The most common naturalistic explanation for the beginning of the universe is that it was born through the Big Bang from empty, i.e. a space where there was nothing. Before that there was no time, space and energy. This issue is well described by the names of books 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 thing:

In the beginning there was nothing at all. This is very difficult to understand... Before the Big Bang, there was not even empty space. Space and time and energy and matter were created in this explosion. There was nothing "outside" the universe to explode. When it was born and began its enormous expansion, the universe contained everything, including all of empty space. (Jim Brooks: Näin elämä alkoi / Origin of life, pp. 9-11)

Similarly, Wikipedia describes the Big Bang. According to it, at the beginning there was a hot and dense space until the 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 the so-called Big Bang and has been constantly expanding ever since.

But is the Big Bang and the birth of celestial bodies by themselves true? In this matter, it is worth paying attention to the following points:

The non-existent cannot have any properties and nothing can arise from it. The first contradiction can be found in the previous quotes. On the one hand, it is said that everything started from nothing, and on the other hand, it is said that the initial state was extremely hot and dense.

    However, if there was nothing in the beginning, such a state cannot have any properties. At least it can't be hot and dense because it doesn't exist. The non-existence cannot have other properties either simply because it does not exist.

    On the other hand, if we think that the non-existent changed itself into a dense and hot state of being, or that the present universe was born from it, that is also an impossibility. It is mathematically impossible because it is impossible to take anything from nothing. If zero is divided by any number, the result is always zero. David Berlinski, has taken a stand on the subject: 

”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 extremely dense, it cannot explode. The earlier quote referred to the view that everything arose from an extremely dense and hot state, a state in which all the matter of the universe was packed into an extreme small space. It has been compared to a 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 concluded from this? If black holes are considered real, and from which nothing can escape because of the large mass, how can one simultaneously justify an explosion from a supposed initial state, which should have been even denser than black holes? Atheists are contradicting themselves.                                                         

An explosion does not create order. What about the explosion itself, if it could have happened in spite of everything? Will the explosion cause anything other than destruction? This is something you can try. If an explosive charge is placed eg. inside a solid sphere, nothing is created from it. Only pieces of the ball spread within a radius of some meters, but nothing else happens. However, the entire universe is in an orderly state with beautiful galaxies, stars, planets, moons, as well as life. Such a complex and functional system is not created by any explosion, but only causes destruction and damage.

All from a small space? As stated, it is assumed in the Big Bang theory that everything was born from an infinitesimally small space. It should have become millions of galaxies, billions of stars, but also the sun, planets, rocks and living beings like elephants, thinking people, chirping birds, beautiful flowers, big trees, butterflies, fish and the sea around them, good-tasting bananas and strawberries, etc. All of these should have emerged from a space smaller than a pinhead. This is what is assumed in this standard theory.

     This matter could be compared to someone holding a matchbox in his hand and then claiming, “When you see this matchbox in my hand, can you believe that from inside it will come be hundreds of millions of stars, a hot sun, living creatures such as dogs, birds, elephants, trees, fish and the sea around them, good strawberries and beautiful flowers? Yes, you should just believe that I'm telling the truth, and that all these great things can come from this matchbox!”

     How would you feel if someone made the previous argument to you? Would you consider him a little strange? However, the Big Bang theory is similarly strange. It assumes that it all started in a space even smaller than a box of matches. I think we act wisely if we don't believe in all these theories presented by atheist scientists, but stick to God's work of creation, which is clearly the best explanation for the existence of celestial bodies and life.

    Many astronomers have also criticized the big bang theory. They see it as contrary to real science:

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

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

There has been remarkably little discussion of whether or not the big bang hypothesis is correct... many of the observations that conflict it are explained through numerous unfounded assumptions or they are simply ignored. (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.)

Gas does not condense into celestial bodies. The assumption is that at some point after the Big Bang, hydrogen and helium were created, from which galaxies and stars condensed.

     However, here again the laws of physics are violated. In free space, the gas never condenses, but only spreads deeper into space, distributing evenly. This is the basic teaching in school textbooks. Or if you try to compress the gas, its temperature rises, and the rise in temperature causes the gas to expand again. It prevents the birth of heavenly bodies.

    Fred Hoyle, who criticized the big bang theory and did not believe in it, also stated: "Expanding matter cannot collide with anything and after enough expansion all activity is over" (The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution - 1983).

     The following comments further show that scientists do not have answers to the origin of galaxies and stars. Although some popular books or TV shows repeatedly explain that these heavenly bodies were born by themselves, there is no evidence for this. Such problems are encountered when one seeks only a naturalistic explanation for the existence of celestial bodies, but rejects God's creation work, 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 rather embarrassing that no one has explained how they (galaxies) came about... Most astronomers and cosmologists openly admit that there is no satisfactory theory of how galaxies are formed. In other words, a central feature of the universe is unexplained. (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.” (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, i.e. the sun, planets and moons? It has been assumed that they were born from a single gas cloud, but it is a matter of guesswork. Scientists admit that the sun, planets and moons have a beginning - otherwise their internal energies would have been exhausted over time - but they have to resort to imagination when looking for a reason for their birth. When they deny God's work of creation, they are forced to look instead for some naturalistic explanation for the birth of these heavenly bodies.

    However, they meet a dead end in it, because the composition of the planets, moons and sun are completely different from each other. How did they originate from the same gas cloud, if they are completely different in composition? For example, some planets consist of light elements, while others have heavier elements.

    Many scientists have been honest enough to admit that current naturalistic theories of the origin of the solar system are problematic. Below are some of their comments. These comments show how questionable it is to explain the origin of the entire inanimate world by itself without God. There are no good grounds for rewriting history in this area. It makes more sense to believe in God's creation work.

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, 6^th edition, Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 387)

How do you justify the birth of life by itself?

Above, only the non-organic world and its origin have been discussed. It was stated that atheist scientists are not able to justify their own theories about the origin of the universe and celestial bodies. Their theories are contrary to physical laws and practical observations.

    From here it is good to move to the organic world, i.e. to deal with the living world. We are often told that life arose by itself 3-4 billion years ago in some warm pond or sea.

    Again, however, there is a problem with this idea: no one has ever witnessed the origin of life. No one has seen it, so it's the same problem as with the previous naturalistic theories. People may have an image that the problem of the birth of life has been solved, but there is no concrete basis for this image: This is wishful thinking, and not an observation based on science.

    The idea of the spontaneous birth of life is also problematic in a scientific sense. The practical observation is that life is born only from life, and not a single exception to this rule has been found. Only a living cell can form the building materials suitable for the creation of new cells. Thus, when it is presented that life arose by itself, it is argued against real science and practical observations.

    Many scientists have acknowledged the magnitude of this problem. They have no solution to the origin of life. They admit that life on earth had a beginning, but they are deadlocked on the matter because they do not admit God's work of creation. Here are some comments on the subject: 

I think we have to go further and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know this idea has been ostracized by physicists, and in fact by me, but we shouldn't reject it just because we don't like it if the experimental evidence supports it. (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)

More than 30 years of experimentation in the field of chemical and molecular evolution have highlighted the immensity of the problem associated with the beginning of life rather than its solution. Today, basically only relevant theories and experiments are discussed and their drift into a dead end, or ignorance is acknowledged (Klaus Dose, Interdisciplinary Science Review 13, 1988)

In trying to bring together what we know about the deep history of life on planet Earth, the origins of life, and the stages of its formation that led to the biology that appears around us, we have to admit that it is shrouded in obscurity. We do not know how life began on this planet. We don't know exactly when it started, and we don't know under what circumstances. (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 toward the end of his life. He has become famous for his experiments related to the origin of life, which have been repeatedly presented in the pages of school and science books, but these experiments have nothing to do with the origin of life. J. Morgan has recounted an interview in which Miller dismissed all suggestions of the origin of life by itself as nonsense or paper chemistry. This group of paper chemistry also included the experiments conducted by Miller himself decades earlier, the pictures of which have decorated school textbooks:

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 origin of life, they still believe that it began approx. 4 billion years ago. It is assumed that it started from a "simple primitive cell", which, however, is difficult to prove correct, because even today's cells are very complex and contain enormous amounts of information.

    In any case, if we stick to the theory of evolution and millions of years, other serious problems arise that are difficult to ignore.

     One of the biggest problems is the so-called Cambrian explosion. It means that all animal structural types, or main groups, including vertebrates, appeared in the Cambrian strata only "in 10 million years" (540-530 million years according to the evolutionary scale) completely finished and without pre-forms in the soil. For example, the trilobite with its complex eyes and other life forms have been found to be perfect. Stephen Jay Gould explains this remarkable event. He states that within a few million years all the main groups of the animal kingdom appeared:

Paleontologists have known for long, and wondered that all the main groups of the animal kingdom appeared rapidly in a short period of time during the Cambrian period... all life, including the ancestors of animals, remained single-celled for five-sixths of current history, until about 550 million years ago an evolutionary explosion gave rise to all the main groups of the animal kingdom 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 there are no simpler precursors below the Cambrian layers. Even the 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 originated in the form of a simple cell 3.5 billion years before the Cambrian period. Why is there not even a single intermediate form in the 3.5 billion-year period? This is an obvious contradiction, which refutes the evolution theory. The findings clearly support a creation model in which species were ready-made, complex and distinct from the very beginning. Several paleontologists have admitted that the Cambrian explosion is poorly compatible 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 find 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. However, recent paleontological research has led to the fact that this problem of sudden reproduction of organisms is increasingly difficult for everyone to ignore... (Scientific American, August 1964, pp. 34-36)

The fact remains, as every paleontologist knows, that most species, genera and tribes and almost all new groups larger than the tribal level suddenly appear in the fossil record, and the well-known, gradual series of transitional forms that follow each other absolutely seamlessly do not indicate their way up. (George Gaylord Simpson: The Major Features of Evolution, 1953, p. 360)

2. Another problem similar to the previous one is that after the Cambrian period, i.e. during 500 million years (according to the evolutionary scale), no new main groups of animals have appeared either. According to Darwin's theory, everything started from a single cell, and new main groups of animals should appear all the time, but the direction is the opposite. Now there are fewer species than before; they are going extinct all the time and cannot be restored. If the evolutionary model were correct, evolution should go in the opposite direction, but that does not happen. 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, where there was complexity and abundance of species in the beginning.

    The following quotations further show this problem, i.e. how in the 500 million years (according to the evolutionary scale) after the Cambrian explosion, no new main groups of animals have appeared, just as they did not appear during the pre-Cambrian period (3.5 billion years).

Stephen J. Gould: Paleontologists have known for long, and wondered that all the main groups of the animal kingdom appeared rapidly in a short period of time during the Cambrian period... all life, including the ancestors of animals, remained single-celled for five-sixths of current history, until about 550 million years ago an evolutionary explosion gave rise to all the main groups of the animal kingdom only within a few million years…

    The Cambrian explosion is a key event in the life history of multicellular animals. The more we study the episode, the more we are impressed by the evidence of its uniqueness and decisive influence on the course of later life history. The basic anatomical structures born at that time have dominated life since then 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 occurred after this, in all diversity, it was basically only a matter of variation of the basic structures 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 evolutionary scale and its schedule, is that the so-called the Cambrian explosion is believed to have happened only "within 10 million years". Well, what's so amazing about this? However, it is a real puzzle from the point of view of the theory of evolution, because 10 million years is an incredibly small time on the evolutionary scale, i.e. only approx. 1/400 of all the time that life is believed to have existed on earth (approx. 4 billion years). So the puzzle is that all the animal structure types and major groups appeared within such a short period of time, but there are no progenitors of these animals before that, and no new forms have appeared since. This does not fit the evolutionary model. It's the complete opposite of what you'd expect.

     How then can this matter be explained from the point of view of creation? My understanding is that the Cambrian explosion refers to creation, i.e. how everything was created immediately. However, that does not mean that other organisms, such as land animals and birds, were created much later. Not so, but all animals and plants were created at the same time and they have also lived at the same time on earth, but only in different ecological compartments (sea, swamp, land, highland zones...). Even today, humans and terrestrial mammals do not live in the same places as sea animals. Otherwise they would drown immediately. Correspondingly, sea animals, which are so-called the representatives of the Cambrian period are claimed to have been, could not live on earth as terrestrial mammals and humans do. They would die very soon.

How do you prove millions of years true

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 true, but evolutionists consider millions of years as the best evidence for the reliability of the theory of evolution. They think that, given enough time, everything is possible: the birth of life and the inheritance of all current species from the first primitive cell. So in a fairy tale, when a girl kisses a frog, it becomes a prince. However, if you allow enough time, i.e. 300 million years, the same thing turns into science, because in that time scientists believe that the frog turned into a human. This is how evolutionists give time supernatural properties, as it were.

    But how is it? We look at two areas related to the topic: the measurements made of rocks and the rate of formation of deposits. These are important things to find out in this area.

1. Measurements made of stones. Evolutionists think that one of the best proofs in favor of millions of years is the measurements made on radioactive rocks. Based on the rocks, it has been concluded that the earth is billions of years old.

    Do rocks prove that the Earth is billions of years old? They don't testify. These stones bear no record 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 puzzles in measuring the radioactivity of stones, of which we will highlight a few. The concentrations of stones can be measured precisely, but it is questionable to relate them to the age of the stones.

Concentrations in different parts of the rocks. One important consideration is that different results can be obtained from different parts of radioactive stones, i.e. different concentrations, which also means different ages. For example, several different results have been obtained from the well-known Allende meteorite, with ages ranging from 4480 million to 10400 million years. In a very small area, the same piece can therefore have different concentrations. The example also shows how shaky the radioactivity measurements are. How can one part of the same rock be billions of years older than the other part? Everyone understands that such a conclusion cannot be trusted. It is uncertain to relate the concentrations of rocks to their age.

Old ages of fresh stones. When it comes to methods based on radioactivity, they can be tested in practice. This is really the case if scientists know the actual moment of crystallization of the stone. If they know the actual moment of crystallization of the stone, radioactivity measurements should support this information.

    How have radioactivity measurements fared in this test? Not very well. There are several examples of how ages of millions, even billions of years have been measured from fresh rocks. This shows that the concentrations of stones do not have to have anything to do with their actual age. They have had daughter elements in addition to mother elements from the beginning, which makes the measurements unreliable. Here are some examples:

• One example is the measurements made after the eruption of the St. Helens volcano - this volcano in the state of Washington, USA, erupted in 1980. One stone from this eruption was taken to an official laboratory to determine its age. What was the age of the stone? It was 2.8 million years! This shows how badly the age determination was wrong. The sample already had daughter elements, so the same is possible for other stones. The concentrations do not necessarily indicate the real age of the stones.

• Another example is igneous 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 the eyewitnesses.

      Samples of these rocks were sent for dating to one of the most respected commercial dating laboratories (Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts). What were the results? In the potassium-argon method, the age of the samples varied between 270,000 and 3.5 million years, although the rocks were known to have crystallized 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 start.

• When it comes to human-related discoveries, several of them are based on the potassium-argon method. It means that a potassium-argon age determination has been made on the stone near the fossil, and the age of the human fossil has also been determined from it.

    However, the following example shows how unreliable this method is. The first rock sample gave a result of no less than 220 million years. So when several human fossils considered to be old have been determined using this method, these ages should be questioned. The previous example also showed how the age determination of fresh stones can go wrong 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 find 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 the methods conflict with each other. As stated, measurements taken from stones can be tested. One starting point for this is the measurements made of 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 pass this test very well. Fresh or fairly fresh rocks have given ages of millions, even billions of years, so the methods are badly mistaken.

    Another starting point for testing measurements made from rocks is to compare them with other methods, especially the radiocarbon method. There are interesting examples of this, of which the following is excellent. It tells of a tree that has been radiocarbon dated to be only thousands of years old, but the stone around it has been dated to be up to 250 million years old. However, the wood was inside the stone, so it must have existed before the stone crystallized. The tree must be older than the stone crystallized around it. How can this be possible? The only possibility is that the radioactivity methods, especially the measurements made from the stones, have been greatly mistaken. There is no other option:

We have published detailed reports in which a tree found in a "250 million years old" sandstone or in a volcanic rock "tens of millions of years old" received only thousands of years in radiocarbon age determination. When... Geologists take samples of volcanic rock, which is known to have erupted from a volcano in historical times, and send them to prestigious radiometric age determination laboratories, the "age determination" almost invariably gives a result of millions of years. This strongly suggests that the assumptions underlying the age determination are incorrect. (6)

Another example continues on the same topic. It tells of a tree that was buried in a stream of lava. The tree and the basalt around it received quite different ages:

In Australia, a tree found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow formed by the basalt, because it had been charred by contact with the fiery lava. The wood was "dated" by radiocarbon analysis to be about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was "dated" by the potassium-argon method to 45 million years old. (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 On the Origin of Species, he wrote how Lyell's thoughts affected him (p. 422): "Whoever does not admit the infinite length of the elapsed epochs after reading Sir Charles Lyell's magnificent work 'Principles of Geology' – which future historians will surely recognize as having brought about a revolution in the field of the natural sciences – he would do well to set aside this book of mine at once".

    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 find is that human fossils and goods 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 vessel, a bell, a child’s jawbone, a human skull, two human molars, 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 more jagged and uneven everywhere if erosion had affected them over long periods of time, but this is not the case. For example, one heavy rain alone can make deep grooves in the surfaces of deposits, not to mention millions of years of exposure to erosion.

    The best explanation for the formation of deposits is that they have formed in a short time, only a few days or weeks at the most. Millions of years can't be true. Even in modern times, it has been observed that, for example, a meter-thick sandstone layer can form in 30 to 60 minutes. More on the subject in the following quote:

   (…) 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 has been thought that the strata formed slowly over millions of years according to the teachings of Charles Lyell, there are a few practical observations against it, where the strata have been formed quickly. For example, in connection with the eruption of the St. Helena volcano in 1980, a series of overlapping strata with a thickness of over 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.

    Surtsey Island is another similar case. This island was born as a result of an underwater volcanic eruption in 1963. In January 2006, the New Scientist magazine told how canyons, gorges and other landforms appeared on this island in less than ten years. 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 the strata are one piece of evidence against that notion that the strata were formed slowly and over millions of years. Tree trunk fossils have been found from different parts of the world, which extend through several different strata. An old photo of the Saint-Etienne coal mine in France shows how five petrified tree trunks penetrate each of about ten layers or more. Similarly, a 24-meter-long tree trunk has been found near Edinburgh, which passed through more than ten layers, and everything indicates that the trunk was quickly carried to its place. According to the evolutionary view, the strata should be millions of years old, but despite everything, tree trunks extend through these "millions of years" old strata.

    The following example shows how problematic it is to stick to slow stratification over millions of years. The trees must have been buried quickly, otherwise their fossils could not exist today. The same applies to other fossils found in the soil:

Educated in strict Lyell's uniformitarianism, Derek ager, professor emeritus of geology at Swansea University College, describes some multilayer fossil tree trunks in his book with examples. "If the total thickness of the British Coal Measures' coal deposit is estimated at 1000 meters, and that it would have formed in about 10 million years, then the burial of a 10-metre-long tree would have taken 100,000 years, assuming that the stratification occurred at a constant rate. That would be ridiculous. Alternatively, if a tree 10 metres long had been buried in 10 years, this would mean 1000 kilometres in a million years or 10 000 kilometres in 10 million years. This is just as ridiculous, and we cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that stratification has indeed happened very quickly at times... (10)

What, then, does the rapid emergence of tree trunk fossils and other fossils refer to? The best explanation is the sudden catastrophe, which explains both the rapid emergence of deposits and the fossils in them. This could happen, for example, in the Flood. It is interesting that several scientists have begun to accept disasters in the past, and no longer take it for granted that everything has happened at a constant rate over millions of years. The evidence is more supportive of disasters than of slow processes. Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known atheist paleontologist points to Lyell's research:

Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession… [and he] resorted to two cunning means to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw mannequin so that he would destroy it… In fact, the proponents of catastrophism were much more experimentally oriented than Lyell. Indeed, the geological material seems to require natural disasters: the rocks are fragmented and twisted; entire organisms have been wiped out. To ignore this literal manifestation, Lyell replaced the evidence with his imagination. Secondly, Lyell's uniformity is a jumble of claims…

 ... Lyell was not a pure knight of truth and fieldwork, but a deliberate propagator of an enchanting and peculiar theory anchored in the steady state of the cycle of time. With his speaking skills, he tried to equate his theory with rationality and sincerity. (11)

As stated, the most likely alternative for the birth of most strata is a disaster like the Flood. What in the geological chart is explained by millions of years, or perhaps many catastrophes, can all be caused by one and the same catastrophe: the Flood. It can explain the destruction of the dinosaurs, the existence of fossils and many other features observed in the soil.

    For example, dinosaurs are often found inside hard rocks, and it may take years to extract a single fossil from the rock. But how did they get inside the hard rocks? The only reasonable explanation is that soft mud got on top of them and then hardened. This kind of thing doesn't happen anywhere today, but in a disaster like the flood, it would have been possible. It is noteworthy that almost 500 ancient records have been found around the world, according to which there was the Flood on Earth.

     Good reasons to attribute the disaster specifically to the Flood are also the fact that marine sediments are common all over the world, as the following quotes show. The first of the comments is from a book by James Hutton, the father of geology, from 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 the continents, marine sedimentary rocks are far more common and widespread than all other sedimentary rocks combined. This is one of those simple facts that demands explanation, being at the heart of everything related to man's continuing 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 from 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 a reason to look closely at the original nature of the rocks in 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. When we look at the rock here on the steep slopes or at the top of a mountain - if we had the energy to climb up there - we will eventually find fossilized animal remains, animal fossils, in it. 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 there are spiral-threaded ammonites, and especially a lot of double-shelled clams. (…) 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. Fragile sea lilies, relatives to the current sea urchins and starfishes, are found in rock walls more than three kilometers above sea level. Ammonites, belemnites, corals and plankton are found as fossils in the rocks of the mountains (…)

   At an altitude of two kilometers, geologists found a trace left by the sea itself. Its wave-like rock surface corresponds to the forms that remain in the sand from low-water waves. Even from the top of Everest, yellow strips of limestone are found, which arose under water from the remains of countless marine animals. ("Maapallo ihmeiden planeetta", p. 55)

How do you justify the existence of life on Earth for millions of years?

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 on 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 existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Is this view worth trusting? In this matter, you should pay attention to the following points:

No one can know the age of fossils. First, attention must be paid to fossils. They are the only remnant of a past life, and we have no other material available.

     But is it possible to know from the fossils their exact age? Is it possible to know that another fossil is significantly older or younger than another? The answer is clear: it is impossible to figure this out. If any fossil is dug out of the ground, e.g. a dinosaur bone or a trilobite fossil, there is no record of its age and when it has been alive on earth. We cannot detect such information from it. Anyone who picks up a fossil can notice this. (The same applies to e.g. cave paintings. Some researchers may assume that they are tens of thousands of years old, but they themselves show no such signs. They may actually be only a few thousand years old.)

    Despite everything, a basic assumption in the theory 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 information about the exact stages of ammonites, trilobites, dinosaurs, mammals, and other organisms on Earth, even though it is impossible to infer anything like that from fossils and their habitats.

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 out of 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 someone claim that a dinosaur fossil is 65 million years older than a mammoth or a human fossil if both are in equally good condition? The answer is that no one has such information. Anyone who claims otherwise goes to the side of imagination.

     So 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 time chart, which was prepared in the 19th century, i.e. long before the radiocarbon method or other radioactivity methods had been invented, for example. The age of the fossils is determined on the basis of this time chart, because it is assumed that Darwin's theory is correct and that different groups of species have appeared on Earth at different times. So life is believed to have started in the sea, so that at first there was a simple primitive cell, then seabed animals appeared, then later fish, then frogs living at the water's edge, then reptiles and finally birds and mammals. Evolution is believed to have progressed in this order, and the geological time chart was drawn up in the 19th century for this purpose, which even today determines the interpretations of the age of fossils by atheist scientists. They have no other justification for the age of the fossils.

   The geological time chart 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): “Ever since Darwin, evolutionists have known that fossils arranged in chronological order are not a series of small, barely noticeable changes.” 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 concluded from the above? If there has been no gradual development, the age estimates of the geological time chart and the assumption that different groups of species have appeared on Earth at different times can be questioned. There is no basis for such a notion. Instead, it is more reasonable to assume that all the previous groups of species have originally been on earth at the same time, but only in different ecological compartments, because some of them have been marine animals, others land 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 essentially older or younger than others. No such conclusion can be made on the basis of fossils.

    Living fossils - organisms that should have died out millions of years ago, but have been found still alive today - are also proof that millions of years are not to be trusted. There are actually hundreds of such fossils. The German scientist Dr Joachim Scheven's museum has more than 500 examples of this type of living fossil. One example is also the coelacanth, which was believed to have died out 65 million years ago, i.e. at the same time as the 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, such as there are also 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 it should not occur at all after 100,000 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 geological time chart compiled in the 1800s, which has been found to be incorrect several times. 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 dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years ago and that many modern species have lived at the same time as 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 exactly the same species as in 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 finds, 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. Basically, whenever a T. Rex or Triceratops is depicted in a museum exhibit, ducks, loons, flamingos, or some of these other modern birds that have been found in the same strata with dinosaurs should also be depicted. But that doesn't happen. I've never seen a duck with a dinosaur in a natural history museum, have you? An owl? 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 time chart in which dinosaurs are believed to have become extinct 65 million years ago.

   Dinosaur fossils can also smell rotten. Jack Horner, a scientist who believes in the theory of evolution, stated about a large dinosaur fossil discovery site that "all the bones in Hell Creek stink." How can bones smell after tens of millions of years? If they were that old, surely all the smell would have left them by now.

    What should researchers do? It would be best to abandon the geological time chart drawn up in the 19th century and focus directly on the fossils. If there are still soft tissues, proteins, DNA and radiocarbon left in them, it cannot be a question of millions of years. The presence of these substances in fossils indicates short periods. 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, s. 265)

Since the beginning of recorded history, dragons have appeared everywhere: in the earliest Assyrian and Babylonian accounts of the development of civilization, in the Jewish history of the Old Testament, in the old texts of China and Japan, in the mythology of Greece, Rome and early Christians, in the metaphors of ancient America, in the myths of Africa and India. It is hard to find a society that did not include dragons in its legendary history…Aristotle, Pliny and other writers of the classical period claimed that dragon stories were based on fact and not 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). Images of dragons have been recorded, for example, on war shields (Sutton Hoo) and wall ornaments of churches (e.g. SS Mary and Hardulph, England). At the gate of Ishtar in the ancient city of Babylon, in addition to bulls and lions, dragons are depicted. In early Mesopotamian cylinder seals, dragons with tails almost as long as necks appear (Moortgat, A., The art of ancient Mesopotamia, Phaidon Press, London 1969, pp. 1,9,10 and Plate A.). Vance Nelson's book Dire Dragons tells more examples. What is remarkable about this book is that it features old artwork about dragons/dinosaurs, as well as drawings drawn up by modern evolutionists themselves based on dinosaur bones. Readers themselves can compare the similarity of old works of art, as well as drawings drawn up on the basis of bones. Their similarity is quite obvious.

   What about the Chinese zodiac? A good example of how dinosaurs may have actually been dragons is this horoscope, which is known to be centuries old. So when the Chinese zodiac is based on 12 animal signs that repeat in 12-year cycles, there are 12 animals involved. 11 of them are familiar even in modern times: rat, ox, tiger, hare, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig. Instead, the 12th animal is a dragon, which does not exist today. A good question is that if the 11 animals have been real animals, why would the dragon be an exception and a mythical creature? Isn't it more reasonable to assume that it once lived at the same time as humans, but has become extinct like so many other animals? It is good to remember again that the term dinosaur was only invented in the 19th century by Richard Owen. Before that, the name dragon was used for centuries. 

How do you justify the theory of evolution?

The theory of evolution is the complete opposite of God’s creation 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, since life cannot arise by itself, as already noted 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 atheist, 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 intelligent 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). Likewise, several other leading paleontologists have admitted that gradual evolution is not evident in fossils, even though it is a basic premise of Darwin's theory. The argument that the fossil record is incomplete can no longer be invoked either. It is no longer that, because at least a hundred million fossils have been dug up from the earth. If there is no gradual development or intermediate forms in this material, neither is it in the material left on the ground. The following comments show how the 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 same 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 anything new. In his book On 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. As for evolution, the evolutionists are right that it does happen. It's just a matter of what is meant by evolution. If it is a question of ordinary variation and adaptation, evolutionists are quite right that it is observed. There are good examples of that in the evolutionists' own literature. Instead, the primordial cell -to-human theory is an unproven idea that has never been observed in modern nature or fossils.

    Despite everything, evolutionists try to find a mechanism that would explain the development from a simple primitive cell to complex forms. They have used mutations to help with this.

    However, mutations lead in the opposite direction in terms of development. They degenerate, i.e. take development downwards. If they were to move development forward, researchers would have to 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 an increase in information have been observed. On the other hand, it has been found through mutation experiments that mutants are primarily created that already exist beforehand. Similar mutations are repeated over and over again in experiments.

   Of course, it is true that some mutations can be useful in, for example, a toxic environment or an environment with a lot of antibiotics, but when conditions return to normal, individuals with the mutation usually do not survive under normal conditions. One example is sickle cell anemia. People with this mutation can do well in malarial areas, but it is a serious disease in a non-malarial area. If this mutation is inherited from both parents, the disease is fatal. Likewise, fish that lose their eyes through mutation can survive in dark caves but not under normal conditions. Or beetles that have lost their wings through mutation can manage on windy islands because they don't fly into the sea so easily, but elsewhere they are in trouble.

    Several researchers familiar with the area also deny that mutations would bring about large-scale changes or create new ones. This has been shown by e.g. decades of mutation experiments with banana flies and bacteria. Here are some comments from researchers 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 must be understood that scientists have a very responsive and extensive network for detecting information-increasing mutations. Most geneticists keep their eyes open for them. - - However, I am not convinced that there is even one obvious example of a mutation that would have undoubtedly created information. (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 primordial cell to human" -theory. All descriptions in the evolutionary literature are good examples, but only examples of variation 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 On 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 primordial 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 On the Origin of Species there are not real examples of species changes:

"It is quite ironic that a book that has become famous for explaining the origin of species does not explain it in any way." (Christopher Booker, Times columnist referring to Darwin's magnum opus, On the Origin of Species) (19)

How do you justify descending of human from ape-like beings?

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 primordial cell, which first evolved into forms of marine life and, as a final step, before man into modern 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 will highlight two important reasons that suggest the opposite:

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. Here 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. (…) Any of them, even though they fulfill the other requirements of old age – being buried in old layers, appearing of animal remains among them and the same fossilization grade, etc. – are not enough to satisfy the requirements of physical anthropology, because none of them have any features of the body that the American Indians would not have nowadays.” (21)

Marvin L. Lubenow has written on the same subject in his book Myytti apinaihmisistä (Bones of Contention). In this book, he has summarized evolutionists’ own age classifications for the fossils they have found. All finds reported in evolutionist literature are included.

    The same problem arises in these age classifications of evolutionists: fossils are found in the strata of the earth mixed up and without any prescribed evolutionary order. They are not found in the order required by evolution. The finds do not indicate human coming from simpler ape-like ancestors.

    In his book, Lubenow states:

   (…) At last, “the Fossil Day” of our course came. The students shared their reports to their classmates and set their fossils on a scheme following the ages and classifications given by evolutionists. As the pieces gradually snapped into place, the students understood more and more clearly that the fossils did not inevitably prove the evolution of man.

   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 apes 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 didn't have faith in human evolution from ape-like ancestors, their motivation wouldn't be enough to search.

    What have the finds 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 apes (Australopithecus) are, as the name implies, common apes, as is Ardi, whose brain size is smaller than that of the southern apes. (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 apes). 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 apes cannot be human ancestors, but that it is an ordinary ape, 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 ape-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 apes. 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 ago. 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 has 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. 

Don't stay outside the kingdom of God!

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.

REFERENCES:

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,

http://creation.com/ariel-roth-interview-flat-gaps

9. Pearce, F., The Fire-eater’s island, New Scientist 189 (2536):

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.

More on this topic:

Learn why dinosaurs lived in the recent past, at the same time as humans. Millions of years are easy to question in light of the evidence

How does the eye see? - Do we see things as they are or as they were? We are told that we see from space and stars only past, not the present. However, this view is easy to question

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

Is the Earth old or young? Is the earth and life billions of years old or not? Learn how the evidence does not support atheistic birth theories or long periods of time

Slowly or quickly? Nature programs often tell about processes over millions of years. However, several facts are against millions of years