution, as believed by supporters of theistic evolution, the whole premise of evolution would change. If evolution was true, these two opposing views could not be accurate at the same time. People who support theistic evolution don’t consider this.




2. Beginning, evolution and millions of years under inspection


In the former chapter we established how theistic evolution contradicts the words of Jesus and the First Book of Genesis. That is, if we read the Bible as it is, it doesn’t say anything about million-year lasting evolutionary processes, simple original cell, or that God created everything through evolution. On the contrary, we are being told that species were fully complete upon creation and man was also created in the beginning. This is the conclusion we’ll make if we read the text as it is and not through evolutionary glasses. “Evolutionary glasses” can distort our understanding of clear Bible scriptures.

In order to fully understand the situation, we are going to look at this, specifically, from the perspective of how reliable naturalistic perceptions relating to the world’s -, life’s -and human’s beginning, and millions of years are – the views that theistic evolutionists have also adopted and added God into the equation. We’ll be using Eero Junkkaala’s book Alussa Jumala loi [In the beginning God created], which addresses evolution, as the basis for our discussion. This book will be referenced throughout the text. We are going to being with the Big Bang.


The notion of Big Bang. Supporters of theistic evolution often believe in the Big Bang theory. This is also the case in Eero Junkkaala’s book, Alussa Jumala loi, which addresses theistic evolution.

This theory presumes that before the bang there was nothing: no matter, no time, no space, because everything began in one instant ca. 13,8 billion years ago. Naturalists assume it all happened by itself, whereas theistic evolutionists believe it happened through God. Eero Junkkaala’s book (p. 81,89) explains:


According to our faith God created the world. Science, in layman’s terms, talks about the Big Bang… Our universe appears to be 13,8 billion years old. Early universe was rather small, dense, and its temperatures were extreme.


If we look at the Big Bang theory purely from a naturalistic point of view, we’ll notice how it is filled with issues and discrepancies. The following aspects should be taken into consideration:


Against practical observations. The Big Bang theory assumes that the universe appeared from nowhere, since before the explosion there was nothing, no matter and no space. It is believed that everything began in a miniscule spot, which volume was zero.

However, practical evidence does not support this naturalistic theory. If the universe began from emptiness, why don’t other things, like stones, cars and planes appear from nothingness as well? Why don’t we see other objects appear from thin air in the same way? Why would the universe be the only exception? This is clearly a logical conflict and a denial of the laws of nature. There is no practical evidence supporting the possibility that the Big Bang happened. If we accept this theory, we are forced to abandon all common sense.


Everything from a tiny spot? When it comes to the universe and life in it, materialists believe that it all appeared from thin air by itself. As discussed, they believe this appearance occurred in the so-called Big Bang, in which emptiness or a very small spot generated the whole universe and life. Theistic evolutionists have also adopted this belief, expect they also believe God made it happen.

Is the Big Bang accurate, however? We could compare it to someone having a matchbox (which is far bigger than a pinhead) and saying that all kinds of things are going to come out of that box. They claim that it is a scientific fact and it should not be questioned, since all the wise scientists believe in it. Therefore, according to their word, it is possible that much larger and more complex things can come out of the matchbox, such as:


• Cow and the grass it eats

• Fast cheetahs also appear from the same matchbox or emptiness

• Roaring lions

• Birds that can fly and sing

• Mosquitoes for the birds to eat

• Fish and the ocean around them also originate from this tiny box

• Beautiful scented flowers and tall trees also come from the very same box

• Billions of galaxies, stars and planets appeared from the box as well

• The Sun that gives us warmth and light

• Humans that have the ability to speak and have feelings: cry, laugh, get angry, be afraid, mourn, feel infatuation and fall in love

• Tasty strawberries, bananas, blueberries, peas, grapes and nuts. They too are believed to have appeared from the same matchbox


Can this theory be questioned? I am sure it can. It would be the greatest miracle if all the former things and everything else around us had appeared by themselves inside a matchbox or a space the size of a pinhead, which is many times smaller than most things. It is simply impossible and against all logic, because non-existence cannot cause existence. There must first be something, before anything can be created. It doesn’t seem that foolish to assume the former. The Big Bang theory is not a scientific fact, but rather a naturalistic imaginary theory, which many supporters of theistic evolution have also adopted.


Criticism for the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory can be regarded as a substitute for creation. When people don’t accept creation, they must find other ways to explain the world’s beginning. That is how this theory and other naturalistic theories about the early stages of the universe and life have come to be.

However, there are many scientists, who have criticized the Big Bang theory. Fred Hoyle thought the whole theory was false. Cosmic background radiation, which has been considered as another piece of evidence for the Big Bang (ca. 2,7-degree background radiation), he stated that it could be any number between 2,7 and 27 degrees. He didn’t think background radiation was strong evidence for the Big Bang. The following is being told about him:


Fred Hoyle, who died in 2001, was convinced to his death that quasi-steady-state model is accurate, and the Big Bang is wrong. In his autobiography he wrote the following: “Many supporters of the Big Bang cosmology go as far as saying they have found the correct theory, but this kind of claim is beginning to sound like arrogance, in my opinion. If I have ever been guilty of this same arrogance, I must have been momentarily taken over by the hubris, which hasn’t gone unpunished.” (Simon Singh: Big Bang, p. 423)


There are some other scientists who have also criticized the theory. Physicist Eric Lerner stated that “The Big Bang is merely an interesting fable, which is upheld for a certain cause” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991). Nobelist Hannes Alfven wrote about this topic as well. He states how several observations contradict the Big Bang theory:


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)


Red shift under inspection. The Big Bang theory is plagued with many issues. If we assume hydrogen and helium gas, which were generated in the Big Bang, can transform into fish, birds, humans, oceans, cliffs, trees, and flowers by themselves, we are not thinking very clearly. None of these things would probably never form from a gas like that – i.e., nothing of the sort has ever been witnessed.

The second issue is that we don’t see galaxies getting more distant from us. Discordant red shift observations from celestial bodies support the claim, but technically we don’t see galaxies moving away from us, as Steven Weinberg states in the following quotation. It is difficult to explain why some neighboring galaxies have completely opposing values, why some celestial bodies have blueshift, and why some celestial bodies’ red shift is sometimes larger and sometimes smaller. Because of these phenomena, it has been suggested that red shifts have to do with, for example, the inner reactions of celestial bodies, and not them moving away.


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 birth of galaxies is another phenomenon that is assumed to have taken place after the Big Bang. Eero Junkkaala’s book addressing theistic evolution says that galaxies are still being born by condensation, like stars (the Sun is also a star).


The majority of stars, our Sun included, were born from the remains of older stars. Our Solar System is approximately 9 billion years old and our Earth around 4,5 billion years old. There are still stars that are being born due to condensation of gas clouds in space; the same goes for new galaxies. (5)


Many scientists disagree about the birth if galaxies. It is simply, because no one has detected any new galaxies being born, and no one knows how the existing ones got to be. The birth of the largest entities in the world is still a mystery. The best explanation for their birth would be a sudden creation by God, but since this option is not accepted, it will remain a question mark for these scientists.

What about stars’ formation from cosmic gas clouds? The evidence is rather weak. There is no great certainty, whether some gas clouds are accumulating or dispersing. Our lifespan usually restricts us from keeping up with the movements. That is why it is possible that when we think we see a new star, it could simply be that the star has always been there, just behind a gas cloud, but is just now appearing, for example, due to celestial bodies’ orbital movement or gas cloud movement. It might not necessarily be the birth of a new star, only the “appearance” of an already existing star.

On the other hand, if the birth of galaxies and stars are so simple, where is the evidence? Since presumably there are approximately hundred billion galaxies, which all contain hundred billion stars, and if this is divided by ten billion (the presumed age of the universe is 10-15 billion years), it would mean that every year there should be ten new galaxies and 1000 billion new stars! Such a great number of new stars and galaxies should be detectable in some way, but why hasn’t anyone detected anything? The following comment will illustrate how the birth of galaxies and stars appear problematic to scientists:


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 quite embarrassing that no one has explained the origin of them (galaxies)… Most of the astronomers and cosmologists openly admit that there is no sufficient theory for the formation of the galaxies. In other words, one of the central features of the universe is without an explanation. (W.R. Corliss: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, p. 184, Sourcebook Project, 1987)


The scary thing here is that if none of us knew beforehand that stars exists, the frontline research would provide many convincing reasons as to why stars could never be born.” (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007)


Abraham Loeb: “The truth is that we don’t understand the formation of stars on a fundamental level.” (Lainattu Marcus Chownin artikkelista [Cited from Marcus Chown’s article] Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)


The birth of the Solar System. Eero Junkkaala’s book brings up the idea that the current Solar System with its planets was born from an earlier generation of stars ca. 4,6 billion years ago. Here is what the book reads:


Planets and the Sun were condensed from a wide rotatory gas and dust cloud. This was caused by the death of another star. After a few million years the decreasing could begin to develop into an early sun. During the subsequent million years, coal -, rock -, ice -and combinations of other materials began to form planets. (6)


It is impossible to verify the former claim. For example, animations made to illustrate the beginning of our Solar System are based more on imagination than what is actually known, because no one from this generation was there to witness these events. These animations don’t represent actual scientific observations or facts, as they merely fall into a category of assumptions, since there is nothing else to rely on. It is purely a mindset of believing that the Solar System and its planets must have formed in this manner, in the same way as someone else might believe that they were created by God. We cannot prove either one of these beliefs afterwards.

Many astronomers admit that the birth of the Solar System is a mystery. They don’t have the answers as to how it could have caused its own existence. Different composition of planets, moon and the Sun; too slow rotatory movement of the Sun; uncoherent movement of planets and moon, and some other factors remain unexplained. There are too many contradictions in the naturalistic origin theory.  


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)


Birth of life. It should be clear from reading the Bible that God is the creator of life. Creation did not last millions of years, as theistic evolutionists and regular evolutionists like to believe, instead it happened in one short moment. This Bible teaching comes apparent from the First Book of Genesis, provided we don’t distort the text in order to make it compatible with evolution theory and millions of years associated with it.

However, the birth of life poses a problem for atheistic scientists. It has been observed that life can only become from another life, and there are no exceptions to this rule. Louis Pasteur also proved that lifeless matter cannot create life. Therefore, those who believe life began by itself, believe in something that doesn’t have any scientific support. They believe miracles take place without anyone making them.

There are a few comments illustrating how the self-caused birth of life is a mystery. This self-caused notion has been adopted due to philosophical reasons, and not because of practical evidence:


Doctor George Wald, the Nobel laureate of 1967 in medicine: When it comes to the origin of life on earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or the coming about by itself (evolution). There is no third option. Coming about by itself has been proven wrong 100 years ago, but it leads us to one single option: supernatural creation. We cannot accept this on philosophical basis (because of personal reasons), and that is why we choose to believe in the impossible: that life began on its own by accident. (7)


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.  (8)


Evolution theory under inspection. When it comes to evolution, it is clear that theistic evolutionists also support it. They have adopted the same developmental idea as regular evolutionists thinking that species weren’t initially finished upon creation, but that they slowly evolved from a simple original cell towards their current complex forms. They believe this process lasted for millions of years.

However, practical evidence contradicts the molecule-to-man -theory. It does not support the idea of gradual development from a simple original cell. Instead, the evidence supports the idea that species were fully finished in creation, as suggested by the creation model.


Cambrian explosion – species complete from the beginning. When we begin to explore the evolution theory, a good starting point would be the so-called Cambrian explosion. In evolutionary literature it means that multicellular life appeared suddenly ca. 550 million years ago (according to an evolutionary timeline) and that no significant changes have taken place since. Stephen Jay Gould explains this peculiar phenomenon. He states that all main phyla of the animal kingdom were born within a few million years:


Paleontologists have known for long, and wondered that all the most important phylums in the animal kingdom Animalia appeared rapidly over a short period of time during the Cambrian period... all life, also including the ancestors of animals, stayed unicellular for 5/6 of the recent history, until about 500 million years ago evolutonary explosion caused all the phylums of the animal kindom to emerge only within a few million years...

The Cambrian explosion is one of the key events in the history of the life of multicellular animals. The more we examine this period, the more we are convinced by the evidence that it is unique and affected imperatively the course of the subsequent history of life. The anatomical basic forms then born have dominated life ever since without significant additions. (9)


Continuing on the same topic is Harry Whittington, who is a paleontologist specializing in the Cambrian fossils. During his research on Cambrian fossils, he has become dubious of the traditional evolutionary tree, in which all species originate from one and the same original cell. (One of the first and most important evolutionary trees was compiled by Ernst Haeckel. He later became infamous for fraudulent embryo drawings, which he had to admit to. Haeckel’s evolution tree has also served as a basis for later trees. His evolution tree presumed life began from initial slime Monera, which was later proven fraudulent in 1875. It appeared to be a mix of amorphous gypsum and alcohol.) In his book The Burgess Shale (p.131) in 1985 he wrote how animal species have likely had many beginnings. This view corroborates with the creation model, according to which species were initially created different from each other:


I am sceptic about drawings that depict the animal kingdom branching out diversely on a time scale, and drawings which depict a single original species at the bottom… It is possible animals have had multiple beginnings in different areas and at different times.


Even Richard Dawkins, who is well known for his atheistic beliefs, has referred to the Cambrian explosion. He admits it appears as if complex fossils appeared on the strata from nothing, and there doesn’t seem to be earlier and simpler fossils below them. However, he appeals to the lacking nature of fossil records, which is the same argument Darwin used to rely on:


Since the times of Darwin, scientists researching evolution have known that fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change. - - For example, strata from the Cambrian period from 600 million years ago are the oldest strata that contain fossils from most of the vertebrate phyla. On top of that, many of them are already quite far developed. Because there are no earlier fossils, they seem to have appeared on these strata from thin air… Regardless of their school of thought, all the evolutionists agree that in this area there is a huge gap in the fossil discoveries. (10)


What makes the Cambrian explosion so difficult for evolution? There are two reasons, which both support creation model, but not evolution. These reasons are as follows:


Complexity in the beginning. The fact that Cambrian fossils are fully complete, complex and clearly distinct and different from each other suggest they were a product of creation. These first multicellular species were not simple, nor half developed, as presumed by evolution, instead they were as complex and developed as our current species. They hardly deviate from current forms, except the ones that have gone extinct.

Furthermore, there doesn’t appear to be any simpler and earlier forms to Cambrian fossils. If evolution was true, we should be able to find those simpler forms, but so far none exists. Discoveries clearly support creation model, according to which species were complete, complex and distinct from the beginning.


Diversity on the beginning. If evolution and the evolutionary tree were accurate, in the beginning there should have been only one original cell, which progressively would have evolved into other species. Diversity should be expanding with the passing of time. The few initial species should have evolved into an array of species with time.

Cambrian explosion contradicts the former conclusion. It points towards diversity being at its highest, specifically, in the beginning, as now there seems to be far less species than before. We see more species becoming extinct, which cannot be brought back. If evolution was true, we should be heading in a completely different direction, but that is not the case. What we are seeing is more compatible with the creation model, where diversity is said to have been at its highest in the beginning. The traditional evolutionary tree cannot be accurate. A more accurate family tree would consist of hundreds or thousands of trees with their own branches. These branches would illustrate changes and variation which is possible within the limits of heredity.


No signs of gradual development in fossils. Another reason why we should be more critical towards the molecule-to-man -theory is the fact that it contradicts fossil records. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, who is perhaps the most distinguished fossil researcher, and his friend Niles Eldredge have denied that fossils carry any signs of gradual development. Even Dawkin’s latter comment stated that “fossils do not form a chain of small slightly detectable changes”.

Basically, this means that the most important evidence for evolution is missing from our past. If fossils don’t carry signs of gradual development, evolution simply cannot be true. This will not change no matter how much time has been involved. The evidence favors the notion, where species have been different from the beginning, as stated in the creation model:


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. (...) (11)


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. (12)


Even Darwin stated that the fossil records of his time didn’t support his theory. That is why he appealed to the poorness of fossil records:


People who believe that the story told by geology is somewhat complete will probably reject my theory without a second thought. (13).


But as according to our theory there must have been countless amounts of transitional forms, why don’t we find countless amounts of permineralized transitional forms from the crust of the earth? - - I believe the reason for the lack of transitional form is that geological chronicles are much more imperfect than commonly presumed. (14)


But I could never have even imagined how weak is the evidence given by even the best preserved geological layers. The lack of innumerable intermediate forms between species that should have been living during the early and later stages of each formation has put my theory to a major test. (15)


The subsequent comments will follow up on the topic. Museums have millions of fossils, but based on them, it is impossible to detect any gradual development from one species to another. If we look at the evidence as it is, it supports the idea that species were complete in creation and distinct from each other. Isn’t this what the Bible says about Genesis:


Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum: In this whole museum, there is not even the smallest thing that would prove the origin of species from intermediate forms. The theory of evolution is not based on observations and facts. As comes to speaking about the age of the human race, the situation is the same. This museum is full of evidence showing how mindless these theories are. (16)


None of the officials in five large paleontological museums can present even one simple example of an organism that could be regarded as a piece of evidence of gradual evolution from one species to another. (Dr. Luther Sunderland’s summary in his book Darwin's enigma. He interviewed many representatives of natural history museums for this book and wrote to them aiming at finding out what sort of evidence they had to prove evolution. [17])


On the Origin of Species, a book by Darwin. When Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species in 1859, it not only affected the science community, but also regular people’s views of the world. Evolution theory and excessive time periods it entails became more commonly accepted and they slowly became the scientific norm. People began to believe that life evolved from a simple original cell into our current complex forms, and that the development process has lasted for millions of years.

Darwin’s book On the Origin of Species provided the basis for today’s evolutionary theory. Without this book evolution theory would have never become as accepted as it is today.

Oddly enough, Darwin did not provide any examples of real species transformations in his book. The book that was specifically meant to explain the origin of species (from simple to complex) does not provide this information. Granted, Darwin was a precise observer; he brought up great examples of variation within basic kinds, but he couldn’t prove species transforming into other species. He had to acknowledge his lack of direct evidence:

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. (18)


The following comments will continue on the topic. They show how Darwin didn’t have evidence for intermediate forms. His examples were only limited to variation within basic kinds, which is a completely different concept to all current species stemming from one single original cell. The book that was supposed to explain the origin of species and provide examples of it, fails to do so.

The first comment comes from a well-known evolutionist, Jerry A. Coyne. He, too, admits that Darwin wasn’t able to present intermediate forms in his book On the Origin of Species, but that today’s paleontology (fossils) would confirm Darwin’s theory. However, Coyne partially cancels his own statement. Previous comments also show that paleontology does not support Darwin’s theory, but that they rather debunk it.


Although, Darwin could not evidence transitional forms in the Origin of Species, he would have been delighted, how the fruits of current paleontology have reinforced his theory

… What is considered fossil evidence for the significant evolutionary transition? According to evolutionary theory two species, no matter how different, stem from one species, which is their shared ancestor. This species could be called the “missing loop”. As we have seen, the possibility of finding this kind of singular ancestor from the cluster of fossils is nonexistent. There is simply too little preserved fossilized material to expect finding the common ancestors. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta / Why evolution is true, p. 60)


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.


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. (19)


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. (20)


”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)  (21)


Although, evolutionists cannot provide real evidence for species transformations in fossils or any current cases, they are still right about one thing: there is actual evidence to support evolution. The only concern is how to determine evolution. If it is used to refer to changes within basic kinds, it is agreed by everyone. It is true that species are subjected to natural selection and evolution. There are good examples of this in Darwin’s book and in other evolutionary literature. Resistance of bacteria, different colors of peppered moths and the finches of Galapagos islands often get mentioned in the literature. They all display variation within basic kinds, because these species have not changed into another species. The phenomenon we see is adaptation to different conditions, but it is not actual change of species to another.

That is why we should clearly define evolution. Does it stand for molecule-to-man -theory or does it stand for adaptation? The latter is uniformly agreed on, but the former does not have any supporting evidence.

What fascinates me is that when evolutionists try to prove the molecule-to-man -theory, they use examples of adaptation. Why is that?

Probably, because they don’t have evidence for actual species transformations, only for adaptation. Experiments lasting over one hundred years on bacteria and fruit flies and breeding of many decades have also demonstrated how there are some limits that we cannot overcome. Species don’t transform into other species, i.e., in our cases bacteria and fruit flies are still the same species. That is why we need to distinguish changes within species and adaptation from the notion that all species descend from one original form. They are two completely different phenomenon, and only one of them has convincing evidence.


We can only present presumptions on the motives that lead scientists to assume that the notion of a common ancestor is without criticism. The triumph of Darwinism undoubtedly increased scientists’ authority, and the idea of an automated process fit so well with the spirit of the time that the theory also gained a lot of support from religious leaders. In any case, scientists accepted the theory before it was rigidly tested and after that they used their authority to assure wide audiences that natural processes are enough to produce human bacteria and the chemical compounds of the bacteria. Evolution theory began to search for evidence to support itself and started to fabricate explanations to annihilate any contradictory evidence. (22)


I have been assured that there are evolutionists, who have described, how the necessary changes could have happened. When I ask, what are the books, where these descriptions can be found, I either get no response or I get referred to books that don’t have these descriptions. Everyone seems to know about the descriptions existence, but I have not yet found anyone, who would know where to find them (David Griffin, 2000, Religion And Scientific Naturalism, State University of New York Press)


Supposed intermediate forms under inspection. Eero Junkkaala says that evolutionist Jerry A. Coyne’s book served as one of the main sources for his theistic evolutionary book. The book by Coyne talks about three possible transitional forms: Lizard bird Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik Roseae and the supposed ancestors of whales. Eero Junkkaala refers to these three examples in his book:


One of the most famous of the found transitional forms is a lizard bird, a crow-sized Archaeopteryx lithographica, which was discovered in a limestone quarry in Germany as early as in 1860. It is the intermediate form between lizards and birds… The best intermediate form between fish and amphibians is a fossil discovery of Tiktaalik Roseae made in 2004. Its discovery was a sensation, because it carries clear features which can be associated with both early coelacanths and later amphibians… We have also been able to follow whales’ development from land to sea through many intermediate stages. That is, whales are not fish, but mammals that swim in the sea. (23)


Lizard bird Archaeopteryx. The lizard bird Archaeopteryx appeared first on our previous list. For example, Jerry A. Coyne mentions in his evolutionary book that: “Archaeopteryx is more of a lizard than a bird… primarily a dinosaur” (Jerry A. Coyne: Why Evolution is True, p. 68).

Many scientists specializing in birds would disagree. When the international Archaeopteryx conference was held in Eichstätt Germany in 1984, ornithologists disagreed on many facts about the Archaeopteryx. However, the conference was largely unanimous about Archaeopteryx being a bird. Only a small minority thought it was a lightly built dinosaur. That is, if it is a bird, it cannot be an intermediate form that is half reptile and half bird, as is often claimed.

What about fossil discoveries and other observations? We can say the following three things about them:


• Lizard bird cannot be the ancestor of birds, since regular birds’ remains have been found from older strata than the remains of the lizard bird. These strata have been claimed to be even “60 – 75” million years older (Beardsley, T., “Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses”, Nature, vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677). This debunks the status of the lizard bird as a special intermediate form.


• Based on fossil discoveries we have been able to determine that Archaeopteryx had exactly the same kind of feathers as modern birds do. They are just as functional. Thus, the lizard bird has an exact resemblance to our modern birds. Furthermore, scientists have not been able to find any examples of scales that would even remotely resemble feathers, not from our current nature, nor from fossil records.


 • It is presumed that the lizard bird existed on the planet long before humans. However, the following quotation refers to the coexistence of lizard birds (Archaeopteryx) and 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. (24)


Tiktaalik Roseae. We formerly mentioned the Tiktaalik Roseae, which is a fossil species that has been considered as the intermediate form between fish and amphibians.

This assumption has been proven wrong, however. Well-preserved traces of a four-legged animal were found in Poland that were 18 million years older (according to evolutionary time scale). Science magazine Nature reported the following: “They force us to radically re-evaluate the period, ecology and environment in terms of fish evolving into quadruped vertebrates… “ (25) 


Whales. What about the development of whales, which was previously referred to? Evolutionary literature often assumes that the ancestors of whales were quadruped mammals on land. Some whales are considered to have rudimentary hind legs, which has been regarded as a piece of evidence for whales’ land ancestors.

Other scientists disagree on the so-called rudimentary hind legs of whales. They see them as important supportive bones that help with reproduction and diving. The following quotation will illustrate the point: “Formerly mentioned rudimentary pelvic bone and femur of whales are associated with the attachment of muscles in reproductive organs and strong muscles in anal region. Their purpose is to prevent contents of the intestine from spilling out under great hydrostatic pressures. We cannot name these bones functionless, because without them whales could not dive properly nor reproduce.” (26)


Genealogy of humans. Eero Junkkaala also takes a stand on human genealogy in his theistic evolutionary book. He believes in the kind of evolution that states humans descend from a simple original cell, and that chimpanzees and humans share an ancestor that lived ca. 7 million years ago. He brings up Lucy, for example, and other developmental stages associated with human genealogy, the last one being the Neanderthal:


This individual, more familiarly called Ardi, was dated back 4,4 million years. It had a brain volume of around 350 cm2 … It was clearly more perfect than Lucy, which had become famous in the 1970s specifically for her perfectness… Lucy is approximately 3,2 million years old. A few years later, Mary Leakey made a discovery in the Olduvai Gorge, where she found the famous Laetoli footprints, which date back 3,6 million years… We take a huge leap forward and meet the Heidelberg man… Brain volume of the Heidelberg man was around 1200 cm2. As early as 1856, a small cave served as the discovery sight for a fossil in Germany’s Neander valley, which inspired the name Neanderthal man. (27)


Ardi. The first on our list is Ardi. Several issues plague this discovery:


• Ardi’s brains are said to be only 350 cm3, which is only a quarter of the size of modern humans’ brains. It clearly demonstrates that this is a standard ape, like a chimpanzee, for example. The difference between Ardi’s and humans’ brain size is too big for it to be an intermediate form.


•A normal person, who is not familiar with discoveries associated with presumed human genealogy, might be under the impression that these fossils are complete skeletons.

This is often not the case, however. Bones are often broken and scattered around a wide area, which might be filled with bones of other animals, as well. This is also the case with findings relating to Ardi. It was gathered from many fragile bone fragments that were far apart from each other. Nothing guarantees all these pieces belong to the same species or individual.


Finally, in 2009 it became clear that in 1994-1995 researchers had dug up large portions of fossilized bone parts and fragments, from which they were able to reconstruct the majority of an adult Ardipithecus’ bones. The problem was that almost all of the bones that were found, were shattered. The leader of the research group, Tim White, said that the fossil of the skull resembled that what is left of the bones on the remnants of a raod kill. On top of everything, the bone fragments were covered in clay, which had built up tightly all around the fragments. When trying to separate the fossils from the clay, the fossils broke down into fine dust. The researchers had to moisten and strengthen all the fossils of the bone fragments separately.

… Over 6000 fossils have been found altogether from the same place, and the fossils belong to different vertebrate species: bones, parts and fragments of bones, teeth and fragments of teeth. (28)


The found material contained 125 bone parts, which had been scoured by hand from the middle region of the river Awash. A child’s jawbone, tooth and a few other bone parts were found first (1992). Two years later one of the researchers found a part of a bone stone throw away from the location, where they had earlier found teeth from. The researchers were crawling on all fours next to each other trying to find more. Animals had messed the location by stomping on the bones and breaking them. A piece of shinbone and a shattered skull and hip fragments were found by accident from the edge of the region. Bone fragments were found on an area, which was many meters wide. Some parts were even found 1,5 km away from each other and some of them belonged to around 35 different individuals. Some of the bone parts had to be set in plaster. Otherwise they would have been too fragile to be handled with.  (29)


• Many experts disagree on the significance of Ardi. They don’t see it as a vital intermediate form, but as an ape. Esteban E. Sarmiento and Rex Dalton wrote their own views on the matter in the Science -and the Nature magazines ( and


Lucy, who we mentioned earlier, was found in a similar condition as Ardi. She was also pieced together from numerous bone fragments, and her brain size is less than a third of the brain size of modern humans. It is difficult to associate words, such as human and humane to her. She shares a closer resemblance to chimpanzees than to humans, as has been noted by many experts in the field. Considering her an intermediate form is questionable:


Evolutionist Ernst Mayr: Transition to walking on two legs was thus considered the greatest step in human evolution. However, this reasoning does not seem as convincing in light of current knowledge. Apes of the South moved around with two legs for over 2 million years, but during that time there was no apparent change in their brain size. The significance of using tools also lost its value after it was discovered chimpanzees use tools very diversely and some crows were seen capable of primitive tool usage. If we also disregard walking on two legs and some features of denture, apes of the South share most of their features with chimpanzees. More importantly, they didn’t have one typical feature associated with humans. They didn’t have large brains, they didn’t carve out tools from rocks, their sexual dimorphism was still dominant much like with apes, they had long arms and short legs, and they were small overall. Likewise, “two-leggedness” of arboreal southern apes and humans living on land was different. It seems completely appropriate to claim that, overall, apes of the South were much closer to chimpanzees than humans. (30)


The Australopithecus was only an upright walking, intelligent anthropoid, not a human. The small cranium with intense bone crests above the eyes and on top of the head is similar to that of an anthropoid ape. (31)


When comparing the skulls of a man and an anthropoid, the skull of an Australopithecus clearly more resembles the skull of an anthropoid. Claiming otherwise would be the same as asserting that black is white. (32)


Our discoveries leave hardly any doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (33)


Laetoli footprints. In his theistic evolutionary piece Eero Junkkaala mentions Laetoli’s footprints, which are frequently brought up in other writings as well. Mary Leakey’s team found tracks in Northern Tanzania in 1978 from a layer that had been estimated to be 3,6 million years old (previously mentioned Lucy was only 3,2 million years old according to evolutionary time scale). These footprints are associated with Lucy’s kind, the Australopithecus Afarensis -class.

However, it is debatable to consider that these footprints were created by a creature like Lucy. They are a closer match to modern humans’ footprint shape and size. Many researchers have come to this conclusion. The issue with this has been the period, since 3,6-million-year-old human footprints do not fit into evolutionary timetables. (This is similar to the earlier mentioned problem, where distinctively clear human footprints have been found in 250-million-year-old layers.) Russell H. Tuttle (Chicago University), who conducted a research on the footprints, reported that they share a striking resemblance to footprints of modern humans:


3,5-million-year-old footprints of Laetoli from site G look like footprints of modern humans walking on bare feet. None of Laetoli’s hominid features suggest he was an any less capable two-legged being than we are… If we didn’t know the footprints in site G were that old, we might assume they were made by modern humans. (34)


Heidelberg and Neanderthal men come up next in our earlier list. Evolutionists often explain how they were different from the modern human, but we can be skeptical of this view due to the following reasons:


• For example, cultural findings relating to the Neanderthals are substantial enough (for example, Marvin M. Lubenow has compiled a summary of every discovery in his book Bones of Contention) to make us know it is wrong to say they were different from modern humans.


• These humans’ brain size is equal to the brain size of modern humans. There is no difference. Moreover, the rest of their anatomical structure is similar to modern humans. Consequently, some researchers have noted that if we came across a Neanderthal or a Homo Erectus on the street, we wouldn’t be able to notice a difference between them and us. That is, we see great variation in human skull shape, brain size and height even today.


Long or short time periods? Both the evolution theory and theistic evolution presume that humans appeared on earth rather late, and that before the appearance other forms of life had existed on our planet for over hundreds of millions of years. It is believed that life began from a simple original cell, which over time evolved into our current forms, such as humans. Similarly, it is thought that before all these stages there was a big bang, which got everything into motion.

Is this sequence of events accurate? We are going to investigate this next through some observations. We will begin with the abiotic world:


Abiotic world. It is believed that the abiotic world takes its origin from the Big Bang 13,8 billion years ago.

However, if the Big Bang -theory is fraudulent and lacks evidence, as stated previously, it gives us a reason to be skeptical of the universe’s age as well. It is absurd to think everything began from an empty space by itself, since there are not any practical observations to support that idea. Similarly, we can be skeptical of the idea that the world’s beginning stretches as far back as 13,8 billion years, because evidence for the Big Bang theory is rather weak.

What happens when we look at our universe and space? We could just as easily say that the universe looks only 6000-7000 years old, and not 13,8 billion years old. No one can prove this by scientific methods. We cannot determine the age of space and the universe just by looking at them. On the other hand, the older we assume they are, the more likely it is the stars and galaxies have run out of energy. The fact that we see billions of stars and galaxies shining and radiating light favors the idea that our world is young, rather than old.


• It has been estimated the earth is ca. 4,6 billion years old.

What is this estimate based on? It is based on meteorite stones, instead of, stones from earth, oldest which have been estimated to be less than 4 billion years old. As their source material, researchers used a meteorite, which was named Allende (A – yen – day). Those hundreds of samples taken from the meteorite stone varied from 4480 million to always 10400 million years, which illustrates how it is possible to receive immensely differing estimates from the same stone. In the end, a compromise was made, and our earth is now said to be 4,6 billion years old.

Interestingly enough, fairly new volcanic rocks can generate similar estimates as the oldest stones and meteorites that have been dug up. Approximately 200-year-old volcanic rocks in Hawaii serve as proof of this. The oldest of them were nearly 3 billion years old according to calculations. These kinds of numbers demonstrate how the concentration of these rocks does not directly correlate with their age. The results also make us question, how methods that can make such errors when the age is known, can be considered reliable when the age is unknown. It is absurd to rely on methods that are subject to such errors.


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”. (35)


• When it comes to the process of dating, organic samples are measured with a so-called radiocarbon method, and users of this method know that the half-life of radiocarbon is only ca. 5730 years. Whereas, dating for abiotic material, largely volcanic rocks, uses other methods.

The process of dating is made interesting by samples, in which, e.g., a tree is inside a volcanic rock, meaning they must have formed approximately at the same time. Yet, radiocarbon dating can only date the tree back to thousands of years, whereas the rock in contact with the tree might be dated back to tens or hundreds of millions of years. The following example talks about such an incident. It illustrates the conflict between these two methods:


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. (36)


Organic world. As stated above, evolutionists and supporters of theistic evolution believe life has existed on the planet for over hundreds of millions of years. Evolutionists believe that matter and energy together created life, although there are no practical observations to support this idea. Energy increase or decrease cannot do more than change the abiotic material’s state between solid, liquid and gas. This is basic chemistry. Any life is not going to emerge, when a state of material changes. God is the only one who can create life.

Despite all this, evolutionists have attempted to determine the age of life on earth. In this task they have found great assistance from the geological time chart, which was drawn up in the 19th century. In the chart earth’s history is separated into different periods. Among these periods you can find the Cambrian period ca. 500 million years ago, the Cretaceous period of dinosaurs, and the modern day, when humans appeared on the planet. However, there are many faults in this chart, which prove its fallacious nature. Above we have a few observations illustrating these faults. We will start off with dinosaurs:


Dinosaur discoveries have contained DNA, which cannot stay preserved for more thousands of years in the nature. For example, an expert in organic molecules, Tomas Lindahl, estimates that DNA can stay preserved in the nature for only 20 000 – 40 000 years (Nature, 1993, 362, 709-715). Even some old researched human mummies don’t contain DNA anymore. A good example of this is, when Svante Pääbo examined 23 mummy tissue samples from the Berlin museum in Uppsala. He was able to successfully extract DNA form only one mummy, which shows how this substance is not very lasting. (Nature 314: 644-645). The fact that DNA still exists on some dinosaur fossils proves these fossils cannot be millions of years old.


• Dinosaurs have been found to contain radiocarbon. Since the half-life of this substance is only ca. 5730 years, it is not possible there would be any left after 100 000-200 000 years. This sets certain limits as to when these creatures lived.


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. (37)

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: 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. (38)


• Why are dinosaur bones found among 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.), despite the common belief that mammals only appeared on earth long after dinosaurs?


Scientists have also been able to extract proteins, such as collagen, albumin, and osteocalcin from dinosaur remains. What is interesting is that, these substances have not always stayed preserved in current day animal fossils. For example, all collagen was already gone from a mammoth’s bone sample, which had been estimated to be 13 000 years old (Science, 1978, 200, 1275). Yet, some collagen has been successfully extracted from dinosaur fossils.


• The fact that human footprints have been found in commonly believed dinosaur strata in various parts of the globe suggests there is something off with the geological time chart. These kinds of discoveries should not exist, if the geological time chart and its millions of years were true. These discoveries indicate humans and dinosaurs used to coexist on the planet.


Many known scientific facts evoke serious doubts towards geological deformational history of rock units and towards geological periods. One such example could be the discovery of coeval traces of humans and dinosaurs in Mexico, New Mexico, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Illinois and in other areas of United States. These traces appear in a wide area and they are usually revealed after floods or after earthmoving constructions have taken place. Trustworthy paleontologists have carefully examined them and confirmed their authenticity, and they cannot be passed as fraud. Furthermore, images of dinosaurs drawn by humans have been found on the walls of caves and canyons in Arizona and the in former region of Rhodesia. (39)


• We can find a particularly interesting comment from the late fossil researcher Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that Behemoth in the Book of Job, only fits the description of a dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist he believed that the writer of Job must have gotten their knowledge from found fossils. However, this Book that is one of the oldest in the Bible clearly refers to a living animal. (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you …).

Why else would nearly all nations share mythological stories of dragons, which share a striking resemblance to dinosaurs? We cannot think it is purely a coincidence. Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola states in the following quotation how depictions of dragons resemble dinosaurs. The World Book Encyclopedia reports the same:


The varying forms of lizard-like animals seem so funny to us because many of them resemble – in a distant and often caricature-like way – modern mammals living under similar conditions. However, most dinosaurs were so very different from the modern life forms that the nearest analogues can be found in the depictions of dragons in legends. Strangely enough, the authors of the legends had naturally not studied petrifactions or even knew of them. (40)


The dragons in legends are, strangely enough, just like real animals that lived in the past. They resemble large reptiles (dinosaurs) that ruled the land long before man is supposed to have appeared. Dragons were generally regarded as bad and destructive. Each nation referred to them in their mythology. (The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, s. 265)


Human related discoveries. Supporters of evolution often believe that humans appeared on the planet rather late. However, according to their, view humans have been seemingly much longer on earth, than can be concluded from the Bible. They think humans have been here for a few million years, whereas the Bible only refers to millenniums. Another significant difference between these two views is that, according to the Bible, humans have been on earth since the first days of creation. This is not accepted by evolutionists. 

Next, we are going to look at some human related discoveries. They favor Bible description over the geological time chart, which was drawn up in the 19th century, and the millions of years that are associated with it. These findings suggest humans have been on the planet since the beginning, which was not millions of years ago:


• Earliest records. When investigating how old something is, we must always begin with secure knowledge, instead of relying on debatable information.

Human history proves out to be a certain thing. Many evolutionists would like to move this period behind hundreds of millions of years, but there is not really evidence for such lengthy history. These million-year -ideas are rather based on stories, imagination and fantasies than real evidence, because definite historical information about humans only extends as far back as 4000 – 5000 years. During this time such skills as literacy, building, agriculture, metal use, ceramics, and other cultural phenomena appeared. This all corroborates with the Book of Genesis. If evolution and millions of years are true, why don’t we have historical evidence of any earlier periods?

   The following quotations will also point this out. They discuss how sudden the emergence of civilization on the planet was. The first statement comes from the developer of radiocarbon dating, professor W.F. Libby, who said on the 3rd of March, 1961, on Science magazine (p.624), that documented history only extends as far back as around 5000 years. He spoke about the ruling generation of Egypt, and how their timed listing might contain over hundred-year-errors. (This was reported, e.g., in a TV series called ”Faaraot ja kuninkaat” [Pharaohs and kings], which was presented on Finnish television in 1996):


Arnold (my co-worker) and I were first shocked when we discovered that history only dates 5,000 years back in time. (...) We had often read about this or that culture or archaeological site being 20,000 years old. We quite quickly learned that these figures and early dates are not accurately known and that the first dynasty of Egypt is, as a matter of fact, the oldest even somehow confirmed historical date. (41)  


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. (42)


• One of the assumptions in evolutionary theory is that all life began from a simple original cell and that it slowly evolved into the complex form we have today. This leads us to think that humans have also evolved from simpler forms of life. The latest form is believed to have been human ancestors, which were presumably ape-like creatures.

However, this theory holds an inherent problem: remains that clearly belong to modern humans are repeatedly being found from layers that are older than their supposed ancestors. We are still faced with this issue, despite only using evolutionists’ period estimates and systems. Marwin L. Lubenow has thoroughly and meritoriously compiled summaries of period estimates for fossils, which have been made by other evolutionists, in his book Bones of Contention. Evolutionists don’t usually have corroborating outlines, since there are only a few outlines that exist. They often have fragmented information, which it is rather difficult to use for composing a general view of all the discoveries.

These period estimates by evolutionists show how theories of human evolution must be false:


The following facts concern human fossil records. Firstly, fossils, which cannot be outwardly distinguished from modern humans, are placed at a 4,5-million-year mark on an evolutionary scale. Based on this it appears that real humans existed before the Southern monkeys made an appearance in the fossil records.

...Based on our fossil records, we can say that the first time a human emerged, they were a complete human. This sudden appearance of our ancestors as morphological humans indicates our fossil records are in concordance with creation. This fact remains, despite efforts to organize fossils in an order according to evolutionists’ time scales (although we assume their timing to be severely incorrect). In other words, even if we accepted evolutionist periods onto fossils, the end result would not favor the notions of human evolution. The results are, in fact, unfavorable to human evolution to the extent, where they practically prove the theory wrong. This is the true nature of human fossil history. (43)


In order to clarify the matter, we are going to look at some mentions from human fossil experts. These distinguished anthropologists acknowledge that remains clearly belonging to modern humans have been found from equally old or older layers than their supposed ancestor’s remains. There are dozens of such findings, but people often refuse to accept their authenticity if they seem to have belonged to a modern human.


L.B.S. Leakey: “I have no doubt that that human remains belonging to these [Acheul and Chelles] cultures, have been found several times (...) but either they have not been identified as such or they have been rejected because they were the Homo sapiens type, and therefore they could not be regarded as old.” (L. B. S. Leakey, Adam's Ancestors, p. 230).


Arthur Keith: “If human remains were found from the older Pleistocene strata, and they proved to be modern as comes to the size and shape, they were rejected as false antiquities, regardless of their degree of fossilization. But if the remains proved to be non-modern as comes to the quality, they were accepted as genuinely old, even though they might be imperfectly fossilized.” (Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, introduction).


• Human related findings are not only limited to what has been mentioned above. For example, “300 million-year-old” coal layers have revealed a golden chain, an iron pot and other items that belonged to man. Not only that, but there have also been human fossil discoveries (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, p. 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). These kinds of discoveries place uncertainty on the geological time chart, which was compiled during the 19th century.


• Earlier we discussed how human footprints have been found in dinosaur strata in many parts of the world. These findings suggest humans and dinosaurs coexisted on the planet. Humans’ stone tools have also been discovered in the same strata as dinosaur remains.  (Michael Brandt: Vergessene Arhäologie, 2011).

However, there are some findings that suggest humans existed long before dinosaurs did. Human history must extend much further than the history of these extinct animals, extending at least 150 million years further! This is the conclusion we are driven to if we abide by the geological time chart and the millions of years it entails.

The following quotation will illustrate the point. It tells us how clear human traces have been found in “250 million-year-old” strata. These kinds of discoveries demonstrate, how the basis of our 19th century geological time chart is wrong. They also suggest that humans must have existed in the beginning of the universe:


Human-like prints on rock are a mystery to scientists. They cannot belong to a man, since they are too old – but what kind of an odd, two-footed, amphibious animal could have made them?

   What is this animal that lived 250 million years ago and walked on its hind legs that had human-like feet?

   (...) This is a mystery of science to which the answer is yet to be found. Not that science would stop trying. (...) But for now, all that has been seen are 12 footprints that peculiarly resemble those left by human feet, each 9 ½ " long and 6" wide at the widest point, where the toes spread. The prints were found in a sandstone formation about 12 miles from Berea that is known to date back to the Carboniferous period. These prints were uncovered by Dr. G. Wilbur, a professor of geology in the University of Berea, and Mr. William Finnell.

   A few men from the Kentucky mountains recently visited Professor Burroughs. They took him into their hills and showed him another place where there were many footprints. This mountain seems to have been an "old Kentucky home" for an entire family of mysterious animals, since Professor Burroughs tells that the prints varied in size from small 4½" long ones to the previously described footprints that were almost 10" long. (...)

   These footprints are extremely peculiar. They are just the right size to be human – being nine or ten inches in length – and almost the right shape. Almost anyone seeing them will at first think that they have been made by human feet and it is almost impossible to try to convince anyone to the contrary. (...)

   But even the boldest estimations regarding the appearance of man on the Earth refer to a million years – and these prints are 250 times as old. (...)

   Such is the mystery. A quarter of a billion years ago this animal, walking like a man, left footprints on the widespread sand that hardened into rock over time. Then he disappeared. And now the scientists are scratching their heads." (Science News Letter 34, 278, 1938)


Another quotation follows up on this topic. It also explains how human footprint-like traces have been found in numerous age-old strata in the United States and elsewhere (Mexico, Arizona, Illinois, New Mexico, Kentucky, and other states). Such findings indicate that the geological time chart drawn up in the 19th century is faulty.


If man (...) existed in any form as early on as in the carboniferous period, geological science is so completely wrong that all geologists should give up their jobs and take up truck driving. So, at least for the present, science rejects the tempting alternative of a man having left those footprints. (The Carboniferous Mystery, Scientific Monthly, vol. 162, Jan 1940, p.14)


• Previously, we mentioned how human fossils have even been found inside rocks and coal layers. Some other similar examples either suggest that humans have lived for tens of millions of years, or that these age-old periods actually belong to our more recent history. It is more likely that the latter is true, since no scientist believes human existence is super extended on the planet.


Bones of humans that very closely resembled the modern man were found around 55 kilometres (34 miles) southeast of Moab, Utah. They were buried around 5 metres (16 feet) below the ground level. Around 1,5 meter (five feet) of the soil on top of them was hard rock. The stratum in which the bones were found was estimated to be at least 100 million years old. Scientists of the University of Utah studied the finding.

   (...) Human and mastodon bones were found around 7 metres (23 feet) deep near Menlo Park around 45 kilometres (28 miles) south of San Francisco in a stratum that has been classified as a late Miocenic or around two to three million years old.

   Two human skeletons were found in a copper mine about 57 kilometres (35 miles) from Moab, Utah, also in a stratum classified as Cretaceous.

   Human footprints were found in Antelope Springs, Utah, in a stratum of trilobites. Trilobites were crustaceans that, according to the theory of evolution, became extinct during the Palaeozoic Permian period more than 200 million years ago.

   (...) A gold chain was found in a mineral coal stratum in Morrisville, Illinois. The stratum was classified as Carboniferous, i.e. as 300 million years old.

   (...) A slate wall with unknown but probably alphabetic writing on it was found in a mineral coal mine in Hammondsville, Ohio. It was classified as Carboniferous, i.e. as 300 million years old. (44)


Coal has also revealed different kinds of human objects. One such finding includes a bell that is approximately 15 centimeters long and it was found inside a coal layer that had been estimated to be 300 million years old.


A bronze bell (hand bell), which was about 15 cm long, was found inside mineral coal. The coal from a coal mine operating in West Virginia was also commonly used for the local residents’ heating systems. The pieces of coal that were too big for the oven were broken apart at home with a hammer. It was a huge surprise, when a bronze bell appeared from inside a block of coal. The coal layer, which the mined coal was retrieved from, has been determined to have been formed during the Carboniferous period around 300 million years ago.  (45)


• Some findings indicate trilobites and humans coexisted. It is believed trilobites became extinct as early as ca. 250 million years ago, which is long before the existence of dinosaurs. These kinds of discoveries demonstrate how trilobites, dinosaurs, humans, and other organisms categorized as fossils might have coexisted; they simply lived in different ecological zones. Sometimes we find these fossils buried in the same stratum, although they have appeared in different zones:


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. (46)


• If we only use the radiocarbon dating method, we will receive some fairly interesting results. That is, because radiocarbon can even be found in some Cambrian fossils, which evolutionists have regarded as 600 million years old. Since the half-life of radiocarbon is ca. 5600 years, there shouldn’t be any remaining after 100 000 years. Yet, we come across it in fossils of all ages:


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. (47)


However, in the 1950s-70s authorities were cautious towards the estimates from radiocarbon dating. This was due to the discovery of 14C isotope remaining almost in all of the dated samples (over 15,000 samples) that were published in the Radiocarbon magazine by the year 1970. The obtained measurements were thought to be implausible, because there were many millions of years old fossils among the samples. The fossils’ age was determined according to an index fossil –chart, which had been considered reliable.  (48)


Scientific worldview or fiction? These days it is common for people to regard themselves as wise and rational, when they abandon beliefs of creation and the existence of God. They are fonder of the idea of an accidental birth of life, which is Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and that God or any other supernatural being has never influenced our world in any way. They think believing in God is unrealistic, and that their way of thinking is more scientific. Many atheists serve as an example of this.

Theistic evolutionists can find themselves almost in the same position. Yes, they believe in the existence of God, but they might take an arrogant approach towards intelligent design and creation as a seemingly rapid and recent event. These people would rather believe in imperfect scientists and their unproved theories, than the announcement we were given in the Bible.

This is where they might be making a huge mistake, however. Scientists are as much flawed as any one of us. They eat the same food, attend the same schools when they are young, drive the same cars, read the same magazines, as the rest of us, and they also obtain biases, preconceptions and even faulty information in the same way as we do. It would be wrong of us to assume they never make mistakes and that they are completely neutral parties, because I am sure that they are not. They too have their own preconceptions and worldviews, through which they form their understanding of the world. Their preconceptions might in some cases prove to be right, but they might also make mistakes in their conclusions. We should always remember to take this into account, when dealing with flawed humans.


It is surprising how in this “era of science” so few people know what science really is and how it functions. Many think that scientists do not have biases because they impartially look for the truth in their white coats. However, there are two kinds of scientists, men and women, and they are similar to you and me. They have beliefs and biases. The biases determine what you do to scientific evidence, and it especially determines the way in which you decide that some pieces of evidence are more significant and important than others. The scientists are not impartial seekers of truth, they are not objective.

   (…) An atheist, agnostic, a person who believes in the Bible (and a theist), each have their own religious standpoint. What they do to evidence depends on their suppositions (beliefs) and religious standpoint. It is thus not a question of whether or not someone has biases. The real question is: Which of the biases is the best? -Meaning a bias that is worth to adopt as your own. (49)


Secondly, we need to consider the Bible teaching of how the enemy of our souls can deceive man. Someone might think they are considerably wise, when in reality, they might have bought into Satan’s lies. It is rather odd that theistic evolutionists don’t seem to consider this possibility. They should know the Bible in this respect, but it would appear they don’t. That is why we are going to look at some verses from the New Testament, which tell us about lies and how Satan and the wicked spirit realm misleads people.

If I dare say, theistic evolutionists have also fallen into the same trap and have been misled, because they believe in unproven theories. This might be a strong opinion, but what if it’s true?


- (Matt 13:18-19) Hear you therefore the parable of the sower.

19 When any one hears the word of the kingdom, and understands it not, then comes the wicked one, and catches away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.


- (John 8:43-45) Why do you not understand my speech? even because you cannot hear my word.

44 You are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and stayed not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

45 And because I tell you the truth, you believe me not.


- (Rom 1:19-21) 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,


- 1 (Cor 2:14) But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


- (2 Cor 4:3,4). But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine to them.


From the Bible’s perspective if we abandon our faith in God and creation, we turn to lies. People might not want to accept this, but Paul wrote about the so-called knowledge, which has been professed to swerve us away from the faith, and that in the coming days many wouldn’t accept sound teaching and rather believe the lies. Could the Big Bang, life beginning by itself and evolution be such lies Paul talked about? At least, practical evidence goes against these theories. It would seem these theories are more based on fiction than fact. Paul knew God closely and was able to predict, how many will abandon Him:


- (1 Tim 6:20,21) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to your trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with you. Amen.


- (2 Tim 4:3.4) For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.







1. van Biema, D., God vs Science: We revere faith and scientific progress, hunger for Miracles and for MRIs. But are the worldviews compatible?  Time convenes a Debate, <,9171,

1555132,00.html>, 5 November 2006.

2. G. Richard Bozarth: ”The Meaning of Evolution”, The American Atheist, September 1978, p. 19

3. Frank Zindler (Filosofian professori, New Yorkin yliopisto) väittelyssään William Graigin kanssa, Atheism vs Christianity video, Zondervan, 1996

4. Tri John Kitto kirjassa Encyclopedia of Biblical Literature, II, hakusana "Sabbath", p. 655

5. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 90

6. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 67

7. Dennis Lindsay: ”The Dinosaur Dilemma”, Christ for the Nations, vol. 35, No. 8, November, 1982, pp. 4-5, 14

8. H.S.Lipson: “A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, 1980, 31. vsk., p.138

9. Stephen Jay Gould: Hirmulisko heinäsuovassa (Dinosaur in a Haystack), p. 115,116,141

10. Richard Dawkins: Sokea kelloseppä, p. 240,241

11. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

12. Niles Eldredge (1985): “Evolutionary Tempos and Modes: A Paleontological Perspective” teoksessa Godrey (toim.) What Darwin Began: Modern Darwinian and non-Darwinian Perspectives on Evolution

13. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 457

14. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 222

15. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 446

16. Gordon Lindsay: Evolution – The Incredible Hoax, Christ for the Nations, Dallas, Texas, 1977, p. 16

17. Sit. kirjasta "Taustaa tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan", Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä, p. 19

18. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.

19. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 257

20. Rodney Stark, p. 184

21. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19

22. Philip E. Johnson: Darwin on Trial, p. 152

23. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 125

24. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

25. Niedzwieski, G., et al, Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland, Nature 463 (7277): cover and pp. 43-48, 7 January 2010

26. Siegfried Scherer, Reinhard Junker: Evoluutio kriittiinen analyysi (Evolution – Ein kritisches Lehrbuch) p. 171

27. Eero Junkkaala: Alussa Jumala loi, p. 106,107

28. Juha Valste: Ihmislajin synty, p. 87-89

29. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 156

30. Ernst Mayr: Evoluutio (What evolution is), p. 371

31. Robert L. Lehrman: The Long Road to Man, 1961, p. 115

32. Journal of the royal college of surgeons of Edinburgh, tammikuu 1966, p. 93 - cit from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. wit. p. 93,94.

33. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 - cit. from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", Jeh. wit. p. 94.

34. Russell H. Tuttle: The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet, Natural History (maaliskuu 1990); 64

35. Kimmo Pälikkö ja Markku Särelä: Taustaa, tekijänoikeudesta maailmaan, p. 102

36. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34



38. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146

39. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 24

40. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366

41. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624 - Sit. kirjasta: Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. wit.

42. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28. Sit. kirjasta Onko ihminen kehityksen vai luomisen tulos, Jeh. wit.

43. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 286

44. Uuras Saarnivaara: Voiko Raamattuun luottaa, p. 175-177

45. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 3, Alusta viimeiseen aikaan, p. 23

46. Scott M. Huse: Evoluution romahdus, p. 25

47. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 92,192

48. Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 194

49. Ken Ham: Valhe, evoluutio, The Lie: Evolution, p. 27,28

















Jesus is the way, the truth and the life





Grap to eternal life!