Point 1. The only place on earth where a complete geologic column (with the "primitive" fossils on the bottom and the most complex fossils at the top) is found within the covers of geology textbooks. It is the rule rather than the exception that strata and the fossils they contain are completely out of order -- with "old" strata resting comfortably on top of "young" strata. Ohio State professor, Dr. E. M. Spieker asked in the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (vol. 40), "How many geologists have pondered the fact that lying on the crystalline basement are found from place to place not merely Cambrian, but rocks of all ages?"

What is a "primitive" life form? Biology professor, James Shapiro states, "The past decade has also witnessed the discovery of new phenomena, such as auto-aggregation of chemotactic bacteria and coordinated behaviors in complex colony morphogenesis... bacteria cells have communication and decision making capabilities that enable them to coordinate growth, movement and biochemical activities." (Annual Review of Microbiology, 1998, pp. 882-83). When people make things smaller and smaller it is a miracle of modern technology. When nature does it, it's primitive.

Point 2. The fact that a village in Central America was recently wiped out by a flood does nothing to diminish the fact that mankind is obviously better equipped, both mentally and physically, to avoid drowning than most animals. The purpose for the flood, as stated in Genesis, was to destroy mankind. What occurred recently in a Central American village, if it proves anything, is that mankind, though perhaps better equipped than animals to survive a flood, is no match for vast amounts of water.

Point 3. It is not contrary to hydraulic sorting to have small objects located below the large. The size of an object is less a factor in hydraulic sorting than its shape and density. A BB, for example, would be more likely to find its way to the bottom of flood sediments than a baseball. If one were to bury a shell six inches below the sand on the beach and then return after high tide, they would likely find that the shell had shifted to the surface. If one were to place several large shells in a bowl and cover them thoroughly with smaller shells, they would find out in two shakes that the larger shells would surface.

About three fourths of the land area of the earth, 55 million square miles, is covered with sedimentary rock. The vast bulk of the stratified rock is composed of water deposits -- exactly what one would expect to find from a worldwide flood. Although it is common to find in the lowermost strata the simplest marine organisms, it is logical that these organisms would be first and deepest in the flood sediments. After all, these sea bottoms would have been the first affected by the "breaking up of the fountains of the deep" as described in Genesis 7. All the 1500 species of invertebrates found in the Cambrian are marine animals -- 60% trilobites and 30% brachiopods. One would not expect to find, for example, a wooly mammoth in deep sea sediments.

Another factor that would influence the deposition of simple marine organisms is the hydrodynamic selectivity of moving water for particles of similar sizes, shapes and densities. Trilobites and brachiopods are very streamlined and quite dense, their shells being composed mainly of calcium carbonate, which is heavier than quartz, the most common constituent of sand. One would expect that natural hydraulic sorting would place them at the bottom. Vertebrates in general possess much greater mobility and this factor alone would normally prevent them from being entrapped and deposited in the deepest sediments. Land vertebrates tend to bloat when dead, and float in water which would tend to destroy soft body organisms and preserve those with hard outer shells.

Dr. J. W. Valentine wrote in What Darwin Began, "The fossil record is of little use in providing direct evidence of the pathways of descent of the phyla or of invertebrate classes. Each phylum with a fossil record had already evolved its characteristic body plan when it first appeared, so far as we can tell from the fossil remains, and no phylum is connected to any other via intermediate fossil types. Indeed, none of the invertebrate classes can be connected with other classes by a series of intermediates."

Imagine that you were placed on this planet to find out what happened here. You discover that most of the earth's surface is covered with sedimentary rocks which contain billions of fossils in random order. Each plant and animal species is fully developed, perfectly formed, with no intermediary links between them and most of them are identical to the creatures that currently occupy the planet. Based upon these observations, would you conclude that these animals had been buried through natural causes over a period of billions of years, or suddenly and dramatically in a great flood? Do the rocks tell a story of evolution of life or of catastrophic death?

Indeed we were, in a sense, placed on this planet to find out what happened here because, according to the word of God, the destiny of mankind is linked to its past.

"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.' For this they are willingly ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished. But the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But beloved be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." (II Peter 3:3-8)

A creationist might loosely interpret the above passage as follows: In the last days skeptics will ask, 'Where is the evidence of Christ's return? Nothing is supernatural, the processes of nature have remained the same from the beginning of time.' In this they are knowingly ignorant of the fact that the Lord not only created the earth, but He also destroyed it with a flood. Today, that same heaven and earth is being held together by His word until the day of judgment. Remember, what it takes nature a thousand years to accomplish, the Lord can do in a day.

In attempting to answer the 10 questions that creationists can't (honestly) answer, I should acknowledge that most of the research involved in this paper was a result of the hard work of evolutionists. Even though they have not penetrated the mysteries of life, in the process of trying, science steadily advances, and the truth, cloaked in camouflage green, eventually prevails. Did life originate in the abyss? The Bible says no. Whether or not life will end up there depends on us.

Many thanks to Terry for this tremendous series. It has encouraged me to think outside the lines that were drawn for me so many years ago. And though I don't pretend to understand it all, and maybe never will, it has addressed some questions I've always held and given me new ones to ponder. Nothing wrong with that. But whether you accept all the theories and opinions expressed here during the past several weeks is not the point. It is, as I have said before, not a litmus test for one's faith. To believe in a young earth opposed to an old one won't make you a better Christian or more pleasing to God. But I hope that you will at least believe this, that you are not an accident, the result of some indifferent, impersonal random process, but a person created by God for a specific purpose, and most of all a person, as Peter stated in today's verse, that is loved.

The Bottom Line
(or get to the point, Kona!)

If God can create a world in 6 days, imagine what He can do for you right now.

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top

DNA and RNA are by no means "make-believe" but they are the mechanisms that enable an egg to develop into a chicken, without any violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A fertilized egg contains all the information in its genetic code to produce an adult creature. No new information is added in the development process. It is fully equipped with the metabolic machinery required for life. The Second Law is not violated -- perhaps that is why they call it a law.

Question #8: If creationism is scientifically valid, why emphasize that the sectarian religious dogma of the book of Genesis is the ultimate scientific authority?

The majority of creationist literature does not usually refer to Genesis unless it is to confirm scientific research. All the proposals to introduce creationism to the classrooms do not include references to Genesis. This is not because Genesis is not in agreement with the facts, but because they would be automatically rejected. The unscientific claims of the evolutionist provide more than enough material for the creationist to deal with without going into the complexities of Biblical hermeneutics. From years of experience in trying to have their views heard, most creationists have learned that evolutionists neither comprehend nor believe what Genesis has to say and that it is futile to teach them unless or until the claims of evolutionary theory have been addressed. The reason that thousands of reputable scientists rely on Genesis is because it happens to be true!

"The world does not explain itself ... it is absurd for the evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything." (G. K. Chesterton)

Question #9: If you believe that God can override nature to create living things as described in the book of Genesis, then what reasons do you have, other than religious beliefs, that God could not have created living things through the process of evolution?

Michael Denton, who is neither a creationist nor an evolutionist wrote in his book, A Theory in Crisis, "Contrary to what is assumed by evolutionists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists, not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical approach." Even the outspoken anti-creationist Niles Eldredge stated that in the creation/evolution debates that have taken place all over the United States, "the creationists nearly always win." He admits that creationists don't argue religion, they do their homework, and nearly always appear to be better informed than their opponents, whom, he also admits, "are reduced too often to a bewildered state of incoherence." (Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, p.7)

Thanks again, Terry. And thanks to all you readers who have responded to this series. Next week we wrap it up with Question 10 which deals with fossils. I believe you'll find it very interesting. And I hope, at least, that from reading these articles you have begun to question what is constantly presented to you (and your children) as FACT. Just this week, for example, another dinosaur was unearthed in Egypt. It was pronounced on every network and in all print media to be millions and millions of years old, as if this were an indisputable and proven fact. It is not. Nor was there any mention that this dating is based on a theory, and one, at that, so full of holes that thousands of scientists worldwide are continually reassessing their data and their beliefs. And I can tell you this, that the people who push evolution as fact and scoff at the notion of a God-created universe would also find the concept of a virgin birth or physical resurrection equally laughable. Do you?

The Bottom Line
(or get to the point, Kona!)

If the supernatural could be explained naturally it wouldn't be supernatural.

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top

The evolutionary hypothesis, "microbes to man", implies ever increasing order, whereas the Second Law of Thermodynamics is commonly known as the "law of increasing disorder." Is it logical that the same law that leads to the death and decay of this universe could also be responsible for its creation? The burden of "mathematical proof" is upon those who claim that there can be any violation of the Second Law, which was referred to by Albert Einstein as the "paradigm of all scientific law." In every aspect the Second Law of Thermodynamics is the antithesis of evolution.

World renowned anti-creationist, Isaac Asimov, who seems to be an authority on every subject known to man, identified the Second Law in this way, "The universe is constantly getting more disorderly... In fact, all we have to do is nothing and everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out all by itself -- and that is what the Second Law is all about."

Well said, yet at the same time we are expected to believe that the universe went from a state of disorder to order, essentially creating itself along with the human brain and 120 trillion connections, the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe. Did I miss something during nap time or is this the frog-to-prince story all over again?

Asimov states, "To lift the notch above kindergarten level, the Second Law applies to a closed system -- that is, to a system that does not gain any information from without, or lose energy from the outside. The only truly closed system we know of is the universe as a whole... Evolution can proceed and build up the complex from the simple, thus moving uphill, without violating the Second Law, as long as another interlocking part of the system -- the sun, which delivers energy to the earth continually -- moves downhill (as it does) at a much faster rate than evolution moves uphill."

For a man of Asimov's stature to make a statement like this, in or out of context, is incredible. The Second Law applies to all systems (open or closed), for all systems eventually reach a state of maximum entropy, in that all living systems eventually die and decay. Asimov says that the Second Law applies only to "closed systems", then concludes that although the universe is a "closed system", evolution can occur anyway because the earth is an open system. Open to what? The answer is the sun. Something is missing here. Of course, if you apply the basic laws of physics to the Big Bang (a never ending expansion of light and gas), you will not have the problems with the Second Law of Thermodynamics -- or with people for that matter. But how does one go from hydrogen gas to the formation of the universe with its 100 billion galaxies and our sun if the only violation of the Second Law occurs within an open system?

An "open system" is needed but not sufficient to reverse the universal direction towards disorder. Asimov suggests that earth is an exception to the Second Law because the sun's energy counteracts the natural downhill progression in a kind of seesaw battle between the forces of energy and entropy. However, in the real world the flow of uncontrolled raw energy into a system only increases entropy. In order for energy to be made useful, there must be a code and a mechanism for harnessing it and putting it to useful work, for example, plant photosynthesis or animal digestion. In the primordial soup there was no energy mobilization in place to harness the raw energy of the sun and convert it into chemical energy that in turn could be used to construct monomers (molecules that interact with other molecules to form polymers like DNA and RNA).

Life on this planet is possible only because of the ozone layer which shields out harmful radiation. The ozone consists of triatomic oxygen (O₃) and is produced from molecular oxygen (O₂) by radiant energy from the sun. If there was no oxygen in our atmosphere there could be no ozone. Evolutionists doggedly assert that there was no "free" oxygen in the atmosphere during the origin of life. This is because O₂ would destroy all existing organic molecules, such as ammonia, methane, amino acids and sugars by oxidation.

If there were no O₂, then there could be no ozone. All the raw energy of the sun, including short wave ultraviolet light, would flow unimpeded to the surface of the earth. Even the relatively simple molecular substance of ammonia (NH₃) would be rapidly decomposed into nitrogen by ultraviolet light. Far from being a means of producing low entropy substances on the earth, UV radiation would destroy any semblance of life that might exist:

No oxygen = No ozone
No ozone = No UV protection
No UV protection = No organic molecules
No organic molecules = No life

John Keosain published a book in 1964 on the origin of life in which he optimistically forecast that the mysteries of the origins of life would eventually be solved in the laboratory. Fourteen years later, the disillusioned scientist wrote, "The claims of chemical evolution are unreal. We are asked to believe that biochemical compounds, biochemical reactions and mechanisms, energy metabolism and storage, specific polymerizations, codes, transcription and translation apparatus, and more, appeared in the probiotic waters with the functions they would have in a living thing before they were living things. How and in what form could life have arisen from such a scattered mélange?" (The Origin of Life, 1978, p. 44) Sir Fredrick Hoyle said, "If there was some deep principle that drove organic systems toward living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning."

No chemist in his right mind would use UV light as an energy donor in an attempt to synthesize life. In fact, it is routinely used to kill bacteria. Scientists have been able to create mutations by exposing otherwise healthy organisms to UV light, but 99% of the time those mutations are harmful. One small step for man -- one giant leap for mutantkind.

Assuming that UV light would not affect life in the deep sea, I looked there for answers. One particular on-line lecture, among hundreds, dealt specifically with UV light, oxygen and ozone. The atmosphere described there had no boundaries and no oxygen, only volcanic gases drifting into space. Through photochemical dissociation (the breakup of water molecules by UV light), enough oxygen was generated (1%) to produce a protective ozone shield, but not enough to oxidize (and thus destroy) the organic molecules required for life. It sounds rather convoluted; this is the way it looks:

UV light = Photochemical dissociation
Photochemical dissociation = 1% oxygen
1% oxygen = Ozone layer
Ozone layer = Organic molecules
Organic molecules (minus "free" oxygen) = Life
Life = Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis = Free oxygen

Priogine was probably just a victim of Informational Thermodynamics, which stipulates that "all information has a tendency to become garbled." Perhaps the forces of nature may have had greater success in circumventing this law than the Nobel prize winner.

Thanks, Terry. Next week we will tackle two of the remaining questions (short answers) as we begin to wrap up this series. I hope you have been enjoying these articles, even though they are very different from what you usually find here. It seems important to me to consider these theories, whether you accept them or not, and to hear a different view on what is all but accepted as fact. I hope, that like me, it will prompt you to (at least) be unafraid to ask questions.

The Bottom Line
(or get to the point, Kona!)

Order arising spontaneously out of chaos?
Does it work with sock drawers?

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top

Week of 5/20/01

When the young earth creationist, Augustine, was asked, "What was God doing before He created the universe?", he did not reply with, "He was preparing a hell for people who ask such questions." Rather, he said that time was a property of the universe that God created, and before the universe, time did not exist.

The idea of light being a "million times faster in the past" has nothing to do with the theory alluded to in the above question. It does concern the speed of light, but more importantly, the vantage point in space where time is measured. In short, it suggests that the universe is both old and young -- young from God's point of view, in heaven, where the six days of creation literally represented six solar days, and old from man's point of view on earth, where those same six days represent epochs. This theory has growing appeal among both young and old earthers who (reasonably) assume that the number of light years that it takes a star's light to reach earth is at least the minimum age of the universe. Theologians adopted this cosmology because they believed the evidence in support of an old earth was incontrovertible, and they thought that it would have been unethical for God to have created an effect without a cause.

This constitutes a denial that the universe was created with functional completeness. Psalm 19:1 says, "The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork." If it was created (and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics require this) than it is also logical that the universe was functional, for otherwise, all life would have expired in darkness. If creation were limited to a dark, lifeless planet it could hardly be called "creation." The creation of starlight ex-nihilo does not imply that God was deceptive in any way, but rather that the photons of light were created at the same instant as the stars from which they were derived, so that an observer on earth could have been able to see stars at the instant of creation.

The neo-creationists have raised a thought-provoking question: If God created the rays out of nothing, did the light that we see from a supernova (exploding star) 100,000 light years away ever happen, or is it just an illusion?

A supernova causes a predictable chain reaction involving neutrinos, x rays, and gamma rays. After one millionth of a second light spreads out to form a sphere with a radius of 300 meters; after two millionths of a second, the radius is 600 meters, and so on. The total energy produced by a supernova (10 to the 44th joules) is the same as if every gram of matter on earth were converted into a nuclear bomb. The Crab Nebula produced a reaction so bright that in the year 1054 it was seen for a few weeks during the daytime. If it was 100,000 light years away, and if the earth were only 10,000 years old, it stands to reason that the light would still be 90,000 light years away. The Bible says that God has given each star a name, but has He given them a history? If not, what are they doing up there?

Stephen Hawking, a world famous astrophysicist afflicted with Lou Gehrig's Disease, wrote in A Brief History of Time, a statement that appears to corroborate the neo-creationist theory that time is relative to the vantage point of the observer, "Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to run slower near a massive body like earth. This is because there is a relationship between the energy of light and its frequency. As light travels upward in the earth's gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency goes down. To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen. This prediction was tested in 1962, using a pair of accurate clocks mounted on the top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was nearer earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with general relativity...The theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time!" (A Brief History of Time, p.32)

Note that he said, "To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was taking longer to happen." If the clock at the bottom ran slower the only logical conclusion would be that less time was consumed and fewer years accumulated. Instead of the universe being "old" from man's vantage point and "young" from God's vantage point, it would have the precisely the opposite effect. Hawking may be on to something!

Einstein's famous equation, E = Mc² (where E is energy, M is mass and c is the speed of light), stipulates that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light. In order for this to happen the mass of the object would have to become "infinite." Only light can move at the speed of light, and that speed is constant.

Speed of light = distance traveled ÷ time

Hawking expounded upon this, "There would not have been time since the big bang for light to get from one distant region to the other, even though the regions were close together in the universe. According to the theory of relativity, if light cannot get from one region to another, nothing else (including information) will either. So there could be no way in which different regions in the early universe could have had the same temperature as each other, unless for some unexplained reason they happened to start out at the same temperature."

In other words, the physicist is saying that in the beginning light had to be present everywhere at the same time!

No light = no information
No information = no regular temperature
No regular temperature = no homogenous universe

How else could the universe be uniform throughout all points of space and in all directions unless it started out with the same temperature? The homogeny of the universe is interrupted only by hierarchy galaxies -- which come in clusters and clusters of clusters and clusters. Given the laws of physics and general relativity, it is physically impossible for a never-ending expansion of light (moving at 126,000 miles a second) to produce radial motion, much less pause long enough to form a single star. In the end, Hawking, whose entire philosophy was based upon the big bang, had the courage to say, "At the singularity (big bang) general relativity and all other physical laws break down: one couldn't predict what will come out of the singularity... this means that one might as well cut the big bang, and any events before it because they have no effect on what we observe." (A Brief History of Time, p. 122)

This does not solve the problem regarding the amount of time it takes for the light of distant stars to reach earth, but it suggests that when astronomy deviates from the basic laws of physics and the principles of relativity, it may drift toward mathematical science fiction. Astronomer H. S. Slusher said, "When the ratio of known, in relation to that which can be known, approaches zero, then scientists have a tendency to manufacture knowledge at an alarming rate."

It is simple enough to grasp the concept that if our sun was blotted out, eight minutes would pass before it was apparent on earth. But with a supernova 100,000 light years away the same principle is somehow elusive. According to theory these heavenly bodies are in the final stage of their "evolution" and represent some of the oldest objects in the universe. An average galaxy like our own, The Milky Way, produces a supernova about once every twenty-five years. Using observation and computers, astronomers can accurately predict what will happen to these expanding clouds of stardust -- a million times more massive than the earth. According to the standard theory, the Super Nova Remanent (SNR) should have traveled about 300 light years after 120,000 years. There are three stages in this development:

Stage 1. Explosion - 300 years
Stage 2. Expansion - First 120,000 years
Stage 3. Vacuum - After 1 million years

If the universe is billions of years old, measurements taken since the advent of modern astronomy, reveal that there should be the following number of SNRs at each respective stage:

Stage 1. ...2
Stage 2. ...2260
Stage 3. ...5000

The numbers actually observed by modern astronomers are:

Stage 1. ...5
Stage 2. ...200
Stage 3. ...0 (!)

Where are the remains of the 7,000 missing supernovas whose remnants should be spread out over light years of space? The mystery of this missing stardust compelled evolutionist astronomers Clark and Caswell to ask, "Why have the large number of expected remnants not been detected?" (Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy, 1994, p. 184)

The creationist model (based on a 7,000 year old earth) predicts with remarkable accuracy: 2 SNRs in the first stage, 125 in the second and 0 in the third. According to Jonathan Moeller, a 10,000 year old model would produce 178 SNRs in the 2nd stage -- only 22 short of the exact number observed.

This may indicate that the universe is young, but it does not explain how an explosion 100,000 light years away could be visible on a 10,000 year old earth. It would be more simple if it were only a matter of light photons being created. But, as we have seen, light involves certain chain reactions that must be accounted for. Isn't it hypocritical to expect the evolutionist to explain the universe in terms of cause and effect if we are not capable of doing the same?

Creation was a supernatural, non-repeatable event that cannot be explained naturalistically. Why do some planets rotate in the opposite direction? Why did God create light on day 1 and the sun on day 4 and how would this affect the perception of time? 

By faith we know the universe was spoken into existence. God said, "Let there be light; and there was light." Natural cause and effect does not apply here because He, the Lord of the Universe was the first cause. In the same way, when Jesus turned water into wine, the aging process could not be explained naturally. All you could have said was, "Praise God, that is mighty fine wine!"

Thanks again, Terry, for this enlightening and thought-provoking article. I hope you readers are enjoying this challenge as much as I am. Yes, a lot of it goes over my head, this not being my field of study, but it has given me a perspective I never had on the Creation. Next week, Mr. Moeller does battle with this brainbuster: What mathematical proof can you supply, based on the known equations of thermodynamics, that order cannot spontaneously arise from disorder? I don't know the answer, but I wish it would take place in my house this weekend so I could relax at the beach.

The Bottom Line
(or get to the point, Kona!)

There is one Light that has always been and will never go out.

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top

Week of 5/13/01

This question is misleading because no creationist believes that the universe is only a few thousand years old. The difference between a "few thousand years" and 6,000 to 10,000 years old, is the difference between a plausible and implausible cosmology. We know that recorded history goes back at least 5,000 years. The Ussher Chronology places creation at 6,000 years ago. The question is, were there gaps in the genealogical record? And did "father" sometimes mean "grandfather", which was custom in ancient times? The additional 4,000 years to speculate on seems almost an eternity, especially when evolutionists throw around "billions" like pork-barrel politicians.

Evolutionists may give some ground on peripheral issues such as the fossil record, statistical probabilities, and thermodynamics, but the issue of age of the universe is where they draw the line. One astronomer has pointed out that the presumed age of the universe has nearly doubled every decade since Darwin. We have been so indoctrinated with the "billions of years" mantra (repeated once every 60 seconds on the nature channel) that the mere mention of a young earth will cause people to look at you as if you had just insulted their mother. There is one consolation. At any given point in history, the prevailing scientific view, endorsed by the masses, was probably wrong. If you find yourself among a small, but growing, minority who have examined the evidence of a young earth, consider yourself fortunate. For me it was like lighting a candle in a dark room. All of the sciences make more sense in the light of revelation backed by solid empirical evidence.

Imagine that our solar system was a "closed room" and in this room there were many candles burning, both large and small. You are not told when the candles were first lit, yet you are given the task of determining the age of the room. The only information is that the room was permanently sealed off and all the candles were lit at the same time the room was built. Some may have already burned out.-

You go to work and estimate the original size of the candles, measure the rate at which they are burning, and determine the amount of wax remaining. After announcing an upper limit for the age of the room, a group of scientists are brought in for a second opinion. They are given the exact same information and they begin to calculate things: 1) The size of the room -- taking into account recent theories on quantum fluctuations in space; 2) The speed of light -- based on Einstein's theory of relativity; 3) The age of the candlesticks -- based upon the half-life of uranium atoms in the candlestick. When they are finished, they announce that room is in fact a million times older than had been previously estimated. A debate ensues:

  You state, "The candles could not possibly have been burning a million times longer than estimated, as there is not enough space available in the entire room to hold all the wax."
  The scientists form a huddle, then respond by saying that the lifespan of the candles is irrelevant to the question of the age of the room because there were new candles brought in from the outside.
  "When?" you ask.
  They reply, "We are not certain, but we estimate it was some time recently, or else all the candles would have burned out by now."
  You remind them that the room has been permanently sealed, a closed system -- nothing coming in and nothing going out.
  "We did not mean that that the candles came from outside-outside," they say, "but from somewhere in unexplored regions of the room."
  You again remind them that all the candles were lit at the same moment that the room was built and ask them if these new candles were also lit at that time.
  "Well, yes and no. All the candles were lit at the same time, but the new ones were in a state of 'hibernation' and started burning only when they were brought out into the open."
  "Fascinating," you respond. "How and when did you first discover these mysterious hibernating candles that suddenly appear out of nowhere?"
  "Well," they say, "we never actually observed them, but we know..."
  You interrupt, "How can you know?"
  "We know the room is very old and that is the only other conclusion we could come to."

Comet disintegration. Since comets are a definite part of our solar system, the natural inference would be that the maximum age of the comets would also be the maximum age of the solar system, the two having come into existence at the same time. They provide an upper limit on the age of both the earth and the solar system.

Famous British astronomer Sir Fredrick Hoyle said that, "It has been established that the break-up of many comets is taking place at such a rate that they will be entirely disrupted within a million years. It is an immediate inference that these comets could not have been moving around the sun, as they are at present, for much longer than a million years, since otherwise they would have already broken up." (Frontiers of Astronomy, p. 11)

Hoyle appears to avoid the obvious conclusion that the lifespan of the comets is directly related to the age of the solar system by assuming that they did not even begin breaking up until less than a million years ago. These are referred to as "long-term comets" with an upper limit of a million years. Even more perplexing is the existence of "short-term comets" whose life expectancy is less than 10,000 years.

If short-term comets came into existence at the same time as the rest of the solar system, and that solar system is billions of years old, then there is a problem. How can comets with a total life expectancy of 10,000 years coexist with a solar system that is a million times older than them? At the rate that comets disintegrate they would have to be larger than the sun in order to exist for billions of years. In fact the comet would not be orbiting around the sun -- the sun would be orbiting around it.

The most popular solution to this problem was the brainchild of Jan Ort who proposed the "Ort cloud", a gigantic reservoir of "hibernating" comets that exist just beyond the reaches of observable space. He suggested that interstellar events occasionally dislodge a piece of material from this otherwise stable cloud, propelling it into a near solar orbit, furnishing our solar system with an inexhaustible supply of comets. (The Trails of Comets, Scientific American, Vol. 199, p. 44)

The underlying assumption is that the solar system is very old, yet observations reveal that comets are relatively young. The best way to deal with this apparent contradiction, besides acknowledging the fact that the solar system is also young, is to assume that these comets are continually being introduced in to the system. Thus again observations play second fiddle to assumptions. Two criteria for good science are that it is based upon that which can be observed, and that which is falsifiable. Even with the most sophisticated telescopes the Ort cloud cannot be observed, and therefore it is impossible to falsify.

Fred Whipple, who has contributed more to the theory of cometary phenomena than any modern astronomer says, "We are still left in the dark as to the ultimate origin of comets. Where was the factory in which they were located, and when did the sun acquire these magnificent yet quite trivial bodies, whose combined total mass, in spite of their vast extent, is probably less than that of the earth?" (The New Astronomy, p. 207)

Meteoric dust. Like sand through an hourglass, each year 14,300,000 tons of cosmic dust settles on the earth. This material is composed mostly of iron, with large amounts of nickel and other rare components of the earth's crust. The problem that modern scientists have is that they cannot account for the fact that there is only a thin layer of dust on the surface of the earth. This would indicate that the earth is quite young. In addition to the absence of top soil, meteorites and tektites in the geologic column, no substantial amount of nickel is found in either.

According to astronomer Dr. H. S. Slusher, a young earth creationist, NASA predicted a massive layer of meteoric dust during its first lunar landing. More dust was expected on the moon than the earth because of the non-turbulent atmosphere. I remember distinctly as a child noticing a couple things about the first moon walk: the strange looking lunar module and the footprints the astronauts made. This module, according to Slusher, was equipped with long spider-like legs to prevent it from being immersed in dust. When they landed, to their astonishment they found only a couple of inches of dust on the moon's surface. If the influx of cosmic debris has been constant for 5 billion years and the dust is not found on the earth's surface, or in the geologic column, or on the moon, where did it go?

Time for a change?

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top

Week of 5/6/01

The only "objects of known age" are those that can be verified by human history. Unless, of course, "known age" means whatever age the radiometric dating method says it is. With the exception of radiocarbon dating, which is limited to once living things, most other radiometric schemes would not even be used in dating such an object. This is because radioisotope dating methods deal with inorganic materials (igneous or metamorphic rocks) and with the exception of recently dated lava flows, they are not a factor in determining objects of "known age".

If, for example, a flint spearhead was dated, the radioisotopic results would have no bearing on when the artifact was actually constructed -- only when the flint was formed. Whereas, with radiocarbon dating, involving once living things, the carbon content of an object theoretically establishes upper limits because the age of the artifact is directly related to the age of material used. Since carbon in the atmosphere mostly becomes attached to oxygen to form carbon dioxide, and since carbon dioxide is ingested by plants and animals, and since this process stops at the time that the animal dies, the percentage of radiocarbon among the normal carbon atoms in the system can be used to establish the date at which the animal stopped metabolizing.

It is circular reasoning to say that a certain human artifact is 20,000 years old, based on radiocarbon dating methods, and then assert that this is consistent with the "known age" of the artifact when no other empirical evidence is available. The archaeologist who would ascribe the "known age" of an artifact to be 20,000 years old would do so on the basis of radiometric dating anyway, certainly not historical record. Similarly, paleontology texts will tell you that rocks are used to date fossils and geology texts will tell you that fossils are used to date rocks. Even the famous anti-Creationist Nile Eldridge queried, "If we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" (Time Frames, 1995, p. 52)

Since fossils are found exclusively in sedimentary rocks which consist of foreign rock fragments transported by water from foreign locations, it is unlikely to find any correlation between the age of the rocks and the fossils they contain. Questions regarding "universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements being consistent with objects of known age" presume to be well substantiated in the scientific community, but what evidence is available? What specific tests were performed on what "objects of known age" and what percentage of the time were they correct?

Anthropologist Robert Lee stated, "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious...Continuing use of this method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half the dates are rejected. The wonder is that the remaining half come to be accepted. No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." (Radiocarbon, Ages in Error -- Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19, no. 3, pp. 9, 29)

W. F. Libby, the father of radiocarbon dating, wrote in Scientific Monthly, "The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years. We had thought initially that we would be able to get samples all along the curve back to 30,000 years, put the points in, and then our work would be finished. You read books and find statements that such and such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known; in fact, it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last historical date of any real certainty has been established."

I believe that the Sumerian culture preceded the first dynasty in Egypt, but the point is that the calculations of radiocarbon dates are based on questionable assumptions, while the only verifiable dates are established by recorded history. Libby also wrote, "If one were to imagine that the cosmic radiation had been turned off until a short while ago, the enormous amount of radiocarbon needed for equilibrium would not have been manufactured and the specific radioactivity of living matter would be much less than the rate of production calculated by by neutron density." (Radiocarbon Dating, 1955, p. 7)

Creationists believe that the existence of a vapor canopy over the earth (which is cryptically implied in Genesis 1 and in the above statement of W. F. Libby) would not only filter out the ultra-destructive cosmic radiation, but it would inhibit the formation of radiocarbon in the atmosphere. Perhaps this would also explain why people lived longer when the earth was younger. The collapse of this protective canopy would result not only in the Great Flood, but it would also accelerate the buildup of carbon 14 atoms.

Also worth noting is the fact that radioactivity in objects of "known age" progressively diminishes as one goes back in time. When objects older than 5,000 years (the 1/2 life of carbon 14) are analyzed for radiocarbon on the basis of present equilibrium conditions and rates, they often reveal that the amount of error increases proportionately with the age of the material.

There are three basic assumptions of radioisotope dating.
1) The decay rate is constant. Questionable at best.
2) There has been no loss or gain of parent or daughter elements. Even using uniform standards, it is unlikely that these rocks would have remained unaffected by leaching and/or contamination for untold billions of years.
3) There are known amounts of daughter elements present from the start. No one can know the original quantity of the various isotopes, particularly the daughter elements unless they were there to test it when the rock was first formed. If some of the daughter element was present at the moment a particular rock was created, that rock would already appear to be old when in fact it had just been formed.

In most cases where the age of a recent volcanic eruption was determined, excessively high ages were yielded. For example, Sunset Crater in Arizona erupted in 1065 A.D. When tested with the potassium argon method the lava flow gave ages of 230,000 years. The eruption of Mt. Rangitoto in New Zealand, believed to be 300 years old, was dated by potassium argon at 485,000 years. Rocks from the Kaupelehu flow in Hawaii known to have erupted in 1800-1801 were dated with a variety of methods. The Journal of Geophysical Research (5/68) reports 12 dates ranging from 140 million years to 2.96 billion years with an average of 1.4 billion years. If the method used to date these relatively recent eruptions was accurate, then the correct answer would be closer to zero.

Radioisotope dating assumes uniformity, it assumes that there has never been a world restructuring catastrophe, and it assumes that the world is old -- at least old enough for the present amount of radiogenic lead in a specimen to have been produced by uranium decay. If any of these assumptions is incorrect then the results of the test will reflect it.

The Book of Job asks, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?" Who knows how much of the parent and daughter elements were present at the time of creation? We do know, however, that there is a great deal of selectivity in ascribing dates by both creationists and evolutionists.

The face of a child is young. In my opinion, so too is the face of the earth. Judging from the amount of geological change that has taken place within the period of recorded history it is difficult to fathom that ancient ruins could lay side by side with fossils, undisturbed, when they are said to be separated by billions of years. Given the amount of erosion which occurs every year, any fossil exposed to the elements for billions of years would be long gone.

Whew! Thanks, Terry. Seems like a lot of what we've been taught to be fact is based on pretty flimsy guesswork. Next week, my friend deals with this puzzler, "What scientifically factual information can you supply to support your contention that the universe is only a few thousand years old?" You aren't going to want to miss this one. It's amazing.

The Bottom Line
(or get to the point, Kona!)

In fact there is one Rock by which all is dated.

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top

If there was a world wide flood, the topography of the Grand Canyon is precisely what one would expect to find. Why the rest of the world doesn't look more like the Grand Canyon is the mystery to me. In this region there are thousands of square miles of horizontal strata, thousands of feet thick. It is believed to have been uplifted from below sea level, since most of the sediments are of marine life, to over a mile above sea level. According to modern geological theory this uplift occurred not once, but several times, without disturbing the horizontality of the strata. Each era was represented by a period of uplift followed by normal erosion and deposition. 

The question is, how could an area this large remain uniform and horizontal over great periods of time, while undergoing frequent and cataclysmic uplifts? A more sensible way for accounting for the symmetry of the region can be explained in terms of a rapid deposition of sediment-laden water. The canyon consists of fossil-laden sedimentary rocks (limestone, shale and sandstone) which by definition are "rocks deposited by water". If 3/4 of the world (including the Grand Canyon) is covered with sedimentary bedrock, then what other conclusion can we come to than these rocks were deposited by water? How could a flood not have formed the Grand Canyon?

Absent are the layers of soil between these formations, or for that matter, any evidence of meteoric impacts during these periods. If each strata was exposed for an epoch, one would expect to find an abundance of both. W. H. Twenhofel, author of Principles of Sedimentation stated, "It is only the meteorites that escape in passage through the atmosphere that can possibly be recognized. There probably are many of these, and in the deep sea, where the rate of deposition is extremely slow, cosmic particles may rate high in the sediments as compared to places where other sediments are abundant. No meteorites have been found in the geologic column." Geologist Ralph Stair also states in his book, Tektites, "Neither tektites nor meteorites have ever been found in any of the ancient geological formations."

How could these large areas that were exposed to billions of years of bombardment by meteorites show absolutely no evidence that they were ever impacted? If evolutionists did find craters in the geologic column it would be heralded as absolute proof that the strata was not laid down rapidly, and I would have to agree. However, if it were publicized that meteoric impacts are not found in the geologic column it would be dismissed as a plot by fundamentalists to mix religion with science.

The flood = religion = superstition. Therefore, as a modern scientist, if you want to continue working, don't even ask why sea shells are found on top of some of the highest mountains on earth, or how unrelated animals who evolve in different corners of the globe end up looking alike by chance, or how over 200 unrelated cultures can share common flood traditions by chance.

The Canyon was likely formed following the great deposition of sedimentary rocks while they were yet pliable. The meandering features throughout the canyon is yet another indication that it was formed before the sediments hardened. A stream which is degrading its bed tends to straighten its course, while meandering is always associated with non-resistant banks.

According to Dr. Henry Morris, author of The Genesis Flood, after the deluge, the waters rushed down from the newly lifted mountains toward the newly enlarged ocean basins, leaving a massive scar in the canyon visible from outer space.

Casting aside all presuppositions, does the Grand Canyon appear as if it were formed by a relatively small amount of water over a long period of time or by a large volume of water in a short period of time? I believe the honest answer is the latter.

Thank you, Terry. That made sense to me. I hereby award round 2 to you (it's my site, I can do that). Next week Mr. Moeller takes the gloves off and tears into this fearsome conundrum, "How do you explain the universally consistent radioactive dating results obtained with different radioactive elements, and the consistent correlation with objects of known age?" If you just said, "Huh?", tune in next week and it will all be made abundantly clear to you.

The Bottom Line
(or get to the point, Kona!)

Evolutionists are overly sedimental about their precious theory.

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top

This week we are going to begin an exciting series of articles, very different from any that has previously appeared here, in which we contrast creation science and the theory of evolution. It came about this way: I had referred my best friend, Terrence Moeller of Hanalei, Kaua'i, to an internet site, No Answers in Genesis ( set up to refute, and mock, a Christian site, Answers in Genesis). I knew he would be activated by this, as Terry, while admittedly but an amateur scientist, has made an intensive and scholarly study of the subject over the past decade. Shortly thereafter, I received a package containing his brilliant response to an article on No Answers in Genesis entitled "Ten Questions that Creationists Can't (Honestly) Answer." For the next several weeks we will examine these questions, and his enlightening (and unedited) responses. Though some of this will be highly scientific, and possibly outside your own sphere of knowledge (as it is mine), and maybe even outside your own beliefs, keep reading! This is not a litmus test for Christianity. I'm sure you will find it fascinating, and more importantly, faith-strengthening. Terry wishes to make clear that much of his references and data comes from The Institute for Creation Research and he highly recommends for those interested in further reading on the subject two excellent books: The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris and Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics by Dr. Dwayne Gish. Okay, to quote Miles Lane, "Let's get it on!"

Question #1: The Genesis Flood: where did the water come from? Where did it go?

Evolutionists begin with two basic assumptions. 1) There were no waters "above the firmament" as described in Genesis. 2) The antediluvian world was the same after the flood. Most creationists believe that prior to the flood there existed a water canopy over the earth which resulted in a global greenhouse effect. The Bible says, "And God made the firmament and divided the waters that were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so" (Genesis 1:7). According to the flood account, "The same day all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened" (Genesis 7:11). These subterranean waters, combined with the waters from the upper atmosphere, provided enough water to cover the earth.

Following the flood, some of the water receded back to the subterranean depths, some of it eventually became the polar ice caps, but most of it remained where it was, enlarging the volume of the ocean. Evidence shows that the sea level was once much lower than it is presently. Every continent on earth has river canyons extending from dry land deep into the ocean. One particular canyon extends 300 miles from the mouth of the Hudson River toward the continental shelf. Evolutionist W. D. Thornbury, Professor of Geology at Indiana University, said regarding this phenomenon, "The difficulties encountered in explaining the lowering sea level required for canyons to have been cut by streams seems insurmountable...If Tolstoy's conclusion that the Hudson Canyon extends down to a depth of 15,000 feet is correct, the magnitude of lowering of sea level to permit subaerial canyon cutting seems beyond any possibility of realization...The origin of submarine canyons remains a perplexing problem." (Principles of Geomorphology, p. 472)

Since no creationist knows what the topography of the earth was before the flood, they can only speculate to the degree in which it has changed as a result of this upheaval. It is reasonable to assume that the combined impact of a world-wide flood with the fountains of the deep breaking up, volcanic activity, seismic activity and the dividing of the continents could have resulted in the deepening of the sea basins, providing adequate space for the water.

Regarding the sea floor, evolutionist Edwin Hamilton wrote in The Scientific Monthly, "Most marine geologists today think that the sea floor has subsided, but there is a small minority who believe that perhaps the ocean volume has increased...something on the order of a 30% increase in the volume of the oceans must have occurred in that last 100 million years." (The Last Geographic Frontier, p. 305) If in fact the sea level was substantially lower in the past then the only logical conclusion would be that there was less water in the ocean at that time. The burden of proof would therefore be upon the evolutionists to explain where all this additional water that presently fills the oceans came from, if not the Genesis flood.

Dr. K. K. Landess, head of the Geology Department, University of Michigan asks, "Can we seekers of truth, shut our eyes any longer to the obvious fact that large areas of sea floor have sunk vertical distances measured in miles?" (Illogical Geology, vol. 3, p. 19) Perhaps a better question is...Can these "seekers of truth" shut their eyes to the obvious fact that the world was once covered with water?

Thank you, Terry! Next week Mr. Moeller takes on the insidious poser, "How could the Genesis flood form the Grand Canyon?" Be ringside for this no holds barred slugfest of truly Biblical proportions!  

The Bottom Line
(or get to the point, Kona!)

The theory of evolution just doesn't hold water.

Go to the NEXT

Go to the LAST issue

Back to Issues at top