The Theory of Evolution

In accepting the theory of evolution, we are asked to accept as fact many other theories. Evolution is not one theory, but a complex series of theories. It is based upon many preconceived `facts`. Any time someone begins piling theory upon theory, the stack of theories becomes like a chain. The failure of any one theory can easily nullify the others.

In `believing` in evolution, we are asked to believe that all of the different forms of life on earth began from a `primeval soup`. No one knows where this `soup` was, or what happened to it. No one can say what happened to suddenly bring forth life from the `soup`.

What evidence is there to prove or disprove the theory of evolution? Is evolution a workable explanation for the origin of life on the planet Earth? The purpose of this paper is to present the evidence showing the many misleading `facts` often presented as `proof` that evolution is an undeniable `fact`.

The Origin of Life

What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`?

Evolutionists claim that the process of life was started by some unknown process, millions (or billions) of years ago. This is the foundation of the evolutionary theory. Is there proof that this is really what happened?

One of the greatest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there are too many forms of life to have happened by chance, and the building blocks of life are too complex to have just somehow `happened`.

Could a cell by chance come into being that "has the DNA instructions to fill one thousand 600-page books?" (National Geographic).

Examples:

1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and even billions of years could not have produced them.

2. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic materials) has never been observed.

3. Mendel's laws of genetics explain virtually all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation.

4. The many similarities between different species do not necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common Designer.

5. The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver, et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

6. Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.

7. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.

8. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; many are fatal.

9. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.

10. Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. In addition, no `new` life form has been produced by mutation. No fruit fly `evolved` into a mosquito or a bee.

11. There is no evidence that mutations could ever produce any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

12. If the earth, early in its alleged `evolution`, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone, and without ozone all life would be quickly destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation.

13. Two aspects ignored by studies of the origin of life are:

a) The beauty of the different forms of life.

b) The symmetry of virtually all forms of life.

Evolutionary scientists ignore these aspects, primarily because these two things suggest a Creator. Virtually all recorded mutations produce malformed, `non-evolutionary` changes in the subject under study.

14. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed conditions of the early earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the direction opposite from that required. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would destroy the protein products millions of times faster than they could be formed.

15. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred-even if the universe were completely filled with proteins, as you will see.

16. The cells of living creatures are enormously complex. Every part must be present in order for the cell to survive. All the parts have different `jobs`. It is not illogical to state that if you remove any one part, the cell cannot survive. This obviously implies that the parts (i.e., the cell membrane, the nucleus, the ribosomes, etc.) had to have come into being at the same time.

17. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein which is common to 47 forms of animal and plant life. The results of these studies seriously place the theory of evolution into jeopardy.

18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:

(a) Start with a meaningful phrase.

(b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters.

(c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.

(d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

(e) If it is not, return to step (b).

To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.

19. Based on present day observations, DNA can only be replicated or reproduced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other.

20. Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two forms that are chemically equivalent; about half can be described as "right-handed" and half "left-handed" (a structural description-one is the mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules found in all forms of life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only the left-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.

21. The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

22. There are many instances where quite different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, pollen-bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers, and drones. There are many, many others. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal), the other member could not have survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time.

23. Earthly life forms reproduce after their own kind. Different animals do not inter-breed. This suggests that each of these life forms were distinctly created. Cats and dogs do not interbreed to produce `cat-dogs`. Therefore it is highly unlikely that different life forms were formed by species interbreeding.

Fossil Evidence

"The vast majority of artists` conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. Artists must create something between an ape and a man; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."
Science Digest

1. Stories claiming that primitive, ape-like men have been found are overstated. Piltdown man was an acknowledged hoax. The fragmentary evidence that constituted Nebraska man was a pig's tooth. The discoverer of Java man later acknowledged that it was a large gibbon and that he had withheld evidence to that effect. The `evidence` concerning Peking man has disappeared. Louis and Mary Leakey, the discoverers of Zinjanthropus (previously referred to by some as Australopithecus), later admitted that they were probably apes. Ramapithecus man consists merely of a handful of teeth and jaw fragments; his teeth are very similar to those of the gelada baboon living today. For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and ape-like. Recent studies show that this individual was crippled with arthritis and probably had rickets. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are similar to humans living today. Artists' depictions, especially of the fleshy portions of the body, are quite imaginative and are not supported by evidence. Furthermore, the dating techniques are highly questionable.

2. Many of the world's fossils show, by the details of their soft fleshy portions, that they were buried before they could decay. This, together with the occurrence of polystrate fossils (fossils that traverse two or more strata of sedimentary rock) in Carboniferous, Mesozoic, and Cenozoic formations, is unmistakable evidence that this sedimentary material was deposited rapidly-not over hundreds of millions of years.

3. Many fossils of modern looking humans have been found deep in rock formations that are supposedly many millions of years older than evolutionary theory would predict. These remains are ignored or even suppressed by evolutionists.

4. The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed evolutionary order.

5. Nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called "geologic column."

Even at the Grand Canyon, only a small fraction of this imaginary column is found.

6. If `evolution` had occurred, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers and between all forms of life. Just the opposite is found. Many complex species appear suddenly in the lowest layers, and innumerable gaps and discontinuities appear throughout.

7. The vast majority of the sediments, which encase practically all fossils, were laid down though water.

8. The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death and burial of animal and plant life by a flood; it is not evidence of slow change.

9. A `simple' protein consists of about 100 amino acids. How likely would it be that such a protein could `chain together` by chance? Assume that we have a `soup` full of amino acids. We want these amino acids to `link up` at random to form a protein consisting of 100 amino acids. How many different combinations are there? Suppose there are 20 different amino acids available. If we wanted a chain of two acids there would be 20 possibilities for the first and 20 for the second - a total of 20 X 20 = 400 possibilities. For a chain of three acids, there would be 20 X 20 X 20 = 8000 possibilities.

For a protein consisting of 100 amino acids (a `simple` protein), there would be 20^100 possibilities. 20^100 is roughly equal to 10^130. Scientists have stated that there may be as many as 10^22 stars in the observable universe. Let's be generous and assume there are 1000 times that many. Let's generously assume that each star has 10 `Earths`; that is, 10 planets that have the conditions necessary for the support of life.

We will change the water into amino acids (10^46 molecules).

Thus, 10^26 * 10^46 = 10^72 amino acids on all the `earths`. A year has less than 10^8 seconds for a total of 10^78 chains per year. Let's assume that the universe is 100 billion years old. We would have 10^78 * 10^11 chains formed in all the oceans of amino acids on all of our `earths` around all our stars, for all the years that the universe has existed. But we have seen that there are about 10^130 possibilities. Therefore, the probability of forming by chance the given protein consisting of 100 amino acids in 10^89 tries is less that 10^89/10^130, which equals 1/10^41, OR, 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000041. This is, needless to say, an infinitely small number.

Thus, even if there were 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 `Earths`, instead of just the one Earth, the chances of life emerging on EVEN ONE of them are bleak, to say the least.

And by the way, we looked at a `simple` protein. The average-sized protein has 500 amino acids!

10. Detailed studies of various animals have revealed certain physical equipment and capabilities that cannot be duplicated by the world's best designers using the most sophisticated technologies. A few examples include: the miniature and reliable sonar systems of the dolphins, porpoises, and whales; the frequency modulated radar and discrimination system of the bat; the efficiency and aerodynamic capabilities of the hummingbird; the control systems, internal ballistics, and combustion chambers of the bombardier beetle; and the precise and redundant navigational systems of many birds and fish. Scientists have `proven` that it is aerodynamically impossible for a bee to fly. Yet it flies. The many components of these complex systems could not have evolved in stages without placing a selective disadvantage on the animal.

11. If sexual reproduction in plants, animals, and humans is a result of `evolution`, an absolutely unbelievable series of chance events would have had to occur. First, the complex and completely different reproductive systems of the male must have completely and independently evolved at about the same time and place as those of the female. A slight incompleteness in just one of the two would make both systems useless, and natural selection would oppose their survival. Second, the physical and emotional systems of the male and female would also need to be compatible. Third, the complex products of the male reproductive system (pollen or sperm) would have to have an affinity for and a mechanical and chemical compatibility with the eggs from the female reproductive system. Fourth, the intricate and numerous processes occurring at the molecular level inside the fertilized egg would have to work with fantastic precision the very first time it happened- processes which scientists can only describe in an aggregate sense. And finally, the environment of the fertilized egg, from conception until it also reproduces with another sexually capable "brother or sister," would have to be controlled to an unbelievable degree.

And if these processes did not occur at precisely the right time, then one must restart this incredible chain of events near zero. The odds then become so astronomical that they insult the intelligence of anyone with common sense. The `facts` of evolution are already difficult enough to believe, without stretching them any further.

Either this series of incredible events occurred by random processes, or else an Intelligent Designer created sexual reproduction.

Was the Solar System created Recently?

Naturalistic explanations for the evolution of the solar system and universe are unscientific and hopelessly inadequate.

According to ALL theories on the evolution of the solar system:

a. The planets should all rotate on their axes in the same direction; Venus and Uranus rotate `backwards`.

b. All 42 moons of the various planets should revolve in the same direction; at least 11 revolve `backwards`.

c. The orbits of these 42 moons should all lie in the equatorial plane of the planet they orbit; many, including the earth's moon, are highly inclined.

d. The material of the earth (and Mars, Venus, and Mercury) should almost all be hydrogen and helium- similar to that of the sun and the rest of the visible universe; actually much less than 1% of the earth's mass is hydrogen or helium.

e. The sun should have 700 times more angular momentum than the planets; the planets have 50 times more angular momentum than the sun.

1. Detailed analyses indicate that stars could not have formed from interstellar gas clouds. To do so, either by first forming dust particles or by a direct gravitational collapse of the gas, would require vastly more time than the alleged age of the universe. The ONLY alternative is that stars must have been created.

2. The sun's tidal forces are so strong that dust clouds or gas clouds lying within the orbit of Jupiter could never condense to form planets.

3. Saturn's rings could not have formed from the disintegration of a former satellite or from the capture of external material; its particles are too small and too evenly distributed throughout an orbit that is too circular.

4. The moon was not torn from the earth, nor did it congeal from the same material as the earth since the relative abundance of its elements are too dissimilar from those of the earth. If the moon formed from particles orbiting the earth, other particles should be easily visible inside the moon's orbit; none are. The moon's circular, highly inclined orbit is strong evidence that it was never captured by the earth. If the moon was not pulled from the earth, was not built up from smaller particles near its present orbit, and was not captured from outside its present orbit, only one possibility remains. The moon must have been created in its present orbit.

5. No scientific theory exists to explain the origin of matter, space, or time. Since each is intimately related and defined in terms of the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the others. Naturalistic explanations have completely failed.

6. One Postulation of The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the energy of our universe is constant, or `conserved`. Countless experiments have shown that regardless of the energy conversion process, the total amount of energy (or its mass equivalent) remains constant. A corollary of the First Law is that no energy can be created. Since the universe obviously has energy, that energy must have been created in the past when The First Law was not operating. Since the energy of the universe could not have created itself, Something external must have created it.

7. Stellar evolution is assumed in estimation the age of stars. These age estimates are then used to establish a framework for `stellar evolution`. This is CIRCULAR reasoning.

8. There is NO evidence that galaxies `evolved`.

Is the Earth really as Old as evolutionists say it is?

1. Any estimated date prior to the beginning of written records must necessarily assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the initial setting of the clock is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These assumptions are not verifiable, and are not necessarily reliable.

2. A major assumption that underlies all radioactive dating techniques is that the rates of decay, which have been essentially constant over the past 70 years, have also been constant over the past 200,000,000 years. This bold, critical, and untestable assumption is made even though no one knows what causes radioactive decay.

3. The public has been greatly misled concerning the reliability and trustworthiness of radiometric dating techniques (the Potassium-Argon method, the Rubidium-Strontium method, and the Uranium-Thorium method). Many of the published dates can be checked by comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that sometimes bracket radiometrically dated rock. In over 300 (or almost half) of these PUBLISHED checks, the radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in error-indicating major errors in methodology. An unanswered question is, "How many other dating checks were not published because they too were in error?"

4. Pleochroic halos, tiny spheres of discoloration produced by the radioactive decay of particles that are encased in various crystals, show that the earth's crust was NEVER in a molten state. Furthermore, these halos suggest that the rate of radioactive decay was NOT constant, and in fact, varied by MANY orders of magnitude from that observed today.

5. Geological formations are almost always dated by their fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the ASSUMED evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is CIRCULAR! Furthermore, this procedure has produced many contradictory results.

6. Human footprints are found alongside dinosaur footprints in the rock formations of the Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This obviously shows that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time and the same place. But evolutionists claim that dinosaurs became extinct about 30 million years before `man` supposedly began to `evolve`.

7. Many different people have found at different times and places man-made artifacts encased in coal! Examples include an 8-carat gold chain, a spoon, a thimble, an iron pot, a bell, and other objects of obvious human manufacture. Many other "out-of-place artifacts" such as a metallic vase, a screw, nails, a strange coin, and a doll have been found buried deeply in solid rock. By evolutionary dating techniques, these objects would be hundreds of millions of years old; but man supposedly didn't begin to evolve until 2-4 million years ago. This casts more doubt on the dating methods used.

8. In rock formations in Utah, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Kentucky, human footprints that are supposedly 150-600 million years old have been found and examined by many different authorities. Obviously, there is a major error in chronology.

9. The fact that there is no worldwide unconformity in the earth's sedimentary strata implies that this entire geologic record must have been deposited rapidly. (An "unconformity" is an erosional surface between two adjacent rock formations representing a time break of unknown duration. "Conformities" imply a continuous and rapid deposition. Since one can always trace a continuous path from the bottom to the top of the geologic record that avoids these unconformities, the sediments along that path must have been deposited continuously.)

10. Radiocarbon dating, which has been accurately calibrated by counting the rings of living trees that are up to 3,500 years old, is unable to extend this accuracy and date organic remains that are more ancient. A few people have claimed that ancient wood exists which will permit this calibration to be extended even further back in time, but these people have not let outside scientists examine their data. On the other hand, measurements made at hundreds of sites worldwide indicate that the concentration of radiocarbon in the atmosphere rose quite rapidly at some time prior to 3,500 years ago. If this happened, a radiocarbon age of 40,000 years could easily correspond to a true age of 5,000 years.

Many dating techniques show the Earth and Solar System to be Young

1. Direct measurements of the earth's magnetic field over the past 140 years show a steady and rapid decline in its strength. This decay pattern is consistent with the theoretical view that there is an electrical current inside the earth which produces the magnetic field. If this view is correct, then 25,000 years ago the electrical current would have been so vast that the earth's structure could not have survived the heat produced. This would imply that the earth could not be older than 25,000 years.

2. The atmosphere has less than 40,000 years worth of helium, based on just the production of helium from the decay of uranium and thorium. There is no known means by which large amounts of helium can escape from the atmosphere. The atmosphere appears to be young.

3. The rate at which elements such as copper, gold, tin, lead, silicon, mercury, uranium and nickel are entering the oceans is very rapid when compared with the small quantities of these elements already in the oceans. Therefore, the oceans must be very much younger than a million years.

4. Evolutionists believe that the continents have existed for at least 1 billion years. However, the continents are being eroded at a rate that would have leveled them in a relatively short 14 million years.

5. The occurrence of abnormally high gas and oil pressures within relatively permeable rock implies that these fluids were formed or encased less than 10,000 years ago. If these hydrocarbons had been trapped over 10,000 years ago, there would have been leakage which would have dropped the pressure to a level far below what it is today.

7. There have been no authenticated reports of the discovery of meteorites in sedimentary material. If the sediments, which have an average depth of 1 « miles, were laid down over hundreds of millions of years, many of these steadily falling meteorites should have been discovered. Therefore, the sediments appear to have been deposited rapidly; furthermore, since there have been no reports of meteorites beneath the sediments, they appear to have been deposited recently.

8. Since 1836, over one hundred different observers at the Royal Greenwich Observatory and U.S. Naval Observatory have made direct visual measurements which show that the diameter of the sun is shrinking at a rate of about .1% each century or about 5 feet per hour! Furthermore, records of solar eclipses indicate that this rapid shrinkage has been going on for at least the past 400 years. Several indirect techniques also confirm this gravitational collapse, although these inferred collapse rates are only about 1/7th as much. Using the most conservative data, one must conclude that had the sun existed one million years ago, it would have been so large that it would have heated the earth so much that life could not have survived. Yet, evolutionists say that a million years ago all the present forms of life were essentially as they are now, having completed their `evolution` that began 200 million years ago.

9. Short period comets "boil off" some of their mass each time they pass the sun. Nothing should remain of these comets after about 10,000 years. There are no known sources for replenishing comets. If comets came into existence at the same time as the solar system, the solar system must be less than 10,000 years old.

10. Jupiter and Saturn are each radiating more than twice the energy they receive from the sun. Calculations show that it is very unlikely that this energy comes from radioactive decay or gravitational contraction. The only other conceivable explanation is that these planets have not existed long enough to cool off.

11. The sun's gravitational field acts as a giant vacuum cleaner which sweeps up about 100,000 tons of micrometeorites per day. If the solar system were just 10,000 years old, no micrometeoroids should remain since there is no significant source of replenishment. A large disk shaped cloud of these particles is orbiting the sun. Conclusion: the solar system is less than 10,000 years old.

12. Stars frequently travel in closely spaced clusters, moving in the same direction at nearly the same speed. This would not be the case if they had been traveling for billions of years, because even the slightest difference in their velocity would cause their dispersal after such great periods of time.

13. If man and languages `evolved`, the earliest languages should be the simplest. On the contrary, as one studies languages that are increasingly ancient, such as Latin (200 B.C.), Greek (800 B.C.), and Vedic Sanskrit (1500 B.C.), they become INCREASINGLY COMPLEX with respect to syntax, cases, genders, moods, voices, tenses, and verb forms. The evidence indicates that languages do not Evolve, they DE-evolve.

Millions of Years?

"According to evolutionary theory, oil and coal formed over a period of millions of years before man evolved on earth. Today, however, plant material has been converted into a good grade of Petroleum in as little as 20 minutes with the proper temperature and pressure. "Wood, as well, has been converted into coal in just a few hours under the right temperature and pressure. Even at temperatures of only 150 degrees researchers at the Argonne National Laboratories took wood, clay and water and formed high-grade black coal in only 28 days." Creation: Acts, Facts, Impacts (1974), page 188 (Creation Life Publishers).

This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S

I request that the reader `pretend` that the material below, being derived from an audio tape, is entirely enclosed in quotes. I have not included them because I am not a very good typist, and to have added them would have required quite a bit more time to put this information into print.

Also, please forgive me for any typing, spelling, or grammatical errors that I may have made. Thank you.

"I would like to approach the theory of evolution from an academic standpoint. I have personally paid my dues....as most of you know, I have a degree of dentistry, which requires a study of many courses in the biological sciences, in college and dental school, to get that type of degree.

One of the optional courses I took while going to ------- college was a course entitled `evolution`. After a creationist-oriented child and teen years, I went to college, and that's when I started getting REALLY smart.

Looking back now, I realize that I had fallen victim to a great deal of scientific deception.

I want you to know that the theory of evolution looks pretty good if you look at it from a distance. When you get right down to the `nuts and bolts` of evolution, it is in deep trouble.

One of the leading scientists of this age has called evolution `incredible`. The definition of `incredible` is not `amazing`. `Incredible` literally means `without credibility`. He said that "the problem is, the only alternative is creation." In effect he meant that since he `knew` creation is `wrong`, he HAD to believe evolution.

This was not a man making fun of creationism. This is a scientist, and true scientists all over the world realize that the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. Yet they cling to it, because to do otherwise would be to admit the existence of God.

In the 1800`s and in the past, we knew so little about the life process that scientists could make a case for the theory of evolution. However, as our knowledge of genetics and the human body as a whole progressed, facts began emerging that cause the theory of evolution to be in doubt. The same goes for our knowledge of the universe.

I believe it was Karl Marx that said that `religion is the opiate of the masses`. In other words he meant that the masses use religion as an opiate to mollify their existence.

I say that evolution is the opiate of the scientist. I believe that every person has seen enough evidence to realize that sooner or later they will come face-to-face with a holy God. In order to pacify their conscience concerning that inevitable meeting, the scientists have come up with a theory that, in effect, says `there is no God`. The theory of evolution basically says that we made ourselves. Creationism says that a Creator made us.

I went through a stage of theistic evolution, trying to combine creationism with the theory of evolution, because I had been taught that the theory of evolution is an absolute law. But I soon learned that the theory of evolution is totally contrary to the Scriptures.

So I've come full circle. We will now explore the theory of evolution to see `what makes it tick`, to see what the scientific basis is for the theory of evolution. We will see how sound the foundation is for the theory of evolution.

We need to differentiate between ORGANIC evolution and INORGANIC evolution. ORGANIC evolution concerns LIVING matter; INORGANIC means non-living matter. We will be concerned only with ORGANIC evolution. There are those that say that the universe `evolved`. That subject would require a separate study. For now we are concerned only with `organic evolution.

First, a definition of `evolution`. Simply stated, evolution is the theory that living matter arose from chemicals.

When I was in college, one of the first laws I was taught was the `Law of Biogenesis`. This law states that life does NOT arise spontaneously from non-living materials. Needless to say, the theory of evolution is in direct conflict with this law. The theory of evolution says that life emerged spontaneously from dead matter. The origin of the theory of evolution was, of course, Charles Darwin. He was not the only scientist who postulated the theory, however. Lamar was another scientist who was a believer in the theory of evolution.

What is the `motor` that propels the theory of evolution? To understand the `motor`, we need to discuss the concepts that are necessary to the theory of evolution.

Those are natural selection, mutations, and lengthy (or epochal) time periods. We want to look at these things individually, to see "where the evolutionist is coming from", and to see how steady the foundation of the theory of evolution is.

NATURAL SELECTION is the tendency of nature to perpetuate the `survival of the fittest`. It says that as we `evolved` over the millions of years, the strongest of each of the species has survived, and have gradually changed into a new and different life-form. It is also the `natural selection` tendency to eliminate the inferior species, those unfit to live in a changing world. Natural selection is NOT a method of `macro mutation`, and we need to differentiate between `macro mutation` and `micro mutation`.

`MACRO MUTATION` is a major postulate of the theory of evolution.

It says that species are able to `evolve`, and to change into A NEW AND DIFFERENT SPECIES. Natural Selection is NOT a method of `macro mutation`.

`MICRO MUTATION` is the ability of members of a given species to exist in different forms. For instance, a poodle and a saint Bernard are examples of `micro mutation`. They are of course both dogs, but have different appearances. But you must remember that no matter what the color, no matter what the size, they are STILL dogs. They are not `evolving` into horses.

I believe in micro mutations, but I do not believe in macro mutations. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that macro mutations have ever produced a more viable life-form.

An example of a micro mutation is the `peppered moth` of the eastern seaboard. Evolutionists love to say that this moth is `proof` of evolution, because the color of this moth has changed from light colors to dark colors over the past several hundred years. They say that since the trees of that area have darkened in color due to air pollution, the moth has `evolved` into a darker color to evade their natural predators by `matching` the color of the tree bark. They neglect to mention that the moth has changed color for the SAME REASON that the trees have, due to air pollution and smog. Yet evolutionists point to this as the `greatest proof` of the theory of evolution ever witnessed.

If this is `evidence` of evolution, I say that they have not witnessed evolution at all, BECAUSE THEY ARE STILL MOTHS. They still have the genetic material of a moth.

Thus there are limits to the extent of change within the many different species. It is amazing how far these limits extend. The genetic material has variations, but a dog will always be a dog. No dog has `evolved` into a horse. If one ever did, the theory of evolution would have at least a reprieve. But no solid evidence of such an incident exists.

I recently read that if you took one chromosome from a human and stretched it out, it would be seven feet long. ONE chromosome. It would be so thin you could not see it even with an electron microscope.

If you took ALL of the chromosomes in the average human body and stretched them in a chain, they would extend back and forth to the moon 200,000 times. I want you to know that there is an enormous amount of genetic information in the human body.

If you took the genetic information in your body and entered it into your computer word processor, it would require enough paper to more than fill the Grand Canyon.

It takes an enormous amount of information to produce a human from the sperm and ovary. It takes a gigantic amount of genetic `instructions` to produce a human.

The theory of evolution says that by mutations, `accidents` can happen to that instruction bank, and then as that organism grows into adulthood, that `accident` will produce a `better` life form.

Now, the human body is infinitely more complex than an automobile.

What if, during the construction of an automobile, someone at the factory changes something? What if they connected a spark plug wire to the gas tank? What if they miswired the electrical system? What if they installed the pistons backwards? What if they installed the distributor where it was not in sequence with the crankshaft? Would the result ever be an improvement in any of these cases? Of course not.

The same results are produced when genetic material mutates.

Mutations are virtually always detrimental. The results are usually fatal. Sometimes the subject is merely crippled. Sometimes there is simply a malformed form of the same creature. But there is NO evidence of a mutation ever producing a more viable life-form.

Thus we have now discussed both natural selection and mutations.

These, remember, are the cornerstones of the theory of evolution. But mutations are the only means of producing `evolution` as we know it.

I would like to read an excerpt from a book written by Dr. Walter T.

Brown. Dr. Brown is a retired Colonel from the Air Force, a West Point graduate, and has a Phd in engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It is my understanding that MIT does not give degrees to persons who do not have the credentials necessary to obtain one. He has been a Fellow of the National Science Foundation, and so on.

In his book, Dr. Brown says that "the process of mutation is the only known source of raw materials of genetic viability, and hence, evolution." He is quoting here from a man named Theodosus Dzenski [sp], who is one of the most famous teachers of the theory of evolution.

Dzenski [sp] says, "The mutants which arise are, with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in the environments which the species normally arise."

In other words, he is saying that if these mutants are produced in a laboratory setting, a scientist can sometimes manage to keep them alive. In the environments where the species normally lives, these mutants usually die.

A quote from the magazine `Origin of The Species` says, "If we say that if only by chance the mutants are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal."

Why that quote was in that magazine is a mystery, because if you're trying to sell the theory of evolution, that statement is not conducive to your cause.

Paul Moorehead has written a book, "Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution." In it, he says he decided "to find out whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't produce a result harmful to the function of that hemoglobin." He was studying the changes necessary in a hemoglobin to improve it.

He says, "One is hard put to find such an instance." Yet evolutionists have taught for years that Alpha Hemoglobin A changed through mutations into Beta Hemoglobin A.

Mr. Moorehead learned that such a mutation would require A MINIMUM of 10^120 mutations.

How large is 10^120? There are "only" 10^80 electrons in the entire universe. Now this man is telling us that it would take 10^120 micro mutations to change this one hemoglobin? How many of you believe that evolution accomplished this feat?

To continue this story, scientists say that there is enough room in the space around an atom so that the electrons of an atom have the same amount of space as two bees flying in Saint Peter's Cathedral. Thus there is a large amount of space between the electrons that orbit around an atom.

How many electrons do you think you could `pack` into the universe if you disregarded the electrical repulsion of the electrons? We know that there are 10^80 electrons, and there is the same amount of space between electrons as two bees flying in Saint Peter's Cathedral.

What exponent do we put on the 10 now? The answer is 10^120, the same as the number of mutations required to change that single hemoglobin.

The more you think about this comparison, the more you will begin to realize that the theory of evolution is on shaky ground.

What are some of the mutations present in the human species? Well, there is albinism, dwarfism, color blindness, and Down's Syndrome. These are genetic mutations, the `stuff` that evolutionists say produced modern man.

How many of those would you like to have? How many of those mutations have benefited the people that they happened to?

The motor that drives the theory of evolution is mutations. Yet there has never been a documented example of a beneficial mutation.

One of the things we have been pounded with is the amount of time necessary to allow mutations to produce modern-day species. The evolutionists are desperately looking for time, because if you can produce enough time, you can hide the many weaknesses of the theory of evolution. But eons of time are an absolute necessity, simply because of the amount of mutations necessary, as we saw a few minutes ago.

There are a number of `clocks` that are used to judge the age of the universe. We will see whether or not these `clocks` are reliable. We will see whether or not the universe is really as old as the theory of evolution postulates.

The first is radio-metric dating. Potassium argon or uranium lead is used to determine how old something is. Carbon-14 is radioactive carbon. Carbon normally has 12 electrons, but occasionally a carbon atom has 14 electrons. When it has 14, it is unstable.

If you took ten pounds of Carbon-14 and came back 1,000 years later, if there was only five pounds of Carbon-14 left, and the rest was Carbon-12, that is how you would at least theoretically determine the age of the carbon. If that is over your head, just let it go; but that is how that `clock` works.

When a creature is alive it of course breathes. Even plants breathe.

Thus Carbon-14 enters the creature or plant. When an animal dies, you should be able to measure the amount of Carbon-14 remaining in the specimen and thus to determine the age of that specimen. You should be able to use a scale to determine how much Carbon-14 it should have had, and then the specimen's age should be measurable. This dating method, incidentally, is only good for organic material, and it is only reliable for a time span of about 40,000 years. For a longer period of time, potassium argon or lead uranium dating must be used. These latter materials have half-lives (supposedly) in the millions of years.

This is a pretty good theory; we shall now see how shaky its foundation is.

To make these clocks work, you have to assume that the rate of radioactive decay is the same today as it has been for the last 40,000 years. However, scientists have recently discovered that the rate of radioactive decay can be changed, not in tiny amounts, but in significant amounts. Yet we have been deceived into believing that radioactive decay is an absolutely steady process. That is not true.

Another necessity for this clock is that the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere would have to have been the same for the last 40,000 years. How many of you believe that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere 20,000 years ago was the same as it is today? How many of you believe that it was the same 50 years ago? It wasn't. We've been measuring it for about 50 years, and it has changed in `only` 50 years. What does that tell you about the reliability of the Carbon-14 dating system?

How many of you believe that the concentration of radioactive argon or potassium is the same as it was two million years ago? That is a very shaky presumption for the theory of evolution.

The point that I am trying to make is that the `facts` that we have been bombarded with are not necessarily true. We assume, since a theory comes from a `distinguished` scientist, it is a law. That is an absolute falsehood. These `clocks` are NOT as reliable as we have been led to believe.

A scientist who won the Nobel Peace Prize once said, at a meeting with other Nobel Prize winners, concerning radio-metric dating, "if it corroborates our theory and our work, we print it. If it comes close, we put it in a footnote. If it is contradictory, we don't mention it at all."

How's that for scientific honesty?

A quote from `Common Problems With Radio-Metric Dating`: "The fact that erroneous results can be and often are derived from radio-metric dating techniques has been experimentally verified. For instance living snails have been dated at 2,300 years old by the carbon-dating method."

How many of you believe that a living snail could be 2,300 years old? Wood from living trees has been dated at being 10,000 years old. How many of you believe that a tree can live 10,000 years?

Hawaiian lava flows known to be about 200 years old have been dated by potassium argon dating as being 3,000,000,000 years old.

These scientists would do well to consider the question put to Job by God: "Where were YOU when I laid the foundation of the earth?"

I have a total of 69 points that indicate a young earth. We will not have time to cover them all, but I will include as much information as possible.

We will now talk about the `clock` of cosmic dust. 14,000,000 tons of cosmic dust fall on the earth every year. The earth has a good atmosphere so that this dust could have been dispersed for a long period of time.

Cosmic dust has a high concentration of nickel in it. Therefore if this dust has been falling for hundreds of millions of years, we should be able to find an enormous amount of nickel. We have not. Either the rate of this dust has changed greatly in the last 50 years, or our world is not as old as we have been led to believe.

Scientists thought that the lunar lander had to be designed with large feet. Since there is no atmosphere or rain to disperse this cosmic dust, considering the supposed age of the moon, the lunar lander might sink into the dust.

How much did it cost taxpayers to pay for the landing pods on the lunar module? Remember that the lunar lander had `feet` about six feet in diameter?

What happened? The dust wasn't 200,000,000 years thick, was it? It was about « an inch deep. What does that point to? A young moon.

How about Niagara Falls? Scientists have measured the erosion rate of Niagara Falls for more than 100 years. If the North American continent has existed for as long as evolutionists claim, Niagara Falls would have eroded itself completely around the world, more than once. What does that suggest? A young earth.

How about the Mississippi delta? Scientists have studied it for more than 150 years, because of the concern about flooding of the delta area. There is a great deal of information about the Mississippi delta. At its current rate of sedimentation, guess how long it has taken to reach its present configuration? About 4,000 years.

The delta produces about 300,000,000 cubic yards of sedimentation into the Gulf of Mexico every year.

You can also look at from the other side. At the current rate of sedimentation, if the Mississippi delta has existed as long as evolutionists say it has, it would have filled up the Gulf of Mexico more than once. What does that suggest? A young earth.

Scientists have discovered that the Earth's rotational speed is declining. If the earth is 2,000,000,000 years old, as evolutionists say it is, and it had been slowing at the present rate, the earth would have stopped rotating many years ago. Its rotational speed would be zero.

Looking at this in another light, if you extrapolate the rotational speed of the earth, and increase it as you go back in time 2,000,000,000 years, it would have been spinning so rapidly that all the continents would have drifted to the equator, and the earth would have become a `pancake`. What does this point to? A young earth.

The earth has a population growth of about « of 1% a year.

Actually this is a very conservative estimate. In actuality, the growth rate is about twice that much.

How long would take one man and one woman to populate the entire world at « its present rate of growth? About 4,000 years.

If you went back in time to the time when evolutionists say that mankind as we know it began, guess what the population of the earth would be at « the present growth rate. The population would be 10^2100 people! You remember that there are `only` 10^80 electrons in the universe. Remember that if the universe were `packed` with electrons, there would only be room for 1^120 electrons? That number is NOTHING compared to 10^2100.

What does this evidence point to? A young earth.

Let's talk about stars. Our sun produces the energy of about 1,000,000,000 hydrogen bombs per second. By doing that it is converting the smallest form of atomic elements, hydrogen, and radiating that out into space. The sun is therefore consuming itself.

There are stars that are 1,000,000 times brighter than our sun. That means that they are using a phenomenal amount of matter to produce this much energy, and they are radiating this energy out into space. If you take the present size of those `superstars`, and extrapolate back 2,000,000,000 years, those stars would have had to be implausibly large to be the size they are today. In fact, one of them would have had to have been big enough to occupy almost the entire universe! What does that suggest? A young universe.

There are many more indicators that suggest a young universe. They range from the sublime to the absurd. Unfortunately, time does permit me to cover them all.

Now let's consider the demands of creation versus the demands of the theory of evolution.

First, creation demands the presence of a creator. The theory of evolution demands the absence of a creator.

Second, creation demands the creation of matter. The theory of evolution has no explanation for the origin of matter.

Third, as for the time span of the existence of the universe, creation demands the time span of recorded history. The theory of evolution demands eons of time, billions of years.

Fourth, creation demands a `spirit world`. That is, the presence of a `higher power`, one who created this universe and governs its operation. This `higher power` is the giver of life. The theory of evolution does not allow for a higher power or a giver of life. The theory of evolution says life emerged spontaneously from non-living matter.

Fifth, there is the fossil record. Creation demands a sudden appearance of life forms in the fossil record. The theory of evolution says that the fossil record should show the `evolution` of life forms. The theory of evolution says the fossil record should show species changing from one life form to another. There should be many, many examples of this in the fossil record, if all the many life forms we see today truly `evolved` from the `primeval soup`. We will look in detail at this subject later.

Now, to consider all of these demands in detail, we will begin with the first. Since the belief or non-belief in a Creator is a personal matter, this is something that science cannot measure. It is either yes or no, depending on what a given person believes.

The creationist has a choice here. Ironically, the evolutionist DOES NOT HAVE A CHOICE. The creationist can choose to believe in a Creator or to believe in evolution. The evolutionist MUST believe in evolution, since he `knows` that there is no Creator.

Secondly, there is the question of the origin of matter. The creationist believes that a Creator created matter. Where does the evolutionist say matter came from? Why, it came from the `Big Bang`. Hold it. I didn't say, "how did matter come into its present form?". I said, WHERE DID MATTER COME FROM? The evolutionist might say it condensed into this big blob before the `Big Bang`. Well, you missed me again. I asked, `Where did it come from?`. The point is, the evolutionist has no answer for this question. If matter `condensed` from energy, as some evolutionists say, where did that energy come from?

The creationist has no problem with this demand. The evolutionist has MANY problems with this demand.

It is true that the evolutionist could ask, `Where did the Creator come from?`. That is an area where man's mind fails, because man cannot comprehend the actions of the infinite, or the workings of a Being infinitely greater than man. There are no words to comprehend or describe a Being so far advanced from us mere mortal beings.

My answer is that their position on creation demands an answer, and my position does not, because my position deals with an infinite Being. The evolutionist's position does not deal with the infinite.

Third, the subject of the age of the universe has been covered in the previous material. We have seen that dating methods are far from reliable, and we have seen that there is a great deal of evidence that strongly suggests that the universe is not nearly as old as the theory of evolution claims it is.

Fourth, there is the question of where life came from. The creationist has no problem with this demand. Life was given from the Creator to man. The creationist has an understanding of life; of what life really is. The creationist knows that a man is much more than just a collection of matter and chemicals.

If you ask an evolutionist what life is they will likely tell you that it is the result of the production of chemicals. In essence, their only concept of life is the arrangement of matter.

I believe that this question can be proven. Suppose that there is a person in the hospital who has just died of a heart attack. I challenge the evolutionist to take this person, to cool him down, and to go in and repair or replace his heart. If life is nothing more than a collection of chemicals and the specific arrangement of matter, let's correct the chemical imbalances in his body, and then the evolutionist can bring him back to life.

The evolutionist wouldn't have to wait for lightning to strike the primordial soup, here's a human already `evolved`. Let's see if the evolutionist can bring him back to life.

I don't mean to be morbid or sarcastic, but I believe that this example, though it may be offensive, readily illustrates the shortcomings of the evolutionist's concept of life. In reality, the average evolutionist knows almost nothing of what life is really all about, especially the spiritual world. The evolutionist is spiritually DEAD.

The creationist's understanding of life enables him to see that the Creator has taken back the life that was given to this man, AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT THE EVOLUTIONIST CAN DO ABOUT IT.

Next we will consider the fossil record. If there is anything that can tangibly `prove` the theory of evolution, the fossil record would be the most likely. Fossils can of course be seen, handled, and examined.

It has been instilled into this generation that the age of anything can be absolutely proven. As we have seen from our study of the various dating methods, there is very little that is absolute in the `science` of dating. The methods and results are at best questionable.

Recent advances in science has shown that there are questions regarding things once thought absolute. I have read that scientists have discovered that the speed of light is slowing down. There is evidence that atomic clocks do not run at a constant rate. They, too, are slowing down.

Concerning the fossil record, let me read what a leading scientist has said:

"The fossil record reveals the absence of life forms in the lower 2/3rds of the earth's crust. Then, suddenly, an abundance of advanced life forms appear. The oldest rocks in which indisputable fossils are found are those of the so-called `Cambrian Period.` The Cambrian [sp] Period sedimentary deposits contain BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of fossils of HIGHLY ADVANCED and HIGHLY DEVELOPED life forms. Every major invertebrate form is found in the Cambrian rock layer. The complexity of these advanced life forms is so great that evolutionists claim that it would have taken 1,500,000,000 years to `evolve`."

If the theory of evolution is `true`, why do we find NO life forms in the rock layers underneath the Cambrian rock layer? If evolution produced these advanced life forms, where is the evidence that these fossils `evolved` from more simple life forms? Where are the fossils that these advanced life forms `evolved` from?

If you believe in creation, the fossil record fits in perfectly.

This is exactly what you would expect if this world, and the creatures in it, all began at one point in time. You would expect a sudden appearance of advanced creatures, virtually at the same time.

What viewpoint does the fossil record support, evolution or creation? The answer should be obvious to anyone except a close-minded evolutionist.

To conclude:

"Not a single indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrian rock."

Charles Darwin, regarded by many as the `father` of the theory of evolution, once said:

"NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed."

Charles Darwin

To illustrate the theory of evolution:

™-----------------------------------I

FROG + MAGIC WAND = PRINCE ø

(Fairy Tale) ø –-----------------------------------A

FROG + 200,000,000 YEARS = PRINCE ø

(Evolution) ø U-----------------------------------

Another quote, this one from George Gaylord Simpson, a champion of the theory of evolution, follows. After stating that nowhere in the world is a trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between ASSUMED (by evolutionists) fossils of the horse species and its ASSUMED (by evolutionists) ancestral order, Mr. Simpson says:

"This is true of ALL of the 32 orders of mammals. The earliest and most primitive known members of EVERY order of mammal ALREADY HAVE the basic ordinal characters and in NO CASE is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed."

Now that's the candid admission of a man who was one of the champions of the theory of evolution.

What scientists have done is to go around the world, gathering assumed horse fossils, sometimes from the wrong strata. Then they have come up with this `evolutionary tree` of the horse species. Most people have seen this `ancestral tree` of the horse species. We have been led to believe that this `tree` is absolute, indisputable fact. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a merely a hypothetical exercise, and it is NOT based on sound research.

Because the fossil record is so void of transitional fossils, evolutionists have come up with a new theory, called `Punctuated Equilibrium`. This is a theory that my daughter at -------- college has been bombarded with. She is a pre-med student, which of course involves the study of life sciences.

First let me define `equilibrium` as we are using it here.

Evolutionists now claim that as a new species `evolves`, there are periods of `equilibrium` of from one (1) to ten (10) million years during which some species do not change at all. Evolutionists claim that this is the reason that we find an abundance of advanced fossils in one time period, such as in the Cambrian rock layer.

Next we are asked to believe that, after millions of years of inactivity in their `evolution`, this supposed species suddenly becomes "punctuated". This means that after all those years of inactivity, the assumed species changes TO ANOTHER SPECIES in a few thousand years.

Since a few thousand years is so small an amount of time in the `evolutionary process`, the evolutionists claim that this is the reason that no transitional life forms are found.

This is a very popular theory nowadays. What is the evidence for this theory? There is really NO evidence of gradualism. What they are saying is that the evidence for punctuated equilibrium is, no evidence for the old theory. Since the absence of transitional fossils disputes the validity of the theory of evolution, they have now devised this new theory, also based on no evidence, to `patch up` the lack of evidence for the original theory of evolution.

I am amazed at how this theory has been accepted, and how it is being taught in our colleges. It is a ridiculous theory, based on no evidence.

But it illustrates one thing clearly. It clearly indicates the BANKRUPTCY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, so man has now accepted ANOTHER theory that has no evidence in fact. Needless to say, the evolutionist cannot explain how or why this hypothetical phenomena `happened`.

Jay Gould, one of the authors of this theory, has recently expressed hope for the appearance of the "Hopeful Monster" theory. This theory states that a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it. This is the only hope for the theory of evolution, because there are NO transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Dr. Ethridge, the curator of the British Museum, has remarked:

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is SHEER NONSENSE, not founded on observation, and wholly unsupported by the facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all of this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of any species."

I suggest that Dr. Ethridge is as qualified to make that judgment as anyone else in the world. He has millions of fossils at his disposal. That seems to me to be the honest statement of a scientist who has truly investigated the theory of evolution, and has found it to be totally lacking in credibility.

There are about 250,000 species of life that have been discovered in fossil form. Yet out of this great collection of fossils, Dr. Ethridge is stating that NOT ONE has been found that supports the theory of evolution. I hope you will think about the gravity of his statement.

Next we will imagine a mental picture of a man sitting on an imaginary chair. The chair is not really `there`, but the man is sitting on it. The poem, illustrative of the theory of evolution, goes:

As I was sitting in my chair
I knew it had no bottom there
Nor arms or legs, but I just sat
Ignoring little things like that

That is a good description of the many shortcomings of the theory of evolution and its attendant theory, the theory of `punctuated equilibrium`.

If you will go up to Glenrose [sp] in north central Texas, you can find dinosaur footprints and human footprints in the same rock layer. How did they get there together? The evolutionists tell us that the last dinosaur died 30,000,000 years before the first `true human` was born. Did that mud stay moist for 30,000,000 years, so that the dinosaur footprint and the human footprint would appear in the same rock layer? Of course not. That would be too ridiculous a statement, even for an evolutionist.

I've seen a movie that was made on those fossils at Glenrose [sp].

It shows the footprints of several dinosaurs and then it shows a human footprint trail going right across it. Now these human footprints are not very clear. In fact, the only very clear human footprint in the collection is not there. Instead, there is a large square where someone chiseled the human footprint out of the rock and sold it to a tourist. But you can see the trail of the person walking there, and if you will use a composite of those footprints you can produce a perfect human footprint. There are some that show the toes very clearly, some that show the heel very clearly, and so on. In fact, on one of the footprints, you can see that this human slipped on the mud, and slid about three feet. Where his foot stopped, you can see a perfect outline of this human's toes.

If you want to reassure yourself, look at your foot sometime. If you study this, you will discover that there is no animal that qualifies as having possibly those prints. That includes apes, bears, or anything else. The human footprint is very unique.

Interestingly, in the movie I mentioned above, these human footprints were shown to both evolutionists and creationists. Their comments were very revealing.

As you might expect, the creationists came up with the conclusion that was logical. The prints were what they appear to be. No mystery. Just more proof of creationism.

The evolutionists, as might be expected, agreed that the dinosaur tracks were obviously genuine, but they expressed doubts as to whether those `really were` human footprints.

Do you see the difference in interpretation of data? The evolutionists disagreed, not because the proof was inconclusive, but because their preconceived beliefs prevented them from accepting the data. Of what value is a scientist who will not accept data unless it agrees with his preconceived views?

Most people have seen dinosaur footprints, or has at least seen photographs of dinosaur footprints. Everyone, even laymen, know what a dinosaur footprint looks like. Of course, everyone knows what a human footprint looks like.

Thus, even an inexperienced layman could conclude that 2 + 2 = 4.

Yet these `scientists`, these evolutionists, could not make the same conclusion. Why? Their prejudice would not allow them to. Their `training` and `knowledge` precluded the obvious conclusion.

Next we will discuss `The Religion of Evolution`. First, a definition from Webster's New World dictionary:

Religion:

a. A belief in a supernatural power;

b. an expression of this belief in conduct or ritual;

c. a specific system of belief or worship involving a code of ethics;

d. an object that is zealously pursued.

Obviously, if you are a creationist, one or more of these definitions would apply to you. You would probably believe that this supernatural power created all things. You should have a code of conduct that you try to make an integral part of your life, as outlined in the Bible, at least for all of us in attendance here. Also, you should also believe that this supernatural power, having created this magnificent universe, also has the power to override what we would call infallible physical laws. These `overrides` are called `miracles` by most people.

Does evolution qualify as a religion? I would submit that it most certainly does. Here's why I think it does:

Does the evolutionist believe in a supernatural power?

Yes. They believe in a power that overrules the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A corollary of this law says that systems of matter do NOT `evolve` into more organized states, as the evolutionists say it did after the `Big Bang`. Instead, this law states that the OPPOSITE is true. Matter and states of matter become more DISORGANIZED, rather than more organized, if left to themselves. The evolutionist's view of primordial earth is that matter, with no outside intervention, somehow produced life.

Another term for this disorganization is `ENTROPY`, which is a term for these increasingly disorganized states.

I hope that you understand what I am saying here. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a law that is considered to be as fundamental as the law of gravity. It is one law has been proven to be true for a very long time. Yet evolutionists say that this law was suspended while man and animal `evolved`. It HAD to have been suspended.

It is ironic that these two directly contradictory issues are being taught concurrently on our campuses. In the biological sciences, students are taught the theory of evolution. Across the campus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is being taught.

I think you can see how pervasive is the influence of the theory of evolution.

A quote from a champion of evolution:

"Evolution is an ANTI-ENTROPIC process, running

COUNTER to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with its degradation of energy and its tendency to uniformity."

Sir Julian Huxley

"Evolutionists are a group of persons who believe quite openly in mathematical miracles. They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature, outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles, provided the miracles are in the aid of biology. This curious situation sits oddly in a profession that for long has been dedicated to finding logical explanations for Biblical miracles." New Scientist Magazine November, 1981

How's that for contradiction? In other words, evolutionists believe in miracles for biology, but they do not believe in Biblical miracles.

Dr. Collin Patterson, Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department of the British Museum of Natural History, says that he `now realizes that evolution was a faith. He had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth in some way and that evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but conveys anti-knowledge; apparent knowledge which is harmful to systematics`.

If a evolutionist is honest (and few are), he or she will admit that there is something necessary to make their theory `work`. The evidence is conclusive that if one relies solely on the evidence and the laws governing the operation of this universe, evolution is an impossible theory.

The above, I believe, shows why evolution qualifies as a religion.

Do the pre-conceived beliefs of evolutionists affect their ability to judge evidence? Yes, they do.

Don't evolutionists observe a code of ethics or a code of behavior, based on their belief in the theory of evolution, just as creationists use the code of ethics and behavior found in the Bible? Yes, they do.

Do not evolutionists pursue their beliefs zealously? Yes, they do.

They are strict proponents of voicing their ludicrous beliefs at every opportunity.

Their belief in the theory of evolution affects their conduct, enabling them to look at data and reach a conclusion that is plainly illogical. This could be compared with what the Bible calls `faith`. Evolutionists have `faith` that their theory is correct, even when the evidence plainly suggests otherwise.

Before concluding, I would like to stress that believers in creationism no longer have to `apologize` for their beliefs. The theory of evolution has so pervaded our society that many believers in creationism have for years been trying to `combine` the `facts` of the theory of evolution with the Biblical account of creation. That is not necessary. Now that you have seen the evidence regarding the unreliability of dating methods, along with the fossil record, you should be able to see that there is no longer any need to feel uneasy when expressing your belief in creationism.

Next we will talk of creationism versus the theory of evolution in regard to the various disciplines of science. We have already spoken of the astronomical side of this question.

We will now consider the study of cells. These cells make up every living thing. What evidence is there in this area, which will settle the question of evolutionism versus creationism?

If the theory of evolution is correct, then the accidental synthesis of the DNA molecule had to have taken place. As biological science learns more and more about the complexity of the cellular structure, the realization that this feat is impossible has set in.

The DNA molecule can only be replicated in the presence of certain enzymes; numerous, complicated enzymes. Those enzymes themselves can only be replicated in the presence of DNA molecules. So, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

It is not enough to `simply` synthesize the DNA molecule; it would also have been necessary to synthesize these attendant enzymes, virtually at the same time. This is mathematically improbable, to say the least.

As we learn more and more about single cells, we have learned that each cell is composed of thousands of functioning enzymes. In the early days of science, cells were thought to be simple creations, with only a few components. Thus their accidental `evolution` was perhaps a bit more plausible. With the advent of the electron microscope, science has learned that even singular cells are enormously complicated structures. The advance of science almost daily erodes the already shaky foundation of the theory of evolution.

A single cell contains over 1,000 functioning enzymes. Each enzyme requires a gene to produce it. Each gene might be made up of 1,000 or more nucliatides [sp]. Each nucliatide [sp] occurs with the arrangement of four particular molecules that form it; thus, there could be 4^1000 possible combinations of these nucliatides [sp] to form only ONE of these genes.

In other words, for the probability that the proper sequence for the formation of ONE nucliatide occurred is 4^1000, which is the same as 10^600. Having spoken of exponential numbers before, it is still difficult to assimilate 10^600. To refresh your memory, remember that there are only 10^80 electrons in the universe.

Remember that the above odds are for the chance synthesis of ONE GENE. Also remember that these alleged `evolutionary processes` must link together to eventually form ONE living cell. The exponents of the numbers allegedly attributed to these processes quite quickly reaches the laughable. With each assumed `evolutionary process`, the chances begin to approach zero very quickly.

Thus, the theory of evolution is in trouble at the very lowest levels. That is, there is mathematical evidence that the theory of evolution doesn't even have the possibility of `getting off the ground`. The theory of evolution cannot even demonstrate the chance synthesis of a single living cell.

But remember, the evolutionist MUST find a way to explain these things. To NOT do so would be `against his religion`. Since the evolutionist `knows` that there is no Creator, his ONLY alternative is the theory of evolution, no matter how ludicrous his theories and `explanations` become.

The evolutionists have devised the postulation that, billions of years ago, the earth had a sea of rich nutrients. In one of many biological miracles, lightning struck this `primordial soup` and, by chance, these nutrients reacted and produced the first living, self-replicating cell. This cell was the first living thing in the universe, according to the evolutionist.

The evolutionist conjectures and implies that this jump was just a minor thing. That is far from the case, as we saw a few minutes ago when we discussed the odds of even one cell being `born` by chance.

Concerning that `jump` from molecule to living cell, a Nobel Peace Prize winner has deduced that an alien entity, in the dim past, `seeded` the many forms of life on earth. Isn't it incredible that a mind brilliant enough to win the Nobel Prize could come up with such a stupid idea?

This theory, more than anything else, shows the utter failure of the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life on earth.

This great scientist is basically saying, after realizing that the theory of evolution is foolishness, since life couldn't have started on earth, it must have started somewhere else. Apparently evolutionists are getting more desperate than ever for an explanation of the origin of life. At least this statement raises the odds. Maybe, just maybe, somewhere out there in space, there is a planet where the biological miracles of the evolutionist could have happened. At least this puts things out in space where there is no one around to be able to prove their facetious theories wrong.

Earth, with all of its water, with its atmosphere, with its perfect distance from the sun, with the perfect cant of the axis so that we have seasonal changes, with the perfect amount of light, with all of this perfection, if it is impossible for it to have occurred here, how could it have occurred somewhere else? There seems to be a certain method of thinking, bound into the minds of certain scientists, to proclaim that it HAS to have happened, and whatever kind of frenzied thought is necessary to produce the right circumstances, we MUST devise and proclaim it. There are apparently no limit to the imaginations of those devising these theories. There also seems to be no limit as to the gullibility of the public in accepting these silly theories.

There is also a theory out that, as an embryo develops, its many appearances at different times reflect its `evolution`. This applies to all embryos, whether it be a bird, as turtle, or a human. I was taught this theory in college.

Do you know when this theory was proven wrong? Back in the 1920`s.

As someone once said, `There is nothing more fun than to watch an intelligent man expound on an stupid idea`.

So what can you say? The above theory was called the `Biogenetic Law`, and it has been proven wrong or proven totally implausible so many times that it is ridiculous to even consider it.

"This theory is now completely discredited by most embryologists."
Dr. Jeffrey Bryne

Over fifty years ago, Dr. Waldo Shumway [sp] of the University of Illinois said:

"Experimental embryology demands that this hypothesis be abandoned."

If that's the case, why is this `law` still being taught? The answer is that people are preaching the theory of evolution with religious fervor, and they have to have something to teach. The theory of evolution, being shaky at best, requires periodic `props` to at least provide temporary stability. In a pinch, the evolutionist can always dream up a new theory to bolster his cause.

Evolutionists have to rely on three things to make evolution `work`. These are natural selection, huge periods of time, and mutations. The theory of evolution is thus standing on three broken legs. None of the three are viable models for producing life as we know it. These theories were worthless thirty years ago, and they are just as worthless today. The advancements of science, rather than proving the theory of evolution right, is doing the opposite. The theory of evolution has become the de facto religion of the humanist society of today.

The truth of mutations is that no one has ever produced a species change through mutations, whether through micromutations or through macromutations, even in a laboratory, even after thousands of mutations. The appearance of a species can be changed through mutations; through species interbreeding, you can come with a poodle or a dachshund. But guess what? Both are still dogs.

There is the story of a missionary who proposed several possible explanations of the origin of a tribe of natives. The natives of New Guinea, after hearing the theory of evolution, openly laughed at the idea. Why aren't we laughing at it? It has been proven wrong countless times. The reason that we aren't laughing is that the evolutionist is a member of a religion, with the theory of evolution as his god. He is a devout person, and openly laughs at the idea of creationism. That is called voluntary blindness.

In respect to the issue of genetics, if the theory of evolution is correct, there is the issue of homologous structures. If you studied the genetic structure of organisms, you would expect to find a chromosome with a gene located on it in a place in a chicken that causes the bird's wing to appear during its development, and you would expect to go into animals that `evolved` from these `lower forms` of life and find a similar gene relative to a homologous structure. In other words, the forearm of an animal should be similar to the wing of a bird. That is not the case. Instead, the genes of all these life forms are distinct, each with their own individual characteristics. There is an obvious contradiction of the genetic data, and the concept of the inherited homologous structures is false.

Sir Gavin de Beer [sp], a devout evolutionist, says:

"The attempt to find homologous genes except in closely related species is HOPELESS. Organs such as the eye preserve their similarity in structure, but the genes responsible for the organ must have become altered during the evolutionary process."

Have you ever heard a more stupid statement? He is saying that over the eons, as the eyes have `evolved` from one creature to the next, the eyes have remained the same, but the genetic information producing the eyes have changed. He is saying that mutations produced the same results, but with different combinations of genes. That's utterly ridiculous, but it is typical of the desperate measures taken by the evolutionist to be able to hold on to his god, the theory of evolution.

From the field of anatomy, we should see certain indications in the anatomical structures of life forms. If the theory of evolution is true, we should see organs in the human body (for instance) that were useful to the human during his `evolution`, but that since have become useless.

When I was a in college, there were about 180 organs in the human body listed by evolutionists as being in this category. They included things such as the appendix, the thymus gland, and the big toe.

Over the years, we have learned that these supposedly `obsolete` organs do indeed have a use.

The thymus gland is a gland that surrounds an infant's heart at childbirth. As the child ages, that gland quickly shrinks so much that it is difficult to find any indication of it in an adult. The evolutionists have therefore proclaimed this as proof of the theory of evolution, since it `has no use`.

Medical science has since discovered that the thymus gland is an integral part of the mechanism that `starts up` the immune system of a child at birth. Would any of you like to do without your auto-immune system? How long would you live without it? Ask an AIDS patient, if you don't know the answer to those questions.

Guess what else is part of the auto-immune system? The humble appendix, believe it or not. It is responsible for the `T-Cell` formation which is part of the immune system.

The truth is, there are NO organs that do not have a purpose. If evolution really happened, we should see them.

We should also see organs being born; that is, organs that seeing strange organs developing in our bodies, organs that have no use at the present, but that will have a use sometime in the future. But we do not, because there are none. This is still another instance of the proclamation of assumed processes, processes that have no proof of ever having happened.

Imagine the first amphibian, as he started to `evolve` a wing. At first it would be just a stub, having `evolved` from a useful forearm. In the midst of its evolution, it would become a useless stub, being halfway between a forearm and a wing. It would have no function while `evolving`. Thus it places a severe handicap on the creature. Obviously natural selection would not allow such a thing to take place. Genetics certainly disallows it. So there is no way, with reasonable thought, that it could have happened.

The jawbones of reptiles had three bones in them. Evolutionists say, by `evolution`, these bones `migrated` into the three bones inside the human ear. The evolutionist says that since humans have only one jawbone, these bones `must have` produced our ear bones. Isn't that impressive? Wow. You know, from a distance, that could possibly be conceivable. However, if you understand the genetics that would have to be involved with such a migration, it becomes untenable. It becomes ridiculous.

It seems obvious that the evolutionist looks at `facts` from a great distance away. If you see a human from a distance of one mile, you might think it is someone you know. As you approach this hypothetical person, the differences become obvious; you realize that the distance made your vision poor. That's how the theory of evolution operates. At a distance, it can sometimes be appetizing; up close, it is frequently laughable.

There is not a single scientific discipline available that will prove the theory of evolution `true`. On the contrary, the opposite is true. When studied, the theory of evolution crumbles as the laws of our world come into play.

The simplest conceivable life form has about 600 protein molecules.

The chance that even a SINGLE molecule could form by chance arrangement of the sequence of the amino acids in it would be between 10^450 and 10^600, depending on whose data you study.

How many INCHES LONG do you suppose it is from one end of the universe to the other, at least with our present astronomical knowledge? Can you guess? It is about 10^28! That seems a small number, but consider that the distance is in INCHES. And to form ONE molecule the probabilities are from 10^450 to 10^600? How outrageous does the data have to get before it becomes laughable? Remember that the theory of evolution says that this happened not once, but again and again and again.

It seems apparent to me that we are dealing not only with a ridiculous theory, but with a sick theory, an ignorant theory that has been hammered into the public's mind with a religious zeal. What else can you call it?

Most of the believers of the theory of evolution probably really believe that the theory of evolution is an established `fact`. But where did they acquire their `knowledge`? From their educational establishments. They learned a deception from men who have been deceived themselves.

"Evolution is a theory fully accepted not because it can be proven by biological coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." D. S. Watson

To me, it's the theory of evolution that's incredible. The evidence of creationism is clear. The parts all fit. The creationist has no problem with the evidence. One explanation explains everything. The theory of evolution explains nothing.

"I think we must admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as it is to me; but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." Professor H.J. Lipscomb Physics Bulletin, 1980

Now this professor is an advocate of the theory of evolution. He is also a rare individual; not many scientists would have the courage to make this damning statement. He is also stating that the theory of evolution is anathema to the laws of physics.

We will now conclude this lecture. As a last subject, we will discuss not the theory of evolution, but rather WHAT EFFECT the theory of evolution has on our thinking processes. I speak of us as individual human beings, each of us with the power to make decisions and to interpret the evidence before our eyes. What does belief in the theory of evolution cause us to think, and what does the theory of evolution cause us to do?

I will now quote from Doctor Henry Morris` book, "The Twilight of Evolution". This book contains a statement from Thomas Huxley, one of the greatest advocates of the theory of evolution ever:

"Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect of evolution in general. Evolution, in the extended sense can be defined as a directional and an essentially irreversible process occurring in time which in course gives rise to an increase of variety and an increasingly high level of organization in its believers. Our present knowledge indeed forces us to view that the whole of reality is evolution, a single process of transformation."

I believe that you can feel the religious overtones in that statement concerning the theory of evolution. You can also see that someone who has preached it with the great zeal of this man has had his entire comprehension of the universe altered. It is more than a `science` to this man, it is his religion. It has permeated his entire personality, under the guise of `intelligence`.

Evolutionist D.H. Watson said that he "has now come to realize that the possibility of a cell coming into existence by chance is impossible." But adds, "If it comes to a choice between believing in a Creator and believing in a scientific impossibility, I will believe the impossibility."

With that statement, we will close. Thank you for your time.