The Truth About Evolution

By Duncan Long

Back in the 1700 and 1800s when science was bringing mankind into the modern era with the advances in medicine, physics, and mathematics which paved the way for the industrial and information revolutions, scientists generally had a profound belief in God and often searched for their answers to problems with an eye toward finding out how the Creator had designed his creation and what rules governed it. Religion and science had little trouble coexisting (except for an occasional squabble from time to time) since both the scientists and religious thinkers were basically exploring different sides of the same coin.

This started to change in the late 1800s when Charles Darwin proposed what would become commonly known as the theory of evolution or the survival of the fittest. In 1859, he wrote what could be called the basic premise of his theory:

"The affinities of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great tree. I believe this simile largely speaks the truth. The green and budding twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former year may represent the long succession of extinct species... The limbs divided into great branches, and these into lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small, budding twigs; and this connection of the former and present buds by ramifying branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living species in groups subordinate to groups... From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and branch has decayed and dropped off, and these lost branches of various sizes may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been found in a fossil state... As buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out and overtop on all a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications."

This theory of one "branch" leading to another type of life certainly is useful for classifying objects, whether plants, animals, or cars. Today all of biology is built around such classifications which can be useful — though whether or not they represent any actually development of one type of creature or plant to another is, as noted below, very doubtful.

Although modern history credits Charles Darwin with the "discovery" of the Theory of Evolution, in fact this was proposed nearly two centuries earlier by John Locke, a prominent member of the Royal Society in England.(1) It also appears that Darwin’s grandfather apparently first proposed the theory that his grandson would adopt.(2)

It is also known that Dr. Thomas Henry Huxley, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Freemason, encouraged Charles Darwin to put his theory into paper. Later Huxley would become the "official spokesman" for Darwin.(3)

Ammunition for the Battle

It is an unfortunate truth that those who don’t take the time to follow the logic and lack of data to support the Theory of Evolution have embraced it without questioning it. One reason for this is that it gives more "ammunition" to those interested in undermining religion and morality. Because when one assumes that the various animals simply evolved one from another, you come to the realization that man is simply an animal.

And that the natural order of things is for the superior to make the inferior extinct. It isn’t surprising that Darwin’s theories have been part of the mental building blocks that led to Nazism, Communism, and even the New Age movements in the 20th Century. Too, the basic tenants make for some convenience in otherwise tough moral situations; in the past, euthanasia and abortion were tantamount to murder. Through the magic of the Theory of Evolution, killing an old duffer or aborting a baby is little different from swatting a fly; one is simply killing an unwanted "animal" in either case.

The Theory of Evolution, if it were true, would also destroy the credibility of parts of the Bible. Obviously the creation of the earth couldn’t take place in seven days — according to this line of thinking of the evolutionists; instead it would have to take billions of years. That makes the creation story in the Bible just a fable or allegory if one accepts evolution. (That said, there have been some misguided attempts to somehow relate the creation story to evolution. While these may be well-meaning, they don’t hold up scientifically since all plants are created before all animals; evolutionists would maintain that many plants and animals had to evolve at the same time since some plants need animals to fertilize them and spread their seeds.)

With evolution, mankind also becomes much older than the genealogies given in the Bible leading back to man. This means Adam wasn’t the first man; and a human-looking Adam and Eve are tossed out and an ape-like being embraced as our ancestor. That means he must just be symbolic, according to those embracing evolution. And since Jesus and the New Testament writers referred to Adam as a living person, then obviously they didn’t know what they were talking about. That makes them fallible and lays the groundwork for arguing that Christ was less than divine.

Little by little the Bible is soon full of holes if the Theory of Evolution becomes the measure of the accuracy in the Biblical account of things. And this is just what many anti-religious groups want. (Little wonder Time-Warner and other mainstream publishers interested in undermining Christianity regularly print their pictures of mankind "evolving" through a line of creatures that stretch from an ape on the left to modern man, dressed in suitable caveman attire, on the right.)

Why haven’t any scientists spoken up about the impossibility of evolution?

The reason is simple and similar to the situation with the mainline press: Those scientists that protest that the facts don’t support the Theory of Evolution are quickly branded "Creationists", thrown out of scientific circles, and blacklisted so they can’t obtain work with any major university or government science project.

Not many scientists are willing to risk their livelihood to point out the facts. They remain mute, mouthing the party line when necessary in order to keep their positions. Those illogical arguments mouthed by the scientists then fuel misunderstanding among those who are unable to double-check the truth and logic behind the Theory of Evolution.

A Theory Full of Holes

When one listens to biologists, and especially paleontologists, it sounds as if the fossil record is well established so that it demonstrates a gradual step-by-step development of lower animal life into more and more complex forms that lead to man and the various animals now walking the earth. Since the development of the animals currently roaming the earth would dictate many, many transitional animals from one "branch" to the current "tip of the branch", one might even expect the number of intermediate transitional fossils to outnumber those of extinct animals as well as those currently alive.

And that leads us to the dirty little secret of the evolutionists: There are no (AKA zero, cipher, zilch, nothing, nada, goose eggs) "missing links" or intermediate fossils of creatures that were in the process of developing from one type of animal to another. Yes, it is possible to group animals into similar families, and even neatly arrange the fossils so they appear to be evolving from one group to another, but the fossil records don’t reflect this.(4)

According to evolutionists, there should be about 100-million-years worth of "missing links" during the time it took for fish to evolve from invertebrates, for example. Instead there are no intermediate fossils, only full-sprung fish or well developed invertebrates. No fossil that looks even remotely like an invertebrate on the road to evolving into a fish has ever been discovered.

Evolutionists claim it took upwards of 50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibians. But again, there are no transitional forms. Not a single fossil with part fins/part feet has ever been discovered. That there would be 50 million years of creatures living and dying without a single fossil being produced again stretches the credibility of those defending evolution by an enormous factor.

Fossil ants look like today’s ants; fossil cockroaches look like today’s cockroaches; etc., with no intermediate "ancestors" leading up to their appearance. Fossils that scientists claim are 50 million-year-old bats have the bone structure that is identical to today’s bats. This pattern remains true with every major plant and animal line. All higher categories of living things, such as complex invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, flying reptiles, birds, bats, primates and man, appear abruptly without any "missing links" preceding them.

Museum Displays

There are extinct animals and plants that only appear as fossils, though there are no fossils that can be viewed as missing links leading toward the development of today’s plants and animals. But this doesn’t keep those wanting to "create" missing links from taking advantage of these extinct animals.

For example, one of the current "popular" evolutionary theories is that the dinosaurs evolved into birds. Often the fossil of the Archaeopteryx is displayed to buttress the claim that there is a link between birds and reptiles. In fact this isn’t much of a "missing link" at best and, even if it were, what happened to all the other "missing links" between it and the reptiles that purportedly led to its appearance?

A closer look at Archaeopteryx leaves one with a much different impression that the evolutionists would have you believe. It has little to do with reptiles; it had wings and you can still see the impression of its feathers in some fossils. It doesn’t have scales; it did fly rather than gliding like some of the flying dinosaurs did. Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings — but so do two types of birds which are living today (something you’ll seldom run into in the mainstream press). Most of today’s paleontologists will grudgingly admit that Archaeopteryx was a bird if confronted with these facts.

Even if Archaeopteryx were half reptile/half bird, it wouldn’t fit into the fossil sequence properly. Because what can only be seen as real birds, without teeth or claws, were apparently alive before the so-called transitional Archaeopteryx appears in the strata of the fossil record. This means that either the strata don’t give a realistic time scale of the fossil record (something evolutionists can’t suggest since it would derail the whole way they date fossils) or that birds had evolved long before they were supposed to have if they came from the dinosaur line.

As a paleontologist at Kansas State University recently put it: "This means the so-called grandparents of birds [the winged dinosaurs] are actually younger than their grand children." Obviously something is wrong with the Theory of Evolution, at least as it pertains to birds evolving from the dinosaurs.

The Animal Kingdom for a Horse

The avians aren’t the only animals with problems in the evolutionary scheme of things. When any group of animals are carefully arranged on the "tree of life", they appear to display a chain of evolution from one to the next. Horses, we are often told, evolved from small creatures to today’s modern horse; displays in museums often appear to demonstrate this fact. Yet this is really an arrangement by association rather than actual evolution. Because many of these "horses" appear to have lived side by side during some of the time and, more importantly, their internal structures don’t change "step-wise" from one creature to the next.

Even if one ignores the fact that the fossils that supposedly evolved into horses are not found in the proper time sequence, and that the major types appear abruptly without transitions, there’s still internal conflict that prevents the conclusion that one animal evolved into the next. For example, the "earlier" Eohippus had 18 pairs of ribs; the next in line, Orohippus had 15 pairs; Pliohippus gained ribs for a total of 19 pairs; and then Equus Scotti dropped back to 18.(5)

Losing or gaining ribs would be a major evolutionary change at any one of these steps, changes which arguably would serve no purpose in the evolutionary scheme of things. And to lose and then gain and then lose ribs again would be a truly fantastic chain of events. Since evolution is supposed to operate through blind chance, the odds against such random changes are indeed astronomical — and that’s just for the rib cage of these creatures.

Close inspection of other such groups of animals displays similar differences which fail to go in a stepwise pattern. Those who support evolution like to place animals as well as plants into these bogus ancestral charts create an enticing visual argument for evolution. But when the animals get more than a causal external inspection, anatomical differences show an evolutionary change is impossible and suggest a much different mechanism must be in operation.

Mankind’s "Ancestors"

The fossil record of predecessors of modern man is missing just as is the links that lead up to other complex creatures. Of course that hasn’t stopped many scientists from producing what they purport to be human ancestors; doing so gets them lots of favorable press from publications intent on destroying religion in the US and Europe. Such fossil creatures are introduced to the public with great fanfare and then quietly laid to rest when the "missing links" prove to be apes, baboons, or, worse yet, hoaxes.

Often the scientists producing these fossils have the barest of bones to work with. Ramapithecus, for example, was introduced as a man-like ape that was the ancestor leading to modern man — or so the theory went. The only fossils found of this creature were a few fragments of the jaw. From these bits of bone, elaborate skulls and drawings were made to "prove" that the creature was manlike. Of course these were pure speculation designed to make the discovery fit what was needed to support the idea that man had evolved from a lower life form.

Since the introduction of Ramapithecus, a species of baboon in Ethiopia was discovered to have the same dental and jaw characteristics. Today most anthropologists concede that Ramapithecus was simply a baboon.

Ramapithecus follows in the footsteps of other similar finds. Australopithecines was "discovered" in 1924. Its discover claimed that it combined an ape-like skull with human-like teeth. Soon drawings were produced to show it walking about, manlike, though only four feet tall. Then Richard Leakey, the son of Dr. Leakey, published evidence that showed that Australopithecines were long-armed and short-legged. Abruptly everyone realized that the creatures walked on all fours like living African apes do. The creature went from being a forerunner to man to an ape with unusual teeth.

There are other similar cases. During the 1920s, fragments of skulls, jaws, and teeth, were found in a limestone cliff near Peking, China. Scientists proclaimed it was a distant ancestor to modern man; today this creature recognized to be an extinct ape.

The "Java Man" is another "cave man" put together from a minimum of fossil bones. In this case a femur, skull cap, and three teeth were its sum total — with the parts discovered scattered over 50 feet apart. For 30 years the discoverer concealed the fact that he found human skulls near the Java Man at the same level. Today most scientists believe that the femur was probably from a human while the skull cap was probably that of a giant ape. Since it lived in conjunction with modern man, it seems doubtful it could have been an ancestor.

Not that long ago the "Nebraska Man" and "Piltdown Man" were regularly shown off by evolutionists as missing links. At the famous Scopes evolution trail in Dayton, Tennessee, the Piltdown Man was even presented as evidence to uphold the Theory of Evolution (and this trial is still trotted out by evolutionists as a reason their theory must be true). The defense as well as reports scoffed and laughed at William Jennings Bryan when he protested that there wasn’t much proof that the Piltdown man had ever really existed.

Had he lived long enough, Bryan would have had the last laugh since today scientists don't talk about the Piltdown man -- it was simply a hoax. The Piltdown Man was "discovered" in 1912 and consisted of a piece of skull which was claimed to be a half million years old. In 1953 closer inspection revealed that the jawbone belonged to modern ape; the teeth had been filed down and the bones were artificially colored. The Piltdown Man was a hoax.

Ditto with the Nebraska Man; when more fossils were unearthed, the Nebraska Man’s teeth were discovered to belong to an extinct pig.

Both the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal Man have been found as complete skeletons. But the structures of these two "cave men" are nearly identical to that of modern man. Additionally modern man was on the scene when these creatures walked the earth; the skeletons of all three have been found in the same strata. In fact, one researcher has noted that if either of these were to walk down the street of a busy city, they wouldn’t look any different than many other people you might chance to meet. If anything they might be viewed as extinct races of mankind, but not much of an argument can be made that they are missing links leading to modern man.(6)

In 1973 a modern-appearing human skull was discovered and dated at 2.8 million years. Since most evolutionists contend that modern man evolved around one million years ago, this creates a serious problem because this makes it older than Pithecanthropus, the creature evolutionists now point to as the ancestor of mankind.

This leaves us with another situation where the offspring are older than their grandparents if you are to believe the evolutionists. Richard Leaky, the discoverer of Pithecanthropus, has since stated about this discovery that, "What we have discovered simply wipes out everything we have taught about human evolution, and I have nothing to offer in its place."(7)

Because the "intermediate" transitional "missing links" are, indeed, missing, and because the "simple life" that complex life is supposed to have evolved from is also missing from the fossil record, and because evolution "proves" that the offspring is older than its parents, it’s impossible to seriously contend that the Theory of Evolution has any basis in reality. This has lead to some bizarre attempts by scientists to come up with new theories to support their hope that evolution can be proven.

One of the more fantastic of these is that spaceships that visited Earth millions of years ago accidentally released creatures that evolved into today’s animals. No, this isn’t a tabloid theory you’d see at your local supermarket but something seriously suggested by scientists.

Those Missing, Missing Links

The Earth’s fossil record displays a detailed record of complex life appearing suddenly with the earliest fossils being complex organisms found in what is known as the Cambrian rock strata. Billions of fossils are to be found, all highly complex. There are no fossils of simpler life before this strata. Since most evolutionists maintain it took over a billion years for such complex life to evolve, the missing fossils leading up to these complex forms suggests something is amiss with the Theory of Evolution.

However such a fossil record fits in fine with the idea that the world was created by a supernatural power.

Charles Darwin himself was puzzled by the lack of missing links. Before his death he wrote, "As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate kinds, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." This situation has led Professor E.J.H. Corner of Cambridge University to say, "I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." works well with the fossil record. Evolution doesn’t.

What About the Age of the Earth?

Because of the time needed for various forms of life to evolve on earth, evolutionists are always arguing that everything is very old. Scientists have been pressured by evolutionists to estimate outlandishly large ages for both the earth and universe. The reasoning goes: If evolution could possibly work, it would need a long time, therefore the universe and earth must be very old in order to make it viable.

Thus we are told that the earth is old, the universe is old, and fossils are old. This is essential if life is to be seen as having evolved because an earth that’s only the biblical 6,000 years old (as most pre-evolutionary scientists believed the earth to be) is not old enough for evolution to even start to work in its random manner.

This fact lead has lead at least one evolutionist to wax eloquent: "Time is the hero of the plot. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless (in evolutionary history). Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles."

This need for time for evolution led to placing an arbitrary age on the earth and universe. During the early 1900s, a five-billion-year-old earth was thought to be old enough to provide "fudge factors" for evolution to have occurred. Since then, scientists have come to realize that evolution of the various creatures seen on earth today as well as in the fossil record would have dictated a much greater age for the earth. But now they’re in a Catch 22 situation: All the physics and astronomy methods of dating materials have been "calibrated" to give an age of the earth and universe of five billion years. To change things now would be to admit that the "science" of dating fossils is more art than science.

This has created a tizzy within the evolutionist camp. And some very odd theories to attempt to make the time fit the theory. One camp now maintains that creatures will suddenly and abruptly go through a rapid series of changes, jumping millions of years of change and development to create new organisms. The only catch to this is that it has never been observed and there is no good reason for such events to happen even a single time, let alone on an on-going basis. The only evidence for it is in the need for it in order to make evolution possible.

Even farther in left field are those that now maintain an alien spaceship must have spawned life on earth. Life evolved on some distant planet, the theory goes, and then was transported to earth. (This has undoubtedly been behind the current major thrust to try to locate alien cultures in the stars. No signals are there to be found, but the pro-evolutionists continue to push for such programs in an effort about new "proof" that evolution might still be viable.)

The thing to remember is that when scientists talk about the age of rocks, the earth, or the universe, these dates were not arrived at through careful measurements. This is far from the truth. Instead all measurements have been calibrated to fit the age of the earth which pro-evolutionists in the early 1900s thought was necessary for the evolution of life on Earth to progress to its current stages.

Because of this, the Moon and meteors have been "dated" at 4.5 billion years old by radiometric (radioactive decay) dating; the catch is that the same methods of dating rocks form the Moon or meteorites will also produced dates as young as 600 million years an outlandish error in the range of a factor of ten if either number is assumed to be true.

Which is right?

If you’re a pro-evolutionist, the solution is simple: You simply toss out any readings that show younger dates since they must be in error — otherwise things wouldn’t be old enough for life to have evolved. "It must be old, therefore it is."

The age of the universe is arrived at with the same mental gymnastics. Some stars, we are told, are millions or even billions of light years away; the universe is billions of years old. The catch is that once a star is over a hundred light years from the earth, it’s impossible to measure its distance using geometric formulas and the angle measured when the earth is at opposite sides of the sun. The earth has to be billions of years old, therefore the stars have to be billions of light years away — otherwise the earth would be older than the universe.

Hubble Trouble

Evolutionists placed their hope with the Hubble Space Telescope (interestingly enough this telescope was named after the scientist who came up with the five-billion-year-old age for the Earth in the early 1900s). One of the first major observations made with the Hubble Space Telescope was to discover how many red dwarfs there were in different parts of the universe, in particular in "old" glubbla structures.

The observations were made over 12 months; and the results weren’t forth coming to the public. The problem: The age factor was far off what it was supposed to be in order for the universe to "evolve" into its present condition.(8)

Eventually scientists had double-checked their results and a press conference was called. Todd Lowe of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Arizona told reporters, "We knew this was a shocking result. That is why we spent over a year trying to debunk it ourselves before we went public." The problem: A very young universe was suggested by the research. While none of the scientists suggested they might be talking of a "biblical age" for the universe, it wasn’t impossible to come to this conclusion.

Commentator Keith Davies said about the news conference, "What is happening is that that the data fits a young universe. Now when I say a young universe, I really mean a young universe. I mean a biblical young universe of the order of 10,000 years or less." (9)

The conference got very selective coverage by the mainstream press with only the highest estimates of the age of the universe being given. Then most reporters noted that something must be wrong with the Hubble measurements since (of course) the age of the universe was much greater than what the results of the study suggested.

Solving the Mysteries

Evolution has trouble explaining many "mysteries" that are produced if the universe is old. But these anomalies clear up immediately if one accepts the possibility that the solar system may be young.

There are many physical examples of why the earth can’t be as old as the evolutionists claim. Atmospheric helium is relatively rare and is produced by radioactive decay of Uranium 238. It’s easy to measure both the amount of helium in air and the amount of uranium in the earth's crust. This makes it simple to compare the amount of helium that should have been produced for any given age of the earth since the half life of uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years. That means that, if the earth is around 4.5 to 5 billion years old as the evolutionists claim, there should be a large amount of helium in the air corresponding to the amount the uranium 238 would have produced during that time. In fact there’s on one tenth of a thousandth that much helium. (10) (Arguably this doesn’t bring the age of the earth into the 6,000 years of the Bible; but it is closer to the biblical age than the age proposed by evolutionists.)

For example, before we sent men to the moon, it was predicted that lunar dust would be tens of feet deep; the amount of cosmic dust, meteor fragments, etc., that arrived on the Moon simply sat there without an atmosphere to compact them. Multiply this effect by a billion years or so, and you should be looking at many feet of dust. There was even fear that if the wrong landing site were chosen, the lunar lander might sink into the dust, never to be seen again.

Yet when men walked on the moon, there were only a few inches of dust to contend with, far less than would be expected from meteor and comet fragments if the moon were billions of years old. But the amount of dust on the surface of the Moon fits in perfectly if one assumes the Moon is only a few thousand years old.

By the same token, comets should have vanished from our solar system by now if it were old; each of their orbits turns more of their material into gas. By the time a million years or so rolls around, comets should vanish. Instead they’re still circling the sun.(11)

This situation continues at the atomic level. Short-lived lunar isotopes that were discovered on the moon should have lost all radioactivity long ago. The only way they could still emit radiation would be if they were only a few thousand years old.

Dr. Robert V. Gentry, a researcher who has had material regularly published in Science and Nature, has noted that the plethora of radio halos of short lived polonium found in mica and granites from samples near the bottom of the earth’s crust could only be formed if the earth’s mantle were formed almost instantaneously. This rules out the formation of the mantle over millions of years as most evolutionists claim. Gentry believes only a few minutes elapsed between nucleosynthesis and mantle formation — something that could only result through the formation of the Earth in a very rapid manner. Gentry also believes that what evolutionists have maintained were three geological time periods allegedly spanning millions of years was actually one short event: A massive flood similar to that outlined in Genesis. (12) To date, evolutionary geologists have failed to offer any plausible alternative explanations to refute Gentry’s findings (though much work has been done to discredit him).

On the earth, all is not right with the billions-of-years-old theory, either. When one measures the rate of mineral deposition into the ocean from the land, the ocean is to "pure" to be as old as it is. If the earth were billions of years old, life in the sea would be impossible due to the high levels of salt and other soluble chemicals that would now fill it.

Likewise the earth’s magnetic field would have vanished. The magnetic field has been measured since 1853 and is decaying. It’s "half-life" (the time it needs to go to half strength) is only 1,400 years. This creates some serious problems if the decay rate is reversed to see what the magnetic strength was "back when." If the decay rate is extrapolated back just 20,000 years, the magnetic field would be so strong it would make life impossible on earth. Plants and animals would be killed by this powerful of a magnetic field.(13)

It is also possible to measure the spin of the earth accurately enough to see how rapidly it is slowing down. Again an old earth becomes impossible; everything would be whirled right off its surface if the rate is speeded up to what it would have to be to be billions of years old. The same is true of the rate at which the earth is cooling; life could never have evolved because the earth would have been too hot billions of years ago.

What About Radioactive Dating?

Currently three "radiometric clocks" are used to date materials. These use three radioactive isotopes: uranium-238, potassium-40, or carbon-14. Uranium-238, potassium-40 have long half-lives ( 4.5 billion years and 1.3 billion years respectively) while carbon-14 has a shorter half-life of 5,730 years. Obviously carbon-14 can’t be used to date fossils if they are as old as the evolutionists maintain. So how can fossils be dated?

If you’re an evolutionist, the answer is simple: By guesstimate, of course.

Uranium and potassium decay are used to date igneous rocks (formed through volcanic action). These dated rocks are then used to date fossils that are in the same proximity as the igneous rock. The fossils themselves can not be dated if there are no adjacent igneous rocks — as is often the case. And any dates that do not agree with preconceived fossil dates (as plotted by evolution) are simply tossed out.

Probably the biggest catch to the dating of rocks with radioactive decay measurements is that argon, the gas that comprises the greatest source of the radioactive material, is a gas that easily penetrates most materials. Those the gas can percolate up through the earth and enter a rock. Thus measurements aren’t necessarily of the argon that was originally in the rock but rather how much has entered it. Needless to say, this causes measurements to vary from thousands to millions of years within the same strata of rock.

This can cause amusing results. Creationists (scientists that hold that the earth was created just thousands of years ago rather than billions) often get rock samples of recent volcanic eruptions (which often create complex structures in just a few days which scientists had maintained would take thousands of years to form); these samples are then taken to laboratories for dating using the current methods employed for dating other rocks. The results give the age of the rocks as being millions of years old when in fact they were formed just weeks before.

Because of the abundance of argon-40 in the air, some scientists believe all samples should be considered contaminated and therefore invalid when measurements are taken. The exact source of argon-36 is unknown, but it is believed to be the result of cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere building at an unknown rate. It is also possible that the rate of buildup has varied through the years.(14)

Carbon 14 dating is often claimed to be very accurate. And many evolutionists will make statements that suggest that this method of dating has been used on fossils, thereby dating them very precisely. This is totally false.

Carbon-14 is an unstable isotope of carbon that forms naturally in the Earth’s upper atmosphere when cosmic rays produce neutrons that collide with nitrogen to produce carbon-14. Carbon-14 then combines with oxygen to produce radioactive carbon-dioxide. This then mixes with stable carbon dioxide isotopes to be absorbed by plants and photo plankton. From there the material is ingested by animals and people. Little by little a living plant or animal thus gradually absorbs carbon-14 along with stable carbon with both becoming part of the bones and other tissues.

When a man or animal dies, the intake of carbon-14 comes to an end. Since carbon-14 gradually "decays" and loses its radioactivity at a known rate, measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the bones and comparing this to the amount of standard carbon in the bones gives a rough idea of how long ago an organism died.

At least that’s the theory.

Those using this method assume that their equations and measured constants are correct. There is a bit of evidence that radioactive decay may not be as clear cut as once thought. Thus chemical, physical, or nuclear forces may actually throw measurements off.

Too, the measurements also assume that the ratio of carbon-14 to standard carbon have remained constant throughout history. Obviously since cosmic rays produce carbon-14, any increase of the level of cosmic rays due to increased or decreased production of cosmic rays by the solar activity or stars would change the ratio, thereby giving bogus readings. Much the same result could occur if the carbon-14 produced high in the atmosphere failed to mix with the lower atmosphere as it does now. Additionally it has been proposed that ground water bearing carbonates containing carbon of much older origin than the biological specimen might cause carbon-14 measurements to become very "warped".

Of course discrepancies don’t both some scientists. If samples are brought to carbon-14 laboratories to confirm a date already assumed for the specimen, a carbon-14 date that fails to agree with the assumed age is simply thrown out. Thus a "missing link" to mankind might be found that has a carbon-14 age of only a few thousand years is giving a much older age by showing that it has been found in a strata of rock that has been "dated" with other fossils — which in turn have been similarly dated. The room for error continues to grow as more and more datings are made.

Because neither potassium nor uranium clocks are sufficiently sensitive to measure recent events, and because carbon-14 measurements are limited to very recent events, this has led to an interesting but convenient problem for the evolutionists: It is impossible to actually date any of the fossils produced as evidence of human evolution. For this reason, human remains that are produced as "evidence" of mankind’s evolutionary history are dated not by radioactive decay methods but rather by the guessed-at age of the finder or other evolutionist scientists. Everything thus fits nicely since there’s no way to dispute (or prove) any contentions.

Before radioactive dating methods were created, the age of a fossil was established by "evolutionary presumption." This meant that a fossil was given an arbitrary age in order to make it fit into the evolutionary system. Once a group of fossils was created which appeared worldwide in various strata, these were then used to date other fossils. Thus it appears that the whole dating system used by the evolutionists is built like a house of cards. When one or two are wrong, the whole thing comes tumbling down.

As radiometric dating, flawed though it may be, has become more and more precise, pre-defined fossil dates have started to give more an more false dates. Yet, because the Theory of Evolution is built around the what must be very old fossils, the radiometric dating is tossed out and the previous fossil date estimates held to be the true age.(15)

Where Are the Debunkers?

The near sanctity given to the Theory of Evolution is a clear demonstration of how the press, scientists, universities, and other segments of our culture are controlled. It doesn’t take a great investigative reporter or a scientific Einstein to see that the basic holdings of evolution are pure hokum.

So why does it continue to be taught in our schools and blatantly promoted in every science text and TV program that is produced for public consumption?

The answer can only be that evolution serves to undermine religion as well as the value of mankind; the Bible as well as any idea of morality goes out the window if man is simply another animal and the Bible is simply a nice fairy tale. And if man has only evolved from the lower animals, then a porpoise, fly, or whatever has as much value as a man. Environmentalists, socialists, and liberals all like this thought.

Evolution fits right in with the anti-Christian, mainstream press agendas. Don’t expect anyone from these camps to step forward and admit that evolution is the biggest hoax of the century or that they’ve been instrumental in perpetuating the hoax.

That said the truth is slowly coming out. A few scientists are speaking out or noting that this or another assumption behind evolution must be false. One good example of this is the work done by Dr. Michael Denton.(16) Although Denton is not a creationist, he has been speaking out against many of the assumptions of traditional evolution, making his points from a biochemical standpoint that shows amino acid sequences from species spanning the entire biological world do not support the theory of progressive evolution from one species into another. Denton also disproves the theory of punctuated equilibrium. Denton maintains that the Theory of Evolution will crumble from the shear weight of evidence against it.

[Postscript: For a look at why Evolution doesn't work at the molecular level, see Heaven's Lower Gate by Corey Bohling.]

(1) Albert G. Mackey"Leland Manuscript," An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (New York: The Masonic History Company, 1921), Vol. I.

(2) Daniel, Vol. II, 33-34.

(3) Albert G. Mackey, "Darwin, Charles and Freemasonry," An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry (New York: The Masonic History Company, 1921), Vol. III

(4) For a detailed look at how the fossil record won’t support evolution, see Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record by Dr. Duane T. Gish. This book systematically demonstrates the complete absence of missing links in the fossil record. The book also discusses recapitulation, the origin of man, living fossils, alleged transitional species (e.g. archaeopteryx), punctuated equilibrium, and many other points that evolutionists hold dear but which aren’t supported by the facts.

(5) Gish

(6) Gish

(7) Gish

(8) "Hubble Study Challenges Theory", Associated Press, Sep. 7, 95, 1:11 EDT V0032

(9) This Week in Bible Prophecy, TWT190, Sept. 3, 1995.

(10) This Week in Bible Prophecy, TWT190, Sept. 3, 1995

(11) For a more detailed look at various proofs that the universe is young, see Starlight and Time by D. Russell Humphreys (Creation Life Publishers, Inc., 1994; ISBN 0-89051-202-7). Dr. Humphrey gets into the Theory of Relativity and black holes/singularities, showing how how the light from distant stars could have travelled billions of light years during the passage of a only a few days from the Earth's frame of reference.

(12) Dr. Robert V. Gentry, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Earth Science Associates, 1988; ISBN 0-9616753-2-2).

(13) Dr. Fredric Kinne, "OUR EARTH: YOUNG OR OLD?" Origins: The Importance of Time, 1995.

(14) Kinne

(15) Kinne

(16) Dr. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Alder & Alder,Publishers, Inc., 1986; ISBN 0-917561-05-8).

Copyright © 1996 Duncan Long. All rights reserved. Copying of this material is prohibited.

Duncan's Short Stories and Articles

Duncan's Digital Artwork "1st Encounters"

Duncan's Digital Music

Duncan Long's Home Page