ACTS III Global Ministries

"Sometimes what you need the most...you don't even know you need."

The Battleground of Apologetics

Chapter 7: Evolution on Earth?

This chapter is one of the most important; this is where much of the focus is for both camps.  Obviously, it easier to see, imagine and measure things here on earth than anywhere else in the solar system or universe.  So we will go where the evidence is.  This section will discuss:

1.      The supposed evolutionary formation of the Earth

2.      Dating Methods that evolutionists use to assign its age.

            A big part of the evidence for the age of the earth for both camps revolves around fossils.  Fossils will be touched on here, but most of the evidence and debate will be presented in the next chapter.

Overview

Here again the models are extremely different in their estimates as to the age of the Earth.  The evolutionary model teaches that the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old while the Creation model estimates only around 6,000 years old.  4,600,000,000 compared to 6,000 is quite a big difference.  Somebody is waaaaaaay off.

To reiterate, these models are mutually exclusive and their respective theories do not allow for any hybrids or combinations of the two.  The time element is critical to both models.   On the evolutionary side, the older the earth is…the better for them.  This gives them more time (magic ingredient) to theorize unimaginable ways to turn non-life into life, and then into all forms of life that have ever existed. 

On the other hand, the claim of the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God is at stake due to the approximate age of Creation given in the genealogies.  So if the Bible is way off, then there goes our understanding of His Word.  If we cannot trust the literal Creation account, how can we literally trust other parts?  So again, we will look first at the evolutionary model.

Formation of the Earth

Here evolution has the unfortunate necessity to build upon the hollow foundation of the big-bang and subsequent sterile theories as demonstrated in the previous chapters.  Again, the story goes that around 10-20 billion years ago there was an explosion.  After this explosion, a bunch of matter got together and formed a star.  That star exploded (at least once) and formed our sun, earth, and the rest of the solar system.  It was approximately 4.6 billion years ago when the earth finally ‘cooled.’

As a reminder, by comparison, the Creation account simply puts the age of the earth between 6,000 – 10,000 years or so. 

Before we get into the specifics, I would like to take a moment to ask you to do some mental exercises and ponder on some things that have never been answered regarding evolution.  If anyone knows these answers, I would appreciate the update.

The theory of evolution explains the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets by simply stating that ‘…they cooled and gravity brought them together…’  My questions are:
 

†    If a single process brought this exploded matter together all across the universe, and all of the matter was likely the same since it came from the same explosion, how and why did it form such a variety of celestial bodies?

†    Why aren’t all things in the universe just stars, or just planets, or just moons, or just asteroids, or just comets?

†    Why and how did things start orbiting around other things?  I mean if you have two globs of gas and dust, and 1 miraculously forms a star, and 1 forms a planet, what makes the planet start revolving around the star in near perfect orbit?  Why isn’t the planet simply pulled into the star instead? 

†    How does evolution explain these?  Surely there is more to it than cooling and gravity!?!

Maybe there are simple answers, but I have not found them yet.  I found a lot of refuted theories, but no plausible answers.

Overview of Earth Evolutionary Theory

As far as the beginning of the earth goes, I think the problem with it’s formation mirrors all of those previously discussed in the Chapter on the Solar System.  It seems to be pretty clear that the big bang cannot so miserably fail to explain the formation of the rest of the universe, galaxies, and solar system and then miraculously get the earth right.  But just for fun, let’s see how evolution has evolved over the past few centuries.  Here is how the story goes regarding earth.

In the early years of the 18^th century there lived a German philosopher and mathematician named Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz.  Building on the work by Descartes, he proposed a new theory of the formation of the Earth.  Descartes believed that the earth was once an incandescent mass like the sun.  He theorized that it eventually cooled and formed a hard crust.  In 1749, Leibniz published Protogaea (Prehistory of Earth).  In it he theorized that mountains and valleys were formed because of collapsing areas under the crust due to hollow areas from Descartes cooling process.

A French naturalist by the name of Count de Buffon revised this theory in 1778.  In his Epochs of Nature, he attributed the earth and other planets in our solar system to a collision between the sun and a wandering comet.  In his theory of the evolution of the earth, he stated that there were 7 sequential periods or epochs.  They are as follows:

1.      The first lasted 3,000 years after the impact.  During it, the earth transformed from a gas cloud into a molten mass.

2.      The second lasted 32,000 years and is when he thought the crust cooled and formed mountains and other surface features.

3.      The third was proposed to last 25,000 years.  During it, water covered the mainland and life began in the “ Universal Ocean .”

4.      The 4^th epoch was supposed to last 10,000 years.  This is when he theorized that waters subsided into cracks in the earth, which caused volcanoes to erupt.

5.      The 5^th epoch had an estimated duration of 5,000 years.  During this evolutionary jaunt, he thought the larger animals and vegetation might have appeared. 

6.      The 6^th epoch had the same estimated life as the 5^th—5,000 years.  He proposed this is when the land mass broke up and man appeared.

7.      The 7^th epoch, according to this evolutionary theory, is still occurring.  In it, he believes, is when man mastered the beasts and took dominion on the earth.  According to his theory, the 7^th epoch will only last about 98,000 years.  At this point he felt the earth would cool down completely and life would become extinct.

All told, his theory of evolution would only give the earth a useful existence of around 178,000 years.  The first 80,000 years after the evolution of the earth in this theory, man would have been absent.  This can also be interpreted to mean that the earth would only be 80,000 - 90,000 years old today based on this theory (depending on how long he believed man to have existed prior to modern man.

While this theory may sound outrageously funny with its dates, it truly set the stage for the ridiculous dates that evolutionists use today. Notice the quote below:

“Buffon’s theory of the formation of the earth was incorrect on most details; yet it marked an important step forward.  Perhaps the most significant thing about it was that it set the date of earth’s origins so far back in time.”[1]

            This was the first time that incomprehensible amounts of time were used to describe the appearance of the earth.  For most of us, we probably thought our parents were antiques when we were younger.  It is hard for us to imagine life 100 years ago, let alone, thousands and tens of thousands of years ago.

            This set the stage for evolutionists to go for the jugular.  As this theory gained acceptance and recognition, evolutionists realized that no one could imagine life tens of thousands of years ago, so why not add a few more zeros?!?!  And people fell for it and are still falling for it today.

Let me point out again where the evolutionists have failed to see the errors of their ‘logic’ due to prejudices against the true origin of life.  The conundrum demonstrates the clarity of the evidence of the creation model and the flood, but they refuse to see it.  Their model even looks like a perverted copy of the Biblical account.

For example, notice the division into 7 epochs that match the 7 days of the creation and rest week in Genesis.  Next, notice how he believed that the waters covered the surface of the earth—just like the Genesis flood.  In number 4, he mentions how the waters finally ran off into cracks and a lot of volcanoes erupted.  Notice again how this seems to have been borrowed from the flood account in Genesis.  This would have been the case when the fountains of the deep broke open at the beginning of the flood and the waters would have assuaged and ran into recesses, cracks to their current locations.  (The word translated assuaged from the original Hebrew text can mean to run off quickly.)

In continuing with the evolution of evolution, the same author writes,

“This ‘ Universal Ocean ’ was assigned an all important role [by]…Abraham Gottlob Werner.”  He was a professor of mineralogy at the University of Freiberg in Saxon, a part of modern Germany .  “He had observed that…the earth showed a series of definite strata [layers]… He assumed that rock strata everywhere on the face of the globe had been laid down in the same order and at the same time as the strata in Saxony .  To explain their formation, he assumed that ocean waters had covered the earth periodically.”[2]

Is it just me or does this sound like the Flood account in Genesis to you?  Obviously, a worldwide flood at one point in history would lay down sequential strata layers.  Also, due to the principle of hydrologic sorting, the flood would have deposited items in similar orders.  You can demonstrate this principle by placing various rocks, sand, etc. in a bottle of water and shaking it up.  The water will automatically sort the things out for you in a predictable pattern.

How old are those rocks? 

There are two primary methods used for dating the rocks here on earth for the evolutionists.  The first is by Radiometric Dating methods, and the second is by the Geologic Column.  As we have seen from earlier examples, evolutionists, out of their religious zeal, try and establish old ages for their theories at any cost…even if it means forsaking reason, intellectual honesty and common sense.  These outrageous dates are essential in order for their theory to work…no billions of years = no chance at all of evolution.  (Actually, it would not matter if the earth was 20 Billion years old, evolution still would not happen.)

Radiometric Dating

Many people falsely assume that radiometric dating is foolproof.  As will be demonstrated here, that is not the case at all.

            There are actually several radiometric decay clocks that are allegedly used to date the earth.  Three of the most common are:

1. uranium-thorium-lead method

2. rubidium-strontium method

3. potassium-argon method

In each of these methods, the parent element is gradually changed into the daughter component.  The way the clock works is by measuring the rate one element turns into the other, and then extrapolating it based on how much has been changed.  For example, suppose that over time, coal changed into diamonds without any help.  All you had to do was get a lump of coal and leave it alone.  Let’s assume that the half-life of the coal is 100 years.  This means that after 100 years the lump of coal would be ½ coal and ½ diamond.  The next half-life (100 more years) would give you a lump that was 25% coal and 75% diamonds, and so on and so on.  Each half-life, you half the material left for the parent element.  The table below to demonstrate:

So you would think that this method would be reasonably accurate on the surface.  However, there are several major flaws with it. They are discussed below.

Unknown starting point:

First of all, it is impossible to know the size of an original piece of Parent material.  In other words, using our coal/diamond example above, if you were to find a 5 pound rock that was half coal and half diamond, you would assume that the rock was 100 years old – 1 half-life.

            However, what if the rock actually was a 20 lb rock to start with that was 75% coal and the 5 lb piece that you found was broken off?  This would mean that the age was really much younger.  The opposite also applies.  If the original 20 lb rock was 17.5 lbs diamond and only 2.5 lbs of coal, this would mean that the rock was really much older--300 years.

            So unless we know what the original size of the sample is, the method is tainted.  What are the odds of a rock sample being completely undisturbed for billions of years like the evolutionists claim? 

Uniformitarianism

As with other components of evolution, the dating game also relies on uniformitarianism to extrapolate today’s measurements back billions of years without accounting for any potential changes over that vast stretch of time.  Not only that, but it does not consider the effect that outside forces could have on the rate over billions of years.  So let’s see what the experts say about the consistency of the decay rate from parent to daughter elements:

“Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them.”[3]

            The above quote emphasizes that you will never know if you get an accurate reading with these methods due to the fact that you will never know if any uranium or lead has been added or taken away from the sample due to leaching or other such migration mechanism (maybe like volcanic activity or other geologic forces.)

            Here is a quote regarding the dating of lunar rocks:

“If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven’t.”[4]

            This quote illustrates that when ‘scientists’ dated the moon rocks that none of the methods gave them a consistent age.  Also, the story continues to inform us that they did not obtain the age they were looking for, so they arbitrarily picked one that best fit their theory.  Here we go with the rubber ruler!

One Scientist, Dr. Melvin Cook[5], analyzed two of the world’s most important uranium bearing ores.  Neither contained any Lead 204.  After much research, he concluded that literally all of the so-called radiogenic isotopes of lead found in uranium-thorium systems…need not have been formed by radioactive decay at all, and consequently the minerals may all be quite young, with essentially zero age![6]

This in essence negates the whole method.  If the presence of the daughter element is irrelevant to the age of the system, then obviously the method is invalid. 

Evolution’s Faith over Evidence

Another problem is that when radiometric ages are given that conflict with evolutionary geologic dates, the radiometric dates are discarded for the dates necessary for good of the evolutionary time scale.  In other words, if evolutionists need the date of a certain rock bed to be a certain age, that’s the age that will be assigned to it…no matter what the ‘evidence’ shows!   Here is a quote that shows just that:

“And what essentially is the time scale? On what criteria does it rest? When all is winnowed out and the grain is reclaimed from the chaff, it is certain that the grain in the product is mainly the paleontologic record and highly likely that the physical evidence is the chaff.”[7] (emphasis mine)

            Notice here that this author states that the only true evidence for the geologic time scale is the paleontologic record itself.  That is the measuring stick by which time on earth age is calculated.  Note: Paleontology is the study of prehistoric plants and animals through the analysis of fossil remains.  This means that you have evidence giving proof for a theory, and the theory is the basis for interpreting the evidence. This is classic circular reasoning.

Evidence of Being Unreliable

So, how do the radiometric methods fare when tested against rocks of a known age?  Are they reliable?

            One such test was given to a study on submarine (underwater) basaltic rocks of known age by the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics.  Here is what they found:

“Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent (less than 200 years old).  Caution is urged in applying dates from deep-ocean basalts in studies on ocean-floor spreading.”[8]  (emphasis mine)

            So this method yielded a date that proved to be 11,000,000% too high!  (Eleven Million Percent)  That’s quite a margin of error.  (This would make their 4.6 Billion year old earth around 400,000 years)  Does that sound like science or faith?  Was this an isolated instance of catastrophic error?  Hardly!

“Similar modern rocks formed in 1801 near Hualalei, Hawaii, were found to give potassium-argon ages ranging from 160 million years to 3 billion years…Still another study on Hawaiian basalts obtained seven ‘ages’ …ranging all the way from 0 years to 3.34 million years.”[9]  (emphasis mine)

“Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"[10]  (emphasis mine)

One more quote worth mentioning in this section is that,

 “It is well known that K-Ar (potassium-argon) ages obtained from different minerals in a single rock may be strikingly discordant.”[11]  (emphasis mine)  It’s no wonder these poor evolutionists are so confused.

What…different tests on the same rock give strikingly conflicting ages?  And this serves as proof for evolution?  This obviously is another false savior that promised to deliver the theory of evolution into the promise land of billion-year-proof!

Geologic Time Scale - The Rubber Ruler

Now that we have looked at the 1^st dating method for evolutionary theories of the age of the earth, let’s go on to the second.  What you are about to read is not made up…this is actually what is being taught by highly educated professors at top universities as well as at public and private schools alike across the world.

            I want to make it crystal clear that the evolutionary calendar, the Geologic Column, exists NOWHERE BUT IN TEXTBOOKS.  In other words, you will never be able to dig in any one place in the world and find all the layers in exactly the same order with the same index fossils as shown in textbooks.  It is made up based on how evolutionists want fossil ages interpreted.

What is The Geologic Time Scale?

Let us take a look at some definitions and facts from an encyclopedia regarding this idea of the evolutionary geologic time and dating:

“It is based on the fact that the remains of once-living plants and animals are entombed in fossils in various rock formations.  In some cases, the fossils are actual remains; in others, they represent the imprints of organisms.”[12] 

            The above quote is something that both creationists and evolutionists can partially agree on.  We agree that fossils are the remains or impressions of things that were alive but are now dead.  However, it does not give us the time scale it claim—only a relative burial record.

How did we get fossils?

Now that we know what fossils are, how do we get them generally?

“Remains and imprints were buried in the successive layers of sand or mud that collected on the bottoms of seas and streams throughout millions of years.  In the course of time, the sands and muds, called sediments, hardened into beds of sedimentary rock.”[13]

            Well, I knew it wouldn’t last.  This is where we must part company with the evolutionists.  The fact that they were buried under “successive layers of sand or mud” is not debated.  The problem arises with their religious assertion that the process took millions of years.  Scientists now know it only takes a matter of a few decades or less for bones to fossilize.  Notice the picture to the left.

            This picture shows a rubber-soled boot with petrified human leg and foot bones and all.  It was found in a dry creek bed near the West Texas town of Iraan , about 1980 by Mr. Jerry Stone, an employee of Corvette Oil Company.[14]

The boot was hand made by the M. L. Leddy boot company of San Angelo , Texas , which began manufacturing boots in 1936. Gayland Leddy, nephew of the founder, grew up in the boot business and now manages Boot Town in Garland , Texas . He recognized the "number 10 stitch pattern" used by his uncle’s company where he worked for many years. Mr. Leddy believes the boot was made in the early 1950’s.

Only the contents of the boot are fossilized, not the boot itself, demonstrating that some materials fossilize more readily than others. The bones of the partial leg and foot within the boot were revealed by an elaborate set of C.T. Scans performed at Harris Methodist Hospital in Bedford , Texas on July 24, 1997 . The Radiologic Technician was Evelyn Americus, AART. A complete set of these scans remains with the boot at the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas . (http://www.creationevidence.org)

            This is only one of many such proofs that fossils do NOT take millions of years to form.  Let’s continue with our look at this subject.

How are the ages determined?

“A given rock mass is distinguished from earlier and later masses by the types of fossils it contains…Generally speaking, rocks having identical or similar fossils are believed to be roughly the same age.”[15] (emphasis mine)

            Do you see the circular reasoning here that is offered as proof?!  In the first sentence it says that the type of fossils dates rocks, but the layer of rocks they are in dates the fossils!  How can this be?  In essence, the evolutionists have determined the general pattern that fossils are found in, and then assigned ages needed to theoretically transform one life form into another.

            So basically, you have fossils and rocks being used to prove evolution, and yet it is evolution that sets the dates for the rocks and fossils according to its theory.  This is science?  NO!  It is a lie!  These evolutionists decide what age something needs to be and then gives the rock or fossil the date that fits their faith.

Dating the Unknown

So if geologists find a brand new rock formation or bed that does not fit any known bed or layer, how is it dated?

“If a new rock bed or formation is discovered anywhere in the world…geologists…try and fit it into one or the other of the standard rock sections.”[16]

            Here again, the new rocks are not dated by the radiometric methods or other dating methods, they are simply compared to the already established rubber ruler rocks of the evolutionary theory.

Is this really scientific, accurate and dependable?

“The geologic time…is accepted, but with certain reservations…For one thing, as we have seen, it assumes that living things evolved according to a more or less fixed pattern.  (In fact, a number of early stratigraphers did not even believe in evolution, but in special acts of creation for each species.)”[17]

            The above quote from a Science Encyclopedia admits that even though the geologic time scale, it is with certain reservations.  It admits that the biggest reservation is that it is based on the ASSUMPTION THAT THINGS EVOLVED!  Here again, we see admission that the proof for the theory is based on the theory.  The last part of the quote was in the original quote in the encyclopedia.  It states outright that many stratigraphers (scientists that study of the origin, composition, and development of rock strata) actually believe in the Creation model!

I know that is a big problem, but are there any other concerns? Yes…the author continues:

“Another difficulty is that only certain groups of fossils have been used as standards for the geologic scale.  Other fossils (and rock formations) would have given a somewhat different result, perhaps.”

            Again, here the bias and subjectivity of the evolutionists are clearly demonstrated.  By picking different index fossils, the geologic time scale would look different.  To demonstrate this realization, the author continues:

“The attempt to fit all the rocks of the earth exactly into certain standard sections is one of the most difficult tasks confronting geologists.”

Now trying to salvage some dignity for their theory (a.k.a. faith / religion):

“On the whole, however, the geological time scale gives us a pretty good idea of the sequence of events in the history of the earth.” (emphasis mine)

Notice in the above quote that the world sequence is in italics.  It was this way in the original text.  I wonder why?  Let’s keep reading and see if we can discern why.  The next sentence in the same scientific encyclopedia article starts:

“It enables us to tell whether one event happened before, or at the same time or after another.  In other words, it establishes the relative chronology of the different periods in earth’s history.”  (emphasis mine)

            Again, there is one word that was in italics in the original quote—the word relative.  These two sentences show that all the geologic time scale actually does is give the sequence of events and outlines the relative order in which things happened.  Note that the article never claimed proof for their millions and billions of years time scale—they only truthfully concede that the strata they study can only tell them the relative order that things happened. 

As an illustration, if you dig down 20 feet into the ground and find sea shells at the bottom of the 20 feet hole, a fish 15 feet down, a snake 10 feet down, and a cat 5 feet down, all that you know is that is the order they were buried in—not that they evolved from one another nor the dates they were buried!!!

Circular Reasoning as Proof?

POne of the most common dating methods, as mentioned above, revolves around circular reasoning.  Simply put, evolutionary geologists date the fossils by what layer of rock they are in, and they date the rocks by what fossils are in them!

            Are you dizzy from that circular reasoning yet?  This is like me telling you that:

1.      I know that I am younger than you.

2.      My proof is that you are older than me!

The obvious problem here is that I do not know how old you are, nor do I state how old that I am.  So, how can this be science?  BINGO…it’s not.  Remember how in the overview of the big-bang, it states that, “Astronomers are making new observations that are interpreted within the framework of the big bang theory.”  Well, evolutionary geologists subscribe to the same type doctrine.  They interpret all “evidence” within the framework of the faith of evolution.  They do not run scientifically accurate and dependable tests to see how old rocks and fossils are, they go by the doctrine of the evolutionary church to see where their find fits.

Since we gave their fellow big-bang cultists names, let us also give them names.  After all, they give names to unseen beliefs, so certainly they themselves deserve a rewarding and descriptive name.  I shall refer to them as, “Religious Scientists-of the Pick-a-Date Order.”

            Let’s look at some enlightening quotes regarding the Religious Scientists-of the Pick-a-Date Order and their practices.

Religious Scientists-of the Pick-a-Date Order Quotes

The author of the quote below was a research scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California at Berkley .

“Paleontology (the study of fossils) is important in the study of geology.  The age of the rocks may be determined by the fossils found in them.”[18] (emphasis mine)

“Scientists determine when fossils were formed by finding out the age of the rocks in which the lie.”[19] (emphasis mine)

OK…just in case you are suspicious about these being different opinions by different people, please look closely at the footnotes below.  Both are by the same author in the same set of encyclopedias the same year!

·         Ref – 126   Samuel Paul Welles, Article on “Paleontology,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 15 (1978) p. 85

·         Ref – 127   Samuel Paul Welles, Article on “Fossils,” World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 7 (1978) p. 364

Happy Birthday Earth!!!

We all should be thankful for the planet we call home.  We should do something nice for it.  How about a birthday party?!  How many candles should we put on the cake? 6,000 or 4.6 billion?

            You know what confused me as a child?  (yes…there were quite a few things)  What is the deal with “Dog-Years?”  I remember when I was little and asking my mom how old our puppy was.  She told me that he was 2 in our years, but 14 in dog-years.  Seeing my puzzled look, she told me that dogs aged faster than people.  One of our years is 7 years for them. 

So why am I telling you this?  I think I may have figured out a solution to the debate over the age of the earth.  Maybe there is some kind of earth year???  This is sarcasm, but now that you are filled with disbelief, read the following quote from a distinguished geology professor at the California Institute of Technology and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography:

“The fact that the calculated age of the earth has increased by a factor of roughly 100 between 1900 and today – as the accepted “age” of the earth has increased from about 50 million years in 1900 to at least 4.6 eons (billion years) today – certainly suggests we clothe our current conclusions regarding time and the earth with humility.”[20] (emphasis mine)

            The above quote shows that the earth ‘aged’ 4,550,000,000 years in only 100 years.  This means that the ‘Earth Year’ as compared to the ‘dog-year’ is equal to 45,500,000 real years!  So every calendar year the earth gets forty-five million, five hundred thousand earth years older!  That breaks down to the earth getting 1.44 years older every single second of the day!  No wonder evolutionists are so confused!  They must be dizzy from watching the hands on the clock spin at warp speed!

            The above quote also mentions the word accepted.  I took the liberty of underlining it for you.  I don’t recall getting asked to vote on the age of the earth…did you?  I sure am glad people don’t get to vote how old I am, because I would be back in middle school (they say I act like a kid sometimes… working with the youth does that to a person ;o)  But seriously, isn’t the word “accepted” different than “proven.” 

STOP and THINK:  Age or Agenda

If the age of the earth is not proven, how did they come up with the accepted age?  They made it up!  They simply selected the date that best fit their theory for today.  If you stop and think about why in the world would the age of the earth evolve from 50 million to 4.6 billion in only 100 years, you might actually see the light! 

Over the last 100 years science has been able to look farther in space than ever before, and they have been able to look closer inside the life in and around us through powerful microscopes.  As their true knowledge has grown exponentially regarding the complexities and design of all things around them—both big and small—so too has the age needed for evolution’s magic to work grown exponentially! The new complexity and wonders discovered needed more of the magic ingredient of time!  They truly have an evolving faith!

Professor Engel, is quoted as saying, “We will speculate a lot about the first eon (billion years) or more of earth’s history…but in the foreseeable future it will be mostly speculations – essentially geopoetry.”[21] (emphasis mine) He later concludes with this thought:

“The most honest concede freely we know almost nothing of earth or its processes.”[22] (emphasis mine)

Just for fun, let’s take a look at some more quotes about this whole geologic-made-up-time-scale-circular-reasoning of evolution issue.  These are truly enlightening comments by some of the leading evolutionists (Is that an oxymoron?  Can you be leading if you’re losing?)

Fossils are important?  Uh-Oh!!!:

Here again, we see that the only way to date a rock and the history of the earth is by fossils.  Notice how the author is blinded or willingly ignorant of the fact that he is admitting that his only proof for a theory is the theory itself.  In other words, because evolutionists can dream it up, it is real!

“The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratagraphic events exactly is furnished by fossils.  Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time scale for relative age determinations…”[23] (emphasis mine)

Another author stated 26 years later that,

 “fossils have been and still are the most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur.”[24] (emphasis mine)

“Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions, and from continent to continent.”[25] (emphasis mine)

“Fossils provide the only historical evidence [and] documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.”[26] (emphasis mine)

            It must be said here that regardless of all their touting and shouting, all fossils show is extinction and death, not evolution.  Not one fossil includes a note that says,

“To whom it may concern:  I’m the last of my kind and we’re dying out after 400 million years, all because Cousin Sue gave birth to a freak with wings that ate all of the food.  PS... Watch out for Uncle Bob’s side of the family—they’re starting to walk funny—they could cause trouble!”

Chapter Summary

There is much information from this chapter to sum up.  The quick version is that the evolutionists are in trouble again.  They cannot show a model that would explain the universe, the stars, galaxies, the solar system, the planets or earth in general.  On the contrary, all of the evidence again shows that the Creation model is the only intelligent and rational choice.  It does not conflict with the data as does the evolution model.  Let us close this chapter with a stop and think exercise.

STOP and THINK:  Fossils - Fact or Fairytale?

There are only 2 possible dating methods for ‘proving’ the age of the earth that is old enough for evolutionists:  (1) The highly revered radiometric method that has been shown to be a big flop theoretically and when put to the actual test.  This leaves the only other age model—(2) the circular reasoning of the fossils and the geologic column all interpreted based on the needs of the theory of evolution.

This means that evolutionists want us to believe that the earth is 4.6 billion years old based on:

$  The big bang that has no beginning, no mechanism, and requires multiple evolving theories including one to imagine 99% of the matter in the universe is make-believe, just to patch the holes…plus…

$ a universe that has no explanation for the order, distribution of matter, nor any mechanism to produce the variety of heavenly bodies we see today…plus…

$ a solar system, like the universe,  that does not conform to known laws that govern the universe and cannot explain the organization and distribution of matter in it…plus…

$ a sun that shows signs that it cannot be more than 100,000 years old due to the evidence of contraction…plus…

$ planets and moons that show signs of vastly younger ages, that also do not conform to the laws of angular momentum as required by the big-bang…plus…

$ dating methods for the earth that are either based on methods that produce ages billions of years apart or on circular reasoning…plus…

$ circular reasoning that is based on the theory of evolution…that’s more circular reasoning…you have the circular reasoning based on the theory that it was created to try and prove…and evidence for the circular reasoning provided by the theory

It is no wonder people get confused, how can scientist keep all of this straight?  It is a mess isn’t it!?!  Have you ever known someone to tell a lie, and then have to tell another one to cover the first, and then tell a third to cover the second, and so forth???  Do you see any similarities?

So far, the evolutionary model is not looking too good.  To this point, the person you are witnessing to should see that the evolutionary religion they are subscribing to requires their members to have a lot of blind and willingly ignorant faith, all the Creationist has to believe in is an unchanging God.

The Bottom Line

If the person you are offering this defense to is not convinced yet, they do not have a problem with Creation being reasonable and logical—it boils down to a ‘will’ issue.  They will not believe no matter how much you prove to them.  But just in case, let’s make it really difficult for them to continue on in their religious faith of evolution.

Index

Foreword

Overview
Chapter 1
Chapter 2

Creation vs. Evolution
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10

Biblical
Apologetics
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 14
Chapter 15
Chapter 16

Volume II Cults & False Hopes
Chapter 17
Chapter 18
Chapter 19
Chapter 20
Chapter 21
Chapter 22
Chapter 23

Glossary

Appendixes
A
B
C
D
E