Nature

Main page | Jari's writings

Fictional history – why millions of years are not true?

 

 

Everyone knows what fairytales are. They are fictional stories that are usually made entertaining for children, perhaps packed with a lesson. Fairytales might be about real people or about fictional beings and their adventures. Yet, children almost always know that these tales are not real, nor representative of true history, and that they are mere fiction. Children know that these fairytales are not to be taken seriously, because they never happened in real life to begin with.

This leads us to discuss another topic, which is time periods. Many have a genuine belief in millions and billions of years (as did I, when I was an atheist). Some think that the universe, the Solar System and our earth have existed for billions of years and that there has been life on the planet for billions of years. Similarly, they believe that science has proven the million-year evolution of an original cell to our current forms. That is why they think a girl’s kiss, which turns a frog into a prince in an instant, is a fairytale. However, the same phenomenon becomes their reality if enough time is added, say 300 million years, because that is the time it is believed to have taken for a frog to evolve into a human. This is the view of traditional evolution, at least.

But what is the reality of this assumption? What if these millions and billions of years are just as fictional as children’s’ fairytales? What if the current evolutionary view of the world’s history is purely imaginary? People these days might find this idea preposterous and ridiculous, but we should keep in mind the sheer amount of practical evidence that counter these million-year time periods. We should also remember that the notion of a billion-year-old world is a relatively new concept. It only became commonplace in the 19th century, after Darwin had established his theory. Previously, it was generally considered evident that the world’s history only extends a few millennia back.

Therefore, the aim of this text is to familiarize ourselves with the concept of long time periods, and whether they should be categorized as fiction. Firstly, we’ll look at what scientists really know and what they don’t know.

 

WHAT DON’T THE SCIENTISTS KNOW? It is generally thought that scientists have answers to everything, and nothing is unclear to them. This might be true in some fields, like laboratory experimentation, but there is an area where they struggle: explaining the beginning of the universe and life. Many are under the impression that scientists are well informed and know everything about these phenomena, and scientists themselves might present confident solutions in their works, but in reality, they know far less. They don’t hold real answers to these questions, because none of them can see the past and how things really were.

Some renowned scientists have been honest, however. They are aware of their lack of knowledge and have admitted it. They know they don’t have a specific explanation as to how the universe, galaxies, stars, the Solar System and life came about, or proof for species transformations. In other words, these are the most essential questions regarding the history of the universe and life.

Why should we concern ourselves with these questions, when discussing the accuracy of millions of years? Because, if the former theories are false, we should also question the time periods that are associated with them, such as: the universe exerting itself into existence 13,8 billion years ago, the formation of the Solar System 4,5 billion years ago, life coming about by itself 3-4 billion years ago, the Cambrian period taking place ca. 550 million years ago, dinosaur era more than 65 million years ago, etc. If these events – and especially their self-caused existence – never happened, we have reason to doubt the years that have been assigned to them. We should not be too quick to accept such notions.

Hence the question, what do the scientists know and what don’t they know. We are going to look at some important areas below.

 

Scientists don’t know how the universe began. When it comes to the universe, scientists generally recognize that it has had a beginning. This is their conclusion based on the second law of thermodynamics. They are aware that the universe is headed towards a heat death – a state, in which all thermal differences disappear, and the amount of usable energy is diminished to the extent it no longer exists. This diminishing energy can be compared to a campfire and the wood burning out. Once the wood has burned out, it can no longer be reburned – it is now unusable.

From the decreasing amount of usable energy, we can conclude that there was a point in time in the past, when everything was set in motion. There was a moment, when a clock that runs towards an imminent heat death, went off; the moment everything began. Otherwise, we would have to abandon the second law of thermodynamics.

The following quotations also illustrate the point. These heat theories force us to believe the world was created at one point in time, or, alternatively that the laws of nature were different in the past:

 

Arthur Eddington (an English astrophysicist in the 1930’s): When we go back in time, we will come to a more and more organised world. Finally, we will come to a moment where all materials and energy are as organised as can be. We cannot go beyond this point. We have come to a point in time and space that cannot be crossed, and that can only be described by the word "beginning" (...) To me, it is completely natural to accept the conclusion that the current natural science offers for the future – the heat death of the universe. (1)

 

William Jevons (an English philosopher in the 1870s): We cannot trace the heat history of the universe too far into the past. At some point, we will get impossible results referring to such heat distributions, which cannot, according to the laws of nature, come from any preceding distribution. (...) The theory concerning heat forces us either to believe that the world has been created at a certain moment, or that the laws of nature have been different at an earlier point in time.  (2)

 

Given that the universe must have a beginning, have scientists figured out how it happened? In truth, some of them might think they have, but the fact is, it is still a mystery. It remains a mystery, because no one was there to witness the beginning. People might draw conclusions afterwards and come up with possible explanations, but no one holds any absolute information about the onset of our world.

Scientists’ disagreement on how the world came about is an indicator itself that they don’t know the truth. Standard theory for the beginning is currently the Big Bang theory, but some scientists are strongly against it, because they see it as conflicting with all mathematical and scientific laws. This is also easily understandable through simple logics. That is, the assumption that everything appeared from nothingness in the Big Bang is against practical observations and science. For instance, we don’t see rocks, cliffs, street signs or any other lifeless matter emerging from emptiness. Why would the immensely larger universe be the only exception? Why would the universe have the ability to appear out of nowhere by itself, when nothing else in this world works that way? This poses an imminent conflict.

The following comments by scientists bring up this issue. They consider the Big Bang theory as contradictory to real science:

 

New data differs enough from the theory’s prediction to destroy the Big Bang-cosmology (Fred Hoyle, The Big Bang in Astronomy, 92 New Scientist 521, 522-23 / 1981)

 

As an old cosmologist, I see the current observational data repealing theories about the beginning of the universe, and also the many theories about the beginning of the Solar System. (H. Bondi, Letter, 87 New Scientist 611 / 1980)

 

There has been considerably little discussion about the possibility of the Big Bang theory… many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (nobelisti [nobelist] H. Alfven, Cosmic Plasma 125 / 1981)

 

Physicist Eric Lerner: ”Big Bang is merely an interesting tale, which is maintained for a certain reason” (Eric Lerner: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, The Big Bang Never Happened, NY: Times Books, 1991).

 

David Berlinski: ”It is pointless to argue that something comes into existence out of nothing, when any given mathematician understands this to be complete nonsense” (Ron Rosenbaum: ”Is the Big Bang Just a Big Hoax? David Berlinski Challenges Everyone.” New York Observer 7.7.1998)

 

Philosopher Roland Nash: …one does not need to be a theist (one that believes in God) to see the problem in understanding or accepting the belief that the universe came into existence without any reason and out of nowhere.

 (3)

 

What does the above mean in practice, and how does it relate to the age of the universe? In the least, it means that in the scenario of the Big Bang being untrue, we can forget and look aside the number 13,8 billion right away. This number has no significance if the initial explosion never happened. The number 13,8 billion is not based on any practical observation, and it cannot be proved by any means. We cannot build our theories of long time periods on this number.

 

Scientists don’t know how the galaxies and stars were born. There are several popular literary science works and science programs explaining with great confidence the initial stages of the universe, and along with it the formation of galaxies and stars. People are led to believe that the authors and directors of these books and shows know exactly how everything happened in the beginning.

Are their perceptions based on absolute information? They are not, because none of these scientists were there to witness the birth of celestial bodies. They only have imaginary theories about how everything might have set in motion – through million-year processes – but no one really has certain answers to these questions. The following comments illustrate the problem. The fact that the pressure of a gas makes it spread wider into space rather than making it condense is especially problematic. This makes the formation of celestial bodies impossible.

 

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)

 

Books are full of stories that feel rational, but the unfortunate truth is that we do not know, how the galaxies were born. (L. John, Cosmology Now 85, 92 / 1976)

 

It is almost certainly true that this is exactly how stars are created from the sparse condensations of gas between the stars. We can hope that the same would take place in the whole universe and thus, the formation of galaxies would begin. However, there is a huge problem here – this does not take place. (…) We need better evidence based on observations regarding how galaxies and large structures of the universe were born. At this point, it is not yet possible to make such observations regarding ordinary galaxies. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 99,109)

 

A major problem, however, is how did everything come into being? How did the gas from which galaxies were born initially accumulate to start the birth process of stars and the large cosmic cycle? (…) Therefore, we must find physical mechanisms that bring about condensations within the homogenous material of the universe. This seems quite easy but as a matter of fact leads to problems of a very profound nature. (Malcolm S. Longair, Räjähtävä maailmankaikkeus / The Origins of Our Universe, p. 93)

 

 

“Not all nebulas in the Milky Way can constantly form stars all the time. Most times the nebula is puzzled by, what it needs to do next. Actually, it is the astrophysicists, who are puzzled here. We know that the nebula would want to implode due to its own weight to form one or more stars. But the rotation of the nebula and the vortical movement inside the nebula are fighting against this faith. So does also the normal pressure of gas, which we read about in our chemistry class in high school. Magnetic fields of the galaxies are also fighting against imploding: they infiltrate a nebula and clutch onto any freely moving particles that are charged, thus restricting the chance of the nebula to counter its own gravitation. 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)

 

Scientists don’t know how the Solar System and the Earth were born. What about the formation of Solar System and Earth? These two events are plagued with the same issue as the former theories: no one has witnessed them happening. Scientists can, of course, come up with elaborate explanations and theories, but in the end all their accounts will be based on imagination instead of absolute facts. Therefore, when we see the initial stages of different planets animated on TV or read about them in science books, we need to understand that those models are merely built based on people’s imagination of how things might have happened. They have no scientific or experimental foundation. Moreover, these models leave unaccounted numerous factors that contradict these theories. The composition of planets, the Sun and the moons pose an especially difficult dilemma, which has not yet been solved. Scientists have been unable to explain, why these celestial bodies are composed of completely different elements, when they should have a common origin. Theories proposing self-caused existence have many shortcomings, as acknowledged by several renowned astronomers:

 

Firstly, we notice that the matter detaching from our Sun, is not at all capable of forming such planets that are known to us. The composition of the matter would be utterly wrong. Another thing in this contrast is that the Sun is normal [as a celestial body], but the earth is strange. The gas between stars, and most of the stars, consists of the same matter as the Sun, but not the earth. It must be understood that looking from a cosmological perspective – the room, where you are sitting right now, is made out of wrong materials. You are the rarity, a cosmological composer’s complilation. (Fred C. Hoyle, Harper’s Magazine, April 1951)

 

Even nowadays, when astrophysics has progressed enormously, many theories concerning the origin of the solar system are unsatisfactory. Scientists still disagree about the details. There is no commonly accepted theory in sight. (Jim Brooks, Näin alkoi elämä, p. 57 / Origins of Life)

 

All presented hypotheses about the origin of the solar system have serious inconsistencies. The conclusion, at the moment, seems to be that the solar system cannot exist. (H. Jeffreys, The Earth: Its Origin, History and Physical Constitution, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

 

What can be concluded from the former? If scientists don’t have any certain information about the universe’s beginning, nor galaxies, stars, the Solar System and the Earth’s origin, we have good reason to doubt notions of long time periods. These concepts don’t have strong foundation, because no one has witnessed the events of the past. Long time periods cannot be proven correct scientifically.

What happens the concrete age of space if the Big Bang and self-caused births of galaxies and stars prove out to be pure imagination? We cannot determine the age of space just by looking at it. However, it is much more likely that the universe is young rather than very old. That is, billions of stars and galaxies that are shining in space serve as indicators that the universe might be rather young. Alternatively, if the universe truly was millions or billions of years old, it would quite possibly be a much darker place, because all the stars and galaxies would have quit radiating energy by now. But the fact that they still radiate suggests we live in a young world. This cannot be directly proven, of course, but the more functioning stars we see, the more likely it is that our universe is still quite young.

What about our Sun? Some scientists have genuinely admitted that they don’t know how old it could be. They have also stated that the age of the Sun is tied to the Earth’s supposed age, and that in this regard they have turned to paleontology for answers. Below you can find a few comments by well-known astronomers regarding this issue. We cannot determine the age of the Sun and space only by looking at them:

 

Eddington: When it comes to this kind of important question, we should not only trust the astronomical arguments blindly, but should turn to other, perhaps even more convincing, evidence from sister sciences… The age of the oldest rocks have been stated to be 1200 million years… Of course the Sun must be much older than the earth and its rocks.

 

George Gamov yr. 1953: The Sun is now only 3 or 4 billion years old… why is that?... because the estimated age for earth is approximately in the same range.

 

Sun expert John Eddy: It is possible that the Sun is 4,5 billion years old. However, based on some new unforeseen conflicting results, frantic recalculations and theoretical revision, I suspect that the number (the age of the Sun and the earth) could be closer to bishop Ussher’s estimates. I don’t think that there is much observational astronomical evidence coming against this. Astrophysicists are now turning to paleontologists, when it comes to determining the age of the Solar System.

 

Scientists don’t know the Earth’s real age. It was previously stated that scientists have not been able to determine the exact age for space. There are only assumptions, but not certain knowledge. The age of the Sun also remains unknown.

How old could our planet be then? One of the major reasons why the Earth is estimated to be many billion years old, comes from radioactive measures, i.e., measures applied to rocks. These rocks have led to billion-year estimates for the Earth’s age.

Do these rocks really prove the planet to be that old? They don’t. These rocks do not come with age tags; we can only measure their concentrations, which have led to conclusions about long time periods. However, there are numerous problems with radioactive measures, some of which will be shortly looked at. Indeed, it is possible to conduct precise concentration measures, but it is questionable to associate the results with the age of the rocks.

 

Concentrations in different parts of a rock. An important remark to make is that radioactive rocks might yield different results in different parts, which means there are varying concentrations throughout the rock and several possible ages. For instance, famous Allende meteorite yielded different ages that ranged from 4480 million to 10400 million years. It seems a small area of the rock might contain a number of different concentrations. Our example also shows how unstable these radioactive measures can be. How can one part of a stone be many millions of years older than another part of the same stone? Everyone will understand the inconsistent nature of such estimates.

 

Old ages in new rocks. We can always test radioactive measures in practice. This can be done, when the real age of the rock is known. If scientists have such knowledge about the rock’s time of crystallization, they can really see whether radioactive measures produce correct results.

How have radioactive measures coped with this test? Not so well. That is, there are many cases, where newly formed rocks have yielded million -and even billion-year ages. This proves that concentrations might not have anything to do with the age. Rocks have from the beginning contained daughter elements besides parent elements, and this renders the measures so unreliable. Some examples are provided below:

 

• Measures taken after the eruption of St. Helens provide us a good example (this volcano in the state of Washington in the USA erupted in 1980). Rocks that formed during this eruption were taken to an authorized laboratory for dating purposes. What were the results? According to these measures the rocks were whoppingly 2,8 million years old! This case shows how severely wrong the results were. The sample already contained daughter elements, which means the same miscalculation might happen with other rocks. Hence, concentrations might not correlate at all with the real age.

 

• Another example looks at volcanic rocks (from Ngauruhoe mountain in New Zealand) that were known to have crystallized only 25-50 years ago as a result of a volcanic eruption. Thus, the case was confirmed by eyewitnesses.

Samples from these rocks were sent to one of the most prestigious commercial laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts) for dating. The results, which do not corroborate with practical observations made by eyewitnesses, can be seen in the following report:

 

Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.

   The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in Table 1.7 The ‘ages’ range from <0.27 to 3.5 (± 0.2) million years for rocks which were observed to have cooled from lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ‘ages’ of <0.27 or <0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. The low ‘age’ samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed (A#2 and B#2 in Table 1) did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say <0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!

   (…) We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks? (4)

 

• When it comes to human related finds, most of them are based on potassium-argon method. What this means, is that a dating procedure through the potassium-argon method is employed on a rock that is close to the fossil and based on that human fossils get assigned a certain age.

The following example shows, however, how unreliable this method can be. The first rock sample yielded a whopping age of 220 million years. Therefore, we have reason to doubt several ages of human fossils that have been estimated via this method and hence been assumed very old. Our earlier example also indicated how this dating method is prone to serious miscalculations, even by millions, in the case of newly formed rocks.

 

In theory, the potassium-argon method can be used to date younger stones, but not even this method can be used for dating fossils themselves. The ancient “1470 Man” discovered by Richard Leakey was determined to be 2.6 million years old by this method. Professor E. T. Hall, who determined the age, told that the first analysis of the stone sample gave the impossible result of 220 million years. This result was rejected, because it did not fit in with the evolution theory, and therefore another sample was analyzed. The result of the second analysis was a "suitable" 2.6 million years. The ages dated for samples of the same finding later on have varied between 290,000 and 19,500,000 years. Therefore, the potassium-argon method does not seem to be especially reliable, and neither does the way researchers of evolution interpret the results. (5)

 

• One of the most dramatic examples was witnessed in Hawaii, when concentrations of Hualalai mountain’s volcanic rocks ranged between 160 million and 3 billion years, making these results nearly one of the oldest on the planet. The problem is, however, that the eruption at Hualalai occurred between the years 1800 and 1801, which means that the rocks were truly only less than 200 years old. When such errors are possible in these kinds of measures, we cannot consider them reliable anymore. Another thing to point out is that if the rocks were only less than 200 years old, why was the age range so large according to the measures? This only goes to show how uncertain these measures can truly be. These are some of the results from Hualalai:

 

1. 160 million years

2. 791 million years

3. 960 million years

4. 1500 million years

5. 1580 million years

6. 2040 million years

7. 2470 million years

8. 2960 million years

 

When results of the same method contradict each other. The fact that supposed old volcanic rocks appear millions of years younger according to these measures than only recently crystallized rocks, is another indication proving that concentrations don’t necessarily have anything to do with age. These kinds of cases occur as well, one of which will be looked at next. It took place in the famous Grand Canyon. Samples taken from the bottom of the canyon appeared to be 270 million years younger than a newly formed lava flow. These kinds of instances show how questionable it is to associate these concentration results with age:

 

Geologist Dr. Steve Austin collected basalt from the bottom layers of Grand Canyon, from the edge of the canyon and from a spilled lava flow. According to evolutionists’ calculations the latter should be billion years younger than the basalt sampled from the bottom. Honorable laboratories analyzed the isotopes. Rubidium-strontium dating method suggested that the lava flow to be 270 million years older than the basalt samples collected from the bottom of Grand Canyon – this result is impossible. (6)

 

When methods contradict each other. Evidently, we can test these rock dating measures. This is possible because of newly formed rocks, since we know the exact time of their crystallization. The former examples show us how these methods struggle with accuracy, however. New or relatively new rocks have yielded million, and even billion, year ages, which means these dating methods are susceptible to great error.

Another means of testing these dating measures is to compare the results with other methods, especially with the radiocarbon dating. There are many interesting examples, of which the following is quite excellent. There was a tree that was dated back a few thousand years with radiocarbon method, but the rock around it was dated back 250 million years. However, the tree was inside the rock, meaning that it must have existed before the rock crystallized. The tree must be older than the crystallized rock around it. How can this be possible? The only possibility is that radioactive methods, especially the ones used on rocks, have made an error. There is no other explanation:

 

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. (7)

 

There is yet another similar instance. A tree was buried under a lava flow and the tree yielded a completely different age to the basalt around it:

 

In Australia a tree, which was found in tertiary basalt, was clearly buried inside the basalt lava flow, because it had carbonized from the heat of the lava. The tree was “dated back” around 45 000 years with radiocarbon analysis, but the basalt was “dated back” 45 million years with potassium-argon method. (8)

 

Scientists don’t know how the first life was born. Above we have only addressed the non-organic world and its age. We concluded that it is impossible to determine the age of space, and also, how unreliable rock-based dating methods can be. There are no convincing arguments to put billions of years onto our universe.

Now, it is time to talk about the organic world and discuss its age. We are often presented with a claim that life began 3-4 billion years ago in a warm pool of water or in the sea by itself.

However, there lies an issue with this concept: no one has witnessed the beginning of life. No one has seen it happen, which creates the same problem as the previously discussed naturalistic theories have. People might think the mysteries surrounding the birth of life are already solved, but there is no concrete evidence for their assuming theories: they are simply wishful thinking, rather than scientific observances.

The idea that life began by itself is also problematic from a scientific viewpoint. The practically observed rule of life is that it can only come from an already existing life, to which there doesn’t seem to be any exceptions. That is why claims about life beginning by itself go against real science and practical observations.

Many scientists have acknowledged the scale of this dilemma. They don’t have the answers to how life came about. They admit life on the planet has a had beginning, but are unable to find any solutions, because they are unwilling to recognize creation by God. Some related comments are provided below:

 

I believe that we should go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this thought is ostracized by physicists and, actually, by me as well, but we should not reject it only if empirical data supports it and we don’t like that. (H. Lipson, ” A Physicist Looks at Evolution”, Physics Bulletin, 31, 1980)

 

Scientists don’t have any evidence against the notion that life came to be as the result of creation. (Robert Jastrow: The Enchanted Loom, Mind in the Universe, 1981)

 

Experimentation of over 30 years in the field of chemistry and molecule evolution has introduced the monumental nature of the issue with the beginning of life, rather than a solution for it. Nowadays practically only these theories and experiments and them leading to dead ends is discussed or the lack of knowledge is admitted (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)

 

As we try to compile a summary of what we know about the deep history of life on Earth, the origin of life and phases of its forming which led to the biology that can be seen around us now, we have to admit that it is in the dark. We do not know how life began on this planet. We do not know exactly when it began and under what conditions. (Andy Knoll, a Professor of the University of Harvard) (9)

 

The following quotation addresses the same issue. It tells about an interview with Stanley Miller at his later age. He became famous for his experiments relating to the birth of life. J. Morgan talks about the interview:

 

He was indifferent about all suggestions about the origins of life, considering them “nonsense” or “paper chemistry”. He was so contemptuous about certain hypotheses that when I asked his opinion about them, he only shook his head, sighed deeply and sniggered – like trying to reject the madness of the human race. He admitted that scientists may never know exactly when and how life started. “We try to discuss a historical event that is clearly different from normal science”, he noted. (10)

 

What can we conclude from the former? If scientists don’t know how life began, they certainly won’t be able to tell you, when it began. They might confidently present many kinds of numbers, but these numbers have very little credibility, because they have not witnessed the birth of life. Therefore, claims about life having begun 3-4 billion years ago seem to be similar unproved claims like the Big Bang 13,8 billion years ago. We can put aside these numbers, as they cannot be proved.

 

Scientists cannot prove that life on Earth is millions or billions of years old. Earlier, we discussed abiotic things, like the space and rocks, and how we cannot directly infer their age to be many billion years. Long time periods are sheer speculation that cannot be proved.

The same issue lies with the beginning of life. If we don’t have answers to life’s beginning by itself, it is also questionable to present definite claims about long time periods. They don’t have a solid basis.

What about all different kinds of life-forms on the planet? The past times are often divided into different historical periods; first, there only existed unicellular life during the Precambrian period, then ca. 550 million years ago during the Cambrian period multicellular life appeared, after which the Carboniferous period took place, then the dinosaur era over 65 million years ago, and many other periods that are thought to have taken place. Finally, humans were the last to appear on the planet. At least, this is what is commonly explained according to the evolutionary model.

How reliable are these speculations? We can consider radiocarbon method (C-14) as a good measurement, as it is seen as one of the most important radioactive methods. It is only used to measure the ages of organic samples, whereas many other methods have been created for dating rocks and other non-organic substances.

What has been revealed by radiocarbon dating? Have they made it affirmed that life has existed on the planet for hundreds of millions of years, as proposed by evolution theory? Have millions of years been confirmed?

Frankly, quite the opposite has come to light. That is, since evolution specifically deals with the development of living creatures over a course of hundreds of millions of years, we can easily debunk their theory because of radiocarbon that is still present in fossils. Radiocarbon method is used to measure the remains of organic organisms, and the official half-life of radiocarbon is 5730 years, which is why there should not be any left after 100 000 – 200 000 years.

The fact is, however, that radiocarbon has constantly been found in fossils that have been categorized as age old, as well as in coal, oil, natural gas, the oldest life-forms of deep-sea strata (Cambrian fossils), and even in dinosaurs and diamonds. These kinds of findings would not be possible if all the above were tens and hundreds of millions of years old. Radiocarbon publication from the year 1969 investigated the results of 15 000 radiocarbon dating cases, and reported the following, e.g.:

 

- only 1146 (12%) from 9671 samples (trees, animals and humans) generated a radiocarbon age of more than 12530 years.

- in only three cases the ages were dated as “infinite”.

- some coal -, oil -and natural gas samples generated radiocarbon ages that were less than 50 000 years.

- supposed oldest life-form samples from deep-sea strata generated ages of ca. 40 000 years. (11)

 

Although there is no way of knowing precisely, when for example, the Cambrian animals or other so-called ancient species went extinct, we still have clear indicators telling us that their time of death cannot have been millions of years ago. It seems they may have died out within thousands of years, instead. Moreover, the estimated ages should be decreased, because of the Earth’s weakening magnetic field. It has been calculated to halve once in every 1400 years, and if this is true, there is no way the samples could be as old as indicated by the radiocarbon method. That is, a stronger magnetic field in the past would have decreased the formation of radiocarbon. This means that the samples already looked rather old in the past as well, because they contained less radiocarbon.

To clarify the matter, we are going to look at more related comments. They address the presence of radiocarbon in what have thought to be very ancient fossils, like dinosaurs, for instance. What is more astonishing, is that all coal samples have contained radiocarbon. This is a significant find, because coal deposits are thought to have formed a few hundred million years before the appearance of dinosaurs:

 

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. (12)

 

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. (13)

 

It is not common for fossils that are thought to be very old to get a carbon-14 dating, because they should not have any radiocarbon left. The half-life of radioactive carbon is so short that all of it has practically decayed in under 100,000 years.

In 2012 during August a group of German scientists in the convention for geophysicists reported carbon-14 dating measurements, which were made from many fossilized dinosaur bone samples. According to the measurements, the bone samples were 22,000-39,000 years old! The presentation can be seen in written form on YouTube. (19)

How were the measurements received? Two of the chairmen, who could not accept the measurements, deleted the abstract of the presentation from the conference website without mentioning it to the scientists. The measurements can be found here: http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html. This incident tells us, the impact of naturalistic paradigm. It is nearly impossible to be able to publish measurements conflicting it in the science community dictated by naturalism. It is more likely that pigs fly.  (15)

 

Fossils older than 100,000 should have too little 14C to measure, but dating laboratories consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old. For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating. Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ‘ages’. (16)

 

Scientists cannot prove transformation of species into another. Above we made an important observation in terms of life and its appearance on Earth. It became clear, how remaining radiocarbon in samples works as an indicator to their young age. They cannot be even close to being million years old, as they should be measured in thousands of years instead.

What significance does this hold for the evolution theory? It will devastate the whole theory. That is, when millions of years are essential to the evolutionary model, but radiocarbon findings suggest to only thousands of years, a million-year evolution of species simply cannot hold up anymore. Evolutionists don’t think it’s possible for evolution (from a simple original cell to current complex forms) to take place within thousands of years.

Could millions of years justify evolution? What if we could prove that the Earth has been filled with life for millions of years after all? Would it be enough to prove evolution? Most devoted evolutionists would think so, but do these claims have anything to back them up?

A good starting point is to look at fossil records, because it is our only window to the past that we can observe. Since over a hundred million fossils have already been dug up from the ground, you would think it is enough to build a convincing argument. It seems futile to claim these days that the records are lacking in evidence, as Darwin used to say in his time. Therefore, if the fossils we already have, don’t carry any signs of gradual development, we can be sure the ones that are still under ground must be the same as well.

What have the scientists been able to gather based on all this fossil material? Lack of gradual development is a crucial discovery. Animal species seem to have appeared complete in their finished form, and there is no evidence of simpler forms laying underneath them. Any intermediate forms between different species are also missing, making the fossil records more cohesive with the creation model, according to which all species were created different and distinct from the start.

To make this clearer, we are bringing up some related comments from scientists. Through them it comes apparent, how much the evolution theory is struggling in this area. It doesn’t seem to hold up, even if there would have been millions of years for it to happen:

 

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. (...) (17)

 

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. (18)

 

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. [19])

 

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. (Dr. Etheridge, world-famous curator of the British Museum) [20])

 

No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)

 

George Paulin: According to Darwin’s own explanation, transitional forms were exceedingly more numerous than the fully developed forms. The incompleteness of geological evidence should be the same in both cases. It would be a downright miracle, if all the transitional forms were perfectly missing, and the fully developed forms were largely existent. But this is exactly the case… Pieces of geological evidence have gradually led us to know many more fully developed forms than were known during Darwin’s time, but when it comes to transitional forms, they are still tabula rasa, i.e. a blank slate… It is not possible to escape from the conclusion that if development has happened from lower forms to higher forms, it had to have occured so fast that it did not leave any marks behind. But, even the fastest possible development cannot provide an explanation that would even suggest the sudden occurrence of fully developed fishes, birds and mammals around different organisms. – These facts have had a major impact on me, on a person, who has believed in evolutionary theory throughout their whole life. If anyone were to ask me after this, to which conclusion I have come to, my only response would be that I know nothing. However, I have to honestly admit that the matter being like this, the circumstances speak crucially for those, who believe in special creational acts, like our fathers did. (21)

 

When talking about actual macroevolution changes, there is practically no evidence available. Regardless of opposing claims, the mechanism of macroevolution is unknown. (...) Scientific literature of the field does not even try to seriously explain the mechanisms with which complex biological molecules, mechanisms and structures came into being. A fictive story of a possible path of evolution is usually considered sufficient proof. (22)

 

After having observed mutations in the banana flies for many years, Goldschmidt gave up hope. He complained that the changes were so hopelessly minuscule that even if a thousand mutations were to be combined in one individual, a new species would not be created. (23)

 

Ever since Darwin’s times, people have argued whether macroevolution is only an uninterrupted continuum of microevolution – as claimed by Darwin and his followers – or whether they are separate from each other, in which case separate theories would be necessary to explain macroevolution – as claimed by Darwin's opponents. According to this view, there is a clear gap between a species and the corresponding higher groups of species.

   There is no solution to this argument to this day, because there seems to be an astounding contradiction between the theory and the observations made. According to the Darwinist theory, evolution is a phenomenon of populations and thus it should be gradual and continuous. This does not refer only to microevolution but also to macroevolution and the transition stage between the two. Unfortunately, this principle contradicts the observations made. Gaps seem to be very common when studying higher groups of species or when studying individual species. Even today, we do not see the missing link between whales and land mammals, reptiles and birds, or reptiles and mammals. All the phyla are separated by a gaping gap. There seems to be a gap also between flowers and their closest relatives. These gaps are even clearer in fossils. New species appear in the fossil layers all of a sudden without any evidence of intermediate stages in between a new species and its basic form. Actually, there are only a few examples of species having evolved stage by stage (Ernst Mayer in his book Evoluutio [What Evolution Is], p. 288).

 

Austin H. Clark: Since its very beginning, the animal kingdom has been similar as the one we know now, in all its essential aspects. (...) Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. (24)

 

What about the book On the Origin of Species by Darwin? Does it not prove evolution theory? People are often mistaken, when it comes to this book. No doubt was Darwin a competent scientist, but the cases he presented do not represent species transforming into another, but rather variation between the basic kinds (beak size in birds, etc.) and adaptation. Two totally different concepts that should be distinguished from each other. That is, cases, where finches have different sized beaks or other bacteria are more resistant than others, do not make for a new species. The species in these particular cases still remain finches and bacteria. All examples provided in science literature are limited to these two phenomena: variation and adaptation.

The following quotations will further illustrate the nature of Darwin’s examples. Although, Darwin had some good observations, he could not prove species transformations. Those kinds of examples are not existent in his book On the Origin of Species, nor in other evolutionary pieces of literature. This corroborates with many front-line paleontologists denying the existence of fossilized intermediate forms.

Therefore, if we choose to look at the evidence as it is without trying to mold it fitting for evolution, it seems to confirm the message of the First Book of Genesis, according to which species have been different from each other from the beginning. Variation does occur, since the species have had a rich genetic pool to begin with, which has allowed them to adapt to different conditions. That does not, however, allow them to transform into a wholly new species, as in to form a new basic kind. Furthermore, when adaptation and variation take place, it deprives genetic potential, making the species less capable for adaptation in the future. Cheetahs and other highly specialized species serve as good examples of this. They are in the brink of extinction, because their gene pool has become so deprived.

 

Darwin: I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it (25)

 

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. (26)

 

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. (27)

 

”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)  (28)

 

Scientists cannot deny the fact that diverse life has been prevalent from the beginning. As previously discussed, the past is often categorized into different historical periods on the planet; at first there existed only unicellular life during the Precambrian period, then ca. 550 million years ago, during the Cambrian period, multicellular life appeared in ocean bottoms in the form of trilobites, for instance. After which, fish began to appear, then frogs, reptiles, birds and mammals, and eventually humans. Geological time chart is based on an assumption that different groups of species have appeared on the planet during different periods. It is not seen possible that they might have existed on the planet simultaneously from the beginning, at least, not according to traditional evolution.

Can scientists prove this view? Are there any grounds to believe different life-forms appeared on earth during different periods?

A straightforward answer would be that it cannot be proven. This will be understood by anyone, who has seen a fossil. Fossils do not come with age tags telling when they were alive. However, people can draw conclusions based on the order of burial, for example. Otherwise, it is impossible to prove significant differences between the times that species have appeared on the planet.

  

There is no man on this Earth who knows enough about rocks and fossils to be able to prove in any way that a specific type of fossil is truly essentially older or younger than another type. In other words, there is no-one who could truly prove that a trilobite from the Cambrian period is older than a dinosaur from the Cretaceous period or a mammal from the Tertiary period. Geology is anything but an exact science. (29)

 

The notion of species having appeared on the planet at different periods, i.e., over a course of millions of years, can also be debunked with these previously mentioned findings:

 

- All the oldest Cambrian species, dinosaurs, and other fossils have contained radiocarbon. Additionally, any coal that has ever been found has always contained radiocarbon. (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background materal, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989).

Therefore, the appearance of radiocarbon, and roughly the same amount of it, in the oldest considered strata and species strongly suggests they all existed simultaneously on the planet. There is no particular reason to believe species appeared on the planet staggered. Moreover, their extinction didn’t necessarily take place millions of years ago, but rather some thousand years ago.

Another reason to take a more skeptical approach towards staggered appearance of species – over the course of millions of years – is fossils. Earlier we brought up how many front-line paleontologists have admitted that fossils don’t carry signs of gradual development. If there is no gradual development, what evidence is there for evolution, and how can we then prove evolution of the original cell into humans during a hundred-million-year process? It is much more rational to believe species have coexisted on the planet from the beginning. It is also the view of the creation model.

Why are the so-called Cambrian trilobites (seabed organisms) dinosaurs and humans rarely found within the same strata? Evolutionists claim that they lived at different periods, but there is a much more logical explanation: ecological niches – like today we have different ecological niches with their own specific species (sea-, marshland-, highland-, and mountains with their own typical animals and plants). That is, because trilobites live at the bottom of the sea, humans and dinosaurs could never live in the same environment. It is impossible for humans and dry land animals to live under the sea. Similarly, humans and dinosaurs unlikely shared the same niche, since humans today also often reside far away from the forest life (from bears, lions, tigers...) Therefore, it seems that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why fossils are usually found in different strata: different living environments, similarly to ecological niches today. The following quotation will further explain:

 

The trilobites of the Cambrian period are usually not found together with the dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period. Why is this? According to the theory of evolution, this is due to the fact that the trilobites became extinct millions of years before the dinosaurs developed. However, there is a much more plausible explanation: if trilobites and dinosaurs lived nowadays, it is not likely that they could be found in the same place. This is because they would live in different ecological zones. The dinosaurs are land animals, while the trilobites are inhabitants of the sea bed. (…) Therefore, there is no reason to reject the idea that all life forms buried in the strata lived almost at the same time but in different ecological zones. Catastrophism could be the explanation for the entire geological stratigraphic sequence, just as the founders of geology supposed. (30)

 

Scientists cannot prove that strata were formed over a-million-year-course. Evolutionists have long thought that layers on the earth’s crust have formed during a ten- and a hundred-million-year process. This notion was brought up, e.g., by Charles Lyell in 1830 in his publication Principles of Geology, on which, for example, Charles Darwin based his theory.

Can evolutionists prove these notions? Are there any grounds to believe that the majority of earth’s strata have been forming for over millions of years?

There is a far better explanation for the formation of strata, which is catastrophism. It would explain dinosaur- and

other fossils, because fossils can only be caused by a rapid burial. We are dealing with weeks and days, instead of millions of years. It is the only way fossils can be formed. And strata also contain fossilized trees, which can penetrate through more than ten layers. The only way these tree fossils might have come about, is that layers of soil have rapidly piled on top of a tree.

What does the rapid formation of fossils indicate? The most fitting explanation would be a sudden catastrophe, which would account for the rapid formation of strata and fossils inside them. This could all take place, e.g., during a strong flood. Interestingly, several researchers have begun to accept our catastrophic past, and no longer think that everything has occurred at a steady pace for millions of years. Evidence favors catastrophes, rather than a very slow process. Famous atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould refers to Lyell’s research:

 

Charles Lyell was a lawyer… [and he] relied on two subtle tricks to regularise his uniformitarian views as the only correct geology. Firstly, he used the straw man fallacy… In fact, the supporters of catastrophism were a lot more experimentally oriented than Lyell. Geological evidence seems to really necessitate cataclysms: cliffs are fragmented and bent; entire groups of different organism types have been wiped out. To bypass this literal manifestation, Lyell replaced the evidence with his imagination. Secondly, Lyell’s ‘uniformity’ is a jumble of claims…

… Lyell was not a virtuous knight of truthful field work, but rather one, who deliberately spread a fascinating and extraordinary theory, which was anchored to a notion of stable state in the circulation of time. With his eloquence he tried to identify his parasitic theory with rationality and sincerity. (31)

 

As stated, the most likely option for the rapid formation of strata would be a flood-like catastrophe. What is explained by millions of years, or by many catastrophes in the geological time chart, could be explained by one catastrophe only: the Flood. It would account for the destruction of dinosaurs, the existence of fossils, and many other distinct features in our soils. It would also strengthen the findings of radiocarbon dating, which has suggested many species’ extinction to have taken place some thousand years ago, rather than millions of years ago.

A good reason to consider the Flood as the sole cause of the catastrophe, is the fact that oceanic sediments appear common all around the world, as can be seen from the following quotations. The first comment comes from a 200-year-old book by James Hutton, who has often been referred to as the father of geology:

 

We have to conclude that all the layers of earth (...) were formed by sand and gravel that piled up on the seabed, crustacean shells and coral matter, soil and clay. (J. Hutton, The Theory of the Earth l, 26. 1785)

 

J.S. Shelton: On mainland, oceanic sediment rock foundations are far more common and wider than all the other sediment rock foundations combined. This is one of the simple facts that requires explanation, as it is in the core of everything that is associated with humans’ continuous efforts to understand the changing geography of the geological past. (32)

 

Coal deposits serve as another indication of the Flood, as they are known to have layered under water. Furthermore, the appearance of marine fossils and fish suggest these deposits cannot be the result of a slow peat formation process on a bog. Instead, it is more likely that water has carried plants to wherever coal deposits were formed. The force of water has torn plants and trees from the ground, piled them in certain places, and also mixed marine animals with terrestrial plants. This kind of phenomenon can only be caused by a strong flood, like the one from the Bible.

 

When forests were for some reason buried in silt, mineral coal strata were generated. Our current machine culture is partially based on these strata. (Mattila Rauno, Teuvo Nyberg & Olavi Vestelin, Koulun biologia 9, p. 91)

 

Under and above the mineral coal seams there are, as has been said, regular layers of clay stone, and from their structure we can see that they have been stratified from water. (33)

 

The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that mineral coal was generated quickly when large forests were destroyed, layered and then quickly buried. There are huge lignite strata in Yallourn, Victoria (Australia) that contain plenty of pine tree trunks – trees that do not currently grow on marsh land.

   The sorted, thick strata that contain up to 50% of pure pollen and that are spread over a huge area clearly prove that the lignite strata were formed by water.  (34)

 

Children are taught at school that mineral coal is slowly generated from peat even though such generation cannot be seen anywhere in the modern world. With evidence such as the extensive mineral coal fields, the different types of plants and the multilayered tree trunks in upright position, it seems that the mineral coal strata have been generated from huge drifting masses of plants during a very large flood. Plenty of burrows made by marine life forms can also be found inside these carbonized plant fossils. Fossils of marine animals have also been found in mineral coal strata (“A note on the Occurrence of Marine Animal Remains in a Lancashire Carbon Ball”, Geological Magazine, 118:307,1981) (...) Major strata of marine animal shells and fossils of the sea creature Spirorbis have also been found in the mineral coal strata. (Weir, J., ”Recent Studies of Shells of the Carbon Measures”, Science Progress, 38:445, 1950). (35) 

 

Prof. Price presents cases where 50- to100 mineral coal layers are one top of each other and between them there are layers including fossils from deep sea. He deems this piece of evidence so strong and convincing that he has never tried to explain these facts on grounds of Lyell’s uniformity theory. (36)

 

Also, the appearance of marine fossils high up in mountain ranges, like in the Himalayas, the Alps, and in Andes, further indicates the occurrence of the Flood.

 

While travelling on the Beagle Darwin himself found fossilized seashells from high up on the Andean Mountains. It shows that, what is now a mountain was once under water. (Jerry A. Coyne: Miksi evoluutio on totta [Why evolution is true], p. 127)

 

There is reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in the mountain ranges. It is best seen in the Alps, in the lime Alps of the northern, so-called Helvetian zone. Limestone is the main rock material. If we were to scale the steep slopes of some mountain or peak – if we had the energy to climb up there – we would find fossilized remains of marine creatures. They are often badly damaged, but it is possible to find recognizable pieces. All those fossils are lime shells or skeletons of sea creatures. Among them are spiral twisted ammonites and many bivalves. (…) The reader might wonder at this point what it means that mountain ranges hold so many sediments, which can also be found stratified in the bottom of the sea. (p. 236,237 "Muuttuva maa", Pentti Eskola)

 

Harutaka Sakai from the Japanese University in Kyushu has for many years researched these marine fossils in the Himalayan Mountains. He and his group have listed a whole aquarium from the Mesozoic period. Tender sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, were found on cliffs over three kilometres above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals, and plankton fossils are found in the rocks of the mountains. (…)

   At an altitude of two kilometres above sea level, the geologists found markings the sea had made. There was a wavelike rock surface, similar to that which is formed by waves on sand in low water. Yellow stripes of limestone have been found even on the peak of Mount Everest, formed from innumerable remains of marine creatures under water. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)

 

We can also count flood stories as proof of the Flood, as there are nearly 500 of them according to some estimates. The commonality of these stories around the world is one of the strongest evidences we have of the Flood:

 

Around 500 cultures – including indigenous peoples of Greece, China, Peru and North America – are known in the world where the legends and myths describe a compelling story of a large flood that changed the history of the tribe. In many stories, only a few people survived the flood, just like in the case of Noah. Many of the peoples considered the flood to have been caused by gods who, for one reason or another, got bored with the human kind. Perhaps the people were corrupt, like in Noah’s times and in a legend by the Native American Hopi tribe of North America, or perhaps there were too many and too noisy people, like in the Gilgamesh epic. (37)

 

Lenormant made the following statement in Beginning of History:

“We are able to prove that the story of the Flood is part of the universal traditions in all branches of the human family, and anything that is such definite and uniform in the tradition can surely not be considered an imaginary tale. It must be the memory of a true and terrifying event, an event that made such a huge impact on the first of the human race that even their descendents have not forgotten it.” (38)

 

Peoples of different races have different heritage stories about the enormous flood catastrophe. The Greeks have told a story about the Flood, and it is centered around a character named Deukalion; even long before Columbus, the Native Americans had their own stories, which had kept alive the memory of a great flood; Tales about a flood have been moved on from generation to generation up until this day also in Australia, India, Polynesia, Tibet, Kašmir and Lithuania. Are they all just tales and stories? Are they all made up? It is presumable that they all describe the same great catastrophe.  (39)

 

Scientists cannot prove that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago. If we had to name a group of animals that are most linked with millions of years, dinosaurs would be first on that list. General view is that these monumental animals (Size is relative. Modern blue whale can weigh twice as much as the heaviest dinosaurs.) dominated the planet for over 100 million years, until they went extinct 65 million years ago. This notion is frequently highlighted in evolutionary literature and in television programs, which is why the idea that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, is so ingrained people’s minds. It is not seen as possible that these large animals could be a thing of our recent past and that they could have even coexisted with humans.

Can scientists prove this million-year notion? Can they prove that dinosaurs lived on the planet more than 65 million years ago?

Here is a straightforward answer: they cannot prove any of this. Moreover, many important factors are often forgotten in this area, like the problems with geological time chart. Since the extinction of dinosaurs and some other animals is determined according to the 19th century geological time chart, it can be cancelled for reasons, such as:

 

• As stated earlier, radiocarbon can be found in Cambrian animals, dinosaurs, and in other life-forms, which have been thought to be ancient. Also, such coal has not been found, which would not have contained radiocarbon. (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background materal, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989). This brings strata and long held ancient life-forms closer to us on our timeline.

Moreover, there lies another issue for evolutionists: there won’t be enough time left for their supposed evolutionary processes. Time in itself does not enable anything, as some scientists might mistakenly believe. However, if the world has only existed for thousands of years, there is no room for million-year-processes and for the geological time chart anymore.

 

• The geological time chart is based on evolutionary notions. The basic assumption is that all current life-forms have evolved from a common original cell for millions of years. As a result, we should be able to detect gradual development from simple to more complex forms in fossils. But as we have stated time and time again; many front-line paleontologists have admitted the absence of gradual development in fossils. It has never been detected. Even the famous atheist, Richard Dawkins, has admitted in his book The Blind Watchmaker (p.240,241) the same: “From the time of Darwin, evolutionist researchers have known that fossils set in chronological order do not form a series of slightly noticeable changes.”

Therefore, if gradual development never took place, our geological time chart cannot be accurate either. There is no reason to believe that all current species stem from the same original cell and that they have evolved for millions of years. It seems far more likely that all species coexisted on the planet, as suggested by the creation model. Several species, like dinosaurs, have gone extinct since. Many species still go extinct even today.

 

• Earlier we noted how fossils don’t have age tags stating their time of extinction. This also applies to dinosaur. However, we can still make some conclusions based on their fossils. The problem is that many scientists are stuck to the 19th century geological time chart and thus fail to properly examine fossils. Fossils offer us plenty of information if we refrain from looking at them through evolutionary glasses and through a million-year-perspective:

 

We mentioned previously, how dinosaur fossils contain radiocarbon, which means it is impossible that they lived millions of years ago. This would allow their existence to stretch back thousands of years only. Radiocarbon dating was still unknown, when the geological time chart was drawn up, but today we have access to this helpful tool. Therefore, we have good grounds to discard the old geological time chart, because it does not corroborate with the fossils at all.

 

• Dinosaurs have also been found to contain DNA. These kinds of discoveries have been made since the 1990s. What does this mean? DNA cannot stay preserved for too long in the nature. For instance, DNA has often already decayed from old mummies and mammoth remains. Yle news reported in their science section a few years back that DNA will decay after 521 years (news about half-life was reported in an article called DNA:n säilyvyyden takaraja selvisi – haaveet dinosaurusten kloonaamisesta raukesivat [the limit for DNA’s preservation revealed – aspiration to clone dinosaurs falls through]; yle.fi > Uutiset > Tiede, 13/10/2012). Hence, preserved DNA in dinosaur fossils, like radiocarbon, which official half-life is only 5730 years, indicates that these fossils must be thousands of years old, at most.

 

• Evolutionists’ problem seems to be their reluctancy to look at things from any other perspective than an evolutionary one with millions of years. They are not conducting direct examinations on the fossils and making conclusions based on the results, which causes problems.

Fossils have plenty of clear signs indicating they cannot be millions of years old. Radiocarbon and DNA are just a few of many examples. Moreover, fossils tend to be in fairly pristine condition. They might contain muscles, soft tissue, skin, and even blood cells still containing their nucleus. They might even emit a rotting smell. Evolutionist researcher Jack Horner stated that “every bone in Hell Creek smells”, when referring to a rich dinosaur fossil discovery site. How could these bones smell so vibrantly after millions of years? If they really were this ancient, they probably would have lost all traces of smell by now.

The following quotations address this issue. We are talking about proteins that should not stay preserved for too many millennia. Yet, we come across them in dinosaur fossils. It is about time researchers abandon their geological time chart and begin drawing conclusions straight from the fossils.

 

On the other hand, it is known that biomolecules cannot be preserved over 100,000 years (Bada, J et al. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 354, [1379]).This is the finding of empirical science. The biomolecule of animal tissue is collagen, which is a typical structural protein, and it can usually be segregated from fossils. It is known that this protein in question decays quickly from bones, and you can detect its remains only after 30,000 years, excluding very dry special circumstances. It undoubtedly rains occasionally in the Hell Creek region. Thus, collagen should not be found from a “68 million” year-old bone, which has been laying around in the soil. (40)

 

If the observations regarding proteins, such as albumin, collagen, osteocalcin, and DNA, that have been separated from dinosaur bones are true – and we have no reason to doubt the researchers' carefulness – the bones must (based on these results) date back to 40,000- to 50,000 years at most, as this is the highest possible preserving time in nature for such materials. (41)

 

• We all know that evolutionists deny the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs on the planet. However, these researchers overlook several findings that would prove them wrong. These kinds of findings include, e.g., dinosaur-looking old paintings and statues. All around the world they share nearly identical details of anatomy. Images of dinosaurs have been captured, e.g., in shields (Sutton Hoo) and in decorative wall ornaments in churches (e.g. SS Mary and Hardulph, England). Ancient Babylonian city Isthar holds a gate that depicts not only bulls and lions, but also dragons. Early Mesopotamian cylinder seals depict hugging dragons with long tails and necks (Moortgat, A., The art of ancient Mesopotamia, Phaidon Press, London 1969, pp. 1,9,10 and Plate A.). More dragon/dinosaur containing images can be seen here: https://www.biokemia.fi/Dinosauruslegendat.htm

Stories that are about dragons give us another example of how early human had knowledge of dinosaurs (it should be kept in mind that the term dinosaur was not coined until the 1840s by Richard Owen). These stories have gone down from generation to generation up until today within many nations around the world. Some related comments are provided below:

 

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

 

Since the beginning of noting history, dragons have appeared everywhere: in the earliest accounts of Assyria and Babylon about the development of civilization, in Jewsish history according to the Old Testament, in the old texts from China and Japan, in the mythology of the Greeks, Romans and the early Christians, in the allegories of ancient America, and in the myths of Africa and India. It is difficult to find a society that would have not included dragons in their legendary history…Aristotle, Pliny and other writers from the classical times claimed that tales about dragons were based on facts rather than imagination. (42)

 

Finnish geologist Pentti Eskola wrote decades ago about dragons’ resemblance to dinosaurs in his book Muuttuva maa [The changing world]:

 

The varying forms of lizard-like animals seem so funny to us because many of them resemble – in a distant and often caricature-like way – modern mammals living under similar conditions. However, most dinosaurs were so very different from the modern life forms that the nearest analogues can be found in the depictions of dragons in legends. Strangely enough, the authors of the legends had naturally not studied petrifactions or even knew of them. (43)

 

The Bible also contains several mentions of the name dragon (for example, Neh 2:13: And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.). Relating to this, we can find an interesting comment from the distinguished late fossil researcher Stephen Jay Gould, who was a Marxist atheist. He stated that the Behemoth creature in the Book of Job best fits the description of a dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, p. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist he assumed that the writer of Job must have seen dinosaur fossils and gathered his knowledge through them. However, the Book of Job clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40:15: Behold now behemoth, which I made with you…). 

What about the Chinese zodiac sign dragon? This centuries old sign gives us another example of how dinosaurs may have been called dragons in the past. That is, Chinese zodiac is based on 12 different animals, which are repeated in 12-year cycles. We are familiar with 11 of them even today: rat, ox, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. Yet, the twelfth animal is a dragon, which doesn’t seem to exist. Why would eleven of the animals be real, but dragon the only exception as a fairytale creature? Wouldn’t it be logical to assume it used to live simultaneously with humans, but later went extinct, like so many other animals have? It should be kept in mind that the name dinosaur was coined only in the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that dinosaurs were known as dragons.

 

Scientists cannot prove that humans appeared on the planet later than other life-forms. Now, we move on to human history. We are often taught in schools, by tv programs and by evolutionary literature that humans appeared on the planet much later than other life-forms. It is commonly assumed that the earth was full of life hundreds of millions of years before us.

Can evolutionist scientists prove this view? They cannot, since it is more a philosophical observation, rather than a scientific one. It is not scientific, because several discoveries suggest the opposite, which is that humans coexisted with life-forms that have been considered one of the earliest on the planet.

Human footprints in what have thought to have been ancient strata – strata that is considered tens or hundreds of millions of years old – give us another reason to believe humans have coexisted with the earliest life-forms from the beginning. These kinds of discoveries fit well with the words of Jesus, according to which man was created in the beginning of times (Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.):

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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. (44)

 

There are other reasons to believe in the coexistence of humans and earliest life-forms, such as findings of human objects – golden chain, iron pot, and other man-made items – inside “300-million-year-old” coal deposits. This also includes discoveries of fossilized humans (Glashouver, W.J.J., So entstand die Welt, Hänssler, 1980, pp. 115-6; Bowden, M., Ape-men-Fact or Fallacy? Sovereign Publications, 1981; Barnes, F.A., The Case of the Bones in Stone, Desert/February, 1975, p. 36-39). There have been several discoveries of similar nature. Erich A. von Frange has listed more items found inside coal in his book Time Upside Down (1981), some of which are listed below. If we interpreted these findings according to evolutionary scales, we find that humans should have existed on the planet 100 – 200 million years before dinosaurs, because the Carboniferous period is presumed to be that old. It only takes one discovery of this nature – one is enough – to cancel evolution theory and its millions of years.

 

1. a small cast iron cube

2. an iron hammer

3. an iron instrument

4. a nail

5. a bell-shaped metal box

6. a bell

7. child’s jawbone

8. a human skull

9. two human molars

10. a fossilized human foot

 

Setting aside millions of years, we should also discuss real history. Many people question the narrative of the First Book of Genesis, but other sources seem to support it. For instance, we can find mentions of the Fall, the Flood and confusion of languages in non-biblical sources. We are not going to delve into them any deeper right now, however. Instead, we are going to look at six reasons, as to why humans appeared on the planet only some thousands of years ago (like other organisms on the planet. As seen from the previous discussion, there is plenty of evidence suggesting to the coexistence of humans and earliest life-forms) and in a fully developed form. The following aspects indicate so:

 

• a seven-day week

• woman was created from man

• human history that we can be sure of, only extends back ca. 4000-5000 years

• population growth

• first humans were situated in the Middle East

• Biodiversity in the beginning 

 

Seven-day week 

 

- (Gen 2:2) 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.

 

- (Ex 20:11) 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.

 

Oddly, we all seem to have seven days in a week. It is common all around the world within different cultures. This practice is also centuries old.

What is the origin of our seven-day week? Evolutionists can hardly provide a sufficient answer, but we have an explanation in the Bible: God created everything in seven days and that is why we humans have adopted seven days in a week. This practice has been typical for nations all around the globe for centuries, which is why it must be common heritage from shared ancestors, as illustrated in the next quotation. Had God not created everything in seven days a few millennia ago, we probably would not have this practice:

 

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. (45)

 

Woman was created from man

 

- (Gen 2:20-23) 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.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man.

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

 

Moving on to the order of creation. The First Book of Genesis tells us that woman was created from man. Modern day evolutionists often find this notion ridiculous, but that it is not. That is, Miao nation in China has preserved a similar idea of the order in which humans were created. According to their tradition, woman was created after a man and from the man. This is exactly the same as in the Bible.

But the similarities don’t end just there. Miao nation’s stories include similar names as can be found in the first chapters of the Bible, such as Seth, Lamech, Noah and his sons Shem, Ham and Japhet; or they at least share a striking resemblance to these names. These kinds of similarities are a strong indicator of a shared early history of mankind. Other nations oral tradition also includes similar descriptions about the beginning. We could classify stories and heritage knowledge about the Fall, confusion of languages, the Flood and dragons into the same category.

   

On the earth he made a man from mud,

From this he created a woman.

Then patriarch Loka made a scale from stones

estimating the weight of the earth down to the bottom,

counting the mass of the orbits,

contemplated roads of the divinity, roads of God.

To patriarch Loka was born patriarch Se-teh.

To patriarch Se-teh was born son Lusu,

and Lusu had Kehlo and to him was born Lama.

To patriarch Lama was born the man Nuah.

His wife's name was ancestress Kau Po-lu-en.

Their sons were: Lo-Han, Lo-Shen and Jah-hu.

Like this the earth started to fill with tribes and families.

In creation the families and nations were formed. (46)

 

Well-known fossil researcher Richard Leakey provides a similar description in his book Origins Reconsidered, p. 322. It talks about a South American native tribe, whose old tradition refers to both, the Flood and a woman appearing from a man’s body. This would suggest that the people has had vague information about mankind’s beginning. Similar accounts can be found among other nations as well:

 

There were only a few original creatures left after the Flood. Periboriwa (the Spirit of the Moon) was one of the few that survived… The narration goes on to explain that women originally appeared in a fully finished form from a man’s body.

 

Human history that we can be certain of only extends ca. 4000-5000 years back. There is often an attempt to push long time periods onto human history, as is the case with other organisms. Media might present some discovery sights, like cave paintings, as 10-, 30-, or 50 000 years old (many cave paintings are so fine that not even many people today can reach such a level of artistry. How could our ancestors, who supposedly had just transitioned from an ape-like form, produce such fine artwork? It does not make any sense). This is what is claimed of human history.

The question is, however, are these findings based on definite information? They do not, since there is no way of confirming them. Discoveries are usually based on radiocarbon dating, but these measures can often show ages way beyond the real one, e.g., due to the weakened magnetic field of the earth (Magnetic field is calculated to halve once in every 1400 years.)

The following comments will illustrate how human history that we can be certain of only goes back a few thousand years, and not much further than that – as can be interpreted from the Bible. Any discoveries dated older than that are questionable in nature. The first statement comes from the developer of radiocarbon method, W.F. Libby, who stated in the Science magazine (3/3/1961, p.624) that documented certain history only extends about 5000 years back. He spoke about the rulers of Egypt and how their documentation might contain up to hundred-year errors (This was reported, e.g., in a three part TV series called ”Faaraot ja kuninkaat” [Pharaohs and kings], which was presented on Finnish television in December of 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. (47)  

 

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. (48)

 

Population growth neither supports the idea that human’s origin took place millions of years ago. According to calculations, the population doubles every 400 years. (Shorter times for this doubling have also been mentioned. We must also note that abortions and contraception were not possible in the past as they are nowadays.) If we use this doubling factor and assume that humans existed 16,000 years ago then our current population should be more than one trillion people (1,099,510,000,000) -- almost 200 times greater than it is, in fact. It is such a huge figure that such a population could not even exist on Earth. This also suggests that the beginning of mankind cannot be pushed too far into the past. Otherwise the surface of the Earth would have filled up with dead bodies and the present population would be many times larger.

   If we use the speed of doubling mentioned above as the basis (the population doubling every 400 years) and go back 4,000 years in time, there should have been more than 1,000 times less people than nowadays or only about 5 million people. This seems to be a plausible estimate and fits together with the idea that the first people lived on Earth only a couple of thousand years ago and that from them have come all the present people. The matter is mentioned also in Genesis (Gen. 10:32: These are the clans of Noah's sons, according to their lines of descent, within their nations. From these the nations spread out over the earth after the flood.)

Moreover, it is good to note that humans spreading form the Middle East (Gen 1:28: ”…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,..."), caused places like the Northern and Southern America and Australia to be widely inhabited only after the 1800th century, due to immigration. The earth reaching such a population number this late suggests that our origin must be closer to us than most think.

 

First humans in the Middle East. When it comes to our origin, it is often stated to be in Africa, according to evolutionary literature. Evolutionists assume that the first humans resided in Africa and began spreading from there.

But what is the real historical truth? Decades ago, it was well understood that humans originated from the Middle East, from the area of Euphrates and Tigris. Many peoples’ oral tradition suggest that first buildings were built in that area and that the worlds’ crop species originate from that area too. This is real science that also aligns with biblical history. The following quotation will explain further:

 

William Dawson assures in Modern Science that he and other prominent scientists are convinced that the Euphrates region must – from a geological perspective – have been the only place where people at first could live.

   Dr. Armstrong says the same in Nature and Revelation: “Where is the cradle of the human kind? The learned pretty much disagree on this and on the question of racial integrity. The high regions giving birth to the Euphrates and the Tigris are considered to be the cradle of the human race. This is proven by many facts, such as the fact that the traditions of almost all tribes mention this part of the world as their original home. Furthermore, all of the types of grain used as human food originate here. Geological studies also lead to the same conclusion.”  (49)

 

Diversity in the beginning. It is well-known that skills like building, ceramics, metal use, language and agriculture have been existent for a few millennia. They first appeared in the Middle East, as stated in the First Book of Genesis.

Mathematics gives us another example of how suddenly civilization has appeared on the planet. For instance, square root was already known 4000-5000 years ago. A good question is, why wasn’t it invented sooner, and why at that particular time? These kinds of historical facts go well with the narrations of Genesis: humans have been sophisticated from the beginning, and we have not been here that many thousand years. The following quotation will explain further. We will again look at mathematics:

 

The schoolboys of a small Sumerian Šadippur population center had around 2000 BC. a ‘textbook’, where Eukleides’ famous algorithm was proposed 1700 years before Eukleides even existed…

The clay ‘textbooks’ of the Šaidippur schoolboys contained the outlines of scientific data of the time similarly to encyclopedias, what forces us to thoroughly revise the scientific developmental history and also the developmental history of the human mind…

This suggests that such a level was achieved in the development of mathematics around 2000 BC., which archeologists and the history of natural sciences researchers would have never imagined possible. (50)

 

TAKE A PINHEAD IN YOUR HAND!

 

- (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.

 

Above, we discussed the ages of universe, our planet and life. We came to a conclusion that millions and billions of years are fictional concepts lacking any evidence. People believe this fiction, despite it not having proper scientific support. Numerous observations go against it.

What about the beginning of the universe? We know Big Bang is the common belief today. This theory presumes that everything began from a point smaller than a pinhead. For example, Joseph Silk explains the following in his book “Big Bang”:

 

All material that we know to be in billions of galaxies was pressed to a point the size of a pinhead. Our own Milky Way was smaller than an atom inside this pinhead.

 

Dear reader! Carefully think about this; if you take a pinhead in your hand, can you believe that it could generate talking humans, singing birds, elephants, lions, soaring eagles, tasty strawberries, bananas, tall trees, fish, oceans, and our hot burning Sun? Can you believe the pinhead in your hand could transform itself into these things, because that is exactly what is being proposed by the Big Bang theory?

Or might you realize that scientists may be wrong this time, and very wrong indeed? Perhaps, they have been consumed by false ideas and lies, like they have with millions and billions of years.

How could the smartest scientists believe in such absurd “pinhead theories”? There is a spiritual reason: Satan’s deception against mankind. Satan deceives people, in order to blind us from faith and to guide us away from God and Jesus Christ. We can see this, for example, in the following verses:

 

- (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 1:19-22) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God has showed it to them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

 

- (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.

 

Dear reader! Don’t let the lies consume you anymore, instead turn to our loving God! Confess your sins to Him and tell Him you want to surrender your whole life to Him! Do as the prodigal son in the allegory told by Jesus! When he turned to his father, his father welcomed him with open arms:

 

- (Luke 15:18-20) I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,

19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.

20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.

 

- (1 John 1:9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

 

You must understand that you also need a mediator and a savior, for your sins! Jesus is this mediator and the only way to God. When you turn to Him and welcome Him in your life as the Lord, you will receive forgiveness of sins and an eternal life:

 

- (John 5:39,40) Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And you will not come to me, that you might have life.

 

- (Acts 13:38) Be it known to you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins:

 

So, if you have turned to Jesus Christ and received Him in your life, you are a child of God and have eternal life. You have the eternal life regardless of what you feel right now. Do not base your assurance of salvation on your ever-changing emotions, but rest in the word of the Bible and on Jesus Christ, just like the anchor of a ship is never thrown inside the ship but always outside.

- (John 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

 

- (1 John 5:11-13) And this is the record, that God has given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

12 He that has the Son has life; and he that has not the Son of God has not life.

13 These things have I written to you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may believe on the name of the Son of God.

 

The prayer of salvation: Lord Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and I have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I believe that my sins have been forgiven by Your atonement work and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation You have given me. Amen.

                                                          

 

REFERENCES:

 

1. John D. Barrow : Maailmankaikkeuden alku, p. 37

2. Same, p. 36-37

3. Ronald Nash: ”Miracles and Conceptual Systems”, Douglas Geivettin & Gary Habermasin (toim.) teoksessa In Defence of Miracles (Grand Rapids, IVP, 1997), p. 122

4. Andrew A. Snelling: Radioaktiivisen iänmäärityksen epäonnistuminen, Luominen-magazine nro 3, p. 34,35, http://luominen.fi/_ajoitusmenetelmat/_radioaktiivisen-ianmaarityksen-epaonnistuminen

5. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, edited finnish by Pekka Reinikainen, p. 104,105

6. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 83

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

8. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 84

9. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. toukokuuta 2004,  sit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne

10. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley

11.  Information from: www.kreationismi.fi

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

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

14. http://creation.com/redirect.php?http://

www. youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ

15. Matti Leisola: Evoluutiouskon ihmemaassa, p.146

16. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 85

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

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

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

20. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 94

21. Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, p. 100,101

22.Kimmo Pälikkö: Taustaa 2, Kehitysopin kulisseista, p. 10,11

23. Norman Macbeth: Darwin Retried, 1971, p. 33

24. Austin H. Clark: Quarterly Review of Biology, joulukuu 1928, p. 539

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

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

27. Rodney Stark, p. 184

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

29. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, lainaus A.M Rehnwinkelin kirjasta Flood, p. 267, 278

30.  Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 173, 184

31.  Stephen Jay Gould: Catastrophes and steady state earth, Natural History, 84(2):15-16 / Ref. 6, p. 115.

32. J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated

33. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 114

34. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 11

35. Pekka Reinikainen: Unohdettu Genesis, p. 179, 224

36. Wiljam Aittala: Kaikkeuden sanoma, p. 198

37. Kalle Taipale: Levoton maapallo, p. 78

38. Toivo Seljavaara: Oliko vedenpaisumus ja Nooan arkki mahdollinen?, p. 5

39. Werner Keller: Raamattu on oikeassa, p. 29

40. Pekka Reinikainen: Darwin vai älykäs suunnitelma?, p. 88

41. Pekka Reinikainen: Dinosaurusten arvoitus ja Raamattu, p. 111

42. Francis Hitching: Arvoitukselliset tapahtumat (The World Atlas of Mysteries), p. 159

43. Pentti Eskola: Muuttuva maa, p. 366

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

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

46. E.V. Koskinen: Alusta loppuun, p. 12

47. Science, 3.3.1961, p. 624

48. P.J. Wiseman: New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis, 1949, p. 28.

49. Sidney Collett: Totuuden kirja (The Scripture of Truth), p. 175

50. The New York Times, 8.1.1950, p. 1, 28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesus is the way, the truth and the life

 

 

  

 

Grap to eternal life!