DIVINE CREATION? OR RANDOM EVOLUTION?
Pastor Jannie Viljoen
Introduction …………………………………………… 1
What Evolutionists say ……………………………. 3
Is Evolution Scientific? ……………………………. 6
Six Literal Days of Creation ……………………… 8
The Real Issue ……………………………………….. 12
What about the Flood? ……………………………. 15
How Old is the Earth? …………………………….. 25
Conclusion …………………………………………….. 28
"... we are on about something infallible - the Bible and the Gospel it contains, and the fact that these connect to all of history and reality. And that's exiting - or threatening, depending on which
side of the truth-divide you're on."
(Creation Magazine. June - August 2002)
"Why is evolution so popular today? What is the attraction of people wanting to believe that things made themselves, so that we are basically self-arranged pond-scum? Why does the overwhelming
evidence for design not convince people?
(Jonathan Sarfati, Ph. D. Answers in Genesis Prayer News, Nov. 1998.)
The evidence for the reliability and authenticity of the Creation record as found in Genesis of the Book of the Bible, forms the foundation for the reliability and authenticity for all the Biblical events that follow it. Take for instance the example of the atoning death of Christ, which was to destroy the power of sin, which came about through the disobedience of Adam, as recorded in the Book of Genesis. The whole Redemption Plan presupposes a historical Fall of a historical Adam in a historical Creation setting. Genesis lays the foundation for all the revelation of God's supernatural workings that follow in the rest of the Bible. When we start to doubt the book of Genesis it becomes difficult not to start rejecting other vital doctrines of the Bible.
The non-acceptance by many in the world today, as a result of evolutionary theories, of the Creation Account in Genesis, causes great confusion not only in secular society, but even amongst Christians. Many sections of the Church, in trying to reconcile the so-called "scientific proofs" of evolutionary thought with the Bible, have opted to compromise the clear teachings of Scripture by adopting a "Christianized" view of evolution called "Theistic Evolution." The fact of the matter is that one cannot "marry" evolution with Divine Creation. Either the one is true and the other false.
Because the attack by the enemies of the Bible, on the book of Genesis is very intense, we therefore need to be sure of the true facts pertaining to vital issues such as the Six Days of Creation, The Origin of Man, Sin and the Fall, and Noah and the Flood as recorded in the Book of Genesis.
We must also remember that the Theory of Evolution, is just that, a theory. Very few people realize that the so-called "facts" or "proofs" of evolution have no scientific foundation. Let the evolutionist speak for himself.
WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS SAY.
Professor James Grey in his presidential address to Section D. (Zoology) of the British Association, 1933 stated: "The belief in the spontaneous origin of life is a negation of the very principles of science."
Maurice Maeterlinck, Naturalist, in "The life of the Ant" writes: "Ants are the most abundant in fossil of any animal. Eleven thousand specimens have been examined and, in spite of millions of years, contrary to expectations, ... are as we find them today."
Dr. Austin Clarck, Biologist, Smithsonian Institute, Washington, said: "There are no such things as missing links. Missing links are misinterpretation."
Darwin himself wrote, "The absence of transitional forms between the species, presses hardly on my theory." and "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; this is the most obvious and gravest objection urged against my theory."
J. William Dawson, Geologist, McGill University, once said, "The evolutionist doctrine is itself one of the strangest phenomena of humanity. That, in our day, a system destitute of even a shadow of proof, should be accepted as a philosophy, and this, in spite of our vast and weighty stores of knowledge, is surpassing strange."
Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany, University of Lund, Sweden, after a life study of genetics and fossil record says, "As we look at the main groups of fossil flora, we find that at definite intervals they are, all at once and quite suddenly, there! In full bloom in all their manifold forms. Any change is entirely lacking." and "All my investigations have led to incredible contradictions, on account of which the theory of evolution ought to be entirely abandoned. It is a serious obstruction to biological research."
Dr. Austin Clarck, biologist, Smithsonian Institute, says, "... all the early remains of pre-historic man are distinctly those of man. No animals are known even from the earliest rocks, which cannot at once be assigned to their proper phylum or major group. If we accept the facts, the major groups from the very first bore the same relation to each other as they do at present."
Even Huxley, the hard boiled evolutionist admits, "The only difference between the fossil and the animal of today is that one is older than the other." and "If we confine ourselves to positively ascertained facts, in the animal and vegetable kingdom, there has been little apparent change from their first appearance to the present time."
(All the above quotations are from The Seal of God by F.C. Payne, E.L.E. Trust, 1996. Pages 203 - 206)
The lengths to which some evolutionist will go to try and prove their theory have led to some amazing fabrications in order to fit the "evidence" into their particular "ideas." Take for example the evolutionary chart in many school textbooks depicting the change from apes, to ape-men, to humans. Of these half-ape, half-man creatures, in various stages of upward development towards humans, the following have been found:
In 1922 geologist Cook found a tooth in the Snake Creek bed of Nebraska. Prof. Osborn with the New York museum and Sir Smith of London said it belonged to an ape-man of which a complete reconstruction was made. Later it was proved to be an extinct pig's tooth!
In 1912 Dawson and others found a scull cap, jawbone and teeth in a gravel pit in Sussex, England. From these they constructed an ape-man and named him Piltdown or Dawn Man and dated him at 500 000 years old. In 1953 British scientists discovered that the jaw belonged to a monkey and had been stained to indicate age. The teeth had been filed to look human. They said it was a hoax!
In 1892 a femur, three teeth and part of a scull was found in Java by a man called Dubois. Although these fossils were found about 14 meters apart in the same rock strata with other ordinary human scull, an ape-man was constructed with these fossils. Dubois acknowledged at the end of his life that these fossils were not the remains of an ape-man, but that the scull was that of a giant gibbon monkey.
In 1856 the bones of a skeleton, indicating a stooped posture, was found in Duesseldorf, Germany. He was called Neanderthal Man and was said to be one step up from ape-man. It was later found to be the skeleton of an ordinary person who had severe arthritis!
IS EVOLUTION SCIENTIFIC?
"In the physical sciences where data taking procedures are tried and tested it is easy to uncover bias or inconsistencies. However, in the biological sciences, for example in the area of evolution of the species, personal blindness and deviance from the scientific method has led in recent years to unscientific, unfounded and dubious assertions about the antiquity of man and the development of life. It is always appropriate to ask a scientist what motivates him to believe that man is evolving, improving and mutating towards a perfect super-race, when there is much evidence that the opposite is true. It is a dangerous thing when theories become fixed ..."
(Conquest of Inner Space by Lambert T. Dolphin, Jnr. Good News Publishers, 1969. Page 8)
Sir Arthur Keith said, "Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special Creation." (The Seal of God by F.C. Payne. E.L.E. Trust, 1996. Page 209)
This then is the real issue for evolutionists, "We believe it because the only alternative is special Creation." Therefore, no matter how much evolution is at variance with modern genetic research, it is held forth as "science" not because it is true, but because "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator" (Romans 1:25, NIV).
The theory of evolution is incompatible with true science. Evolution is not so much a matter of "science" as of "faith." Therefore the Bible book of Genesis has become the most derided and disbelieved book in the whole Bible for both atheistic scientists and liberal theologians.
In his book, "Science Speaks," Peter W. Stoner, Chairman of the Departments of Mathematics and Astronomy at Pasadena City College until 1953, Chairman of the Science Division of Westmont College, 1953 - 1957, and now Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, discusses in detail the proper scientific evidence, which is numerous and of a verifiable character, of Divine Creation.
"We have shown that by very recent developments of science (that) Genesis 1 agrees perfectly with all of the sciences concerned. There does not appear to be a contradiction of any magnitude still remaining. There is, however, this extremely strong argument, or proof, for the Bible's truth. Since the Bible is true, as we have proved it to be, the Christian must take his Bible seriously."
(Science Speaks by Peter W. Stoner. Moody Press, 1969. Page 114)
If evolution is based on a very shaky foundation, and we have seen that it is, and the only reasonable alternative is special Creation, then we can with full assurance accept that "In the beginning God created..." (Genesis 1:1) and that He, because He is God, created all things (Colossians 1:16) in six literal days "according to their kinds" as Genesis 1 says.
SIX LITERAL DAYS OF CREATION.
When it comes to determine whether the length of the days of creation were literal "24-hour days" or "lengths of unknown time," we are mostly dependant on the interpretation of the text of the Creation Account as recorded in Genesis chapter one. The Hebrew word "yom" - meaning "day" is used throughout the creation account: "the first day," "the second day," etc. In the more than 1300 occasions in the Bible when the word "yom" is used, it refers to a single day of 24-hours. If the Genesis account of the creation days were referring to long periods of time, a better word in Hebrew would have been "olam," meaning "a long time" or "a long age."
The fact that in the creation account of Genesis 1 the word "yom" is followed by the words "evening and morning," is a clear indication that the context is referring to a literal 24-hour day. This is evidenced by numerous statements through scientific research:
"Again and again it has been proved that new flora and fauna have suddenly appeared in some geological stratum."
(Professor E. Perrier, Earth Before History, Page 75)
"The apparently sudden appearance of well developed flowering plants is still perhaps the greatest difficulty in the record. They seem to burst forth in full panoply and without ancestors."(Dr. D.H. Scott, M.A., Li.D., Evolution of Plants, Page 42)
Darwin, the so-called father of evolutionary thought, in his book on "Evolution of Plants," refer to the sudden unexplainable appearance of flowering plants, together with pollinating insects, wasps and bees, and calls it an "abominable mystery." (Seal of God by F.C. Payne, E.L.E. Trust, 1996. Page 212)
A research letter was sent to professors in nine leading universities, asking the question whether the Hebrew word "yom," as used in Genesis one, means a "day as commonly understood," or a "time period of unknown length?" Except for two of the universities that did not reply, professors at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Toronto, London, McGill, and Minisota all unanimously replied that "yom" means a literal day of 24-hours.
(Creation Magazine, June - August 1994. Imprint, Australia.)
Another objection by those who hold to "long ages" for creation, is how days and nights came about if the sun was "created" onlyon the fourth day according to Genesis 1 verse 14, yet days One, Two and Three are separated by "mornings" and "evenings" (Genesis 1:3 - 13).
Let us take note of the fact that God's first creative act was "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3), and that He "separated the light from the darkness" (Genesis 1:4), and called the light "Day" and the darkness He called "Night" (Genesis 1:5).
G.H. Pember, in his book "Earth's Earliest Ages," makes the following comment regarding the creation of "light" in Genesis 1 verses 3 and 14:
"We must carefully observe that God is not said to have created these light holders (sun, moon and stars) on the Fourth Day, but merely to have made or prepared them. On the Fourth Day He concentrated the light-material, which He had previously created (on Day One), into light-holders. For the word used of the `light' of the First Day is `Or,' and of that of the Fourth Day is `Maor.' And this last is the same as the first, but with a locative prefix (`Ma'), which makes it signify a specific place where light is stored or a light-holder.
They were created, as we have seen, in the beginning: and, since the sun appears to be a dark body enveloped by luminous clouds, it was doubtless around its mass that the earth was revolving from the first."
(Earth's Earliest Ages, G.H. Pember, Kregel Publ., Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1975. P. 68)
All life on earth is dependent on the influx of solar radiant energy.This means that the sun's light or "radiant energy" not only provides all the earth's usable energy, but also maintains the earth's physical and biological life of the earth. The first creative command of God, according to the Genesis record, is thus very significantly: "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3). It is only on the Fourth Day of Creation, that God brings this light to a fixed place in the form of a "light-holder," the sun (Genesis 1:14).
"Cosmic phenomena are so complex and beyond our ken that it would be especially arrogant to assume God couldn't do what He said He did simply because we can't imagine how. Our imaginations are very limited, but God's is not. Even in cosmology, all things are possible with God (Matt. 19:26). Every human theory needs to conform to the knowledge the Word of God gives us."
(Impact # 338, August 2001, Institute for Creation Research, California, D. Russel Humphreys, Ph.d)
THE REAL ISSUE:
If creation took place over long periods of time, evolutionary processes would have to have been at work, moving life from simpler to more complex forms, always improving. This would mean that Adam was not a uniquely created being and that the fall of man into sin has no place on the creation scale. This in turn would make a Savior unnecessary, and the historical atoning death of Christ would be stripped of all its meaning, the Gospels would be fables and the testimony of the disciples of Jesus would all have been lies.
This brings us full circle to the attack on the Person and Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. If Genesis is rejected - no Savior is necessary! No wonder those theologians who have rejected Genesis as a historical account of creation, have come to eventually also reject the Virgin Birth, the Miracles of Jesus, His substitutionary death on the Cross, His Resurrection, His bodily Ascension and His future Physical Return.
A SAD TALE.
Charles Templeton was born in 1915 and as a young man became known as one of the most versatile of evangelists at the mass evangelism campaigns that came on the American scene during the post-depression era in the 1940s. Together with the now famous evangelist, Billy Graham, they became a renowned Gospel - preaching team. In 1946, Charles Templeton was listed by the national Association of Evangelicals as among those "best used by God" (A Prophet with Honor: The Billy Graham Story, by W. Martin. William Morrow & Company, New York, 1991. Page 110.)
In 1948 Charles Templeton started his coursework on a degree at Princeton Theological Seminary. It seems it was here that doubts were sown into his mind concerning the Biblical account of creation. In a conversation with Billy Graham, Templeton stated, "But, Billy, it's simply not possible any longer to believe, for instance, the Biblical account of creation." (Creation Magazine, Volume 22 No. 3. June - August 2000. P. 10).
Rejecting the very foundation of the Bible, namely the Genesis account of creation, he soon started to doubt many of the other Biblical truths and eventually decided to leave the ministry. In 1996, having rejected his Christian faith and the Bible as the Word of God, he wrote the book "Farewell to God," listing most of his reasons for rejecting the Christian faith his non-acceptance of the accuracy of the book of Genesis.
"I believe that there is no supreme being with human attributes - no God in the Biblical sense-but that all life is the result of timeless evolutionary forces ... over millions of years. I believe that, in common with all living creatures, we die and cease to exist as an entity."
(Farewell to God by C. Templeton. McClelland & Stewart Inc. Toronto, Canada, 1996. Pages 232 and 233).
God's answer to Charles Templeton: "The fool says inhis heart there is no God." (Psalm 53:1. NIV) and "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows" (Galatians 6:7 NIV).
The tragic end result of this story is recorded in Creation Magazine, Volume 22 Number 4 of September - November 2000 on page 49:
"Canadian pastor, Dave Hensman, told us that when he first read Templeton's book, he had `mixed feelingsof anger and compassion for him.' He tracked down Templeton's phone number and rang him. `I had the chance to speak with his wife,' he wrote, `only to learn that he now has the awful disease of Alzheimer's. She said he feels forgotten and alone. ... you can't help but feel pity on a man who wasted his call, and gave up the revelation of God for the passing wisdom of this age.'"
WHAT ABOUT THE FLOOD?
The Biblical account of the flood is another of those controversial subjects, not only among evolutionists, but also among Believers. Did the flood really happen? Was it only a local flood? Is there scientific and geographical evidence for a worldwide flood?
In the first place we should ask whether such an event as a global flood ever took place in the earth's history? In Genesis chapter 6 God reveals to a man called Noah that He was going to destroy, because of the wickedness of man, the world by a great flood:
"I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish."
(Genesis 6:17 NIV)
In the ancient legends of hundreds of different cultures there are stories of a world-wide flood remarkably similar in detail to the biblical flood as recorded in Genesis. The Aztecs of Mexico tells of a world-wide deluge where only a man called Coxcox and a woman named Xochiquetzal was saved in a little bark after landing on a mountain called Colhuacan.
A Chinese 4,320-volume collection called the "Book of all knowledge," tells of how the rivers swelled "till the waters reached the sky, and all living beings perished except two, a brother and a sister, who were saved in a huge chest. They took with them into the chest a pair of every sort of animal..."
In the ancient writings of the Incas of Peru the following tradition of a flood is found: "They said that the water rose above the highest mountains in the world, so that all people and all created things perished. No living thing escaped except a man and a woman, who floated in a box on the face of the waters and so were saved."
(Folklore in the Old testaments: Studies in Comparative Religion, Legend and Law by J.G. Frazer, Avenel Books, New York, 1988. Page 107, 82, 105,106)
From Iraq, tablets of ancient Mesopotamian myths were excavated, telling of an ancient king called Gilgamesh, relating the story of a world-wide flood, as told to him by Utnapishtim, a king of a pre-flood civilization who was a survivor of the flood. The story relates how the gods planned to exterminate mankind but told Utnapishtim to build a boat wherein he had to take the seed of all living creatures. After the storm had subsided, Utnapishtim "looked at the face of the world and there was silence, all mankind was returned to clay. The surface of the sea stretched flat as a roof-top ... on every side was the waste of water." The story continues with Utnapishtim first sending out a dove and then a swallow, who both returned without finding a resting place. Later he sent out a raven, which did not return and eventually the boat came to rest on a mountain top where he offered a sacrifice.
(The Epic of Gilgamesh by N.K. Sanders, Penguin Classics, London, 1972. Pages 108 - 113)
There are several flood stories among the North American Indians. The Choctaw Indians tell of a prophet who warned the people that the Great Spirit was going to destroy them with a flood because of their corruption. Under the direction of the Great Spirit he built a raft from sassafras logs. After many weeks the prophet was guided to an island by a small bird, which the Great Spirit changed into a woman whom the prophet married. The world was then repopulated by their children.
(Ancient Choctaw Legend of the Great Flood by W.B. Morrison.<www.isd.net/mboucher/choctaw/flood1.htm>Sept 8, 2000)
An Egyptian story tells how an ancient creation god, called Tem, brought a world-wide flood over the earth which destroyed all of mankind except those in Tem's boat.
(Encyclopedia of World Mythology and Legend by A.S. Mercatante, Child & Associates Publishing, NSW, 1988. Page 613)
Many of these stories have elements that are mythical and cultural in their application and telling, but they are all consistent in their telling of a global catastrophe where the world perished through a flood. The Biblical account of the Genesis flood, on the other hand, does not have the element of myth and is recorded as a historical event with verifiable details concerning the naming of people, places and time.
Secondly, the language of the Bible is clear concerning the fact that the Genesis flood was global. The witness of the Biblical record in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament is for an all encompassing, world-wide flood. Words such as " ... to destroy all life ... every creature ... Everything on earth" (Genesis 6:17), "All the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered" (Genesis 7:19), "Every living thing that moved on the earth perished ... and all mankind" (Genesis 7:21), "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out" (Genesis 7:23), "... the waters stood above the mountains ..." (Psalm 104:6), "By water also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed" (2 Peter 3:6). Jesus also referred to the flood in Matthew 24:37-42 and in Luke 17:26-27.
It is obvious, because of gravity, that if only one mountain was covered for only a few days, the flood waters, in order to maintain such a depth, would have to reach a similar depth everywhere else. The Biblical record is that the waters prevailed more than 20 feet above the highest mountains (Genesis 7:20), for 150 days (Genesis 7:24). This would necessitate that the waters would find the same level across the globe.
Another argument as evidence for a global flood, is the fact that God commanded Noah to build the Ark which would preserve him, his family and a number of animals, birds and other creatures, for the purpose of repopulating the earth after the flood. If the deluge was only to be a local flood, the whole procedure of constructing such an immense vessel, involving over a 100 years of building, simply to escape a local flood, seems not only foolish but utterly unnecessary. How much easier it would have been to simply warn Noah and his family to move to an area which would not be affected by the flood. The great number of birds and animals could also have migrated away from the flood area. In the light of the detailed description and precautionary measures of the Ark to preserve both man and beast, a local-flood theory is entirely ridiculous.
God also promised three times never again to destroy every living thing through floodwaters (Genesis 8:21; 9:11,15). This promise can only apply to a global flood for there has been many devastating floods in different places in our world. If the Genesis flood was only a local flood, God has since broken His word every time there is a local flood.
The question, "But where did all the water come from?" can rightly be asked. It seems that the pre-flood world was different from the world that we see today. In the creation account of Genesis we read:
"And God said, `Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it."
(Genesis 1:6-7 NIV)
The pre-flood earth was different in the sense that it was surrounded by a water canopy above the atmosphere. Dr. Henry Morris describes this phenomena as follows:
"In order for these upper waters to be maintained aloft by the gases of the lower atmosphere and also for it to be transparent to the light of the sun, moon and stars (Genesis 1:14-16), the canopy must have been in the form of a vast blanket of water vapor, extending far out into space, invisible and yet exerting a profound influence on terrestrial climates and living conditions. It would have insured a worldwide warm, mild climate ... (and) would have inhibited the great air circulational patterns which characterize the present world... There could have been no rain in the form with which we are familiar, and this is exactly the testimony of Scripture (Genesis 2:5-6). But there was a system of rivers and seas (Genesis 1:10; 2:10-14), ... as well as low-lying vapors that were daily evaporated and recondensed (Genesis 2:6).
The vapor canopy also would have served as a highly effective shield against the many powerful and harmful radiations that surround the earth, and which are now only partially filtered by our present atmosphere ... known to be the cause of many physical damages to man's genetic system, ... It is quite possible that the water blanket was one major factor contributing to human longevity in those early days."
(Studies in the Bible and Science by Henry M. Morris, M.S., Ph.D., and B.S. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1966. Page 80)
When God sent the flood, this water canopy probably collapsed and the waters under the crust of the earth, under this pressure, burst open (Genesis 7:11).
"The `great deep,' evidently vast storehouses of the waters under the firmament confined in the seas and under pressure beneath the surface rocks of the earth's crust, also issued forth, as `all the fountains of the great deep were broken up' (Genesis 7:11). This latter upheaval must have been followed by the eruption of subterranean magmas, and these by great earthquakes, and these in turn by tremendous tidal waves in the seas.
Destruction beyond imagination must have been wrought on the antediluvian earth!"
(Ibid. Page 81)
The sudden collapse of this water canopy would also bring about tremendous atmospheric changes. In Siberia they have discovered fully preserved mammoths that were so suddenly frozen that "undigested plants remained in their mouths and in their stomach's digestive juices. Giant nine-ton mammoths have been discovered with undigested buttercups in their mouths and in their stomachs which are still identifiable as to genus and species of the plant."
(The Evolution of a Creationist by Jobe Martin, D.M.D., Th.M. Biblical Discipleship Publishers, Rockwall, Texas. 1994. Page 144)
"To preserve the meat and undigested plants, drastic conditions not known on our present earth would have been necessary for the quick-freeze. The freezing of these ancient plants and animals was not caused by a slowly creeping ice age. ... The mammoths were warm-temperature animals, eating warm-temperature plants in a warm-temperature climate that suddenly, in a matter of hours, became permanently frozen. ... Mammoth skin has been dissected and, to the surprise of evolutionists, it contains no sebaceous (oil) glands. ... Cold temperature animals need a lot of oil to protect them from the wet cold. A mammoth could not last very long in a frigid climate without oil in its hair. It was a warm-temperature animal, eating warm temperature plants, that was caught suddenly and frozen quickly and permanently in the distant past. ... A slowly creeping ice age is not a sufficient explanation for the quick-frozen animals - but a cataclysm such as would have resulted with the collapse of the (water) canopy at the flood of Noah's day provides the answer and the evidence."
(Ibid. Page 145 - 146)
Other physical phenomena found in abundance all over the world today, like the formation of ocean basins, horizontally stratified layers, and fossilization of whole animals and plants, are much better explained as the result of a global flood.
"Three-quarters of the earth's surface is covered with rocks that were formed by water (called sedimentary rocks). There is a lot of evidence that they were formed quickly. Sometimes, fossil tree trunks up to 15 meters (45 feet) tall are found standing upright, surrounded by rock. If the rocks had taken thousands or millions of years to form around those trees, the trees would have rotted away long before they could be buried. Recently, geologists on the North Sea Coast of England have discovered that soft mud has only taken a few years to turn into hard rock.
There are lots of fossil graveyards around the world, where many different creatures, including dinosaurs, have been preserved in rock. Normally, when an animal dies it quickly rots away, and does not become a fossil. So all the million of animals in those fossil graveyards had to be buried fast, or they would not be there in the rocks now. The Bible tells us of a world-wide flood which killed all the air-breathing creatures that were not on Noah's Ark. This flood would have dumped lots of mud and sand and buried millions of creatures, including sea creatures, so most of the fossil graveyards are probably the result of that great Flood, which was God's judgment on a wicked world. "
(Creation Magazine. Volume 18 No. 2. March - May 1996. Page 29)
If there was a world-wide flood, and the geological evidence presumes that there was, where did all the water go after the flood?
"Uplift of continents and mountains, and deepening of ocean basins in the closing stages of the Flood, help to explain that the water which temporarily covered the whole earth (after mostly coming from subterranean sources - the `fountains of the great deep') is now in the oceans. ... If the surface features of the earth were totally flattened out, water would cover the globe to a depth of 2.7km (1.7 miles). That is still much less than the height of Mt. Everest (some 8km [5 miles]) and other Himalayan mountains. However, the flood waters did not have to be this deep in order to cover `all the high hills that were under the whole heaven' of the pre-Flood earth (Genesis 7:19). The Himalayas show clear evidence of having been pushed up after layers of fossil-bearing Flood sediments had been deposited. Thus the `high hills' (mountains) before the Flood were different from those we see today, and were probably not much higher than 2km (1.3 miles). Much of this pre-Flood mountainous mass may have been eroded away during that year-long cataclysm."
(Creation Magazine. Vol. 22 No. 2 March - May 2000. Page 21)
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?
The earth does look old. But how old is old? Something that is a thousand years old can look very old! As far as the age of the earth is concerned, scientific evidence seems to indicate that the earth is between 6000 and 10 000 years old. The millions of years for the age of the earth is not scientifically feasible but is rather the result of theories so that the necessary time-scales for evolutionary processes can be accommodated. Dr. Monty White, a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry in Britain, states that:
"... evidence that the earth is relatively young comes from the fact that short-period comets are found in our solar system. The head of a comet can be thought of as a huge dirty snowball, and as it nears the sun it grows a tail as particles are blown off its icy head by emissions from the sun, As a result, a comet is continually undergoing disintegration and eventually it will disintegrate to a point where it will cease to exist. The time it takes for a comet to make a complete revolution of the sun is called a period. Short-period comets orbit the sun in less than 150 years, in contrast to long-period ones that may take many thousands of years. Because of the continual disintegration of the short-period comets, the British astronomer R.A. Lyttleton has concluded that `Probably no short-period comet can survive more than about 10 000 years' (Mysteries of the solar system, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1968, p. 110).
Now since short-period comets and all the planets orbit the sun together as part of one system, astronomers logically conclude that all these parts are of the same age. Because short-period comets are short-lived (i.e. less than 10 000 years) and because there are short-period comets in the solar system (e.g. Halley's comet) then the only logical conclusion is that the solar system, and hence the earth, is less than 10 000 years old"
(Why I believe in Creation by Dr. A.J. Monty White, B.Sc., Ph.D., Evangelical Press, Great Britain, 1994. Page 20)
Scientists have discovered that the strength of the magnetic field around the earth is decaying at a certain rate. Working backwards they have found that only 8 000 years ago the earth's magnetic field strength would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a most unlikely occurrence.
Scientists have also discovered that the earth is being showered with thousands of tons of meteoritic dust each year. Taking the amount of nickel in the oceans and using the rate at which nickel is being added to the water from this meteoritic dust, the amounts deposited indicates only several thousand years. The earth's moon is also showered with the same meteoritic dust. When Armstrong stepped onto the moon his boot imprint was only about 2cm. deep, indicating an age of only several thousand years for the moon. The small amount of helium in the atmosphere, which is formed during radio-active alpha decay in rock minerals, also indicate that the earth is still relatively young.
The idea that coal takes millions of years to form has also been disproved: "Argon National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150 degrees Celsius (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quarts tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal." (Creation Magazine, Volume 23 No. 1, December 2000 - Febr. 2001, Page 10).
In an article called "Evidence for a Young Earth," the scientist Dr, Jonothan Sarfati, B.Sc. (Hons.), Ph.D., F.M., says that "The salinity of the oceans is strong evidence that they, and the earth itself, are far younger than the billion of years required for evolution, and is consistent with the biblical age of about 6 000 years." (Creation Magazine, Volume 21, No. 1, Dec. 1998 - Febr. 1999, page 17).
What about radioactive dating methods? Don't they prove that things are billions of years old? The unreliability of these dating methods cannot be used as proof for scientific ages. The Creation Research Society Journal of June 1970 tells of an experiment where a living mollusk was tested by the carbon-14 dating method and "found" to be dead for 3 000 years!
Dr. Sylvia Baker, a biology graduate of the University of Sussex, states that there are many valid and crucial objections to the reliability of the carbon-14 dating method to determine ages for fossils and that "evolutionists have no really reliable method of dating fossils" (Bone of Contention by S. Baker, Evangelical Press, Great Britain, 1976, Page 27).
Dr. Carl Wieland says that "most radioactive dating laboratories prefer you to tell them what age you expect" (Creation Magazine, Vol. 23, No. 1, Dec. 2000 - Febr. 2001, Page 13). An excellent book on this subject is "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods by John Woodmorappe.
According to the United Nations the world population in 1976 was 4 500 million. Dr. Sylvia Baker says that this figure is not consistent with the view that man has existed for millions of years but that it would only require about 5 000 years for this figure to be reached.
There are many more scientific evidence, which any honest student can seek and find in creationist books and journals, that gives irrefutable proofs that the earth is only thousands of years old, and not millions or billions, as evolutionists would have us believe.
I have in no way tried to give an answer to all of the evolutionary arguments and statements, but I trust that what I have shared will be sufficient to make even the most hardened critic reevaluate his view of the Bible, Creation and the existence of a Creator God, and that our existence here and now, and into all eternity, only makes sense when we accept that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).