Creation – Evolution

Refutations of Evolution, Supporting Evidences

For Creation and References

Biases to the Issue

Every individual who approaches the subject of origins has a bias because of the teaching he has had. When writing on the subject, authors have recognized these biases as having an influence on the interpretation of the factual (or physical) data. This will ultimately influence the results or conclusions that an individual may come to regarding the issue of origins. L. Harrison Matthews, in his introduction to the 1971 issue of Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’ recognized that both evolutionist’s and creationist’s beliefs are accepted by faith. He stated, "Belief in evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation – both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof" (1). Numerous authors continue to state "the fact of evolution" (2,3). And yet in spite of this insistence and the teaching of evolution in the scientific community for the last one hundred and thirty years, large percentages of the population continue to insist that man was created by divine origin within the last 10,000 years, as revealed in a Gallup Poll survey taken in 1982 (4). Evolutionary scientists were predictably shocked by the results, as they assumed that the vast majority had come to accept the evolutionary position. Incidentally, the poll cited included nearly a quarter that were college graduates. The evolutionary educational and scientific establishment has effectively controlled the scientific press, particularly journals and the news media. It is a sad indictment that in order to publish good scientific literature, authors have had to publish under pseudonyms, as under their common names, they were censored from the reviewed literature. Many have demanded to know why creationists have not been published in the literature, and it seems that this unwritten exclusion policy has been the biggest factor in keeping scientific creationist writings out of the scientific journals. As a result, creationists have been forced to publish in popular magazines, exclusively creationist journals (5) or have published under pseudonyms (6). Those who have been able to publish in the scientific journals often have their jobs jeopardized by views held to be unpopular by the general scientific community (7). One is led to believe that the thinking prevalent in Galileo’s time is still with us.

The Origin of the Universe

A number of theories have been postulated to explain the origin of the universe, however, general agreement among the evolutionary community puts forward the idea that all that we observe originally was created by an explosion of enormous magnitude. This idea is known as the Big Bang Theory. Advocates of this theory suggest that all the matter that exists at one time was in the form of a single entity or ‘singularity’. The size of this singularity was from nothing, to something the size of an electron, to something perhaps the size of an apple (8). (How and why that single entity came to be and why it did what it did at some point in time remains a mystery to those who hold this idea.) Some have suggested that there is no known physical law which prevents the Big Bang from having been produced out of nothing (9). In any event, what has been described as a "hiccup" (10) in space and time is attributed with the beginning of the entire process. The universe then began expanding, and eventually began accreting into a system of gas clouds which collapsed to form the galaxies, stars and planets that we observe today. An ‘inflationary’ universe is said to be ‘proved’ by the red-shift or the Doppler effect on the ‘light’ travelling to us. Two individuals who have been opposed to these views are Sir Fred Hoyle, a chief proponent of the Steady-State theory, and astronomer Halton C. Arp. Sir Fred Hoyle’s reported position with respect to the Big Bang theory is that it has had a "good run for its money." He has lost patience with it for two reasons. First, he contends that the time since the postulated beginning of the universe is insufficient to explain the degree of complexity in the higher life forms. He states that the amount of information in higher life forms is in the order of 10 to the 40,000 bits. (This is the number 1 followed by 40,000 zeroes.) Hoyle claims that the accumulation of that amount of information would take a far longer period of time and that the chances of higher life forms emerging in that way is comparable with a chance that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein" (11). Second, he says that any theory, such as the Big Bang theory, should accumulate supporting data very quickly. Instead the opposite seems to be true (11). Halton C. Arp described as "The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth" (12) continues to plaque the astronomical community with his interpretation of objects that he has observed in the universe. "Arp’s interpretation of what he sees through the telescope has also sparked one of the bitterest conflicts in memory within the small group of scientists who deal with the nature of the universe on a cosmic scale. If Arp is correct, if his observations are confirmed, he will have single-handedly shaken all modern astronomy to its very foundations. If he is right, one of the pillars of modern astronomy and cosmology will come crashing down in a turmoil unparalleled since Copernicus dared to suggest that the sun, not the earth, was at the center of the solar system" (12). Arp’s work on the observation of quasars (quasar-stellar sources) has been problematic to many in his discipline. Arp’s "impossible" observations include NGC1073 (New General Catalogue, 1073rd object) and three quasars associated with it. The problem is, galaxy NGC1073 appears to be relatively nearby, while the three quasars, due to their red-shift (44%, 70%, 79% of the speed of light), seem to be very far away. Because they appear to be in close association with each other, from an observational point of view, the ‘light’ from them must behave differently or the objects must not be as old as they are claimed to be. "Indeed if Arp is right, we must admit to gaping holes in our understanding of the universe" (12). Arp’s discovery of some 22 galaxy-quasar associations, and his interpretation of their significance has infuriated a number of his colleagues. And what is their answer to this? John Gribbin reports, "Arp… has enough evidence that he ought to be worrying more people that actually acknowledge the significance of his findings. Indeed, over the years he has aroused open hostility to his claims, culminating in the scandalous decision to deny him further access to the large telescopes in California and South America" (13,14). (Arp now researches at the Max Planck Institute for Physics and Astrophysics located in Munich, West Germany) If one carefully digests the data that Arp has discovered, it becomes apparent that what he has found provides supporting evidence for radically different interpretations of red-shift or a recently created Universe. The obvious relationship between his discoveries, and the logical conclusions that they lead to, are what likely led to his being banned from telescopes of the Americas. Other objects in the Universe seem to demand shorts periods of time since their formation. Objects such as barred spirals and plain spiral galaxies indicate that not enough time has transpired to have allowed the arms of the spirals to wind up and become a single mass of stars. Other evidences can be cited, such as the concept that the sun is shrinking. Eddy and Boornazian suggested that the sun is shrinking at a rate of some five feet per hour based on observed solar diameters measured between 1836 and 1953 (15). At this shrinkage rate, the solar diameter would have been two times its current value only 100,000 years ago. The solar diameter would have been two times its current value only 100,000 years ago. In addition, at this rate, the earth’s orbit would have been inside the sun’s photosphere, or observed surface, only 20 million years ago. The conclusion to be drawn, using valid chronometric principles, is that the sun cannot be very old (less than 100,000 years since a sun twice its diameter would have provided enough radiant energy to burn up what life on earth might have existed). Some have contested the data that Eddy and Boornazian used, stating that the contraction rate has been one quarter of that reported (16). This does not remove the problem, but only buys a small amount of additional time for the evolutionist. Comets and solar system dust particles provide further evidence of a young Universe. Comets, made of rock, ice and other materials, as they orbit the sun, have material removed from them and consequently have limited lifespans. The short period (small orbits) comet’s lifespan is estimated at approx. 10,000 years and since there are still comets of this type, various ideas have been postulated to explain why we still have these types of comets (17). The "hard" evidence for these ideas is non-existent with the evidence being in favor of a solar system younger than 10,000 years.

Radiometric Dating and Earth History

Because Earth history and radiometric dating are so closely linked, these two subjects will be dealt with together. This topic is the most contentious issue in the debate of creation vs. evolution in spite of the fact that many have attempted to reconcile the controversy. The reason for the variance is two-fold. First, each side has its own philosophical or religious bias toward the issue. Second, there is a great deal of variance in the data that is used to support each side of the issue. From an evolutionary perspective, an old earth is an absolute requirement, as the evolution of biological life forms requires vast amounts of time in order to provide for the gradualism suggested by evolutionists. Old ages were required, as the "fathers" of geology imposed the concept of uniformitarianism (slow, gradual uniform change) into earth history. The concept of catastrophism was largely, but not entirely, replaced due to a philosophical change in the late 1700’s. New ideas regarding the earth and its age came into consideration and played a large part in the thinking of Darwin. The geologic timetable was assigned dates which were based on hypothetical rates of evolution of biological forms and the assumed rates of accumulation of sediments. Unfortunately, much assumption is built into the time scales derived from sedimentation (18) and it must be remembered that radiometric techniques were not discovered until the turn of the 20th century (19).

Many other chronometric techniques exist, and the majority of them yield ages far too young for the evolutionist (20). As an example, the rate of accumulation of silica in the ocean yields an age for the ocean of 12,000 years (21). Other methodologies, such as the measurements of decay of the earth’s magnetic moment, yield maximum ages for the earth of 10,000 years (22). With the discovery of radiometric clocks, evolutionists felt they finally had the proof for the old ages they had already believed in.

Unfortunately, these radiometric clocks are not the foolproof systems that proponents would say they are. In order for any process to be used as a clock, certain requirements must be met.

1. The process must have a physical, measurable change over time.

2. The clock must have sensitivity and accuracy for the interval of time to be measured

3. The clock must operate at a constant rate.

4. Initial starting conditions must be known not speculated.

5. The clock conditions must not have been altered in any manner during the operation of the clock.

If all these conditions are met, then a high degree of certainty can be exercised in believing the time indicated by the clock. Radiometric techniques depend on the natural decay processes of particular isotopes of naturally occurring elements. The rates at which these isotopes decay are known as half-lives because it is a measure of how long it takes for half of the atoms of the parent element to decay into some other form. At any point in time, measurements can be made on the ratios of the elements that are present, and then determinations can be made regarding how long the process has been going on in the rock or other object. The best known of the radiometric techniques is the radiocarbon method. In this process, Carbon 14, which is produced in the upper atmosphere by neutron bombardment of Nitrogen 14, decays back to N14. The time it takes for half a given number of C14 atoms to decay back to N14 is 5,760 years. C14 is ingested by all living organisms, and as long as it is alive, the ratio of C14 to C12 (the most common isotope of carbon) remains constant. As soon as an organism dies, however, the ratio begins changing due to the fact that the C14 decays to N14. C14 is known as the parent element, and N14 is known as the daughter element. Measurement of these ratios can then provide data in order that we may determine how long the organism has been dead. Assumptions are made regarding past cosmic ray bombardment, the earth’s magnetic field effects, as well as rates of radiometric decay (23).

In addition, the other radiometric techniques suffer from a variety of other problems, which make them suspect (24). For example, lava flows in Hawaii known to be only 200 years old gave dates of 22 million years using the Potassium-Argon method (25). Discordant (non-agreeing) ages of rocks are often obtained using different methods on the same rocks. Only those ages that are in agreement with the original premise are published or the ages are not published at all (26). In the base of the Grand Canyon is a lava flow which, when dated using the rubidium/strontium method, gives an age of 1,090 million years. When using the potassium/argon method and age of 760 million to 860 million years is calculated. These two dates are discordant. Interestingly, a younger lava flow, at the top of the Grand Canyon, gives a rubidium/strontium age of 1,500 million years (27). When radiometric dating fails, evolutionists turn back to the paleontological data (fossils in the sediments) to support the ages they desire (28). Perhaps some of the strongest evidence for the young ages of geological strata comes from work done by Dr. Robert V. Gentry, a physicist formerly with the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. His work on "pleochroic haloes" demonstrates that strata, apparently 195 million years apart in age, had to have been only 20 years different in age (29). His work on radiohaloes (rings produced around radioactive particles in rocks) also indicates that the basement granites (the rock upon which sedimentary rocks are formed) were created virtually instantaneously (within a matter of minutes, not millions or billions of years) (30). Pleochroic haloes are formed by damage caused by radioactive decay processes in small inclusions within rock minerals. During the radioactive decay process, particles are given off, having energies associated with a particular type of radioactive element. Because of the specific energy of the particles, they are only able to travel a given distance through the rock itself, and in the process, create a ring or halo around the radioactive inclusion. If we identify the distance the particles travel, we can determine what element was originally responsible for the ring created. One of the radioactive processes involves the decay of uranium 238 to lead 206. Polonium 210 is one of the intermediate radioactive elements involved in the decay chain formed between uranium 238 and lead 206. The real problem arises in that there are polonium radiohaloes that have no uranium associated with them. Polonium half-lives are extremely short (minutes, seconds and microseconds) and thus become "spent" in a matter of minutes. This means that the rocks in which the haloes formed have to be solidified in a matter of seconds or minutes, not the millions of years postulated by evolutionists. It is comparable to finding a "BB" or small ball bearing frozen in the center of a ice cube without having had any outside interference imposed on the system and that this occurred in a single short lived event. In this scenario, the ice must freeze instantly in order to maintain the "BB" shot in the middle of the cube. The same holds true for the polonium haloes in the rocks in that the time for solidification of the rock must have been very short, in the area of minutes or less.

Geologically, 1980 was a year which presented creationists with an opportunity to study catastrophism firsthand. The eruption of Mount St. Helen’s provided a natural working environment in which rapid depositional and erosional processes could be studied. Geologist Dr. Steve Austin discovered that stratification or layering of sediments can occur rapidly in massive deposits. These deposits resemble many found in other geologic formations. He also discovered that erosional features, which produced 30 meter cliffs, resembling the Grand Canyon were produced in a one day period by mudflows. The log mat, which floated on the new Spirit Lake, began to settle to the bottom with the tree trunks upright on the bottom of the lake. Sidescan sonar has revealed that thousands of logs are found this way. The implications are that vertically standing fossil trees are not necessarily in growth positions. Dendrochronology studies, (studies of tree rings) by Dr. Harold Coffin, of fossil trees from Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park, demonstrates that trees from different layers did not come from successively grown forests, but rather came from the same forest and were floated in and deposited in the strata by water, thus supporting Austin’s model. Creationist flood geology provides a better explanation for this process.

Origin of Life

The two models for the origin of life are diametrically opposite in their positions. Both suffer from the fact that neither view is truly scientific, since neither position can provide an observer to either model. The spontaneous generation of life proposed by the evolutionist demands great periods of time, in order that the raw materials of living organisms would have the opportunity to interact and create the first replicating life form. Early proposals included Millar’s model which postulated that electrical discharges acting on a mixture of primordial gases produced amino acids, or the building blocks of life. The model suffers from a variety of major obstacles. First, the fact that in an early atmosphere, no trap existed in order to isolate the amino acids produced, to prevent their destruction by the very cause that produced them. Second, amino acids produced in this fashion have specific structure. Each amino acid, like a pair of gloves, can be left or right handed. The problem lies in the fact that living organisms are very specific in that they require left handed amino acids for virtually all their molecules, and if a right handed acid is substituted, the molecule, of which it is a part, becomes ineffective. Third, the amino acids which are produced must be linked and must be maintained in a linked state, without hydrolyzing (decomposing in the primordial waters), in order that further amino acids could be joined to the short molecules initially produced. Fourth, this all had to be done in a reducing atmosphere (absence of oxygen) in order that the molecules produced would not oxidize. There is strong evidence that now shows that the earth’s early atmosphere was oxidizing (31). It is interesting to note that Millar’s apparatus and experiment were carefully ‘designed’ in order to accomplish his objective of producing amino acids. The fact that this experiment is now viewed to be totally inadequate to explain the origin of life or even complex molecules. Some now think that clays acted as templates for the complex structures of early molecules. This clay model (like Millar’s) is inadequate in the sense that it would have produced racemic mixtures of molecules (were it capable at all) or right and left hand mixtures of molecular components. Sidney Fox’s method of producing "proteinoids" by heating certain concentrates of amino acids together is unrealistic in its approach to the question of the origin of life as he did not produce highly ordered life as it first appears in the fossil record. So-called ‘simple’ alga life forms are not simple at all, and bear no resemblance to the proteinoid spheres that Fox produced in the lab (32). The facts, from the fossil record, indicate that life appeared abruptly in a variety of forms. A reasonable conclusion from the combined evidence is that some intelligence imposed order or information (genetic programs) on non-living matter in order to produce living matter. Some have concluded that life was seeded on earth from outer space (33) due to the lack of evidence of life having started on earth. The creationist’s position, that life was carefully designed, is supported by investigations into the structures found on the most ‘simple’ forms that we know of. Paley’s analogy, even though somewhat simplistic, still stands as a comparison of the design of a watch to the design found in the complexity of life. The logical conclusion to be reached is that design requires a designer. The challenge for man is not so much as to how the structure came into being but rather to find out how that structure functions. Contrary to evolutionist’s beliefs, creationism would not end the study of science, but would provide new, exciting directions of investigation such as those by chemist, Dr. Donald Chittick, in the area of renewable fuels, and the reinterpretation of geological facts by geologist Dr. Steve Austin which has led to new approaches in the study of geologic catastrophism and the exploration for fossil fuels.

Missing Links

Darwin’s gaps in the fossil record have been claimed by many to be filled, but have they? Objective investigation into this issue reveals many flaws in the so-called proofs presented. Perhaps the most popular example used as ‘proof’ of an organism in transition is the Peppered Moth. It is claimed that the light colored moth, predominant in England prior to the Industrial Revolution, evolved and changed color in order to be more compatible with the darkened bark of the trees that they sat on. Does this represent evolution though? The fact is that it does not.Before the Industrial Revolution, both light and dark peppered moths existed, with the light variety dominating due to favorable camouflage. When the tree bark darkened, the camouflage of the dark moths provided better protection for them and they came to dominate the peppered moth population. Now that the environment is being cleaned up, the light moth populations are beginning to increase again. This clearly demonstrates the shifts in populations due to external influences, and the peppered moth is still the peppered moth (34)! The same principle is true when dealing with drug induced shifts in bacterial populations and shifts in insect populations (35) induced by pesticide application. Evolution has not occurred!

Other proposed transitional forms include the bird Archaeopteryx. It was once thought that this bird was a transition between reptiles and birds, due to the number of characteristics it possessed such as claws on its wings, reptile-like bones etc. The fact is that it is not unlike some modern birds, such as the South American Hoatzin and the Touraco bird of Africa. In addition, fully developed birds have been found in strata dated by evolutionists to be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx (36). The horse series has also undergone criticism and has been dismissed by many due to the fact that it does not have a neat, evolutionary progression (37). In the Rattlesnake formation of Northeast Oregon, Neophipparion, a three toed horse is found with Pliohippus, a one toed horse, which demonstrates that the two types lived at the same time (38). While the foot of the horse was ‘neatly’ evolving, the number of ribs went from 18 pairs in Eohippus to 15 pairs in Orohippus to 19 pairs in Pliohippus to 18 pairs in Equus Scotti! The quest for transitional forms includes a search for the link between land mammals and whales. Pictorial representations are made based on speculation and a minimum of actual physical proof. Paleontologist Phillip Gingerich’s intermediate creature (a whale with legs) is only based on "a skull and several teeth"(39). ‘Living fossils’ present another problem for the evolutionist. For example, the coelacanth was supposed to have become extinct 60 million years ago, according to evolutionists, yet in 1938 the fish was brought up in a trawler’s catch. It was an embarrassment at the time, since the coelacanth was supposed to have been ancestral to amphibians. Evolution has not taken place in this animal and it is reported that the fossil fish and living specimens are "LIKE CARBON COPIES", and yet they continue to state, "They are the closest living relatives of that earliest, though still unknown, amphibian"(40). But what about human evolution? The evidence is even more sketchy here. The best attempts at providing missing links have totally failed in this area. The primary evidence for the Scopes Trial, a single tooth, proved to belong, not to an ancestor of man, but to an extinct pig! The bones for Peking Man have completely disappeared without trace. ‘Lucy’, the discovery of Dr. Donald C. Johanson, is pushed as being an ancestor of man, yet the evidence shows that this specimen was certainly a monkey. Johanson’s, and others’, contention that this Australopithecine was an upright walker, has been hotly contested by Charles Oxnard (41). His computer analyses indicate that it had walking habits resembling those of an orangutan, not a human. Footprints, stated to be 3.6 million years in age, found by Dr. Mary Leakey, conveniently are associated with an Australopithecus creature in spite of the fact "that the form of his foot was exactly the same as ours" (42). It is clear that the track was filled with what was "wanted", not what would be logical. Neanderthal man, once thought to be very apelike, has now been promoted to the classification ‘Homo sapiens’. It is interesting to note that if cranial capacity is a measure of human evolution, then modern humans have regressed when compared to Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man’s cranial capacity, on the average, was greater than modern man’s was. From the evidence, it can logically be concluded that man has always been man. One is, again, led to the conclusion that evolution has not occurred and that the creation account is the most viable answer to the data that is found.

Fossilization – Slow or Fast

One of the arguments against a young age for the earth has been that it requires great amounts of time to form a fossil by any means. Creationists have contended that it does not require long time periods, but rather, that the right conditions be present. Short time periods for fossilization seem to be supported by the fact that people and animals buried at Pompeii, Italy turned into a particular type of fossil known as a moldic fossil. (Moldic types are common in the fossil record.) These are fossils where the material in which the organism was buried solidified quickly, and then the organic material was leached away. In Pompeii, this took a short time, as it was buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD. Petrification of wood is also said to take a long time. Museums remind us continually that millions of years are required to replace the organic compounds in wood with silicate materials, but what are the facts. It has now been determined that artificial petrification of wood can take place in the matter of a few hours using solutions that are found in the natural environment (43). In fact, fossilization requires that the process be very fast! If one considers what normally happens when a fish dies, it becomes apparent that the remains are rapidly eliminated. Either the natural rotting process destroys it, or scavengers destroy it. It must be buried rapidly, in order to eliminate normal decay processes. It is clear that catastrophic processes must be involved in order to rapidly bury these organisms in natural states, then subsurface processes are free to fossilize the organism. One of the geologic processes now recognized in the geologic record is the turbidite flow, a submarine avalanche made of a mixture of gravel, sand, silt and clay, which can rapidly kill and cover animals and plants. Several turbidite flows have happened in recent historical times, covering thousands of square miles of the ocean’s floor such as the one which occurred off the coast of Newfoundland on November 18, 1929. These processes are more consistent with a creationist flood model and provide evidence for a young earth. One can be led to conclude that there needs to be a re-evaluation of the study of origins, and the dogma that pervades the majority of the scientific community. There is a clear need for open dialogue among those who conduct research into this important question, and contrary to the popular opinion of evolutionists, this dialogue would not eliminate science since we well know that many of the major scientific discoveries were made by creationists in the 18th and 19th centuries. Let’s begin that dialogue, and let all the facts lead where they will.

Reference List

(February 1991)

(1) Mathews, L. Harrison; "Introduction" to Darwin’s Origin of Species (London, J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd., 1971) p.x.

(2) Gould, S.J.; "Evolution as Fact and Theory", Discover / May 1981, p.35

(3) Keir, Porter; "Reagan Evolution Stand Disputed", The Calgary Herald, Wednesday, January 7,1981.

(4) Gallup Poll; San Diego Union, August 30,1982.

(5) Creation Research Society Quarterly, published by the Creation Research Society, Box 14016, Terre Houte, Indiana 47803.

(6) Dr. Steve Austin was forced to publish under a pseudonym in order to have his technical papers accepted in refereed journals, as he was known to be a creationist. He published as "S. Nevins" in order to demonstrate the technical merit of his works apart from the fact that he was a creationist.

(7) Dr. Robert Gentry’s position was terminated, as a result of his research into pleochroic haloes, in spite of having published numerous articles in the prestigious journals Nature and Science. His published article list is found in his book Creation’s Tiny Mystery, published by Earth Science Associates, Box 12067, Knoxville, Tennessee. 37912-0067 (October, 1986)

(8) Hallihan, Paul; "Professors Debate Origin of Universe", The Calgary Herald, Life Today, Thursday, May 30, 1985 p. F1.

(9) Guth, Alan H. and Steinhardt, Paul J.; "The Inflationary Universe", Scientific American, May 1984, p. 128.

(10) Hallihan, Paul; ibid.

(11) "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November, 1981, p.105.

(12) Kaufmann III, William; "The Most Feared Astronomer on Earth", Science Digest, July 1981, p. 76-81, p. 117.

(13) Heppenheimer, T.A.; "Star – Shifty Quasars", Omni, January 1990, pp. 22,94, Arp states: "Everyone is convinced their view is the way things are, … the test is whether they will permit discussion of contradictory evidence. If they say, "No, we won’t permit it," then I think you have to be suspicious that they don’t have the right answers."

(14) Gordon, Peter; "News, Views and Reviews", Origins Research, Volume 10, Number 2, Fall / Winter 1987, p. 5. This article was a review of ‘Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies’ (published by Interstellar Media, 2153 Russell Street, Berkley, California, 94705; 198 pp.) with comments by John Gribbin.

(15) Eddy, J.A. and Boornazian, A.A.; "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953", Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society 11 (1979):437. Abstract only.

(16) Van Till, H.J. & Young, D.A. & Menninga, C.; Science Held Hostage. Intervarsity Press, P.O. Box 1400, Downers Grove, Illinois 60515 (1988).

(17) Oort proposed a mechanism whereby short period comets were replaced from an undetected cloud of comets lying far outside of Pluto’s orbit. He said that occasionally, a star would pass near the solar system and perturb the orbits of these objects such that they would begin orbiting within the inner solar system.

(18) Shelton; Geology Illustrated, p. 304. "Unfortunately most sediments do not contain reliable clues to how fast they were deposited – or to the duration of the intervals between layers."

(19) Shelton; ibid. p. 305. "Radioactivity has provided geology with its first and only means of measuring the duration of long periods of geologic time in years. The techniques were all originated in the present century and are being continually refined, as new methods and instruments are developed in the Atomic Age."

(20) Morris, H.M.; The Scientific Case for Creation, pp. 55-59. 70 chronometric methods.

(21) Burton, J.D. and Liss, P.S.; "Processes of Supply and Removal of Dissolved Silica in the Ocean", Geochemica and Cosmochemica Acta, Vol. 37.

(22) Barnes, T.G.; Origin and Destiny of the Earth’s Magnetic Field, CL Publishers Inc., (San Diego, California)

(23) Anderson, J.L.; Abstract of Papers, 161st National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Los Angeles, 1971.

(24) Slusher, H.S.; Critique of Radiometric Dating, CL Publishers, Inc. (San Diego, California) June, 1973.

(25) Naughton, J.J. & Noble, C.S.; "Deep Ocean Basalts: Inert Gas Content and Uncertainties in Age Dating", Science, Vol. 162, pp. 265-266, 1968.

(26) Personal communication with F. Crawford, formerly of Home Oil, Calgary. He indicated that projects that he participated in used various radiometric labs in the U.S. to determine the dates of rocks. The numbers reported on samples from the same formations were so discordant that they could not be used.

(27) Leeman, W.P.; "Late Cenozoic Alkali-Rich Basalt from the Western Grand Canyon Area, Utah and Arizona: Iosotopic Composition of Strontium", Geological Society of America Bulletin, 85, (Nov. 1974): pp. 1691-1696.

(28) Abstract of Papers, "Age of the Comfort Member of the Castle Haynes Formation, North Carolina", Petroleum Abstracts, Vol. 24, No. 47, Nov. 24, 1984, Abstract No. 368,872. Rubidium-Strontium glauconite dating techniques gave ages varying between 34.8 million years and 1.0 million years. Since these techniques failed, fossils were used to determine the age of the formation.

(29) Gentry, R.V.; "Radiohaloes in Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification", Science 15 October 1976, Vol. 194, pp.315-318.

(30) Gentry, R.V.; "Radiohaloes in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective", Science 5 April 1974, Vol. 184, pp. 62-66, "Spectacle array of 210 Po halo radiocentres in biotite: a nuclear geophysical enigma", Nature, Vol. 252, No. 5484, pp. 564-566, December 13, 1974.

(31) Austin, Steve A.; "Did the Early Earth Have a Reducing Atmosphere?", Impact, No. 109, July 1982, (Draws on a number of journal papers including: Dimroth, E., & Kimberley, M.M.; "Precambrian Atmospheric Oxygen: Evidence in Sedimentary Distributions of Carbon, Sulphur, Uranium, and Iron", Canadian Journal of Earth Science, v. 13, 1976, pp. 1161-1185.)

(32) Rensburger, Boyce; "The Spark of Life", Science Digest, March 1981, pp. 96-99,114. Sidney Fox’s origin of life experiments.

(33) Crick, Sir Francis; "Seeding the Universe", Science Digest, November, 1981, pp. 82-84, 115-116.

(34) Matthews, L. Harrison; ibid., p. xi.

(35) Struzik, Ed; "Ancient Bacteria Revived", The Calgary Herald, Sunday, September 16, 1990, p. A1. This article reports research, done at the University of Alberta, that found bacteria in the intestinal tracts of the corpses of three of Sir John Franklin’s northern expedition of 1845. The findings showed that of six strains of bacteria removed from the corpses, "three of them also happened to be resistant to two of the most common antibiotics." This very clearly shows that bacteria have not evolved nor have evolved due to environmental pressures put on them due to "modern" development of antibiotics.

(36) Weisburd, S.; Science News, August 16, 1986, p. 103. Beardsley, Tim; Nature, 322:677 (1986).

(37) Raup, David M.; Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, p. 22, (1979). The horse exhibit has now been removed from the Pittsburgh Museum.

(38) Nevins, S.E.; Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 10, p. 196, 1974.

(39) Science Digest, Nov/Dec 1980, "Newscience", p. 25.

(40) Fricke, Hans; "Coelacanths: The Fish That Time Forgot", National Geographic, Vol. 173, No. 6, June 1988, pp. 824-838.

(41) Oxnard, Charles; Nature, Vol. 258, 1975, p.389.

(42) Leakey, Mary D.; "Footprints in the Ashes of Time", National Geographic, Vol. 155, No. 4, April 1979, pp. 446-457. Animal tracks were identified, and were associated with fully modern animals, however, the fully modern human tracks were identified as belonging to an apelike Australopithecine creature.

(43) Hicks, Hamilton; "Mineralized Sodium Silicate Solutions for Artificial Petrification of Wood", U.S. Patent # 4,612,050.

(44) Stanley, D.J.; "Special Paper #106", in Klein, G., edition, Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic Continental Sedimentation of Northeastern North America; Geological Society of America, pp. 211-239.

This article posted with the kind permission of Ray Strom and the Creation

Science Association of Alberta, Canada.