rEvolutionary Thinking
    Where Do We Come From Really?

    A Critical Analysis of the Scientific Evidence for Evolution

    Session Five

  1. The fossil record

  2. Creationism predicts that since all kinds of life were created in much the present form, we may find fossil evidence of some extinctions, but there were never any "half-this-half-that" transitional creatures. The fossil record should show this, and indeed it does.

    In fact, no verifiable transitional fossils have ever been found above the "family" level, although there is good evidence that some new species have appeared. Speciation is an uncontested, known fact of science, widely used by breeders and horticulturists on many types of plants and animals. Speciation is not however, Evolution nor is it proof of Darwinism. A later section of this outline will address some of the proposed transitional creatures, otherwise known as "missing links", that have been put forth by evolutionists as proof of their theory.

    Almost all fossils can be identified and classified in the same way as those creatures living today. Most knowledgeable evolutionists now admit that this disproves the original Darwinism – evolution by natural selection working on normal hereditary variations, thus producing all of the wide varieties of life we see today, and that these are descendants from one, or a very few, original forms.

    The following illustration shows what we would expect to find in the fossil record for both the Creation and Evolution models:
    3. COMPLEX at the start and classified with the 3. SIMPLE AT THE START and classified with
    4. SAME CRITERIA we use today 4. DIFFERENT CRITERIA from today

    Figure 1 Predictions about fossils

    The problem of gaps in the fossil record was recognized by Charles Darwin himself; he wrote: "But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"1

    Darwin explained that he thought these gaps existed because of the "imperfection of the geologic record," (not enough fossils had been collected). Early Darwinians expected that these gaps would be filled as the exploration for fossils continued. But the majority of paleontologists now agree that this expectation has not been fulfilled.

    David M. Raup is dean of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; this museum has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Thus, its dean should be eminently qualified to summarize the situation regarding gaps in the fossil record. He said: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky, and ironically, we have fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information – what appeared to be a nice simple progression when irrelatively few data were available now appears to be much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record, which does show change, but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection".2

    Stephen J. Gould is one of today’s most outspoken advocates of evolution, yet he admits, "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt."3

    After nearly 200 years of exploring the fossil record what have scientists found?

      1. "Stratographic leak": Fossils are often formed in the wrong strata of rock. In other words, fossils are found millions of years out of place.
      2. "Paraconformities": Some Rock layers representing millions of years are simply missing from where they are supposed to be.
      3. The wrong order of rock layers are sometimes found, such as in Glacier National Park, where a block of Pre-Cambrian limestone (supposedly 1 billion years old) is on TOP of Cretaceous shale (supposedly only 100 million years old).
      4. Polystratic Trees that cut across supposed millions of years of fossil record. Since the trees couldn’t have fossilized slowly, the obvious solution is that the entire fossil record was laid down very quickly (by the Genesis flood.)
      5. The Cambrian Explosion, or "sudden appearance" of complex life forms with no apparent ancestry, supposedly 600 million years ago, rather than the gradual appearance of increasing complexity was described by G. Gaylord Simpson, evolutionist, "as the major mystery of the history of life".
Because of this lack of evidence that evolution has occurred, Drs. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. This suggests that small segments of populations became isolated and experienced mutational changes that quickly led to formation of new species. Upon their reintroduction into the general population there was a long period of stasis (no change). It’s said that since the new types developed quickly in a small group, it’s not likely that any transitional fossils would now be found. Yet this theory makes no attempt to explain how such evolutionary development may have occurred. It seems that a simpler way of explaining the absence of transitional fossils is simply to believe in the Theory of Direct Creation.

But if the fossil record doesn’t show those "innumerable transitional forms" that Darwin expected, why do so many of today’s textbooks seem to say that the fossils show evidence of evolution? Is there actual falsification of facts? Well, not exactly misrepresentation – wishful thinking might be a better term. David Raup of Chicago’s Field Museum is one of the world’s most respected paleontologists, and a believer in evolution. Yet he wrote the following in a letter to Science magazine: "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved in the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found – yet the optimism had died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.4

    1. Horse series fossils

    2. A famous fossil-hunter and professor of vertebrate paleontology, Othniel C. Marsh, during the 1870’s found bones and teeth in Wyoming and Nebraska which he put together into what he said were 30 different kinds of fossil horses. He assembled these into a series showing what he called the development of the modern horse; this was displayed at Yale University, and has been copied by numerous other museums.
      The earliest of this series, Eohippus, is properly called hyracotherium. Its skeleton is indistinguishable from that of the modern hyrax (sometimes called "daman," an animal the size of a small dog that lives today in Africa). This is not horse-like; it has 4 toes and 18 pairs of ribs, and its feet are padded and dog-like. The next oldest, orohippus, had 15 pairs of ribs. Pliohippus had 19 pairs, and the modern equus has 18 pairs. Does this sound like a genuine series of transitions? Especially not, when we consider that fossils of eohippus and the modern equus have been found side by side in surface rocks.
      Francis Hitching is a very well-known evolutionist, but he criticizes this "horse-series." He wrote: "A complete series of horse fossils is not found in one place in the world arranged in rock strata in the proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. The sequence depends on arranging Old World and New World fossils side by side, and there is considerable dispute as to what order they should go in."5
      G. A. Kerkut is also an evolutionist who recognizes that the theory has some faults. His main problem with the horse series is that the original fossils are not available – everything on display is a reproduction, and there’s no way of knowing which bones were really found and which were added from imagination. He wrote: "At present, however, it is a matter of faith that the textbook pictures are true or even that they are the best representations of the truth that are available to us at the present time…It makes quite a difference whether a name on a diagram represents a whole skeleton or just a tooth."6
      Ian Taylor sums up his discussion of horse evolution in this way: "When all is said and done, however, a row of look-alike fossils cannot be proof that one species changed into another; we cannot be sure that the little rock badger of long ago changed into Orohippus, since it is just as likely that they have always been separate species, one still living, one extinct…To put the argument another way, if horses and donkeys were only known by their fossils, they might well be classified as variants within a single species, but the experience of breeders shows that, in fact, they are separate species. Acknowledging all the enormous amount of work that men such as Henry F Osborn and G.G. Simpson have put into the horse series, the sad fact remains that what has actually been done is to select the fossil data to fit the theory, and this cannot be considered scientific proof. It is little wonder, then, that Raup (1979) makes the comment that the evolution of the horse in North America has to be discarded or modified."7
      Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, curator at the American Museum of Natural History and co-author (with Stephen J. Gould) of the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, had this reaction when asked about the horse series: "There have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than others, about what the nature of that history [of life] really is. The most famous example, still on exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps fifty years ago. That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly when the people who propose those kinds of stories may themselves be aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff."8
    3. Dinosaur Fossils

    4. Of all the fossils discovered through the ages, none have stirred the public imagination as much as have these giant dragons. And almost every museum exhibit on dinosaurs uses them to proclaim their fable of "millions of years ago." Yet dinosaur fossils actually speak more clearly of creation than of evolution. Mace Baker wrote: "The record of the dragons, contrary to the theory of evolution, does not demonstrate the gradual emergence of one kind into another… The geological record – the contents and nature of the sedimentary strata – does not obviously support any notion of millions of years, nor any distinct time parameters monopolized by mammals, reptiles, or humans."9

      The fossils of dinosaurs are all classified within class reptilia, and are either in order saurischia (lizard-hipped) or order ornithischia (bird-hipped). They’re further divided into several dozen families and a few hundred species. The interesting thing about this assortment of strange creatures is that they all fall into distinct groups – never any that were "half-and-half." Evolutionists assert that certain types lived early in the Triassic period, then died out and were replaced by other types, on and on for some 150,000,000 years to the end of the Cretaceous period, when suddenly all dinosaurs became extinct. If this were true, surely there would be some evidence of this; but there is absolutely none. Every one of the crested hadrosaurs has a full-size crest; never is there a trace of one that’s just forming. In the ceratops sub-order, there are several different kinds of neck frills and differing numbers of horns, but no sign of one type developing into another. All appeared to be fully formed. This all points to a Creator, not to random evolution.

      There’s much speculation about what caused the "sudden" extinction of dinosaurs. Scientists can’t agree. Many speak of an asteroid striking the earth, causing worldwide atmospheric problems, however others disagree and point to the many creatures that did not become extinct at that time. There are two points we should realize: first, the suddenness of their demise is due to circular reasoning (see section on the geologic column), and second, most of the dinosaur fossils are found in huge "dinosaur graveyard" regions all over the world. These give strong evidence of having been buried in some huge watery catastrophe, such as a Great Flood. The post-flood environment was probably so different from what those on the ark had been suited for that extinction became inevitable.

  1. Transitional fossils (missing links)

  2. Several fossils have been put forth by evolutionists which were reported to be "missing links". Let’s take a look at some of these fossils:
    1. Coelacanth

    2. Believed to be a transition from fish to amphibian. 300 million years old, thought to be extinct for 70 million years. A live coelacanth was caught by fisherman off the coast of Madagascar in 1938. After dissection, it was shown to be simply a fish with no indication of transition to land. Since then several live specimens have either been photographed or caught. It is a living fossil, that is it resembles its fossils exactly. As all of life evolved it got somehow left out?
    3. Archaeopteryx

    4. Archaeopteryx is thought to be a transition from reptile to bird because of socketted teeth and claws on the wings. But the discovery of other "true" birds in the same rock layer (and deeper) in Colorado (1977) prove otherwise. Even evolutionists have thrown this off the list.
    5. Neanderthal Man – is now considered a genuine human race, many of whom had rickets from poor nutrition.
    6. Cro-Magnon Man – was definitely a genuine human, artistic and religious.
    7. Nebraska man

    8. Pure HOAX. Discovered by Henry Fairfield Osborne and was used in the Scopes Monkey Trial. The entire rendition was based on a single tooth later revealed to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Fooled all the leading evolutionists of the day!
    9. Piltdown man

    10. Another pure HOAX. Discovered in England, 1912 by a man named Dawson. Kenneth Oakley revealed the hoax in 1953 (41 years later!). It was a construction of a human skullcap and the jaw of an orangutan. The teeth had been filed down and stained. The stone tools found with the skull were also discovered to have been fashioned with steel instruments. Again the "leading minds" in the evolutionary community were completely taken in by the hoax for over 40 years!!!
    11. Java Man (or Pithecanthropus Erectus)

    12. This "fossil" was discovered by Eugene Dubrois in 1895. He found a skullcap, thighbone and 2 teeth in a gravel deposit from which he constructed his "missing link". Thirty years later he admitted that the skull bone was that of a large ape and that complete modern human remains were found in the same site. He even admitted that the skullcap was 10 feet away from the rest of the find and that the thighbone was found a year later, 46 feet away from the rest of the skeleton.
    13. Peking Man (or Homo Erectus).

    14. This "ape-man" was based on ape-like skulls found in China before WWII. The discovery of tools nearby led to the belief that this was a "tool using ape." Also, most of the nearby skulls were smashed in, indicating that they had killed each other. Later, more thorough investigation revealed that ape brains were considered a delicacy in Asia and the skulls and tools were the remains of someone’s feast. In addition, all the "evidence" for Peking man has long since disappeared.
    15. Zinjanthropus – studies show this was just a primitive ape, not ancestral to humans.
    16. Ramapithecas

    17. This "missing-link" was based on teeth & jaws alone! The excitement over this find was simply because the "missing" canine tooth left a very small hole. Later discoveries of more complete jaws invalidated this proposed transition in 1979.
    18. Austalophithecas ("Lucy").

    19. Perhaps the favorite of evolutionists, "Lucy" was discovered by Donald Johanson in 1975. This 3 1/2 foot skeleton has the appearance of a chimp, yet the knee joint points to the possibility of upright walking. However, the critical bones surrounding the knee were found 200 feet deeper down and 1 1/2 miles away! The whole Australopithecus family is now moot with the discovery of complete human remains found deeper down. Both human beings (and footprints) and specialized apes have been found below "Lucy" by Mary Leakey and Russell Tuttle. "Lucy" is nothing more than a "true swinging ape"; there’s no reason to believe anything else.

      No credible ape-to-man transition has been found.


    20. Darwin knew it:

    21. "...the state of the fossil evidence was the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."10 It’s been more than 100 years since Darwin wrote those words and we have discovered billions of fossils but we still haven’t found the "missing links".
    22. Modern evolutionists admit it:
      1. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History (he has millions of fossils in his museum and is probably the sharpest expert in his field) wrote this in response to a letter asking why he didn’t include any pictures of "missing links" in a book he wrote on evolution: "I truly agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of transitional forms [missing links] in my book. If I knew of any fossil or living creature, I would certainly have included them." Later he added, "I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."11
      2. Steven Stanley: "The fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another."12
      3. Newsweek: "The missing link between man and apes whose absence has comforted religious fundamentalists since the days of Darwin is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures in the fossil record. Missing links are the rule, not the exception."(emphasis added)
      4. Niles Eldridge: "We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports the story of gradual adaptive change, while all the while really knowing that it does not."13 (emphasis added)

        Wow! Did he really admit that evolutionist scientists have been deliberately, knowingly LYING TO US? So much for objective science.

    When interpreting the two opposing "world views", in light of the fossil evidence, the following scientific test would seem to favor the supernatural creation model.
    - based on -
    – based on -
    1. Genetics
    Never observed (extrapolation of monsters)
    1. Genetics
    Observed every day ("laws" of science)
    2. Fossils
    That have never been found (missing links)
    2. Fossils
    Found by the 1000’s of tons all over the world
    "SPECULATION ONLY" (unfounded faith) ALSO FACTS (faith supported by evidence)

    Figure 2 Scientific test

    rEvolutionary Thinking
    Where Do We Come From Really?

      A Critical Analysis of the Scientific Evidence for Evolution

      Session Six

  3. The age of the earth

  4. If I were to tell you that I could turn a fish into a man in 5 seconds, you would say that I am crazy and probably laugh at me. But if an evolutionist tells you that a fish can evolve into a man over billions of years, then you might say, "yeah, that could be possible". The magic wand of time takes an obviously impossible action and makes it seem not only possible but perhaps even likely. Here’s how evolutionist George Wald put it: "Time is in fact the hero of the plot. Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable and the probable virtually certain. One only has to wait, time itself will perform its miracles."

    Geologist Charles Lyell, in his 1830 book Principles of Geology wrote that our present world was shaped by the same "Laws of Nature" that we see today, and that this took an extremely long time. The key phrase is "the present is the key to the past." This is the essence of UNIFORMITARIANISM and has become a widely believed idea that excludes all supernatural intervention, whether creation or modification. It has led to the common belief that any suggestion of a divine creation or the biblical great flood of Noah is automatically "outside the realm of science," and therefore can’t even be considered. This dual idea of uniformitarianism and an extremely long age of the earth are vital foundationstones for belief in evolutionism.

    Closely linked to the concept of uniformitarianism is the arrangement of the earth’s strata into a "paper series," separated according to the kinds of fossils each stratum contains. This sequence is called the GEOLOGIC COLUMN, and divides earth history into eras, periods and epochs. The eras are named according to the assumed age of the life forms found therein. We can see that the assumption of evolution is implicit within these definitions. The various eras, periods and epochs are supposed to represent the history of the entire world, but in only a few spots in the world do these all appear; whereas many spots have out-of-sequence strata.

    Figure 3 The geologic column according to evolutionists


    When a geologist or paleontologist wants to identify a particular stratum, he doesn’t usually check for rock type or chemical composition (granite, limestone, etc); instead he looks for INDEX FOSSILS. These are remains of creatures which are thought to have lived during certain eras and then to have become extinct. Most index fossils are invertebrates such as various species of trilobites and mollusks.

    Obviously, this method of using index fossils for dating applies only to sedimentary rocks (those laid down as grains of sediment deposited by wind or water action, then later lithified – solidified into hard, solid rock). Igneous rocks (those that have cooled from melted magma) couldn’t contain fossils.

    Evolutionists speak of certain varieties living in certain periods, and others living in other periods. This sounds meaningful, until we remember that their method of dating strata is to see what sorts of index fossils are found in each one. These are arranged according to the assumed stage of evolution. This is circular reasoning at its worst. The director of the Field Museum vastly understated the case when he wrote: "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."14

    Others have attempted to explain this problem in the logic of dating, with little success. Mostly it’s ignored, as if it might go away after enough repetition. For example, one writer said: "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hardheaded pragmatism…The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.15

    In addition to the geologic column, evolutionists also employ radiometric-dating techniques in an attempt to date fossils and other archeological discoveries.

    1. Facts about radiometric dating:

    2. Since radioactive isotopes decay to a stable "daughter" element, scientists use mass spectrometers to measure the ratio of parent/daughter elements in a given sample and use the known decay rate for the isotope to determine it’s age. This process is known as radiometric dating and requires that the following assumptions be made:
      1 - We know the original fraction of parent and daughter elements, 2 - no parent/daughter elements have been added to the sample (the sample remained in a closed system with no outside influences – this is impossible in nature), 3 - the rate of decay has remained constant. Obviously these assumptions are unprovable and therefore not really scientific. The geologic ages of the rocks were determined over 150 years ago (long before radiometric dating came into being) by the fossils contained within them. The fossils were dated by their supposed evolutionary position and so dated the rocks: a tautology (circular reasoning). There was no actual reference to time or any dating technique. The only criterion was to show the "evolution" of animals from lower to higher order. Even with radiometric dating, there is no consistency in dates given to many samples. If you need a rock sample age-dated and send it to a laboratory, the technician will always ask, "Where did it come from, and how old DO YOU THINK IT IS?" Since they can’t rely on their dating procedure they need to have some idea what to expect. They get such a wide range of dates that they will pick the one that comes out closest to what they think it should be.

      Radiometric dating methods fall roughly into two major categories:

      1. "Heavy-metal" dating – includes Uranium-Lead, Rubidium-strontium, potassium-argon – commonly used to date rocks and other non-organic samples. These methods use the half-life of the radiometric isotope (an unstable substance that gives off an alpha or a beta particle – a helium nucleus – and becomes something else. Uranium 238 goes through a series of other isotopes until it becomes Lead 206 which is stable. A half-life is the time it takes for half of the unstable substance to change. For instance, the half-life of Polonium 218 is three minutes. If I start with a pound of Polonium 218, in three minutes I will have a half a pound of Polonium 218 and a half a pound of something else. In the next three minutes, I will have a quarter pound of Polonium 218 and 3-quarters pound of something else.

        But how reliable is radiometric dating techniques? Here are just a few examples where materials of a known age were incorrectly dated using radiometric dating methods:
        1. Rocks from recent volcanic eruptions dated old
          1. 200 year old lava flow in Hawaii was dated at 3 million years
          2. Some rocks from a volcanic eruption that was documented to have occurred 170 years ago were sampled. They were misdated to be anywhere from 160 million to three billion years old.
        2. Dating of Cardenas Basalt and Western Grand Canyon lava flows reveal the impossibility of the deeper rock level being younger!. The lava had been injected by a volcano onto the top surface of the sedimentary ground, had flowed over the rim and down into the canyon. Obviously, then, it can’t be as old as the already-eroded canyon wall, which was carved into the sedimentary rock that had been in place for a long time. It is most likely no older than some 10,000 years. Yet the isochron shows its age to be 1.5 billion years, obviously a totally wrong value. These results were obtained using the Rubidium Strontium isochron method.
        3. Fresh tree roots fossilized – A section of forest in Canada was being clear cut to install power lines. Tree roots left in the clear-cut area were "fossilized" by an intense electrical charge when the power line fell to the ground over the weekend. Samples of these tree roots were analyzed and dated to be millions of years old.
        4. Skull 1470 – man is "supposed" to be 2 million years old by evolutionary time. However, Louis Leaky’s son, Richard found a totally human skull that was dated to twenty-five million years, predating all the primates. Its original age-dates gave an average of 221 million years. Knowing that to be incorrect (because it didn’t fit their evolutionary scale) they tried testing some "fresher-looking" samples of the skull. The results of those tests were an age of 2.4 million years. Finally more samples were tested with results ranging from 290,000 years to 19.5 million years. All these different ages are from the same skull using the radiometric dating techniques that most scientists and textbooks refer to as absolute dating techniques. (Bliss 1988)
      2. Carbon -14: Used to date organic material.

      3. The earth is constantly bombarded by high-energy cosmic radiation from deep space. As cosmic rays enter the atmosphere they collide with gas molecules, knocking off neutrons. Many of these neutrons interact with Nitrogen-14, producing Carbon-14 and a free proton.

        14N7 + 1n0 è14C6 + 1p1

        Prior to the advent of atomic bombs, this was the sole source of all the C14 on Earth.

        Oxidation (combination with oxygen) takes place fairly quickly, producing carbon dioxide (C14O2), and this is a vital part of the earth’s atmosphere. Animals take in CO2 by respiration; plants take it in through photosynthesis, and thus the carbon becomes part of the food chain, and part of all organisms.
        In this way, all living organisms contain carbon, and most of this comes from the CO2 in the atmosphere. Most of it is the normal C12, which is a stable isotope. However, a small fraction is 14C, a radioactive isotope that emits a beta particle (nuclear electron) with a half-life of 5,730 years. 14C6 è14N7 + 0e-1
        As long as the plant or animal is alive, its bodily carbon has the same 14C/12C ratio as does the atmosphere around it. However when it dies it no longer takes in a fresh supply and, after a long time, much of its internal 14C is depleted through radioactive decay. If we know the initial 14C/12C fraction of an ancient sample, and measure the current fraction, we can calculate how long it has been since that sample was part of a living organism. This is the principal of Carbon-14 dating.16

        William F. Libby invented this system, and wrote the definitive book on the subject. He discussed the important factors, especially SPR and SDR. He showed that the Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C14 is 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. But he showed the Specific Decay Rate (SDR) to be only 16.1 + 0.5 disentegrations per gram per minute. These two numbers should be the same, if the atmosphere is in equilibrium. The difference shows that buildup in the biosphere hasn’t had time to catch up with production in the stratosphere. This troubled Libby, since he believed the world was many millions of years old, and C14 half-life is 5,568 years (this has since been revised to 5,730 years). He wrote: "If one were to imagine that the cosmic radiation had been turned off until a short while ago, the enormous amount of radiocarbon necessary to the equilibrium state would not have been manufactured and the specific radioactivity (SDR) of living matter would be much less than the rate of production (SPR) calculated from the neutron intensity."17 Of course, most creationists believe that this manufacture has only been going on for several thousand years, and that Libby was unknowingly agreeing with the Bible’s account of a recent creation. But he chose to ignore this discrepancy and attribute it to experimental error. He recalculated his original numbers and settled on an SDR of 15.3 dis/gm-min, and said that it must have remained at that value for at least 20 or 30 thousand years. But several other scientists have rechecked this work, and all have verified the non-equilibrium. This seems to be a strong indication that the age of the atmosphere should really be measured in thousands, not millions of years.

        Professor Robert L. Whitelaw (Virginia Polytechnic Institute), who teaches Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering, realized that by using these SDR and SPR numbers, and accepting their difference as real, he could calculate the actual time at which this system must have started. He used the values obtained for SDR and SPR by several other scientists also, and calculated the starting point as being between 7,000 and 16,000 years ago. Also, by using these actual SDR and SPR numbers, he found correction factors for any published radiocarbon ages. These are shown on the chart below.18

Figure 4 Corrected radiocarbon dates

All samples that have been dated by the 14C method are published in the Radiocarbon Journal. Whitelaw selected those samples published from 1950 through 1979 that fell into five categories: 1) land animals, including humans, from the Americans; 2) the same except from Europe, Asia and Africa; 3) trees; 4) marine fossils found in ocean areas; and 5) marine fossils found on continental areas. For each he applied the described correction. He then grouped this collection of revised ages into 500-year age groups and plotted five histograms, showing the number of objects that died in each 500-year period. These graphs all show one surprising effect – there was an unusually high number of deaths between 5,000 and 5,500 years ago, followed by a much lower number of deaths during the next 500 years. This seems to show strong evidence that some worldwide catastrophe took place at that time and killed a large fraction of the earth’s land and sea creatures, as well as most of the trees. And that is just when the Bible says the Great Flood of Noah occurred. Doesn’t this seem to be a scientific verification of Scripture?

Other evidences coming from this large set of radiocarbon dates are:

1. Even before correction for non-equilibrium, almost all ages connected with human artifacts are no more than about 12,000 years.
2. These seem to be mostly from the Middle East and the Mediterranean basin.
3. Almost all sea-creatures whose dated remains were found on continental areas had died just over 5,000 years ago.
4. There were many samples of coal and oil that gave ages less than 50,000 years, even though most scientists believe these were formed very much longer ago than that. The 14C dating method is not considered usable for objects thought to be more than 50,000 years old, since almost all of the 14C would have decayed during that time (its half-life is 5,730 years).
Before the mid-1980’s, dating utilized sensitive radioactivity detectors and counters; this required that a sample must have 10 to 20 grams of carbon. Many valuable artifacts were ruled off-limits because too much material would be destroyed by the measurements. Now, with particle accelerator mass spectrometers, only a small fraction of a gram of carbon is needed. This greatly improves the statistical accuracy of the isotope measurement, but does nothing to address the all-important non-equilibrium question: "How much 14C did the sample contain when it was alive?"

Here are some documented cases of erroneous results from radiocarbon dating:

        1. Living snails as 2300 years old.
        2. Organic material in the mortar of an English castle (known to be 787 years old) dated to be 7370 years old.
        3. Freshly killed seals were assigned an age of 1300 years.
        4. Mummified seals that had been dead for thirty years dated 4600 years old.
    1. Evidence for a "young" earth
      1. Shrinking sun: The sun is burning off 5 million tons per second, thus it could only be about 6,000 years old. If it were only 20 million years old it would touch the earth. Just 100,000 years ago the sun would be twice as large as it is today. The size and radiation of the sun just 1,000,000 years ago would have made life on earth impossible.
      2. Comets: Each time a comet circles the sun, the solar winds tear debris off the cometary body (that’s what makes it visible). Studies indicate that the comets in our solar system would completely dissipate in 10,000 years or less.
      3. Continental erosion: The erosional processes of wind and water provide an important factor indicating a young age for the earth. At the present rate of erosion, the continents would be completely eroded to sea level within 14 million years (1/4 of one percent of the age proposed by the evolution model). Furthermore, if erosion has been going on for millions of years at the present rate according to the theory of uniformitarianism, then the ocean basins should be full of sediment. There is only enough to account for a few thousand years of accumulation.
      4. Stalactites and Stalagmites Form Rapidly – Stalactites and stalagmites do not take millions of years to form from dissolved minerals in water that dripped slowly over all that time. In some old buildings there are stalactites over five feet long that have formed in less than fifty years! In one cave there is a bat encased in mineral, lying on a stalactite! The bat, whose outline of head and wings is clearly visible, did no have time to decay before being encased in the mineral. Therefore, the mineral deposit did not take very long to form.
      5. Oil and Gas deposits: Oil and natural gas are found in deposits of porous rock and sand. The extremely high pressure (20,000 pounds/sq. inch) found in many of these porous reservoirs would have dissipated by now if these deposits were more than 10,000 to 100,000 years old according to experts.
      6. Weakening Planetary Magnetic Fields: The only workable theory ever proposed that explained in detail the source and behavior of earth’s magnetic dipole was by creationist Sir Horace Lamb in 1887. This postulated that, in the beginning, an electric current had started flowing in the molten core, and has been exponentially decaying ever since.

        Since Gauss'’ first measurement of earth’s magnetism in 1835, repeated tests have shown a steady decay (about 6 percent since then). The data from these measurements follow the same curve that’s obtained by plugging the known physical constants of the earth’s core into Lamb’s equations. A backward extrapolation of these equations shows that 10,000 years ago, the earth would have been much too hot to support any kind of life. This is one of the many limits showing the earth could not be much more than about 10,000 years old.

        Cosmic evolutionists rely on the flimsy "dynamo theory" to explain a planet’s magnetic field, since it’s the only way to escape the short-age prediction of the more reasonable creationist explanation. The dynamo theory says that a rotating planet with an electrically conductive core will generate a magnetic field. But this theory has never been demonstrated, and can’t even be precisely formulated. Using the dynamo theory, most astronomers had said that Uranus’s magnetic field would be very weak. But two years before Voyager II arrived at Uranus, the Creation Research Society published physicist R. Humphrey’s prediction that Uranus had a strong magnetic field. When Voyager II arrived, it confirmed the creationist’s prediction, and the January 1986 newspapers were filled with the surprise of astronomers.

      7. The earth’s magnetic field is weakening exponentially according to Dr. Thomas Barnes. Measurements in the past 130 years indicate a 14% decrease. Thus it was once incredibly stronger! If the earth is 4.5 billion years old, like couldn’t have formed due to the incredible magnetic field. The upper limit is approximately 10,000 years (when it would have been equivalent to that of a magnetic star)

      8. Cosmic Dust Accumulation and the age of the moon: One thing that astronomers agree on is that the moon’s origin is still a mystery. Various evidences don’t fit together properly for them. We know that "space dust" (micrometeorites, etc.) is continuously falling on earth and the moon at a regular rate of 14 million tons per year. On earth, rain allows this to mix with normal dirt. But the moon has no rain. Before the first moon landing, there was a strong worry about the thick layer of dust that should be there if it had been falling for billions of years. Isaac Asimov wrote of this dust problem, and described what he thought might happen: "I get a picture, therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out a nice level place for landing purposes coming in slowly downward tail-first and sinking majestically out of sight."19

      9. The lunar lander was designed with very broad pads, so it wouldn’t sink in the dust. Creationists predicted that dust would be less than a few inches thick, since it had only been falling for a few thousand years, and they were proven to be right. The evolutionists have revised their theories to try to explain this, but the question is still a hot issue.
      10. The Mississippi Delta: The rate of sedimentary deposit and the size of the delta reveal it’s about 4,000 years old. This is about when the genesis flood would have occurred!
      11. The Recession Of The Moon: It’s well-known that the interaction between the moon and the earth’s tidal bulge is causing the moon to gradually recede from the earth. If it had been doing this for long, it must have started too close to the earth for a stable orbit. If the moon is even 1 million years old, the closer moon would cause tidal waves to cover the earth two times a day (not very conducive for the formation and evolution of life). Here’s yet another piece of evidence for a youthful moon (thousands, not billions, of years old).20

      12. Also, the sides of the moon’s craters are very steep near the edges. And, as Morton and others pointed out, if they were much older than a few tens of thousands of years, the fairly loose rock would "creep," making them more level.21
      13. Atmospheric Helium: is way too low for evolutionary predictions. An alpha particle consists of two protons and two neutrons, tightly bound together. This is just like the nucleus of a Helium-4 (4He) atom. Thus, every alpha particle emitted by an atom such as radium, thorium, or uranium actually becomes a helium atom. When a 238U atom ends up as 206Pb (one of the most common heavy metal dating reactions) it emits eight alpha particles (that become eight 4He atoms) in the process. The 4He atoms diffuse out of the earth’s crust at the rate of about 2 x 106 atoms/cm2-sec, and end up in the earth’s atmosphere. Another helium isotope is 3He, which arrives in our atmosphere via the solar wind at the rate of about 10 3He atoms/cm2-sec, a minor source of 3He is from the decay of tritium. Helium accumulates in the atmosphere, and its concentration can be measured. There’s now about 3.71 x 1015 grams there. But, if this had been happening for billions of years, there should be a lot more. Those scientists who believe in an ancient earth are very puzzled.22

      14. Professor of Metallurgy Dr. Melvin Cook in 1966 calculated that the helium content of our atmosphere shows the maximum age of the earth to be between 10,000 and 100,000 years.23
        There have been a number of studies since then, trying to explain that question: "Where did all that helium go?" But, as J.W. Chamberlain said in his book Theory of Planetary Atmospheres,[the helium escape problem]"…will not go away and it is unsolved."
        ICR’s Dr. Larry Vardiman discusses the factors involved in atmospheric accumulation and escape of helium and other gases. He gives a number of references to these studies. But he says that the maximum age of the atmosphere is still far too young – 1.8 million years from 4He studies, and 370 thousand years from 3He studies. He makes an alternative suggestion that is quite significant: "An obvious alternative to the evolutionary model, but one which runs counter to the basic assumption of the evolutionary / uniformitarian model, is that the earth’s atmosphere is relatively young (less than 10,000 years). The helium we observe in the atmosphere is primordial with possible minor increases due to short-term decay of radioactive uranium and thorium in the earth’s crust and some unknown consequences of the collapse of a vapor canopy during the flood."24
      15. Erosion at Niagara Falls – The rate of erosion occurring at Niagara Falls is a known rate. The place where the Falls originated is also known. The combination of these two known factors indicates that Niagara Falls was at its place of origin about 5000 years ago.
      16. Population Growth: We can use population growth figures to get an interesting insight into the question, "How long have people been on this earth?" First, we should list some of the known historical numbers of how many people have lived here.


        Figure 5 Population figures taken from 1987 World Almanac

        Except for the one involving the world population in A.D. 1, which is just a conjecture, growth rates range from 0.26 to 3.0 percent per year.

        The Bible describes one growing population. Let’s see if it’s numerically reasonable. When Jacob’s family moved to Egypt, it had 70 members; when the Israelites left Egypt 430 years later, in about 1446 B.C., they had grown to between one and two million people, which greatly worried the Egyptians. If we calculate that growth rate, we find it to be between 2.25 percent and 2.41 percent per year, which is within the range of the modern figures quoted above, and therefore is completely reasonable.

        The Bible also describes Noah’s family as consisting of eight people who survived the Great Flood (which many believe to have been in about 2350 B.C.). These were the only people left to repopulate the earth. Some 4,340 years later, we new have a world population of 0.47 percent per year, about the same as is known to have been true for a few hundred years ago.

        On the other hand, if we consider any sort of evolutionary growth over a period of a few million years, we arrive at ridiculously low growth rates. For example, if an original pair of "pre-humans" started a million years ago, and increased to five billion humans today, the rate of that growth would have been only an average of 0.00217 percent per year.

        At that rate, the time required for the group to double in size would be 32,000 years. At such low growth rates, these "people" would quickly have become extinct, considering that a lifespan was probably less than a hundred years, at most. In the early millennia, an accidental death of a single adult of childbearing age would have been devastating.25

        If we assume reasonable population growth rates over a period of a million years we’d have 150,000 people per square inch.

        We can see that population considerations seem to make the evolutionist position to be almost impossible for a reasonable person to consider, whereas the growth rates according to the creationist time scale are well within the limits of actual numbers that we see today.

        For those who are mathematically inclined, population growth rates can be calculated by one of the following equations:
        Pn/P0 = (1 + R)n P0 = orig. population,
        N = Log (Pn/P0) /
               Log(1 + R)
        Pn = final population,
        R = (Pn/P0)1/N - 1 N = number of years.

      18. The Great Barrier Reef off Australia: Measurements of its growth rate and size reveal it to be about 4,000 years old. This is about when the flood would have occurred!
      19. Polonium Halos in Granite: Dr. Robert Gentry, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, studied the halos (spherical discolorations) made by radiation damage caused by the decay of alpha-emitting isotopes that are embedded in the micas in granite. Their diameters show what isotope had decayed. He found many halos from polonium (a "daughter-product" of uranium and thorium), but in a number of cases there was no trace that any uranium or thorium had ever been present. Gentry has called our attention to this unusual phenomenon which points to the instantaneous creation of certain granites.26 His research revealed the presence of Polonium-210 "pleochroic halos," or radio halos in formations in the Colorado Plateau which indicate that the Jurassic, Triassic and Eocene formations in the Colorado Plateaus were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional timescale. Polonium-218 (half-life 3 minutes) radio halos ("orphans") found in Earth’s granite is evidence of extremely rapid granite solidification in Earth’s base rocks. The polonium must have been there when the rock first hardened.27 But rock must be solid for a halo to form, and since polonium has a very short half-life, the rock couldn’t have hardened slowly, like the evolutionist model of a gradually cooling earth or magma demands, else the polonium would have decayed away before it had a chance to make a halo. It must have actually been primordial polonium – it had to have been placed there in the beginning! Thus the earth must have been formed as a solid in a very short time, no more than a few minutes. Kurt Sewell, an engineer who worked on the Manhattan Project in Los Alamos and spent the majority of his career in the innovative field of radiometric dating says that he "finds pleochroic halos to be one of the most solid evidences for God’s miraculous creation."28
      20. Sea Salinity – The salinity of the sea and the amount of dissolved minerals in it indicate a young age for the oceans, probably around 5000 years. All the worlds’ rivers carry these substances into the sea every day. If the earth were old, then there should be much more mineral content and salt content in the oceans. Evolutionists cannot explain where millions of year’s worth of salt went. But if it is considered that the present oceans have been accumulating salt and minerals since the Flood, then there is no problem, because there is no missing salt.
      21. Crustal Build-Up – The rate of crustal build-up from volcanic activity alone indicates that the earth is quite young. Considering only this one source for crustal material, the volume of material would have accumulated in a few thousand years.
      22. Additional astronomical problems – An additional problem is the recent discovery of very distant quasars almost on the edge of the universe. Since it takes time for light to reach us, we’re seeing those distant objects as they were near the time of the big bang (according to the theory), yet spectral analysis shows them to look very old. They wouldn’t have had time to go through cosmic evolution to form heavier elements, new stars, and galaxy formation. They should look like young gaseous stars if the theories are correct, but they don’t.

      23. The general public is led to believe that astronomers have proven the universe to be some 15 billion years old. This is not true. Their theory predicts this, but there’s no way it can be proven. All that can be measured is the radiation from deep space objects – color and intensity. The rest comes from computer simulation, and that depends heavily on the assumptions programmed into the simulator. Sir Arthur Eddington, many years ago, wrote of this problem. Since then the tools have improved, but his statement is still true: "For the reader resolved to eschew theory and admit only definite observational facts, all astronomical books are banned. There are no purely observational facts about the heavenly bodies. Astronomical measurements are, without exception, measurements of phenomena occurring in a terrestrial observatory or station; it is only by theory that they are translated into knowledge of a universe outside."29

        Most of the objects observed in the study of big bang cosmology are said to be millions or billions of light-years away; our sun is only 8.3 light-minutes away, and our most distant planet, Pluto, is some 5.5 light-hours away from the earth. But, at the same time, there are major problems in understanding these relatively nearby objects. Even the origin of our closest neighbor, the moon, is still a mystery. Four different theories compete for acceptance, and there are major problems with each one. If known facts about the nearby solar system don’t fit the theories, how can we expect to know much about these extremely distant objects?

        One basic problem involves the sun’s energy and how it’s produced. Most scientists believe that the interior of the sun is a thermonuclear furnace, burning hydrogen and producing helium. However, this reaction should produce a great many neutrinos, and our measurements don’t show nearly enough. We know the problem is not in the detection apparatus because when the distant 1987A supernova occurred in the Great Magellanic Cloud galaxy, neutrinos were detected. But the missing solar neutrinos mean that the theories about the sun’s reactions don’t explain what’s really happing. Many other stars are thought to be burning helium and producing carbon and oxygen. Larger stars are said to evolve into different burning processes as they age. An alternative explanation as a source of the suns energy would be the heat caused by gravitational collapse. That would be more than sufficient to cause the surface temperature and solar flux. This is rejected only because it wouldn’t last long enough to conform to the "assumed" age of the universe.

    2. Potential problems with a "young earth"
      1. Young Universe - Old Stars?: In spite of all the Biblical and scientific evidences for a recent creation, there is a problem that must be squarely faced: Some stars appear to be millions - even billions - of light years away. How can we see the light from these stars if the earth is less than 10,000 years old? Fortunately, there are several plausible (scientifically viable) explanations for this apparent conflict. The first thing is to point out that we do not actually observe an old universe - we observe certain facts, but from these facts we can deduce an age only if we make certain assumptions:
        1. Assumption 1 - The vast distances assigned to the stars are real.

        2. An interesting possibility has been presented by physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys30 , who points out that the real question is "how far away were the galaxies when the light started out on its trip to us? The Bible indicated 15 times, using three separate Hebrew verbs, that God "stretched," or "spread," out the heavens (for instance, Isaiah 42:5, 45:12, 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12). This stretching presumably refers to the fabric of space itself. According to Dr. Humphreys, there exists a solution to Einstein’s gravitational field equations which may allow a very rapid expansion of space and thus all things in it. Dr. Humphreys theory raises the possibility that the universe inflated to its present size in less than 6000 years. Such an expansion would involve all matter symmetrically, and would not be detectable by those "on the inside," as it were. However, it could account for observed red shifting in the wavelengths of this stretched starlight
        3. Assumption 2 - We know for certain how light travels in deep space..

        4. To insist on this would seem rather presumptuous, particularly when one considers the many awesome discoveries of modern physics (and even the sometimes bizarre theorizing - wormholes, time travel, creation of quantum universes, curved space…) For instance, in 1953, Drs. Moon and Spencer, neither of them creationists, proposed that light from stars traveled along curved pathways in a mathematical framework known as Riemannian space. If this were the case, they argued, then light from the most distant stars would reach earth in substantially less than 20 years.
        5. Assumption 3 - Light has always traveled at the same speed throughout the history of the universe.

        6. Obviously, this assumption is impossible to prove however reasonable it might seem at first. If light were faster in the past, then it would be possible for stars to be both very distinct and very young. This could be achieved either by a direct change in light-speed at some time after creation, or by a yet-unknown physical principle which caused the light velocity to slow down to today’s value (by reaching an asymptotic level, not unknown for physical quantities). The light we now receive from distant stars, though now traveling at today’s speed, would have covered much greater distances in the earlier years after creation. In this regard, it is interesting that a Russian Professor (Troitskii, an evolutionist) published a paper in the journal Astrophysics and Space Science in 1987 in which he claimed that the observations relevant to cosmology (such as the progressive redshift in starlight and the background radiation, both of which have been used as evidence for a big Bang) were in fact better understood as having resulted from a change in c (the speed of light). He proposed that c began at a near-infinite value. Such a proposal could not now be directly tested, but is consistent with present-day observations.

          Also interesting is a monograph published by creationists Norman and Sutterfield in 1987. They have accumulated all the known measurements of c for the last 300 years, and claim that when tabulated, these show that c was not constant in this period, but still declining, seemingly tapering off to a constant level in about 1960. They cite a number of statistical tests, which they claim deny the constancy of c in that time.

        7. Assumption 4- the universe could not have been created "fully functioning," with people on earth seeing stars with the light already arriving from the beginning.

        8. The assumes that God is not a God of infinite power, and so is the most presumptuous of all. Biblical creation by definition is a miracle, using processes, which are not now in operation. God is not dependent on the physical laws, which we observe in the present, since He instituted these Himself. To say that God could not have created a universe which was both large and very young is thus challenging the very nature of God as revealed in His word, not just challenging the fact of recent creation as revealed therein.
It seems clear to me that sufficient discussion has already taken place to enable us to see that the apparent problem of having young age and great size to the universe has a number of possible solutions. Did light speed change? If so, did it become constant thousands of years ago or has it, indeed, been detected in historic times? Is the solution to be found in the "stretching" of space implied in the Scriptures? Perhaps a combination of these Factors? Or was an altogether different method used during Creation Week to create a fully functioning, mature universe, a method which we will perhaps never be able to elucidate? Whatever the answer, faith in the revealed Word of the Creator is the only reasonable starting point for all such inquiry.31

rEvolutionary Thinking
Where Do We Come From Really?

A Critical Analysis of the Scientific Evidence for Evolution

Session Seven

  1. Evidence for a global flood

  2. This section is not intended as even a partial proof for creation, but rather as a simple explanation of some of the beliefs that most creationists hold concerning the flood. Much of this information is also shown in a beautiful video, The World That Perished.32

    Catastrophism is the concept that many of the evidences we see in the earth today were not caused by slow actions of ordinary forces, but by sudden and violent events. Creationists coined this word, thinking of such things as the great flood of Noah; that was probably the event that accounts for the majority of fossils and sediments in the crust of the earth. Some other typologists such as Cuvier believed that several catastrophes have occurred.

    No other explanation can adequately account for the fossil distribution and massive sedimentation that exists. Many of the earth’s features, such as the Grand Canyon, dinosaur graveyards, and so-called out-of-sequence strata are impossible to adequately explain in any way other than by recognizing a massive worldwide flood.

    1. Fossils: Millions of fossils, laid down in sedimentary rock by water speak volumes as evidence of the flood. Since fossils are not created in any great number today, it is massive evidence of a catastrophic event in the past!
    2. "Mass Burials" of animals from different habitats--arctic, tropical, desert and swamplands all having died together.
    3. Rapid Burial: Some fossils of fish were actually swallowing other fish, they were fossilized so quickly.
    4. 500,000 woolly mammoths found in arctic tundra indicate they were frozen very quickly having undigested food in their mouth or stomach! The fall of the vapor canopy described in Genesis (1:6, 2:6), which led to the flood would lead to a drop in temperature of hundreds of degrees according to some scientists. No evolutionary explanation for these mammoths has been given.
    5. Petrified Wood. We’ve all been fascinated by samples of this "stone that looks like wood," or "wood that feels like stone" (both descriptions are true). Their origin is still not known in complete detail. It’s clear that these began life as trees, and that, in some way, organic molecules in the wood were replaced by minerals. Wood is not the only substance that can petrify; most ancient bones have been mineralized in a somewhat similar manner. These aren’t called "petrified," but the process is similar. Petrified wood actually points to the likelihood of a huge flood, such as the Great Flood of Noah. Either of two minerals is usually involved – silica (SiO2) and/or calcium carbonate (CaCO3), both of which are common constituents of rocks. There are often trace amounts of other substances, which give color. Some think that a molecule-by-molecule replacement occurs, but it’s more likely in most cases that a mineral solution in water saturates the wood and then is deposited on the cell walls, from the saturated solution. Emmett Williams has described in some detail the beliefs of various scientists about petrification.33 He gives an extensive list of references, and quotes from several of them. He shows that water is the single most-needed factor for petrification to occur, together with a source of minerals. A log would decay away if it was simply buried.

    6. Lab tests have shown that petrification can occur in a short time. Emmett Williams cites an Australian report in which the authors were asked how long it takes to make petrified wood. They replied, "We suspect tens, perhaps hundreds , rather than thousands, of years in view of the reported finding of a nail embedded in a specimen of petrified wood."
    7. Limestone. About 10 percent of all the world’s sedimentary rock is limestone, which is mostly calcite (CaCO3), the mineral that makes Portland cement. The source of limestone is debatable; it can be produced by slow accumulation of tiny marine organisms whose shells are rich in calcite, but it can also be made inorganically. Lutgens and Tarbuck express this common view: "Limestones having a biochemical origin are by far the most common. As much as 90 percent of the world’s limestone may have originated as accumulations of biochemical sediment."34

    8. Here is one of the reasons that most geologists say the earth is very ancient, since there are thick limestone deposits all over the world, and biochemical sediment accumulates very slowly – some estimate about one foot per thousand years. But there are evidences that cast doubt on this biological source of most of the world’s limestones.
      Dr. Walter Brown gives one very plausible explanation. He points out that the gases emitted by modern volcanoes are about 70 percent water steam and 15-20 percent carbon dioxide (CO2) . Also, one of the principle minerals in a basaltic lava is plagioclase feldspar, which comes as a mixture of two varieties – anorthite, which contains calcium (CaAl2Si2O8), and albite, which contains sodium (NaAlSi3O8). If anorthite has an opportunity, there’s a strong likelihood that its calcium will be exchanged for sodium, thus releasing a lot of free calcium.35
      Genesis 7:11 tells us that, as the Great Flood began, "the fountains of the great deep were broken up." This must have involved massive volcanic activity in the oceans – possibly even the direct rupture of the mid-Atlantic rift and other divergent zones. Much water, steam and CO2 came up, as well as large amounts of basaltic lava, including its feldspar. Ocean water has a lot of salt (NaCl) in it, ready to react with the anorthite feldspar and release free calcium. Now, Calcium reacts easily in water to form calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2): Ca + 2 H2O è Ca(OH)2 + H2 and this in turn reacts with carbon dioxide to form calcite (CaCO3): Ca(OH)2 + CO2 è CaCO3 + H2O. Calcite is the mineral that’s found as the main ingredient of limestone, so here’s a probable source for at least some of the limestone formations produced during the Great Flood.

      Incidentally, notice that a large amount of hydrogen is released in the calcium + water reaction. This would quickly combine with the oxygen of the atmosphere to form water. Thus a considerable amount of oxygen must have been lost. This means that the pre-flood atmosphere must have had more oxygen than we have now. This is in sharp contrast to the "ancient reducing atmosphere" assumed by evolutionists (for which there’s no evidence anyway). And an atmosphere with more oxygen would be more healthful, helping to account for the giant size of many ancient fossils and for the long life spans mentioned in Genesis 5.

      Why don’t most geologists accept this kind of explanation? Because it is based on the biblical account of the Great Flood, and that flood was a singular event, not seen in recent history. Such a flood would be a violation of the principle of uniformitarianism, dear to most geologists’ hearts. For that reason, it’s not usually accepted as a viable explanation. But there’s no reason why it can’t be really a true account, and there are many evidences to show that it did actually happen. As in other cases, evidences are often interpreted so as to agree with one’s preconceived philosophical beliefs.

    9. Mt. St. Helens erupted on May 18, 1980. 600 feet of sedimentary rock appearing to be millions of years old were laid down in a few hours by a 30 foot high wall of mud traveling at 40 mph and carving out a canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon. This demonstrated CATASTROPHISM not UNIFORMITARIANISM as the reason for the fossil record.
1The Origin of Species, 6th edition, Charles Darwin, p. 163
2  “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p.25
3  “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, Vol. 86, June 1977, p.22-30
4  Science, Vol. 213, p.289
5  The Neck of the Giraffe – Where Darwin Went Wrong, Francis Hitching, p.28-30
6  The Implications of Evolution, G. A. Kerkut, p.141-149.
7  In the Minds of Men; Darwin and the New World Order, Taylor, p.152-153
8  Harper’s Magazine, February 1985, p.60
9  Dinosaurs, Mace Baker, p. 10
10 Darwin on Trial, Philip Johnson, p47
11 The Evolution Conspiracy, Carl Matriseiana and Roger Oakland, p100
12 Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, p51
13 Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, p59
14  “Geology and Creationism,” Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 21
15  “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, Vol.276, January 1976, p.47&53
16  God at Ground Zero, Kurt Sewell, p. 98-99
17  Radiocarbon Dating, W.F. Libby, p.7
18  “Time, life, and history in the light of 15,000 radiocarbon dates,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 7, 1970, p. 56-71,83.
19  “14 Millions Tons of Dust Per Year,” Science Digest, January 1959, p.36
20  The Rotation of the Earth, W.H. Munk and G.J.F. MacDonald, p.198; also “Tidal Dissipation in the Earth and Moon from Lunar Ranging,” C.F. Yoder, et al, Conference on the Origin of the Moon, (Houston, TX: Lunar and Planetary Institute, 1984), p.31
21  Creation Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 28, p.105-108
22  God at Ground Zero, Kurt Sewell, p.97
23  Prehistory and Earth Models, Melvin A. Cook, p.340
24  “Up, Up, and Away! The Helium Escape Problem,” Institute for Creation Research Impact, May 1985, p. iv.
25  God at Ground Zero, Kurt Sewell, p. 103-105
26  Creations Tiny Mystery, by Dr. Robert Gentry.  Excerpt from The Young Earth. By John D. Morris, Ph.D., Master Books, 1994.
27  Creation’s Tiny Mystery, Robert V. Gentry
28  God at Ground Zero, Kurt Sewell, p. 97
29  The Expanding Universe, Sir Arthur Eddington, p.17
30  Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of distant Starlight in a Young Universe, by Dr. Russell Humphreys, Master Books, 1994.
31  Adapted from The Answers Book, Revised Edition, by Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling and Carl Wieland, published by Master books, 1992.
32  The World That Perished, Films For Christ Association, 2628 West Birchwood Circle, Mesa, AZ 85202
33  “Fossil Wood From Big Bend National Park, Brewster County, Texas: Part II – Mechanism of Silicification of Wood and Other Pertinent Factors,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol.30, No.2, September 1993, p.106-111
34  Essentials of Geology, F.K. Lutgens and E.J. Tarbuck, p.83
35  In The Beginning, Walter T. Brown, Jr., p.79-80
Return to Bible Study title page
Return to Sessions Three/Four
Continue to Session Eight

Design and layout are Copyright © 1999 by Gregory A. Bradburn. All Rights Reserved.
Last updated: Saturday, August 21, 1999

This page created with Netscape Composer