Creation & Evolution

Leading to the Theory of Evolution

Most great men of science “stand on the shoulders” of those who have gone before them. Charles Darwin was no different than Isaac Newton (the man who said he stood on the shoulders of giants) in this regard. Many ideas were already in place concerning the mechanism of evolution, as Darwin would formulate it, before he ever took up the study.

The reigning view of science in Darwin’s day of the mid 1800′s was that of Catastrophism. This theory held that changes in our world’s biology and order were caused by major upheavals like the Flood and the Ice Age which interrupted long periods of relative stability. Long before Darwin ever started on his persual of biology, a man named Chevalier de Lamark had forwarded the idea that speciazation (the creation of a new species), instead of being caused by Catasptrophism, was instead caused by small changes introduced by habitual use. His most famous example was the giraffe. He proposed that the giraffe had developed its long neck because it constantly tried to reach the leaves higher on the tree, having eaten all the ones below them. His work has been debunked by modern understanding of genetics, but it gave science a start towards understanding the gradually-changing processes of the Earth. At this time in history, some original work was being done in the field of geology by a man named Charles Lyell. He suggested that older rocks lay below the surface, that small changes over time had shifted them into their positions, and that, by following these rock strata, we could develop the picture of what had transpired on the Earth. This idea introduced the concept of an Earth that had existed for eons. Similar ground-breaking progress was being done in the field of taxonomy (the grouping of plants and animals by their similarities) by a man named Carolus Linnaeus, who single-handedly inspected and classed over 18,000 species. This work raised the question of why the species were so closely related, and yet undeniably equipped to deal with their own individual environment. In yet another field, curiously enough population and demographics, we see the final thought that tied it all together. A man named Thomas Malthus put forth the idea that, in a population that is being pressured by food shortages, the people that are advantageously equipped – monetarily or physically – will be the ones who survive to pass on their genes.

Darwin saw stunning confirmation of Lyell’s geological suppositions in the African continent, islands, and reefs. He tested for deposits and marked where things tended to rise over time and where they settled. He found that volcanoes existed in the areas that rose, and did not exist in the areas that settled. This idea of volcanoes pushing up ground and earthquakes causing mountains and such is accepted as fact all over the world. Darwin went on to study the varying characteristics of species he witnessed in the areas he traveled. The most famous of all these examples, and the one he cites as giving him the idea, is the finches of the Galapagos Islands. These finches, fourteen separate species in all, each had a different beak. Each beak was appropriate to a certain food supply. Some beaks were good at getting bugs out of holes in trees and the ground, some were good for eating fish, some were good at cracking open nuts. This specialization spoke to Darwin of untold ages of adaptation that could explain the similarities in species and be in harmony with the concept that the Earth was older than the Bible implies that it is. His idea was evolution – not by use, but by chance mutation – spread by the mechanism of natural selection – was responsible for bringing about the diversity of life on the Earth. Only later did he claim that this process could be responsible for making mankind out of a single-celled organism.

Soon after Darwin published his theory of Evolution, there came a chance to test it. In England, there exists a moth called the Peppered Moth. Its markings come in two styles: light and dark. Both of the moth colorations have existed and continue to exist to this day. The lighter-colored moth blends in with the coloration of the bark of the trees in lives around. This has the effect of rendering the lighter-colored moths harder for predators to see. Thus lighter-colored moths are more numerous in the total population of the moths. However, during the Industrial Revolution, when air pollution was new and as yet unaddressed, the bark of the trees in England were darkened by coal soot. The trees became the color of the darker-colored moths. This, of course, made them harder for predators to see, and, at the same time, made the lighter-colored moths easier to see. Thus the bulk of the moth population shifted to predominately dark-colored moths. The situation has reversed since that time, and the moth population now again favors lighter-colored moths. This is a strong point of evidence for the Evolutionist. It happened in nature without our (direct) influence and right before our eyes.

Scientific Method

The scientific method is a small loop of repetition. A good idea gives rise to a theory. That theory must agree with the evidence that gave the idea and make predictions about what will come of similar situations, testable predictions. This is crucial. If a theory does not make specific predictions, it, 1) cannot be tested to be true and, 2) is good for nothing anyway. Theories of electromagnetism and nuclear fission have given rise to microwaves, satellite TV, nuclear power, and nuclear waste. These theories have given us the ability to calculate how long it will take to defrost your 2.2 pounds of hamburger (my microwave can do this) and just how much carcinogenic material we will have to bury under a mile of concrete to get supposedly super-efficient energy from the atom. After testing the predictions the theory has made, one can either validate the theory, scrap the theory, or revise the theory according to the results obtained and try again. The golden rule in science is this: if the facts do not fit the theory, you should change the theory and try again.

• Good Question
• Possible Answer
• Testable Prediction
• Logical Test
• Comparison Of The Results To The Prediction
• Modification Of The Theory
• Repeat

Mutation and Natural Selection

It is not enough to say that species evolve. We must endeavor to understand how evolution occurred. The foremost idea presented by evolutionists today is that it happened by the processes of mutation and natural selection. The idea is basically this:

A mutation is a deviation from the biological norm of a species. Most mutations will cause death early, if not immediately. Some mutations are not crippling, though neither do they confer an advantage. A few mutations actually give the inheritor an advantage over their competitors. Because of the advantage in surviving and/or mating, slight advantage is then passed on to future generations. Given enough time, mutations will be selected based on their advantageousness, and cause the species to develop into a better adapted kind of life, a new species.

The implication is that Darwin’s theory has a predictive element, as any theory must. The greatest opposition Darwin ever faced was from his scientific contemporaries. The geologists and paleontologists of his day were the loudest objectors to Darwin’s theories. They maintained that species were immutable. Darwin himself admitted that his theory implied that “the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great.” This was the qualitative prediction that the methods of science could test. If Darwin was right, we should have seen countless transitional forms in the fossil record. And so, against the opposition of many in the field at the time, Darwin’s supporters turned their attention to finding the proof that surely must be there.

Fossil Evidence for Evolution

• Archaeopteryx: Still referenced today, this find was a major victory for Evolutionists. The fossilized remains of this animal are viewed as a cross between birds and reptiles. It was dated and found to have lived 150 million years ago. It showed how reptiles had developed bones suited for flight. Also, the feathers were found on this creature to be shorter, as if they were transforming into the longer feathers that birds possess today. Probably the most famous find of all paleontology, this specimen is hailed as a transitional form between reptiles and birds.

• Horses: According to paleontologists, the transitions from a small dog-like animal to the tall, powerful creature we have today is well established in the fossil record. The original animal from which the horse sprang had 4 toes. The modern horse now has only 1. The transitions, they say, are present as well as several dead ends that apparently did not adapt as well as the ones that led to our modern version. Those have died out, showing natural selection at work.

• Human Ancestors: Of all the creatures that we can observe transforming in the fossil record, mankind is, of course, the most interesting, pertinent, and well researched. Through many finds since Darwin put forth his theory, we have found evidence of man’s evolution from the primates. Most everyone is probably familiar with the names of many of our ancestors. Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man, Homo Erectus, etc. The finds have yielded archeological information as well, allowing us to accurately describe the societal conditions that existed back then. However, science is still looking for the “missing link,” that one common ancestor from which the primates and man have branched…

Logic and Tautology

First of all, let us correctly understand exactly what Darwin has supposed. When he said that the fittest survive, we must ask what he meant by “fittest.” Who are the fittest? Those that are the best adapted for breeding the next generation of their species. Who survives? Those that are the best adapted for breeding the next generation of their species. Thus the fittest and those who survive are by definition the same. We have no new information in saying that those who are best able to survive and breed will be the ones who survive and breed. This is circular reasoning. It is often referred to as a “tautology.” It is as obvious to Evolutionists as it is to anyone else. There are other ways to state the principles of evolution, but the point is that “survival of the fittest” really has no meaning.

Mutations and Artificial Selection

A species is defined as a group of creatures that cannot breed with another. For years, scientists have used the fruit fly in the laboratory to simulate evolution. The fly has a very short life span, but can produce many offspring rapidly. The entire population can turn over in a matter of days. Scientists use artificial selection to approximate natural selection. The idea is that they (the scientists) should be able to shave millions of years off the evolutionary time cycle through intelligent breeding. Thus, if evolution is a fact of the natural laws of this universe, we should be able to cause it to happen by giving nature the intelligence to push it in the right direction. However, this has not been found to be the case. Although scientists may indeed change many of the features of the flies: wing size (down to flightless forms, no kidding!), coloration, etc., they have never produced a new species. That is, they have never produced a new kind of fly that neither can breed with others like it, nor the parent population that brought it about. Thus, even though Evolution should be a demonstrable fact, actually generating a new species has never been accomplished.

Problems in the Fossil Record

When we go looking for Darwin’s required transitional forms, we find that there exists two particularly huge gaps in the fossil record. Innumerable fossils of single-celled organisms, bacteria, and algae may be found in the Ediacaran, or Pre-Cambrian, Period.

Similarly, countless fossils of complex invertebrates (sponges, snails, clams, jellyfish, etc.) can be found in the adjoining rock layer from the Cambrian Period. However, to this day, we can find no fossils that show the intermediate forms that the simple creatures must surely have progressed through to get to the complexity found in the adjacent rock layer. This gap is extremely detrimental to the theory of Evolution. A similar problem exists at the boundary between the Cambrian and Ordocavian Periods. There, the fossils show a sudden leap in complexity from the invertebrates mentioned above to the vertebrate fishes. And, in both of these cases, the forms that we see existed millions of years ago are present in our day with very little change. These creatures from the early history of our Earth, appear suddenly in the fossil record and remain unchanged throughout the fossil history.

Macromutations and “Punctuated Equilibrium”

In the face of the evidence discussed above, Evolutionists, like all good scientists, have revised their theory and revisited the facts. Many leading figures in the Evolutionary Community have modified Darwin’s Theory to take all the evidence into account. The new formulation of the theory now proposes that evolution has occurred, but that it was brought about by different reasons than Darwin supposed. The new mechanisms of evolution put forward by science today are “macromutations” and “punctuated equilibrium.” Scientists now feel, based on the fossil record, that natural selection, rather than being the agent of transferring advantages, provided a species with a stabilizing force. The actual mechanism of change is now thought to be macromutations: extreme leaps forward in genetic patterns. The idea has been dubbed by critics as the “hopeful monster” theory. The paraphrased idea is basically this: that the first bird hatched out of a reptilian egg. The changes that the theory is referring to are so great, that they could effect the birth of a new species in relatively few generations. Natural selection is now thought to give the species a chance to stabilize while this new advantageous form is spread around its ecological niche. Thus the phrase “punctuated equilibrium.” Under the new theory, species would continue in their normal ways for many millions of years, as an equilibrium (or changeless) condition. Suddenly, there would be a jumble in the breeding that would, almost miraculously, produce a new variant of the species. Thus the equilibrium would be punctuated by a sudden leap in complexity, only to return this newly introduced species to a period of equilibrium while it propagated and spread, until such time as genetics got lucky again. Note that this is almost a return to the idea of Catastrophism.

This new theory also makes some definite predictions as to the evidence we should find to support it. Ironically enough, the evidence that would prove that evolution occurred by macromutations is exactly opposite the evidence that would prove evolution occurred by slight mutations. To prove Darwin correct, we need to find many transitionals in the fossil record. To prove the Neo-Darwinist Theory correct, we need to find that creatures made huge leaps in the history of their progression, leaving huge gaps in the fossil record. Their changes, according to the theory, would have happened so fast, that there would have been no chance for the fossil record to capture it (conditions to fossilize remains being pretty rare…). And certainly this idea fits the fossil evidence we have. However, it is exactly opposite of the theory that gave it birth. The net result of the new theory is that experts can now say that we evolved in a nice progressive way, except when we didn’t, and then we progressed very suddenly. Thus the new theory is useless as a predictive tool. It predicts very gradual change and very abrupt change, but does not predict which case governs evolution under which conditions.

Thermodynamics

Thermodynamics is the study of energy balancing mechanisms. The two main ideas of thermodynamics are, one, total energy is constant and, two, that nothing is free. The first law says that, in an ideal situation, energy is neither created or destroyed. We all know that not every drop of gas that goes into your car is converted to usable horsepower to drive the car. Some of the energy produced by the engine remains in the exhaust and goes out the tail pipe. Some of it goes into the cooling system of the car and is dissipated in the radiator with the help of the fan. Some gets lost in the transmission and the differential, and some is lost in the friction of the bearings. If you could add up all of these energies, you would find that they would equal the energy of the gas you used to run the car. The second law says that during the course of the gasoline’s energy being converted into horsepower, heat in the radiator, and heat in the exhaust, some of the energy will be lost in such a way that you can never get it back. So it is with any process in the universe. If the second law could be broken, and we could devise the perfect engine, which would run forever. This degradation of energy from what you put into a system compared with what you get out of it causes a loss of energy and an increase in disorder, or entropy. And you should note that the losses incurred with such things are significant enough that nothing even close to the perfect engine — a perpetual motion machine — has been created.

So the laws of thermodynamics tell us that everything in the universe tends towards disorder. The very idea that evolution brought about our universe defies this simple, everyday principle that every one of us instinctively understands. The theory of evolution effectively says that the natural tendency of our existence here is toward order rather than disorder. Even the simplest one-celled organism is extremely complex at the atomic level. For the atoms around this planet to come together in such specific patterns, so complex that they could generate new patterns, that is, recreate themselves, is an imagination-staggering jump in order. Ever the more staggering idea is that this happened during a time when the Earth was forming, and we had no atmosphere to protect these chemicals and resulting microorganisms from the blazing ultraviolet radiation of the sun. The everyday laws that govern this universe predict this could not have happened. The idea of the big bang naturalistic beginning of our universe defies these concepts. To say that a uniform ball of subatomic particles and energy exploded and created this universe of complexity we see before us flies in the face of everything we know about that same universe.

Evolutionists say that there is no problem; that an increase in order in any “system” is possible with an addition of energy. And this, in the form of the third law of thermodynamics, which can actually compute the exchange of disorder between a system and its surroundings, is true. However, the order you bring about in a system will be canceled by an even greater amount of disorder outside of that system. For instance, at a macroscopic level, you could build an engine from the parts that make it up and thus increase the order of that system, but you would cause the planet much more disorder from keeping you warm, producing your food, and processing the waste from that food than the order you produced. To apply it to the subatomic level, according to evolutionists, the order of a small system of chemicals could be increased to the point of creating a living cell at the expense of the creation of even more disorder in the surrounding environment. And, again, this is certainly true in so far as the exchange of entropy is concerned. But what the second law implies, in addition to what it states, is that not only does this increase in complexity require an input of energy, it also requires an intelligent use and direction of that energy. Indeed, complexity – or order – can be increased, but at a price, and that price is more than just the cost of that energy!

Many evolutionary scientists will say that the laws of thermodynamics only apply to closed systems. They would say that the Earth is a open system that receives energy input from the sun, and can reject excess energy to space, and thus is not affected by the laws of thermodynamics. This is simply not true. The laws of thermodynamics are applicable to any system, any process, any where, any time. To argue about what constitutes our system of study misses the point. The second law allows an increase in complexity with the addition of energy, but requires that it be used intelligently.

As a thought experiment, I liken the process of evolution to the reassembly of a disassembled mechanical pocketwatch. Let’s suppose that we have a pocketwatch, one with the springs and gears like in the “old days,” taken apart to its individual pieces. These pieces will represent our collection of “chemicals” with which we will form our first living organism. Next, we put all of those pieces in a nice felt bag, one that won’t damage our pieces in any way. This will be our “system.” Now an evolutionist will say that all we need to do to combine our “chemicals” is add energy to our “system.” Okay, let’s shake the bag. Now I propose that no matter how many million years you want to shake that bag, you’ll never have a working pocketwatch again. Of course not. An eternity of shaking that bag won’t fit those parts together. Certainly we can reassemble that watch with time and energy, but that time and energy must be applied with intelligence, or we will simply have a more jumbled mess of badly scratched parts.

Nature is stupid. Natural processes do not produce order, they produce disorder. This has been interpreted by some as an indication of the universe’s evolution by the intelligence and guidance of God. The notion of life arising from “primordial soup” is asking me to believe something altogether more complex happened, just by chance.

But Science has Proven…

Some say that “science” has “proven” how life could arise from the Big Bang. They would probably be referring to the Miller–Urey experiment:

The Miller and Urey experiment(or Urey–Miller experiment) was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin’s and J. B. S. Haldane’s hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.

Sounds good so far, but the most important fact is a little further down in the article:

Nucleic acids were not formed within the reaction.

Don’t you see?! It isn’t the natural tendency of various chemical chains to form amino acids. It doesn’t happen in nature without help. This experiment had to constrain a very detailed process to create their results. Ergo, someone had to use their intelligence to reverse the natural tendency towards disorder. Even then, it’s admitted that the experiment created no nucleic acids! Just the strand of DNA present in the very simplest of lifeforms is thousands of pairs long (let alone all the compounds that go along with them, like the rest of the mitochondria the cell wall, or the flagellum). DNA is made of of pairs of molecules, I note, that are complex (deoxyribo) nucleic acids. So, by their own admission, there’s a chasm between what these scientists “proved” and how they claim life would have come about by their favored theory.

This arose through mutation!?

 

It’s not a function of odds and time.

Someone has to give me a sensible explanation of how the initial, self-replicating lifeforms sprang into being before I believe the Big Bang and Evolution. This is the best example I can find which supports the basic, fundamental idea of Evolution, and it doesn’t support the theory. There’s a huge gap between the theory and experimental reality, but everyone’s just bought into the theory, based on sketchy explanations like this one, performed 60 years ago, and moved onto more and larger esoterically technical discussions, while the underpinnings are still not settled. It’s confirmation bias of the worst sort.

Creation

Essential Concepts

There’s no such thing as “creation science;” creation must be believed; it does not have to be understood.

Hebrews 11:1-3,6, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. … But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”

The most important thing to keep in mind in the following discussion is that we are discussing a belief, not a scientifically provable fact. The conflicting theories of the Creation (“young” and “old” Earths) and the Big Bang cosmologies really only differ in one respect. The problem with the comparison is that there could be no greater difference. On the one hand, we have a loving, personal, all-powerful God. On the other hand, we have at least blind “chance” (which is given an almost creative power in itself by the scientific community) or at most an uncaring, unfeeling, and uninvolved God that got the universe going and now watches it from afar. The essential point in all of this discussion is that we understand that God created this reality.

2 Corinthians 5:7, “(For we walk by faith, not by sight:)”

There is no inconsistency between science and the Bible.

1 Peter 1:25a, “But the word of the Lord endureth for ever.”

Whatever we believe about the age of the Earth, it is important to understand that there should be no discrepancies between the Bible and science. Provable scientific fact and the teachings of the Bible cannot be at odds. Both the Bible and factual science deal with fundamental reality and truth. We would expect the natural workings of this world to fulfill every expectation that follows by what the Bible says. What happens if this is not the case? Do we dismiss the relevant parts of the Bible due to an assumed ignorance on the part of the ancient writers? Have we proven that the Bible is an unreliable source? No! Whatever the case or controversy, facts that can be correlated with things in the Bible, do not prove the Bible. If a scientific or archeological possibility is borne out and “confirmed” by the Bible, it proves that we have correctly interpreted that idea. If science seems to say something contrary to the Bible, something that no interpretation can smooth out, then we must re-evaluate the path that has led us to that “scientific” conclusion.

Psalm 119:89, “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.”

Proving God by science? I don’t think so.

Therefore, let us take a look at the supposed age of the Earth. Science at present tells us that through radiometric dating, the Earth can be dated at over 3 billion years old. This is a difficult “fact” to correlate with the Bible. But allow me to ask you to turn the situation around. What if we dated the Earth and found it to be about 6000 years old? What would that say to the people of the world? We would pretty much have proven the existence of God as He appears in the Bible. How much easier would it be to be a Christian if we could prove that God created the Earth in just 6 days? It is at this point we start running the risk of becoming Pharisees. If such things could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, these proofs would take the place of faith, and the choice of having faith in God is what this whole creation is about anyway.

Acts 17:27-28, “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.”

It’s OK to disagree!

Science has only recently come up with their answers to the questions of our origins. If it is was essential for people to understand how creation could have happened so that they could go to Heaven, then salvation would have been possible only recently. Since few people believe this, it is a logical extension to say that this question is not central to doctrinal truth. The point is: the question we are discussing is not whether or not God created this reality or not, but if He did it in a short amount of time or a long amount of time. All by Himself. With no help. How He did it is a gray area that cannot be directly proven from the scriptures. Once we agree on that point, we are free to discuss our opinions about the origin of the Earth, ourselves, and the universe at large.

Days and Nights

The word days always mean 24 hours elsewhere in the bible.

Psalm 90:4, “For a thousand years in thy sight [are but] as yesterday when it is past, and [as] a watch in the night.”

2 Peter 3:8, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”

Though these scriptures clearly indicate that God’s concept of time is different than ours, their meaning seems to stop there. It is difficult to conclude that either scripture’s context is trying to define some sort of formula to convert God’s years to ours. Elsewhere in the Bible, a day is a day. No big deal. The creation story uses the same Hebrew for the word “day” as the rest of the Old Testament. Out of 1250 references, the word is never applied to a time period other than 24 hours. Why would the days of creation be any different than the others? Why would its days need a special interpretation?

Real events lead to symbolism and typology:

Exodus 20:11, “For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

Exodus 31:15, “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh [is] the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth [any] work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”

All the way throughout the Bible, God puts meaning behind real events. The tabernacle plan, the snakes and bronze serpent on a pole in the wilderness, Jesus’ death on the cross. Typology abounds in the Bible. Every Sunday, pastors the world over take a story about real events in the Bible and pull modern day truths and lessons from them. The common denominator with the Bible is that it is down to Earth, so to speak. The whole concept of the Sabbath Day and its observance was set up by the creation story. It is not difficult to imagine that God created this universe in billions of years and then made this “week” concept from His wisdom to set a standard for us to follow. However, it is simply easier to believe that God did it in 6 days, rested on the seventh, and set that as our example. This interpretation fits the Bible’s usual (but not invariable, of course) direct relationship between fact and symbolism. Especially considering the following:

If He could do it either way…

Most of us that believe in the “Christian” God will agree that God, being God, could have created this universe and ourselves in 15 billion years, 6 days, or an instant. If He could do it either way, and the Bible plainly tells the story in one of the two, why not just believe what the Bible says?

What about the apparent age of the Earth?

Scientists date the rock layers and fossils of the Earth by determining how much radioactive material has yet to decay in it. We all know what exposure, even slight exposure, to radiation can do to people. What if this material looked, from a radioactive standpoint, to have been “new” very recently? (Comparatively speaking, of course.) The radiation levels produced by all of our ground and its contents might be too high for us to tolerate. Even if it wouldn’t be that severe, it still might destroy bacteria and insects that compost the soil. Whatever the case, we know that the Earth’s ecology can be severely imbalanced locally by the ignorance of man. What would the radiation do if it was as strong as is predicted by a literal interpretation of the Bible? What if the very thing we are using to date the Earth is something God designed to protect us with? I believe that God created the earth with a history, so to speak. According to the Bible, He created man fully formed from the Earth, not as a baby He raised to adulthood. It just seems to be the way He does things.

On a personal note: Dinosaurs

I know I will be asked: “What about the dinosaurs?” so I may as well go ahead and give what I think about them. I believe that the dinosaurs were created along with everything else. In the modern world, many species of creatures have been driven to extinction, some by hunting, some by ignorance. They have been exterminated basically because we have increased in population, enlarging our boundaries and shrinking theirs. The same thing might hold true for the dinosaurs. We may have pushed them out of the way as we were fruitful and multiplied. If we had done so, the Flood could conceivably have produced the pressure on their remains, speeding the processes that give us “fossil” fuels today. Yes we know that they lived. Science further supposes some dates for their rise and fall. Based on the preceding discussion, who has the onus of proof? And does this really matter anyway? We have seen how much the theories of evolutionists (who are, after all, the ones dating the fossils for the most part) hold up. Am I going to cast doubt on the Bible because of some theories that, so far, have not been proven? No way.

Water

The model of the Earth promulgated by modern evolutionists shows that all the continents were stuck together about 3 to 3.5 billion years ago. Once again, this doesn’t even pass the smell test. The whole idea rests on the assumption that the tectonic plates, which now grind against each other and cause earthquakes, used to be sitting right next to each other in one large land mass. If this were true, then what was on the other side of the planet? If this were true, then how did the continents form as we know them today? For instance the Rocky Mountains were supposedly formed by plate collision; how did the “continent” of North America exist before this happened? Furthermore, where did all this water come from for the land to float around in? Nothing about the idea that a bunch of water spontaneously forming on top of a molten slag of rock flung into space by a “big bang” makes any sense at all. At worst, it was caused by an explosion of the combination of hydrogen and oxygen so large that it would have blasted everything away from being collected by gravity. At best, it would have bubbled up from the middle of cooling magma, where it would have boiled off the planet into space. I’m sorry; I just don’t get it. How can the big bang explain the formation of a planet with any liquids on it at all?