Learn how science has gone astray and what impact it has on the development of society
A non-existent cannot have any properties and nothing can
arise from it
If there was no energy, nothing could explode
If the initial state was hot and dense, it cannot explode
Big Bang does not create order
All about a small space?
The gas does not condense into celestial bodies'
A non-existent cannot have any properties and nothing can arise from it
If there was no energy, nothing could explode
If the initial state was hot and dense, it cannot explode
Big Bang does not create order
All about a small space?
The gas does not condense into celestial bodies'
1. Measurements made of stones
2. Stratification rate - slow or fast?
No one can know the age of fossils
Why didn't dinosaurs live millions of years ago?
1. The birth of life by itself has not been proven.
2. Radiocarbon disproves thoughts of long periods of time.
3. The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution.
4. No semi-developed senses and organs.
5. Fossils disprove evolution.
6. Natural selection and breeding do not create something new.
7. Mutations do not produce new information and new types of organs.
The remnants of modern man in old layers disprove evoltution
In fossils, only two groups: ordinary monkeys and modern humans
Children and family
The question of gender
Don't stay outside the kingdom of God!
According to an atheistic and naturalistic view, the universe originated from Big Bang followed by the birth of galaxies, stars, the solar system, the earth, and life by itself, and the evolution of various life forms from a simple stem cell, without God’s involvement. Atheists and naturalists are also often characterized by the fact that they consider their own views to be open-minded, impartial, and scientific. Similarly, they knock out opposing views as religious, absurd, and unscientific. I myself used to be a similar atheist who considered previous naturalistic views from the beginning of the universe to be the truth.
Naturalistic and atheistic prejudices affect everything that is done in science. Thus, the atheist scientist seeks the best naturalistic explanation for how everything was born. He seeks an explanation for how the universe was born without God, how life was born without God, or he seeks man’s supposed primitive ancestors because he believes man evolved from the most primitive animals. He concludes that when the universe and life exist, some naturalistic explanation must be found for it. Because of his worldview, he never seeks a theistic explanation because it is contrary to his worldview. He rejects the theistic view, that is, the creative work of God, even if it is the only correct explanation for the existence of the universe and life.
But but. Is the atheistic or naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe and life correct? Have the universe and life born of themselves? Personally, I understand that science in this area has been badly misled and has an impact on society as well (this will be discussed later). For the problem with naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe and life is that they cannot be proved. No one has ever observed the Big Bang, the birth of the existing celestial bodies, or the birth of life by itself. It is only a matter of the belief based on naturalism that this has happened, but scientifically these things are impossible to prove. Of course, it is true that even a special creation can neither be proved afterwards, but my argument is that it makes much more sense to believe in it than in the birth of everything itself.
Next, some areas are highlighted where I see science as badly misled, because atheist scientists are only looking for a naturalistic explanation, even if the facts point in the opposite direction.
The purpose is to raise questions to which atheist scientists should provide a scientific answer, not just an answer of their own imagination. They claim to be scientific, but are they?
The most common naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe is that it was born through Big Bang from an empty, or space, where there was nothing. Before that, there was no time, no space, no energy. This issue is well described by book titles such as Tyhjästä syntynyt (Born of the Empty) (Kari Enqvist, Jukka Maalampi) or A Universe from Nothing (Lawrence M. Krauss). The following quote also refers to the same:
There was absolutely nothing in the beginning. This is very difficult to understand… Before the initial explosion, there was not even an empty space. Space and time as well as energy and matter were created in this explosion. “Outside” the universe, there was nothing to explode. When it was born and began its vast expansion, the universe contained everything, including the entire empty space. (Jim Brooks: Näin elämä alkoi / Origin of life, pp. 9-11)
Similarly, Wikipedia describes Big Bang. According to it, there was a hot and dense state at first, until Big Bang occurred and the universe began to expand:
According to the theory, the universe arose from an extremely dense and hot state about 13.8 billion years ago in a so-called Big Bang and has been constantly expanding ever since.
But are Big Bang and the birth of the celestial bodies true in themselves? In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the following points:
A non-existent cannot have any properties and nothing can arise from it. The first contradiction can be found in the previous quotations. On the one hand, it is said that everything started from empty, i.e. from nothing, and on the other hand, it is said that the initial state was extremely hot and dense.
However, if there was nothing at the beginning, such a space cannot have any characteristics. At least it can’t be hot and dense because it doesn’t exist. And non-existence can neither have other properties simply because it does not exist.
On the other hand, if one thinks that the non-existent itself became a dense and hot state of being, or that the present universe emerged from it, that is also impossible. It is mathematically impossible because it is impossible to take anything from scratch. If zero is divided by any number, the result is always zero. David Berlinski, has commented on:
”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)
If there was no energy, nothing could explode. An earlier quote stated that there was no energy at the beginning, as well as no material.
There is another contradiction here, because the first general rule of thermodynamics says, "Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another."
In other words, if there was no energy right at the beginning, where did the energy come from because by itself it cannot arise? On the other hand, a lack of energy prevents any explosion. The explosion could never have happened.
If the initial state was hot and dense, it cannot explode. An earlier quote also referred to the fact that everything arose from an extremely dense and hot state, a state in which all the material in the universe was packed into an extremely small state. It has been compared to singularity, just like black holes.
Here, too, there is a contradiction. For when black holes are explained, they are said to be so dense that nothing of them can escape, no light, electromagnetic radiation, or anything. That is, nature is considered to have four basic forces: gravity, electromagnetic force, and strong and weak nuclear force. Gravity is considered the weakest of them, but if there is enough mass, other forces can do nothing about it. This is believed to be the case with black holes.
What can be deduced from this? If black holes are considered real, none of which can escape because of the large mass, how at the same time can an explosion be justified from an assumed initial state that should have been even denser than black holes? Atheist scientists are at odds with themselves.
An explosion does not create order. What about the explosion itself, if it could have happened in spite of everything? Does an explosion cause anything but destruction? You can try this thing. If an explosive charge is placed inside a fixed ball, for example, nothing will be created. Only the pieces from the ball spread over a radius of a few meters, but nothing else happens.
However, the entire universe is in an ordered state with beautiful galaxies, stars, planets, moons, and life. Such an intricate and functional system is not caused by any explosion, but it produces only destruction and damage.
All about a small space? As stated, the Big Bang theory assumes that everything was born of an infinitesimal state. From it should have become millions of galaxies, billions of stars, but also the sun, planets, rocks, and living things like elephants, thinking people, chirping birds, beautiful flowers, big trees, butterflies, fish and the sea around them, bananas and strawberries, and so on. All of these should have appeared from a space smaller than the pin. This is assumed in this standard theory.
This thing could be likened to someone holding a matchbox and then claiming, “When you see this matchbox with me, can you believe it will become hundreds of millions of stars, hot sun, living things like dogs, birds, elephants, trees, fish and the sea around them, good strawberries as well as beautiful flowers? Yes, you just have to believe that I am telling the truth, and that this box of matches can become all these great things! ”
How do you think if someone makes the previous statement to you? Would you consider him a little weird? However, the Big Bang theory is similarly strange. It assumes that it all started from an even smaller space than a matchbox. I think we are acting wisely if we do not believe in all these theories put forward by atheist scientists, but stick to God’s work of creation, which is clearly the best explanation for the existence of celestial bodies as well as life.
Many astronomers have also criticized the primordial explosion theory. They see it as contrary to real science:
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).
“Big Bang theory depends on a growing number of unconfirmed assumptions - things we have never observed. Inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the best known of these. Without them, there would be fatal contradictions between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the initial explosion theory.” (Eric Lerner and 33 other scientists from 10 different countries, Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448):20, 2004;www.cosmologystatement.org, accessed 1 April 2014.)
The gas does not condense into celestial bodies. The assumption is that at some point after the Big Bang, hydrogen and helium were formed, from which galaxies and stars then condensed.
Here, however, the laws of physics are again violated. In free space, the gas never condenses but only spreads deeper into space, evenly distributed. This is the basic teaching of school textbooks. Or, if an attempt is made to compress the gas, its temperature will rise and the rise in temperature will cause the gas to expand again. It prevents the birth of celestial bodies.
Fred Hoyle, who criticized the Big Bang theory and did not believe it, also stated: “Expanding matter cannot collide with anything and after sufficient expansion all action is over” (The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution - 1983).
The following comments further show that scientists have no answers to the formation of galaxies and stars. Although some popular books or TV shows repeatedly explain that these celestial bodies originated spontaneously, there is no evidence to support this. Such problems are encountered, if it is searched for only a naturalistic explanation for the existence of celestial bodies, but is rejected God’s work of creation, to which the evidence clearly points:
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)
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)
It is quite embarrassing that no one has explained the origin of them (galaxies)… Most of the astronomers and cosmologists openly admit that there is no sufficient theory for the formation of the galaxies. In other words, one of the central features of the universe is without an explanation. (W.R. Corliss: A Catalog of Astronomical Anomalies, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos, p. 184, Sourcebook Project, 1987)
The scary thing here is that if none of us knew beforehand that stars exists, the frontline research would provide many convincing reasons as to why stars could never be born.” (Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, p. 187, W.W. Norton & Company, 2007)
Abraham Loeb: “The truth is that we don’t understand the formation of stars on a fundamental level.” (Lainattu Marcus Chownin artikkelista [Cited from Marcus Chown’s article] Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26-30, 7 February 1998)
What about the birth of the solar system, that is, the sun, planets, and moons? They are supposed to be born from a single gas cloud, but it’s a guess. Scientists admit that the sun, planets, and moons have a beginning — otherwise their internal energies would have run out over time — but they have to resort to the imagination to find the reason for their birth. When they deny God’s work of creation, they are forced to look for some naturalistic explanation for the birth of these celestial bodies instead.
However, they are weak in it, e.g. because the composition of the planets, moons, and sun is completely different. How were they born from the same gas cloud if their composition are completely different? For example, some planets are made up of light elements, while others have heavier elements.
Many scholars have been honest enough to admit that current naturalistic theories of the birth of the solar system are problematic. Here are a few of their comments. These comments show how it is questionable to explain the birth of the whole inanimate world without God. There is no good basis for rewriting history in this area. It makes more sense to believe in God’s work of creation.
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)
Only the inorganic world and its origin have been discussed above. It was found that atheist scientists are unable to substantiate their own theories about the origin of the universe and celestial bodies. Their theories are contrary to physical laws and practical observations.
From this it is good to move to the organic world, that is, to deal with the living world. We are often explained by the claim that life originated on its own 3-4 billion years ago in some warm pond or ocean.
However, there is again a problem with this perception: no one has ever witnessed the birth of life. No one has been seeing it, that is, it is the same problem as with previous naturalistic theories. People may have the impression that the problem of the birth of life has been solved, but there is no concrete basis for this perception: It is a wishful thinking, not a science-based observation.
The idea of the birth of life by itself is also problematic in the scientific sense. The practical observation is that life arises only from life, and no exception has been found to this rule. Only a living cell can form the building blocks that are suitable for the emergence of new cells. Thus, when life is claimed to be born of itself, it is against real science and practical observations.
Many scientists have acknowledged the magnitude of this problem. They have no solution to the birth of life. They admit that life on earth has a beginning, but they are at a dead end because they do not acknowledge God’s work of creation. Here are some comments on the subject:
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) (1)
The following quote is also related to the topic. It tells about Stanley Miller whom was interviewed at the end of his life. He has become known for his experiments about the birth of life, which have been repeatedly presented on the pages of school and science books, but these experiments have nothing to do with the birth of life. J. Morgan has narrated an interview in which Miller saw all suggestions for the birth of life as nonsense or paper chemistry. This set of paper chemistry also included experiments done by Miller himself decades earlier:
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. (2)
Although no atheist scientist knows anything about the birth of life, they nevertheless believe it began about 4 billion years ago. It is assumed to have started with a “simple stem cell,” which, however, is difficult to prove to be true, because all current cells are very complex and contain huge amounts of information.
In any case, if we stick to the theory of evolution and millions of years, there will be other serious problems that are difficult to ignore.
One of the biggest problems is the so-called Cambrian explosion. This means that all animal structure types, i.e., main groups, including vertebrates, appeared in the Cambrian strata only in “10 million years” (540–530 million years ago on an evolutionary scale) fully completed and without precursors. For example, trilobite with complex eyes and other life forms have been found to be perfect. Stephen Jay Gould explains this remarkable event. He notes that within a few million years, all the main groups of fauna appeared:
Paleontologists have known for long, and wondered that all the most important phylums in the animal kingdom Animalia appeared rapidly over a short period of time during the Cambrian period... all life, also including the ancestors of animals, stayed unicellular for 5/6 of the recent history, until about 500 million years ago evolutonary explosion caused all the phylums of the animal kindom to emerge only within a few million years… (3)
What makes the Cambrian explosion problematic? There are three important reasons for this:
1. The first problem is that no simpler precursors can be found below the Cambrian-era strata. Even trilobites with their complex eyes, like other organisms, suddenly appear ready, complex, fully developed, and without any ancestors in the lower strata. This is strange because life is believed to have been born in the form of a simple cell 3.5 billion years before the Cambrian period. Why is there not even a single intermediate form for 3.5 billion years? This is an obvious contradiction that refutes the theory of evolution. The findings clearly support a creation model in which the species were ready, complex, and distinct from the beginning. Several paleontologists have admitted that the Cambrian explosion fits poorly with the evolutionary model:
If evolution from simple to complex is true, then the ancestors of these Cambrian, fully developed organisms should be found; but they have not been found, and scientists admit that there is little chance of finding them. Based on the facts alone, based on what has actually been found in the earth, the theory that the main groups of living things originated in a sudden event of creation is the most likely. (Harold G. Coffin, “Evolution or Creation?” Liberty, September-October 1975, p. 12)
Biologists sometimes nullify or ignore the sudden appearance of animal life characteristic of the Cambrian period and its significant composition. Recent paleontological research, however, has led to this problem of sudden reproduction of organisms becoming increasingly difficult to circumvent jok (Scientific American, August 1964, pp. 34-36)
The fact remains, as every paleontologist knows, that most species, genera, and tribes, and almost all new tribal groups appear suddenly in the fossil record, and the known, gradual, completely seamless series of transitional forms do not point their way up. (George Gaylord Simpson: The Major Features of Evolution,)
2. Another problem similar to the previous one is that after the Cambrian period, ie during the 500 million years (according to the evolutionary scale), no new main groups of animals have appeared either. According to Darwin’s theory, it all started with a single cell and new main groups of animals should appear more and more all the time, but the direction is the opposite. Now there are fewer species than before; they die extinct all the time and cannot be restored. If the evolutionary model were true, development would have to go in the opposite direction, but that is not be the case. The tree of evolution is upside down and contrary to what should be expected according to Darwin’s theory. The facts fit better with the creation model, which initially included complexity and species richness.
The following quotations further illustrate this problem, that is, how, during the 500 million years (according to the evolutionary scale), no new main groups of animals appeared after the Cambrian explosion, nor did they appear during the pre-Cambrian period (3.5 billion years).
Stephen J. Gould: Paleontologists have known for long, and wondered that all the most important phylums in the animal kingdom Animalia appeared rapidly over a short period of time during the Cambrian period... all life, also including the ancestors of animals, stayed unicellular for 5/6 of the recent history, until about 500 million years ago evolutonary explosion caused all the phylums of the animal kindom to emerge only within a few million years...
The Cambrian explosion is one of the key events in the history of the life of multicellular animals. The more we examine this period, the more we are convinced by the evidence that it is unique and affected imperatively the course of the subsequent history of life. The anatomical basic forms then born have dominated life ever since without significant additions. (4)
The discrepancies observed during the Cambrian period raise two unresolved issues. First, what evolutionary processes caused the differences between the morphology (form) of the main groups of the organism? Second, why have the morphological boundaries between infrastructures remained relatively constant over the past 500 million years? (Erwin D. Valentine J (2013) The Cambriad Explosion: The Construction of Animal Bioversity, Roberts and Company Publishers, 416 p.)
Whatever evolutionary changes took place since then, in all its diversity, it was, in principle, only a modification of the infrastructures established in the Cambrian explosion. (A Seilacher, Vendobionta als Alternative zu Vielzellern. Mitt Hamb. Zool. Mus. Inst. 89, Erg.bd.1, 9-20 / 1992, p. 19)
3. The third problem, if we stick to the scale of evolution and its timetable, is that the so-called the Cambrian explosion is believed to have occurred only “within 10 million years”. So what's so strange about this? However, it is a real dilemma for the theory of evolution, because 10 million years is an insanely small time on the scale of evolution, that is, only about 1/400 of all the time life is believed to have been on earth (about 4 billion years). So the dilemma is that all the structural types and main episodes of animals appeared within such a short period of time, but before that there are no precursors of these animals and no new forms have appeared since then. This does not fit the evolutionary model. It is the complete opposite of what one might expect.
How, then, can this matter be explained from the point of view of creation? Personally, I understand that the explosion of the Cambrian period refers to creation, that is, how everything was created right away. However, that does not mean that other organisms, such as terrestrial animals and birds, were created much later. Not so, but all animals and plants were created simultaneously and have also lived simultaneously on earth, but only in different ecological compartments (marine, marsh, terrestrial, highland zones…). Even today, humans and land mammals do not live in the same places as marine animals. Otherwise, they would drown immediately. Similarly, marine animals, including also so-called the Cambrian representatives, could not live on earth like land mammals and man live. They would die very soon.
The most important background factor in the theory of evolution is the assumption of millions of years. They do not prove the theory of evolution to be true, but evolutionists consider millions of years to be the best proof of the reliability of the theory of evolution. They think that as long as enough time is set aside, anything is possible: the birth of life and descending of all existing species from the first stem cell. That is, in a fairy tale, when a girl kisses a frog, it becomes a prince. However, if enough time is set aside, 300 million years, the same thing will become science, because in that time scientists believe the frog has become human. In this way, evolutionists give to time as if supernatural qualities.
But how is it? We look at two related areas: measurements from rocks and the rate of stratification. These are important things to inspect out in this area.
1. Measurements made of stones. One of the best evidence of millions of years is considered by evolutionists to be measurements from radioactive rocks. Based on the rocks, it has been concluded that the earth is billions of years old.
Do rocks prove the earth billions of years old? They do not prove. These stones have no tags of their age; only their concentrations can be measured and from it conclusions have been drawn of long periods of time. However, there are numerous problems with rock radioactivity measurements, a few of which are highlighted. The concentrations of stones can be accurately measured, but it is questionable to link them to the age of the stones.
Concentrations in different parts of rocks. One important observation is that different results can be obtained from different parts of radioactive rocks, i.e. different concentrations, which also means different ages. For example, several different results have been obtained from the known Allende meteorite, ranging from 4480 million to 10400 million years. Thus, in a very small area, the same body may have different concentrations. The example also shows how uncertain the radioactivity measurements are. How can one part of the same stone be billions of years older than another? Everyone understands that such a conclusion cannot be relied upon. It is uncertain to relate the concentrations of rocks to their age.
Old ages of fresh stones. In the case of methods based on radioactivity, they can be tested in practice. This really is the case if scientists know the true moment of crystallization of the stone. If they know the actual time of crystallization of the stone, radioactivity measurements should support this information.
How have radioactivity measurements survived this test? Not very well. There are several examples of how millions, even billions of years of age have been measured from fresh stones. This indicates that the concentrations of the rocks do not need to have any relation to their actual age. They have had daughter elements in addition to maternal elements from the beginning, which makes the measurements unreliable. Here are some examples:
• One example is measurements made after the eruption of St. Helens volcano - this volcano in Washington State, USA erupted in 1980. The stone from this eruption was taken to an official laboratory to determine age. What was the age of the stone? That was 2.8 million years! This shows how the age determination was badly wrong. The sample already had daughter elements, so the same is possible for other stones. Concentrations do not necessarily indicate the actual age of the stones at all.
• Another example is volcanic rocks (Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand), which were known to have crystallized from lava only 25-50 years ago as a result of a volcanic eruption. So behind it were the observations of eyewitnesses.
Samples of these stones were sent for age determination to a laboratory that is one of the most respected commercial timing laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). What were the results? In the potassium-argon method, the age of the samples ranged from 270,000 to 3.5 million years, although the rocks were known to crystallize from lava only 25–50 years ago. The lead-lead isochron gave an age of 3.9 billion years, the rubidium-strontium isochron 133 million years, and the samarium neodymium isochron 197 million years. The example shows the unreliability of radioactive methods and how rocks may contain daughter elements from the beginning.
• In the case of human findings, several of them are based on the potassium-argon method. This means that a stone in the immediate vicinity of the fossil has been subjected to a potassium-argon age determination and from it the age of the human fossil has also been determined.
However, the following example shows how unreliable this method is. The first stone sample yielded as many as 220 million years. Thus, once several human fossils considered old have been determined by this method, these ages are worth questioning. The previous example also showed how the age determination of fresh stones can go wrong in millions of years when using this method.
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)
When methods are in conflict with each other. As noted, measurements made of stones can be tested. One starting point for this is measurements made on fresh stones, i.e. measurements in which the actual moment of crystallization of the stones is known. However, the previous examples showed that these methods do not survive this test very well. Fresh or fairly fresh stones have given ages of millions, even billions of years, so the methods are badly mistaken.
Another starting point for testing measurements made of stones is to compare them with other methods, especially the radiocarbon method. Here are some interesting examples, the following of which is excellent. It tells of a tree that has been determined by the radiocarbon method to be only thousands of years old, but the stone around it is defined as up to 250 million years old. However, the tree is inside the stone, so it must have existed before the stone crystallized. The wood must be older than the stone crystallized around it. How can this be possible? The only possibility is that radioactivity methods, especially measurements from rocks, have been greatly mistaken. There is no other option:
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. (6)
Another example continues on the same topic. It tells of a tree that had been buried in a lava flow. The tree and the basalt around it got very different ages:
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. (7)
2. Stratification rate - slow or fast? One background assumption behind millions of years is that the layers on earth have accumulated on top of each other in processes that last for millions of years. This idea was brought up by Charles Lyell in the 19th century. For example, Darwin relied on the model of thought presented by Lyell. Thus, in his book The Origin of Species, he wrote how Lyell's thoughts affected him (p. 422): “Who does not admit the infinite length of past ages after reading Sir Charles Lyell’s magnificent book‘ Principles of Geology ’ - which future historians will surely acknowledge has brought about a revolution in the natural sciences - he would be best off aside this work of mine immediately ”.
But have the strata formed slowly? When Charles Lyell put forward the idea that strata are the result of slow processes, several factors speak against this. Here are a few examples.
Human fossils and goods. One interesting finding is that human fossils have been found even inside rocks and carbon strata (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). Similarly, human belongings such as dams have been found in strata classified as coal. In his book Time Upside Down (1981), Erich A. von Frange listed more objects found in coal. These include a small steel cube, an iron hammer, an iron instrument, a nail, a bell-shaped metal container, a bell, a child’s jawbone, a human skull, two human cheek teeth, a fossilized human foot.
What does this mean? It shows that the strata considered to be ancient are, in fact, only a few millennia old and could not have taken long periods to form. Lyell’s conception of the accumulation of strata on top of each other over millions of years cannot hold true. It is reasonable to believe that most of these strata, which have been considered hundreds of millions of years old, formed in a catastrophe like the Flood at a rapid pace and only a few millennia ago. Evolutionists themselves do neither believe that humans lived tens or hundreds of millions of years ago.
No erosion. When looking at the Grand Canyon and other large natural sites, for example, you can see the strata on top of each other. But when there are many overlaps in the Grand Canyon and elsewhere, is erosion visible between these strata?
The answer is clear: no. Erosion is not found in the Grand Canyon or anywhere else. On the contrary, it appears that the strata are quite uniformly connected to each other and that they have formed on top of each other without breaks. The interfaces of the layers should be rougher and more uneven everywhere if they had been affected by erosion for long periods of time, but this is not the case. For example, a single heavy rain alone can make deep grooves on the surfaces of strata, not to mention millions of years of exposure to erosion.
Indeed, the best explanation for the formation of strata is that they have formed in a short time, in just a few days, or at most weeks. Millions of years cannot be true. Even today, it has been observed that, for example, a meter-thick layer of sandstone can form in as little as 30 to 60 minutes. In the following quote on the subject more:
(…) But what do we find instead?
‘The problem these flat gaps especially pose for the long geologic ages is the lack of erosion of the underlayer expected at these gaps. Over the many millions of years postulated for these gaps, you would expect pronounced irregular erosion, and the gaps should not at all be flat.
(…) Dr Roth explains further as:
‘The striking contrast between the flat pattern of the layers, especially the tops of the underlayers of the many paraconforities, compared to the eroded highly irregular topography of the present surface of the region, illustrates the problem these gaps pose for the long geologic ages. If the many millions of years had actually occurred, why are not the tops of the underlayers highly irregular as is the case for the present topography of the region? It looks like the millions of years suggested for the geologic column never occurred. Furthermore, if geologic time is missing in one locality, then it is missing around the whole earth.’ (8)
Strata quickly formed in modern times. When it is thought that strata formed slowly over millions of years, according to the teachings of Charles Lyell, there are a few practical observations against it in which strata have formed rapidly. For example, in connection with the eruption of the St. Helena volcano in 1980, a series of overlapping strata with a thickness of almost one hundred meters formed, and in just a few weeks. It didn’t take millions of years, but in a few days strata accumulated on top of each other. What was also remarkable was that a canyon was later formed in the same area, and water began to flow in it. Even this process did not take millions of years, as evolution scholars would have assumed, but everything happened in a few weeks. It is to be assumed that, for example, the Grand Canyon and several other large natural formations have originated in similar rapid processes.
The island of Surtsey is another similar case. This island was born as a result of a volcanic eruption in 1963. In January 2006, New Scientist reported how canyons, gorges, and other landforms came to this island in less than a decade. It didn't take millions or even thousands of years:
“The canyons, ravines and other forms of the ground, which usually take tens of thousands or millions of years to form, have amazed geological researchers because they were created in less than ten years.” (9)
Long tree trunk fossils, dinosaur fossils, and other fossils in strata are one piece of evidence against the formation of strata slowly and over millions of years. Tree trunk fossils have been found from all over the world, extending through several different strata. An old photograph of a coal quarry in Saint-Etienne, France, shows how five petrified tree trunks each pass about ten layers or more. Similarly, a 24-meter-long tree trunk has been found near Edinburgh, passing through a dozen strata, and all indications are that the trunk has quickly settled into place. According to the evolution view, the strata should be millions of years old, but nonetheless, tree trunks extend through these “millions of years old" strata.
How problematic it is to stick to slow stratification of strata over millions of years is illustrated by the following example. The trees must have become buried quickly, otherwise their fossils today could not exist. The same goes for other fossils found in the soil:
Derek Ager, Emeritus Professor of Geology, University College of Swansea, gives some examples of multi-layer fossil tree trunks in his book.
“If we estimate that the total thickness of the British Carbon Measures mineral coal stratum is 1000 meters and if we assume that it was buried over the course of around ten million years, it would have taken 100,000 years for the ten-meter tall tree to be completely buried, assuming that the deposition took place at a constant speed. This is ludicrous.
Alternatively, if the ten-metre tree was buried in the course of ten years, it would mean 1,000 kilometers in a million years or 10,000 kilometers in ten million years. This is just as ludicrous, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that the deposition sometimes took place very quickly... (10)
So what does the rapid emergence of tree trunk fossils and other fossils suggest? The best explanation is a sudden catastrophe that explains both the rapid formation of strata and the fossils in them. This could happen, for example, in the Flood. Interestingly, several scientists have begun to accept disasters in the past and no longer take it for granted that everything has happened at a steady pace over millions of years. Evidence better supports disasters than a slow process. Well-known 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. (11)
As noted, the most likely alternative to the formation of most strata is the Flood-like disaster. What is explained in the geological table by millions of years, or perhaps by many catastrophes, can all be caused by one and the same catastrophe: the Flood. It can explain the destruction of dinosaurs, the existence of fossils, and many other features observed in the soil.
For example, dinosaurs are often found inside hard rocks, and it can take years to remove a single fossil from a rock. But how have they gone inside the hard rocks? The only sensible explanation is that soft mud has come on top of them and then hardened. This is not happening anywhere today, but in a disaster like the Flood, it would have been possible. It is noteworthy that nearly 500 ancient stories have been found around the world, suggesting that the Flood has really happened.
There are also good reasons to consider the Flood as the cause of the catastrophe, namely that marine sediments are common all over the world, as the following quotations show. The first of the comments is from a book by James Hutton, mentioned as the father of geology, more than 200 years ago:
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. (J.S. Shelton: Geology illustrated)
Another indication of the Flood is the presence of marine fossils in high mountains such as the Himalayas, the Alps and the Andes. Here are some examples of scientists 'and geologists' own books:
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)
Two things have been raised above that are used to prove periods of millions of years: measurements of radioactive rocks and the rate of stratification. It was found that neither of them proved the long periods of time to be true. The problem with measurements made of stones is that completely fresh stones already contain daughter elements and thus look old. Nor do strata refer to millions of years because human goods, even fossil human remains, have been found in strata that were considered ancient, and because there is evidence today of rapid accumulation of strata on top of each other. Millions of years are easy to question in light of these facts.
What about the appearance of life on earth? We are repeatedly told in nature programs, school books, and elsewhere that complex life has been on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Is it worth relying on this view? In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the following points:
No one can know the age of fossils. First of all, attention must be paid to fossils. They are the only remnants of a past life, and we have no other material available.
But can we deduce the exact age of fossils? Can you know that one fossil is substantially older or younger than another? The answer is clear: this is impossible to figure out. If any fossil is excavated from the earth, e.g., a dinosaur bone or a trilobite fossil, it has no record of its age and when it has been alive on earth. We cannot detect such information from it. This can be noticed by anyone who takes the fossil into their own hands. (The same goes for cave drawings, for example. Some scientists may assume they are tens of thousands of years old, but they themselves have no signs of that. In fact, they can only be a few thousand years old.)
Nonetheless, one of the basic assumptions in the doctrine of evolution is that these ages can be known. Although the fossils themselves do not tell or show any information, many evolutionists claim to know when they lived (the so-called index fossil table). They think they have definite knowledge of the exact stages of ammonites, trilobites, dinosaurs, mammals, and other organisms on earth, although it is impossible to deduce anything like that from fossils and their habitat.
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. (12)
When fossils are dug from the ground, the same problem applies to mammoth and dinosaur fossils. How can their different occurrence on earth be justified if the fossils of both are as in good condition and close to the surface of the earth, as they are often found? How can anyone claim that a dinosaur fossil is 65 million years older than a mammoth or human fossil if both are in equally good condition? The answer is that no one has such information. Anyone else claims goes to the imagination in their claims.
Well, then, why do atheist scientists believe that a dinosaur fossil is at least 65 million years older than a mammoth fossil? The main reason for this is the geological table, which was compiled in the 19th century, ie long before the invention of, for example, the radiocarbon method or other radioactivity methods. The age of fossils is determined from this table because it is believed that Darwin’s theory hold true and that different groups of species have appeared on Earth at different times. Thus life is believed to have begun from the sea, so that at first there was a simple stem cell, then seabed animals appeared, then later fish, then frogs living on the water's edge, then reptiles, and finally birds and mammals. Evolution is believed to have progressed in this order, and for this purpose a geological table was drawn up in the 19th century which, even today, determines the interpretations of fossils by atheist scientists. They have no other justification for the age of the fossils.
The geological table is thus based on the idea of gradual evolution, which is a basic precondition for the theory of evolution. The problem, however, is that no gradual evolution has ever been observed in the fossils that would prove the geological table correct. Even the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins has admitted the same thing in his book Sokea Kelloseppä (s. 240,241, The Blind Watchmaker): “Since the times of Darwin, scientists researching evolution have known that fossils arranged in the order of time do not form a sequence of small and barely noticeable change.” Similarly, well-known atheist paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould has stated: “I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks.” (13).
What can be deduced from the above? In the absence of gradual evolution, the age estimates in the geological table and the assumption that different species groups have appeared on Earth at different times may be questioned. There is no basis for such a view. Instead, it is more reasonable to assume that all the previous species groups have originally been on Earth at the same time, but only in different ecological compartments, as some of them have been marine animals, others terrestrial animals, and others in between. In addition, some species such as dinosaurs and trilobites, both of which have been considered index fossils, have become extinct. There is no reason to believe that some species are substantially older or younger than others. No such conclusion can be drawn from fossils.
Living fossils - organisms that were supposed to become extinct millions of years ago but have been found still alive today - are also proof that it is not reasonable to trust in millions of years. There are, in fact, hundreds of such fossils. The museum of German researcher Dr Joachim Scheven has more than 500 examples of this type of living fossils. One example is the coelacanth, which was believed to have become extinct 65 million years ago, about the same time as dinosaurs. However, this fish has been found alive in modern times, so where has it been hiding for 65 million years? Another, and more likely option, is that there have never been millions of years.
Why didn't dinosaurs live millions of years ago? The previous paragraphs pointed out that it is not possible to know the exact age of the fossils. Nor can it be proved that the fossils of trilobites, dinosaurs or mammoths, for example, differ in age. There is no scientific evidence for this, but these species may have lived simultaneously on earth, but only in different ecological compartments, as there are now marine, marsh, upland and mountain zones with their animals and plants.
What about life on earth for millions of years, as we are repeatedly told in nature programs or other sources? This issue is best approached through the radiocarbon method because it can measure the age of organic samples. Other measurements by radioactive methods are usually made from rocks, but the radiocarbon method can be used to make measurements directly from fossils. The official half-life of this substance is 5730 years, so after 100,000 years there should not be left any .
What do the measurements show? Measurements have been made for decades and show an important point: radiocarbon (14 C) is found in fossils of all ages (by an evolutionary scale): Cambrian fossils, dinosaurs(http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html) and other organisms that have been considered ancient. Nor has any coal lacking radiocarbon been found (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31(2):117-120,1989). The measurements give roughly similar ages for all the samples, so it is reasonable to believe that all organisms have been on Earth at the same time, and by no means millions of years.
What about dinosaurs? The biggest debate in this area is about dinosaurs. They seem to interest people, and by them have been tryied to justify millions of years on earth. They are evangelists of evolutionists that they bring up when necessary when it comes to millions of years.
But but. As noted, the age determination of dinosaurs is based on a 19th century geological table that has been found to be incorrect on several occasions. There is no scientific evidence that dinosaurs are older than, for example, mammoths and other extinct animals.
Here are a few simple observations that suggest that there are not millions of years from the extinction of dinosaurs and that many modern species have coexisted with them.
• Modern species have lived at the same time as dinosaurs. Evolutionary theorists are constantly talking about the era of the dinosaurs because, according to the theory of evolution, they believe that different groups of animals appeared on Earth at different times. They think, for example, that birds have come from dinosaurs, and therefore dinosaurs must have appeared on earth before birds. Likewise, they assume that the first mammals did not appear on earth until the end of the dinosaur era.
However, the term dinosaur era is misleading because from dinosaur strata have been found in exactly the same species as modern times: turtle, crocodile, king boa, squirrel, beaver, badger, hedgehog, shark, water beak, cockroach, bee, mussel, coral, alligator, caiman, modern birds, mammals. For example, birds are believed to come from dinosaurs, but the same birds have been found in the dinosaur strata as they are today: parrots, ducks, drakes, loons, flamingos, owls, penguins, shorebirds, albatrosses, cormorants, and avocets. By 2000, more than a hundred different fossils of modern bird had been registered from Cretaceous strata. Of these findings, have been told e.g. In Carl Werner’s book “Living Fossils”. For 14 years, he did research on fossils from the time of the dinosaur, became acquainted with the paleontological professional literature, and visited 60 museums of natural sciences around the world, taking about 60,000 photographs. Dr Werner has said: “Museums don’t showcase these modern-day bird fossils, nor draw them in images depicting dinosaur environments. It is wrong. Essentially, whenever a T. Rex or a Triceratops is being showcased in a museum exhibition, they should also showcase ducks, loons, flamingos, or some other modern-day birds that have been found in same strata as dinosaurs. But we don’t see that. I have never seen a duck with a dinosaur in a natural museum, have you? Or an owl? Even a parrot?”
What can be deduced from the above? Birds have certainly lived at the same time as dinosaurs, and there is no reason to believe that from it would be tens of millions of years.
What about mammals? According to some estimates, at least 432 mammal species have been found to coexist with dinosaurs (Kielan-Jaworowska, Z., Kielan, Cifelli, R.L., and Luo, Z.X., Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution and Structure, Columbia University Press, NY, 2004). Similarly, dinosaur bones have been found among bones resembling horse, cow, and sheep bones (Anderson, A., Tourism falls victim to tyrannosaurus, Nature, 1989, 338, 289 / Dinosaurus may have died quietly after all, 1984, New Scientist, 104, 9.), so dinosaurs and mammals must have lived at the same time.
Further, in a video interview with Carl Werner, the curator of the Utah Museum of Prehistory, Dr. Donald Burge, has explained: “We find mammal fossils in almost all of our dinosaur excavations. We have ten tons of bentonite clay containing mammal fossils, and we are in a process of giving them to other researchers. Not because we wouldn’t find them important, but because life is short, and I am not specialized in mammals: I have specialized in reptiles and dinosaurs”. These types of observations show that species from all animal groups have lived simultaneously at all times, but only in different ecological compartments. Some of the species, such as dinosaurs, are extinct. Even today, species are dying out.
• Soft tissues refer to short periods of time. It was previously stated that the dating of dinosaurs is based mainly on a 19th century geological table in which dinosaurs are believed to have become extinct 65 million years ago.
But can such a conclusion be drawn from the dinosaur fossils themselves? Do they indicate the age of 65 million? The direct answer is: they do not indicate. Rather, several dinosaur fossils suggest that it cannot be millions of years since they became extinct. That’s because it’s common to find soft tissues in dinosaur fossils. For example, Yle Uutiset reported on December 5, 2007: "Dinosaur muscles and skin were found in the USA." This news is not the only one of its kind, but there are numerous similar news and observations. According to a research report, soft tissues may have been isolated from about every second Jurassic dinosaur bone (145.5 to 199.6 million years ago) (Many dino fossils could have soft tissue inside, Oct 28 2010, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue_2.html.). Well-preserved dinosaur fossils are a big mystery if they are 65 million years old. They contain substances that should not survive in nature for hundreds of thousands of years, let alone millions of years. It has been found e.g. blood cells [Morell, V., Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype, Science 261 (5118): 160-162, 1993], blood vessels, hemoglobin, DNA [Sarfati, J. DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone, J. Creation (1): 10-12, 2013; creation.com/dino-dna, December 11, 2012], radiocarbon (http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html), and fragile proteins such as collagen, albumin, and osteocalcin. These substances should not be present because microbes very soon break down all soft tissues.
Dinosaur fossils can also smell rotten. Jack Horner, a scientist who believes in the theory of evolution, said of one of the vast sites of dinosaur fossils that “all the bones of Hell Creek stink”. How can bones smell after tens of millions of years? If they were so old, all the smell would surely have left them.
What should researchers do? It would be best to abandon the 19th century geological table and pay attention directly to fossils. If in them there still are soft tissues, proteins, DNA and radiocarbon left, it cannot be a question of millions of years. The presence of these substances in fossils refers to short periods of time. These are good metrics for estimating the age of fossils.
• Descriptions of dragons. Many claim that man has not lived at the same time as dinosaurs. However, there are dozens of references to dragons in human tradition. The name dinosaur was invented by Darwin's contemporary, Richard Owen, in 1841, but about dragons have been told for centuries. Here are some comments on this topic:
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. (14)
The Bible also mentions the name dragon several times (e.g. Job 30:29: I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls). In this regard, an interesting commentary on the subject can be found from atheist scientist Stephen Jay Gould. He noted that when the book of Job talks about Behemoth, the only animal to which this description fits is the dinosaur (Pandans Tumme, s. 221, Ordfrontsförlag, 1987). As an evolutionist, he believed that the author of the book of Job must have obtained his knowledge of the fossils discovered. However, this one of the oldest books in the Bible clearly refers to a living animal (Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with you; he eats grass as an ox…).
Dragons also appear in art (www.dinoglyphs.fi). Pictures of dragons have been preserved e.g. in war shields (Sutton Hoo) and church wall ornaments (e.g. SS Mary and Hardulph, England). In addition to bulls and lions, dragons are depicted at the gate of Ishtar in the ancient city of Babylon. A gate in the ancient town of Ishtar in old Babylon depicts dragons among bulls and lions. Early Mesopotamian Cylinders depict hugging dragons, which’ necks are almost as long as their tails (Moortgat, A., The art of ancient Mesopotamia, Phaidon Press, London 1969, pp. 1,9,10 and Plate A.). Vance Nelson’s book “Dire Dragons” gives more examples. What is significant about this book is that it contains old works of art about dragons / dinosaurs as well as drawings made by modern evolutionists themselves, based on the bones of dinosaurs. Readers themselves can compare the similarity between old works of art and drawings based on bones, which is quite obvious.
What about the Chinese horoscope? A good example of how dinosaurs may have actually been dragons, is this horoscope that is known to be centuries old. Thus, when the Chinese horoscope is based on 12 animal signs that are repeated in 12-year cycles, 12 animals are involved. Of these, 11 are still familiar today: rat, bull, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. Instead, the 12th animal is a dragon that does not exist today. The good question is that if 11 animals have been real animals, why would a dragon be an exception and a mythical creature? Isn’t it more reasonable to assume that in ancient times it lived at the same time as humans, but has become extinct like numerous other animals? It is good to remember again that the name dinosaur was not invented until the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, the name dragon was used for centuries.
The theory of evolution is the complete opposite of God’s creative work. This theory, put forward by Darwin, assumes that it all started with a small stem cell, which then evolved over millions of years into increasingly complex forms.
But is Darwin's theory true? It can be tested through practical evidence. Here are some key points.
1. The birth of life by itself has not been proven. Before life can evolve, it must exist. But here is the first problem of Darwin's theory. The whole theory lacks its foundation because life cannot be born of itself, as stated earlier. Only life can bring about life, and no exception has been found to this rule. This problem is encountered if one adheres to an atheistic model of explanation from beginning to end.
2. Radiocarbon disproves thoughts of long periods of time. Another problem is that radiocarbon is present in fossils and coal of all eras, which have been considered millions of years old (Lowe, D.C., Problems associated with use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, Radiocarbon 31 (2): 117-120, 1989). The presence of radiocarbon only refers to thousands of years, meaning there is no time left for the assumed development. This is a big problem for Darwin’s theory because evolutionists believe in the necessity of millions of years.
3. The Cambrian explosion disproves evolution. Earlier it was stated how the so-called Cambrian explosion disproves the tree of evolution (the assumption that the simple stem cell has become more and more new life forms). Or this tree is upside down. Fossil data show that from the beginning, complexity and species richness were involved. This fits in with the creation model.
4. No semi-developed senses and organs. If the theory of evolution were true, there should be millions of newly evolving senses, hands, feet, or other beginnings of body parts in nature. Instead, these body parts are ready and functional. Even Richard Dawkins, a well-known blasphemer, admits that every species and every organ in every species that has been studied so far is good at what it does. Such an observation fits badly into the theory of evolution, but well into the model of creation:
The reality based on observations is that every species and every organ inside a species that so far has been examined is good at what it does. The wings on birds, bees and bats are good for flying. Eyes are good at seeing. Leaves are good at photosynthesis. We live on a planet, where we are surrounded by perhaps ten million species, which all independently indicate a strong illusion of apparent design. Every species fits well into its special lifestyle. (15)
In his previous comment, Dawkins indirectly acknowledges the existence of design, even though he deliberately denies it. However, the evidence clearly suggests the existence of intelligent design. The relevant question is; Does it work? That is, if everything works, it is a matter of a functional structure and intelligent design, and the structure could not have arisen by itself.
It is strange that when there is a statue of footballer Jari Litmanen in Lahti, for example, all atheists admit the intelligent design behind it. They do not believe this statue was born of themselves, but believe in intelligent design in its birth process. However, they forbid intelligent design in living beings that are many times more complex and that can move, multiply, eat, fall in love, and feel other emotions. This is not a very logical reasoning.
5. Fossils disprove evolution. It has already been pointed out that there is no gradual development in fossils. Stephen Jay Gould, among others, has stated: “I do not want in any way to belittle the potential competence of the gradual evolution view. I want only to remark that it has never 'been observed' in rocks.” (16). Similarly, several other leading paleontologists have acknowledged that gradual evolution does not appear in fossils, although that is a basic premise of Darwin’s theory. Nor can the argument that the fossil record is incomplete be relied on. That is no longer the case, because at least a hundred million fossils have been excavated from the earth. If there is no gradual development or intermediate forms in this material, it is not in the material left on the ground either. The following comments show how intermediate forms are missing:
It is strange that the gaps in the fossil material are consistent in a certain way: fossils are missing from all the important places. (Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 19)
No matter how far in the past we go in the series of the fossils of those animals that have lived before on earth, we cannot find even a trace of animal forms that would be intermediate forms between great groups and phyla… The greatest groups of the animal kingdom do not merge into each other. They are and have been stationary since the beginning… Neither has an animal that could not be set in its own phylum or a great group been found from the earliest stratified rock types… This perfect lack of intermediate forms between the great groups of animals can be interpreted in one way only… If we are willing to take the facts as they are, we have to believe that there have never been such intermediate forms; in other words, these great groups have had the same relation to each other since the very beginning. (Austin H. Clark, The New Evolution, p. 189)
What can be deduced from the above? We should reject Darwin's theory on the basis of fossils, just as Darwin himself stated on the basis of the fossil data found at the time: “Those who believe that the geological narrative is more or less complete will of course reject my theory” (17).
6. Natural selection and breeding do not create something new. In his book The Origin of Species, Darwin brought up the idea that natural selection is behind evolution. He used as an example the choice made by man, i.e. breeding, and how it is possible to influence the appearance of animals through it.
However, the problem with natural selection and human selection is that they do not create something new. They only choose from what already exists, that is, the old. Certain traits can be accentuated and survive, but it is not mere survival that generates new information. An organism that exists can no longer change into another.
Similarly, variation occurs, but only within certain limits. This is possible because animals and plants are pre-programmed with the possibility of modification and breeding. For example, breeding can affect the length of a dog’s legs or the size and composition of plants, but at some point you will come across a limit and not go beyond that. No new species are emerging and there are no signs of new information.
Breeders usually find out that after a few generations of refining, an extreme limit is reached: advancing beyond this point is not possible, and no new species have been created. (…) Therefore, breeding tests cancel the theory of evolution rather than support it. (On Call, 3.7.1972, p. 8,9)
Another problem is genetic impoverishment. As modification and adaptation take place, some of the rich genetic heritage that the first ancestors had is lost. The more organisms specialize, for example due to breeding or geographical differentiation, the less there is room for variation in the future. The evolutionary train goes in the wrong direction the more time it takes. The genetic heritage is impoverished, but no new basic species are emerging.
7. Mutations do not produce new information and new types of organs. When it comes to evolution, evolutionists are right that it actually happens. It is just a question of what evolution means. If it is a matter of ordinary modification and adaptation, evolutionists are quite right that it is detected. There are good examples of this in evolutionists ’own literature. Instead, from the first cell to human -theory is an unproven idea that has never been observed in modern nature or in fossils.
Nonetheless, evolutionists are trying to find a mechanism that would explain evolution from a simple stem cell to complex forms. For this, they have taken mutations to help.
However, mutations take the opposite direction in terms of evolution. They degenerate, ie take evolution downwards. If they were to take evolution forward, researchers should show thousands of examples of information-increasing mutations and upward development, but this has not been possible. Changes do occur - deformed wings and limbs, loss of pigment… - but no clear examples of increased information have been observed. On the other hand, it has been found through mutation experiments that mutants that already exist are born in expiriments. Similar mutations are repeated over and over in the experiments.
Of course, it is true that some mutations may be useful, e.g., in a toxic environment or in an environment high in antibiotics, but when conditions return to normal, individuals with the mutation generally do not survive under normal conditions. One example is sickle cell anemia. People with this mutation can thrive in malaria areas, but it is a serious disease in an area where there is no malaria. If this mutation is inherited from both parents, the disease is fatal. Similarly, fish that lose their eyes through mutation may survive in dark caves but not under normal conditions. Or beetles that have lost their wings through mutation can survive on windy islands because they don’t fly so easily into the sea, but elsewhere they are in trouble.
Several researchers familiar with the field also deny that mutations bring about large-scale changes or give birth to new features. This has been shown by e.g. decades of mutation experiments with banana flies and bacteria. Here are some of the researchers' comments on the subject:
Even though thousands of mutations have been examined in our time, we have found no clear case in which mutation would have changed an animal into a more complex one, produced a new structure, or even caused a deep, new adaptation. (R.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After, p. 131)
The mutations we know – that are thought to be responsible for the creation of the living world – are generally either losses of an organ, disappearances (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or reduplications of an existing organ. In no case do they create anything genuinely new or individual to the organic system, anything that could be regarded as the basis of a new organ or as the beginning of a new function. (Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution, 1961, p. 79)
It should be realized that scientists have a very vulnerable and broad network for detecting mutations that add information. The majority of geneticists are constantly on the lookout for such mutations. - - However, I am not convinced that even one clear example of a mutation, which would have undeniably created information, has been identified. (Sanford, J., Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Ivan Press, New York, p. 17).
The conclusion is that mutations cannot be the engine of evolution, nor can natural selection, because neither creates the new information and new complex structures required by the "from the first cell to human" -theory. All descriptions in the evolutionary literature are good examples, but only examples of modification and adaptation such as bacterial resistance, bird beak size variations, insect resistance to insecticides, changes in fish growth rate caused by overfishing, dark and light colors of peppered moth and changes because of geographical barriers. All of these are examples of how a population responds to changes in the environment, but the basic species remain the same all the time and do not change into others. Bacteria remain as bacteria, dogs as dogs, cats as cats, etc. Modification does take place, but within certain limits.
It is noteworthy that in his book The Origin of Species, Darwin also did not present any examples of species changes, but only examples of variation and adaptation within basic groups. They are good examples, but no more. They do not prove "from the first cell to human" -theory true. Darwin himself stated in a letter: ” I am actually tired of telling people that I do not claim to have any direct evidence of a species having changed into another species and that I believe this view correct mainly because so many phenomena can be grouped and explained based on it” (18). Similarly, the following quote states that in Darwin's book The Origin of Species there are not real examples of species change:
”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) (19)
The basic premise of evolution is that all current species have the same stem form: a simple stem cell. The same goes for modern man. Evolutionists teach that we have come from the same stem cell that first evolved into forms of marine life and, as a final step, before modern humans, ape-like human ancestors. This is how evolutionists believe, although no gradual evolution can be seen in fossils.
But is the evolutionist understanding of human origin true? We highlight two important reasons to the contrary:
The remnants of modern man in old layers disprove evoltution. The first reason is simple and is that clear remnants of modern humans have been found in at least as old or older strata as the remnants of their supposed ancestors, even so that modern human remains are present in older strata more than their supposed ancestors. Clear remnants and belongings of modern man have even been found in coal strata that have been considered hundreds of millions of years old.
What does this mean? It means that modern man has appeared at least at the same time on earth or even before its supposed ancestors. It can in no way be possible because the offspring can never be alive before their ancestors. This is an obvious contradiction that refutes the evolutionary explanation of human origin.
The following quotes tell you more about this. Well-known scientists acknowledge how clearly remnants belonging to modern man have been repeatedly found in ancient strata, but they have been rejected because they have been too modern in quality. Dozens of similar finds have been made:
L.B.S. Leakey: “I have no doubt that that human remains belonging to these [Acheul and Chelles] cultures, have been found several times (...) but either they have not been identified as such or they have been rejected because they were the Homo sapiens type, and therefore they could not be regarded as old.” (20)
R.S Lull: … Such remains of skeletons have appeared again and again. (…) None of them, even though they fulfill the other requirements of old age – being buried in old layers, having animal remains among them and the same fossilization grade, etc. – are enough to satisfy the requirements of physical anthropology, because none of them have any features of the body that the American Indians do not have nowadays.” (21)
If the evolution of man were true, the fossils would be placed on a time line from the South ape, through some form of Homo habilis, Homo erectus and early Homo sapiens, and finally to modern Homo sapiens (that is us, who are great and beautiful). Instead, the fossils will be placed here and there without any clear evolutionary order. Even though the students used the datings and classifications of the evolutionists themselves, it became clear to them that the fossil material rather nullifies the evolution of man. Any lecture or lecture series by me would not have been as impressive as a study the students did themselves. Nothing that I could have said would have had such a great effect on the students as the naked truth about the human fossil material itself. (22)
In fossils only two groups: ordinary monkeys and modern humans. As stated, the basic premise of the theory of evolution is that man came from ape-like beings, so that in the course of history more and more complex human beings came to earth. This notion was the assumption of Darwin and his contemporaries, although little had been found of supposed human ancestors in the 19th century. Darwin and his associates were only in the belief and expectation that they would later be found in the soil.
The same belief prevails in today’s search for human fossils. Because people have faith in the theory of evolution, they seek the supposed ancestors of man. Faith influences everything they do. Or if they did not have faith in human evolution from ape-like ancestors, their motivation would not be sufficient for exploration.
What have the findings revealed? They do not flatter supporters of the theory of evolution. They do not agree on just about any discovery, and moreover, a clear feature can be observed in the finds: in the end, there are only two groups: clearly ape-like beings and ordinary humans. This division proceeds in such a way that the southern monkeys (Australopithecus) are, as the name implies, common monkeys, as is Ardi, whose brain size is smaller than that of the southern monkeys. (Homo Habilis is an ambiguous class that may be a mixture of different groups. Some of its features suggest it was even more ape-like than southern monkeys). Instead, Homo Erectus and the Neanderthal man, who are very similar with each other, are ordinary people.
Why such a division into only two categories? Several scientists themselves have admitted that southern monkeys cannot be human ancestors, but that it is an ordinary monkey, an extinct species. This conclusion has been reached because their physique is very ape-like and the size of the brain is only one-third the size of the brain of modern man. Here are a couple of comments:
When comparing the skulls of a man and an anthropoid, the skull of an Australopithecus clearly more resembles the skull of an anthropoid. Claiming otherwise would be the same as asserting that black is white. (23)
Our discoveries leave hardly any doubt that (…) the Australopithecus does not resemble the Homo sapiens; instead, it resembles the modern guenons and anthropoids. (24)
What about Homo erectus and the Neanderthal man, who are very similar to each other and whose brain size and physique are completely reminiscent of modern humans? Sufficient evidence of the humanity of both has been found today. Homo erectus has been able to engage in navigation and also made tools so that evolutionist Dr Alan Thorne stated as early as 1993: "They are not Homo erectus (in other words, they should not be called by this name). They are humans" (The Australian, 19 August 1993). Similarly, contemporary scientists have become increasingly inclined to the view that the Neanderthal man can be considered a real human being. In addition to body structure, the reasons are numerous cultural discoveries and new DNA studies. Darwin's bulldog Thomas Huxley also inferred from Neandertal's skull that it was today's Homo sapiens (Donald Johnson / James Shreeve: Lucy’s Child, p. 49).
Among the researchers who have proposed the inclusion of the Homo erectus and Neandertal in the Homo sapiens class are e.g. Milford Wolpoff. What makes this statement of an evolutionary paleontologist significant is that he is said to have seen more than anyone else the original fossil material of hominides. Similarly, Bernard Wood, who has been considered the leading authority on evolutionary pedigrees, and M. Collard have stated that several putative hominides are almost entirely human-like or almost entirely southern monkey-like (Science 284 (5411): 65-71, 1999).
What can be deduced from the above? It is pointless to talk about apeman, because in reality there have only been humans and monkeys. There are only these two groups, as several leading researchers in this area have stated.
On the other hand, when it comes to the appearance of man on earth, there is no sure reason for man to have appeared on earth before than what the Bible shows, that is, about 6,000 years. Why so? The reason is that there is no definite evidence for longer periods of time. The known history actually dates back only 4000-5000 years, when suddenly and simultaneously things like writing, construction, cities, agriculture, culture, complex mathematics, pottery, tool making and other things that are considered characteristic of man appeared. Many evolutionists like to talk about prehistoric and historical time, but there is no decent evidence that prehistoric time existed, for example, 10,000 to 20,000 years ago, because the buildings and things mentioned above are not known with certainty from that time.
Moreover, it is utterly strange that man had evolved a couple of million years ago, but his culture had suddenly erupted around the world a few millennia ago. A better explanation is that man has only existed for a few millennia, and therefore buildings, cities, language skills, and culture have only emerged during that time, just as the book of Genesis shows.
- (Rom 1:19-21) 19 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,
The above verses tell of God as Creator. This is something that modern atheist scientists have questioned, but as stated, it makes more sense to believe that God created everything than to believe in the atheistic notion that the universe and life were born of themselves and to believe in the theory of evolution. It was stated that there is no scientific basis for these basic teachings of atheism. They are fables, lies and fairy tales as well as clumsy attempts to replace God as creator. They fulfill Paul's prophecy that people do not want to receive sound doctrine but turn to fables (2 Tim 4:3,4: 3 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; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned to fables.) This is a general consequence of the belief in evolution. It is likely that if you believe in the theory of evolution, you will no longer want to hear talk of God. The theory of evolution makes people negative about God. For example, the well-known atheist Richard Dawkins has considered Darwin's theory a valid reason for not believing in God.
Does it then matter very much if God is not believed to have been a creator in society? Everyone can think about this in light of the fact that if God is not the Creator, He probably doesn’t exist at all, and people will believe that they won’t have to answer for their actions. In other words, atheistic theories of world birth and evolution make us think that we can do anything without consequences and without fear of being doomed and possibly going to hell because of our wrongdoing. Thus Fyodor Dostoevsky, a well-known author, stated more than a hundred years ago, before the horrors of the last century, "If there is no God, everything is allowed. To western rationalism (rationality) is associated with the seed of immense destruction. When God is cleared of non-existence and removed from the world, the measure of everything is man. And after that, there is no evil that cannot be justified by reason. Even the killing of an innocent person can be explained as morally justified and useful." (25)
The history of the last century shows the significance of the theory of evolution. Underlying both communism and Nazism was a strong belief in the theory of evolution and the absence of God. For example, Marx and Engels, the ideological fathers of communism, both believed in God at a younger age, but lost faith by the influence of liberal theology and believed in Darwin's theory. It is well known that Marx wanted to dedicate his most important work, Capital to Darwin. However, Darwin politely refused.
Trotsky, one of the early leaders of the Soviet Union, believed in the theory of evolution. He stated that "Broadly understood, in the materialist and dialectical sense, Marxism is the application of Darwinism to human society." (26)
Soviet leader Josef Stalin was one of those influenced by Darwin’s work The Origin of Species. Stalin’s biography, written by E. Yaroslavsky, a good friend of Stalin, tells how Stalin, who was religiously educated and studied theology, becomes an atheist after reading Darwin’s work. It happened at the age of 13. After that, he also began to convert his friends to a “new faith” by lending them Darwin’s books. Afterwards, one can guess what would have happened if Darwin's book hadn't existed or Stalin hadn't gotten it. Maybe history would have turned out to be completely different.
What about Nazism? The leading Nazis did not believe in God and that they were held accountable for their actions. Had they believed in judgment and hell after this life, they certainly would not have committed their horrific deeds, nor would Stalin, Mao, and other communist dictators. For example, Himmler wrote in 1937:
We live in an era of ultimate conflict with Christianity. One of the tasks of the SS is to provide the German people in the next half century with the non-Christian foundation on which the people can live and shape their lives. This task does not only consist of defeating the ideological opponent, but should be accompanied by a positive contribution at every step: in this case, it means building the Germanic heritage in the broadest and most comprehensive sense. (27)
The leading Nazis were also all supporters of Darwin, and they believed Darwin’s self-assumed notion that man is of animal origin and that certain races are more valuable and advanced than others. This view, called social Darwinism, was considered a scientific view in Europe at the time. It was thought that some races are innately more capable, intelligent, and better adapted. People were classified as valuable and less valuable based on race, ability to function, or other trait. It was also the reason for the euthanasia program initiated by Hitler, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of disabled people and, a little later, non-Germans in destruction facilities.
A good picture of how the view called social Darwinism, scientific racism, was common in Europe but especially in Germany, gives Richard Weikart. He wrote in his book From Darwin to Hitler that by 1890 “almost all influential Darwinist anthropologists and ethnologists - as well as most Darwinist biologists and popularizers - embraced scientific racism”. (28)
It was noted above how Darwin’s theory changed people’s worldview. It provided a scientifically sound basis for atheism and rejection of God, but also for rejection of morality. There was no longer any permanent basis for morality because it had no connection with God.
What about modern time? There is a similar development in modern times. In modern times we hear constant brainwashing in media about Darwin’s theory, millions of years but also new moral concepts that differ from what Jesus and the apostles taught. It is characteristic of modern times to be appalled by things that are good and instead defend evil or lies. (Compare Isaiah 5:20: ”Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”). Amos 5:10 says about these kinds of people: “They hate him that rebukes in the gate, and they abhor him that speaks uprightly.”
Hitler's propaganda minister, Joseph Göbbels, is said to have said, "If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will gradually believe it." This is also true of modern times. When a false or misconception is constantly repeated in the media, people gradually believe it and become negative about the truth and what is right. This has already happened with regard to the theory of evolution. It is also manifested in the following matters of morality:
Extramarital sex. When one does not believe in judgment after this life, one consequence is a relaxation of morality in a matter such as extramarital sex. It means having sex before getting married. This and open sexual relationships is a modern trend that began in the late 1960s with the so-called sexual revolution and the associated media brainwashing, but the clear teaching of the Bible is that all sexual relations outside a man’s and wife’s marriage are wrong (1 Cor 7:2: 2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.). God will judge fornicators and adulterers, as it is written:
- (Hebr 13:4) Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
The problem is that people don’t believe in judgment after this life. Because as a result of the theory of evolution, they no longer believe God to be the Creator, nor judge. Nonetheless, even though people no longer believe in judgment, the Bible teaches it will happen after this life. Everyone has to make an account of how they have lived and treated others. Everyone reaps what he has sown as the following verses show. In addition to being a creator, God is also a judge.
- (Rom 14:12) 12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
- (Hebr 9:27) 27 And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment:
- (Gal 6:7) 7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.
Easy divorces are one consequence of no longer believing God to be a creator or a judge. However, in the aforementioned verse, the Bible taught that "fornicators and adulterers God will judge."
Abortion is supported because it is claimed that a woman has the right to decide on her body. You will never hear anyone advocating abortion with the argument that a parent has the right to decide to kill their child. It is a biological fact that abortion kills a real person who has the same body parts as an adult. This lie about abortion as a human right has taken root in people’s minds as a result of the constant brainwashing of the media.
Homosexuality is defended in the name of human rights, equality and love. It is not accepted the Christian teaching that all people are valuable as such, but not all of our behavior is right. It was previously taken for granted that thefts, murders but also extramarital heterosexual relationships as well as homosexual sex are wrong before God. This is based on e.g. to the following verses: ”Know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9,10). So what do I want to say? All people are valuable, but not all of our actions are right. Each of us is guilty of some area, but it doesn’t take away anyone’s value.
So what is love? When I believe in previous verses, I see as the greatest love that people are warned about wrong choices and self-hardening. Modern value liberals, on the other hand, see as love the encouragement of people to live according to their tendencies, in this case homosexual tendencies.
What about the innateness of homosexuality, an argument often relied upon? This issue has been repeatedly refuted in duplicate studies. Identical twins have the same genes and growth environment in the womb, but only one of them may have a homosexual tendency. Similarly, Helsingin Sanomat said on 29 August 2019: "A study of almost half a million people: Genes do not predict whether the same sex will fascinate." In addition, many homosexuals themselves deny the inborn tendency. In one study, 85% of them thought that circumstances were crucial in birth of their predisposition.
On the other hand, if the principle of inborn tendency is invoked, people could justify everything else as equally acceptable: for example, a person prone to hatred could justify killing others by being aggressive and unable to restrain his or her behavior. Similarly, a rapist could justify his conduct with the same argument. However, many hardly agree with these views. Each of us has a moral responsibility, although each may have different false tendencies. Above all, we are moral beings, and we can influence our behavior to some extent, although we may often fall because of our weaknesses. Thus, an ordinary heterosexual can choose whether to have sex only with his spouse or also outside of marriage. A person with a homosexual tendency can choose whether or not to have sex. Similarly, a person with a pedophile tendency may refrain from having sex for moral reasons because he knows it is wrong and harmful to children. Moral reasons ultimately affect what choices each individual makes.
Children and family. One of the currents of today is that it is claimed that all forms of family are equally good for children, although tens of millions of examples show the opposite. Children raised in single-parent families, new families (including rainbow families) or institutions have more problems (crime, teenage pregnancies, depression, drug and alcohol use, divorce rate…) in their lives than those raised with a biological father and mother. This is a fact that is undeniable. If modern value liberals wanted to improve the position of children, they should speak more for traditional marriage and lifelong fidelity. Growing up in the care and love of your own father and mother is the best model for a child’s development.
The question of gender. Nowadays, there is also talk of several different genders, but this has nothing to do with science and biology, but people are lying to themselves and others.
Intersex people are often mentioned in this context, but it is only a matter of a common developmental disorder in the human body, just as some children may be born blind or without hands and feet. Intersex children and people do not prove that there are more than two sexes.
On the other hand, it is also taught that someone can be born into the wrong sex. I think this is a completely false notion. For there must be nothing wrong with anyone's body, but only in man's inability to accept his own sex. So it’s more of a mental thing than a physical thing, and there’s nothing weird about it in itself, because everyone can be dissatisfied with themselves in some area of life. This is most evident in eating disorders, where a person may consider himself / herself too fat, even if quite thin (anorexia nervosa). However, plastic surgery, muscle building, seeking achievement, or alcohol and drug use can also be due to mental factors, i.e., dissatisfaction with oneself. Thus, I do not see anything strange if someone has difficulties to accept his own gender. This may be due, for example, to the fact that the parents may have strongly hoped for a child of the opposite sex and have expressed this to the child. Some girls, on the other hand, may have a background of sexual abuse that makes them want to fade all their femininity. They consider the solution to this for example cutting of their breasts, which is really sad.
Why pay attention to this issue? I see that false propaganda is destroying the lives of many people, especially girls. It is noteworthy that many value liberals today are fighting against female circumcision, which is quite right, but at the same time they advocate a transideology that leads to the same type of outcome. Here is an obvious contradiction.
The above we highlighted a few emphases and currents that are constantly brought forth by the the media. They contribute to people believing in these perceptions and beginning to oppose the ordinary Christian teaching of morality and creation. It is essential for all of them that in connection with them is talked about equality, human rights and love. These three are, of course, good and desirable things, but the problem is that some of the previous things are clearly wrong and cause harm to the person himself or to others. In addition, we should note that we are, above all, beings of eternity. We don’t live, or we shouldn’t live, just for this time, we should live for eternity. Jesus taught:
- (Matt 16:26) For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
In any case, it is a fact that the media has made people negative about the Christian faith. Representatives of the Christian faith are seen as narrow-minded, when in reality it is only a question of right and wrong behavior and differences of opinion in it. So true love from a Christian perspective is to warn people of wrong choices, just as people are warned of weak ice. If one sees this as narrow-mindedness, the fault lies in one’s own narrow-minded and untrue view that one has taken as a result of the constant brainwashing of the media. (Of course, it's true that we don't always talk lovingly about those things, and that's where our believers should repent.)
Then an example from the university world and America. It reflects very well the modern development to which the constant brainwashing of the media has led. The author describes how freedom of speech is threatened, and how up to 18 percent of American students are prepared for violence if opinions are expressed on campus that do not please themselves. In general, strong attitudes are associated with hatred against the Christian faith and morals as with early communists. American universities are relevant because they are the source of almost all the new currents that have spread to the West as well as to the rest of the world. As the number of such attitudes and people grows, we can expect the emergence of totalitarian social systems. So the following is a quote that describes the development in the USA:
... I'm worried about the Americans' right to freedom of
Another example relates also to America, which is followed elsewhere in the world with a delay of a few years. This time it is a question of Darwin's theory in the world of science and university, where the critique of Darwin's theory is hardly accepted and should not be questioned. Otherwise, boycotts and job losses could result. Universities have become preachers of the naturalistic religion and institutions where censorship prevents people from thinking.
So here is a quote on the subject. Leading Chinese paleontologist Jun-Yuan Chen was visiting America in 1999. After studying fossils, he had begun to question the orthodox theory of evolution, and he told Americans about his critical views. The consequence, however, was that he received a cool reception and marveled at this. He was then told that American scientists did not want to hear criticism against the theory of evolution. After hearing this, he made an interesting comment:
In China, we get to criticize Darwin, but not the government. In the United States, you may criticize the government, but not Darwin. (29)
If there is a totalitarianism in China and in communist countries where rulers are not to be criticized, we in the West have also all the time gone in a totalitarian direction where only Darwin’s theory is accepted and value liberals ’perceptions of morality are accepted, as previous quotes showed. The so-called value liberals claim to be tolerant, human rights advocates and proponents of equality, but in the name of their ideology they do not want to accept opposing views. Some even want legal action against those who disagree with them. This is exactly the same way as the Nazis and the Communists operate.
One evidence of modern time is also shown by the fact that those priests, teachers, and opinion leaders who bring forth these new conceptions of morality and who teach contrary to Jesus and the apostles, have great popularity. However, we should remember the words of Jesus that are well related to the subject:
- (Luke 6:26) Woe to you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.
Secondly, it is worth considering the following words of Jesus about people who mislead people, for example, in the realm of morality or teach wrongly in denying God’s work of creation. The judgment of such people is greater than that of other people:
- (Matt 18:6,7) 6 But whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
7 Woe to the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
- (Luuk 12:47,48) And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Finally, good reader! God has loved you and wants you to His eternal kingdom. Even if you have been a mocker and adversary of God, God has a good plan for you. Understand the following verses that talk about God’s love for people. They tell how Jesus came into the world so that everyone could receive eternal life and forgiveness of sins. Every person in the world can experience this:
- (John 3:16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
- (1 John 4:10) Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
But does a person get a connection with God and the forgiveness of sins automatically? No, man must turn to God confessing his sins. Many may have only a faith in which they hold true all that is written in the Bible, but they have never taken this step in which they turn to God and surrender their whole lives to God.
A good example of repentance is Jesus’ teaching on the prodigal son. This boy lived in deep sin, but then he turned to his father and confessed his sins. His father pardoned him.
- (Luuk 15:11-20) And he said, A certain man had two sons:
12 And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falls to me. And he divided to them his living.
13 And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living.
14 And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want.
15 And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine.
16 And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave to him.
17 And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father's have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger!
18 I will arise and go to my father, and will say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before you,
19 And am no more worthy to be called your son: make me as one of your hired servants.
20 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.
When a person turns to God, he should also welcome Jesus as the Lord of his life. For only through Jesus can one approach God and receive forgiveness of sins as the following verses show. Therefore, call Jesus to be the Lord of your life, and you will receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life:
- (John 14:6) Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.
- (John 5:40) And you will not come to me, that you might have life.
- (Acts 10:43) To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whoever believes in him shall receive remission of sins.
- (Acts 13:38,39) 38 Be it known to you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins:
39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.
If you have welcomed Jesus into your life and put your faith, that is, your trust in the matter of salvation, in Him (Acts 16:31 "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your house."), you can pray, for example, as follows:
The prayer of salvation: Lord, Jesus, I turn to You. I confess that I have sinned against You and have not lived according to Your will. However, I want to turn away from my sins and follow You with all my heart. I also believe that my sins have been forgiven through Your atonement and I have received eternal life through You. I thank You for the salvation that You have given me. Amen.
1. Andy Knoll (2004) PBS Nova interview, 3. May 2004, sit. Antony Flew & Roy Varghese (2007) There is A God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. New York: HarperOne
2. J. Morgan: The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of Scientific Age (1996). Reading: Addison-Wesley
3. Stephen Jay Gould: Hirmulisko heinäsuovassa (Dinosaur in a Haystack), p. 115,116,141
4. Stephen Jay Gould: Hirmulisko heinäsuovassa (Dinosaur in a Haystack), p. 115,116,141
5. Sylvia Baker: Kehitysoppi ja Raamatun arvovalta, p. 104,105
6. Carl Wieland: Kiviä ja luita (Stones and Bones), p. 34
7. Kysymyksiä ja vastauksia luomisesta (The Creation Answers Book, Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, Carl Wieland), p. 84
8. Jonathan Sarfati: Puuttuvat vuosimiljoonat, Luominen-magazine, number 7, p. 29,30,
9. Pearce, F., The Fire-eater’s island, New Scientist 189 (2536):
10. Luominen-lehti, numero 5, p. 31,http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth-finnish / Lainaus kirjasta: Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, p. 49, 1993
11. Stephen Jay Gould: Catastrophes and steady state earth, Natural History, 84(2):15-16 / Ref. 6, p. 115.
12. George Mc Cready Price: New Geology, lainaus A.M Rehnwinkelin kirjasta Flood, p. 267, 278
13. (The Panda’s Thumb, 1988, p. 182,183)
14. Francis Hitching: Arvoitukselliset tapahtumat (The World Atlas of Mysteries), p. 159
15. Richard Dawkins: Jumalharha (The God Delusion), p. 153
16. Stephen Jay Gould: The Panda’s Thumb, (1988), p. 182,183. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
17. Charles Darwin: Lajien synty (The origin of species), p. 457
18. Darwin, F & Seward A. C. toim. (1903, 1: 184): More letters of Charles Darwin. 2 vols. London: John Murray.
19. Christopher Booker: “The Evolution of a Theory”, The Star, Johannesburg, 20.4.1982, p. 19
20. L.B.S. Leakey: "Adam's Ancestors", p. 230
21. R.S. Lull: The Antiquity of Man”, The Evolution of Earth and Man, p. 156
22. Marvin L. Lubenow: Myytti apinaihmisestä (Bones of Contention), p. 20-22
23. Journal of the royal college of surgeons of Edinburgh, tammikuu 1966, p. 93 – citation from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?", p. 93,94.
24. Solly Zuckerman: Beyond the ivory tower, 1970, p. 90 - citation from: "Elämä maan päällä - kehityksen vai luomisen tulos?". p. 94.
25. Suomen kuvalehti 13/9.96 H Hakamies
26. D. Robertson: The Dawkins Letters, p. 76
27. Peter Longerich: Heinrich Himmler, p. 270
28. Richard Weikart: From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany, p. 114
29. John C. Lennox: God’s Undertaker. Has Science Buried God?, p. 93
Fictional History - Why millions of years are not true? Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables
Jesus is the way, the truth and the life
Grap to eternal life!
Fictional History - Why millions of years are not true? Scientists are ignorant of the early stages of the universe and life, as well as their age. There are good reasons why millions and billions of years are fables