Abortion

Criteria for Life
Abortion is a tricky subject to argue about, because people who have no problem with it often can twist words to meet their agenda, For example, They can say a fetus is only alive when it can survive on it's own outside the womb. Anyone who has taken a basic Biology course should know the four criteria of life to be, 1: The organism must contain DNA. 2: The organism must be able to sense changes in its Internal or External Enviroment and respond to those changes. 3: The organism must have a system of breaking down proteins to create energy. 4: The organism must be able to reproduce. These criterion say nothing about surviving outside of the womb. Are fish any less alive because they can't survive outside of water? Or are We any less alive because we can't survive without Oxygen to breathe?

Self-Centered Culture
The basic problem, however, has less to do with their logic about what constitutes life, and more to do with their attitude towards life itself. We live in a culture that is often times very self-centered. The people who advocate abortion think that it is more important for people to satisfy their own selfish desires than to sacrifice their lives for the sake of others, like Jesus did. The fundamental problem is that a lot of people in our society choose to turn away from God, who is the source of Love, and seek their own pleasure and their own will instead of His. This was what Adam did in the garden, and it's what you and I do every time that we sin. When a whole culture turns its back on God and seeks its own selfish desires, it starts to do things like promote abortion. Our culture thinks that it is OK for a woman to kill her child if the woman thinks that it will make her life easier.

Ancient Man

Where Did Cavemen Originate?
Cavemen have been the ever popular target of scientists, (not to mention cartoonists and advertisers) for decades. The Idea of simpleminded, brutish, cave dwellers, (who wield wooden clubs, grunt constantly and pick insects out of each other’s dreads) is so popular that I doubt many people even consider how we got such an idea of ancient mankind. Cavemen did exist, but the idea that they, and other ancient civilizations were anything less than fully human is a deception spread by evolutionists.

Archeology
When archeologists dig down and find an ancient city, they expect it to be simpler than modern cities. And when they find a city below this ancient city, they expect it to be even simpler, (following me Ok?). But as archeologists discover more and more of humanity’s past, they are discovering that this is often not the case. The ancient Mayans were masters of astronomy and mathematics. They had the solar year calculated to be 365.2420 days long. Only just recently have we discovered it to be .0002 days longer than this. In Mesopotamia, a ceramic jar, dating back to 2500 B.C. contained a device that, when filled with grape juice, produced an electric current of 1.5 volts. The ancient Phoenicians visited West Virginia, and left inscriptions on giant stones, as far back as 3000 years ago. Stonehenge, the Pyramids, the Great Wall of China, evolutionists call these findings “mysteries”. But are they? You see, if we are to believe that Mankind has evolved, we should see a gradual increase in technology in all of earth’s cultures, throughout the years. This is because man’s achievements would have always been limited by his mental capacity. But the only way to explain the mysteries of archeology is to admit that man was not limited by his mental capacity at any point in known history.

Limitations of Advancement
Obviously not all cultures were equally advanced, but this is not because of mental limitations, but factors such as quality of life, the availability of food and water, natural resources, perverted religion, and the population of people pursuing advancement, have been shown to keep innovations in a standstill. Take for instance, the middle ages. During the middle ages, quality of life was at rock bottom. People were more concerned with staying alive than inventing the electric toaster. Also, corrupt religious officials kept Galileo from his research. And the scarcities of food and water in some regions of Africa have (kept tribesmen, who have the potential to be just as drop dead brilliant as me, I’m joking of course) from advancing to higher technology for hundreds of years. What about the cultures that did succeed in advancing to amassing heights? One word, extinction. Like the Romans, (who by the end of their empire, had paved roads, international mail, and advanced government) other empires disappeared, and their inventions with them.

The Modern Technology Boom
So what about today? Does the 21st century mess this idea up? Japan is already developing the 4th generation of cell phones, and computers that used to take up an entire room can now fit into your pocket. Believe it or not, I believe that all this, (and more) could have been achieved by mankind in the first hundred years after creation. We have no reason to believe that it did, but it could have. The reason technology has blown through the roof in present times is because of global communication. It weren’t for global communication mankind would not have been able to work together and share ideas. And because of global communication, extinction is no longer a problem, (unless all humans die simultaneously, which I think we would all agree, would be a problem). In the end, there is no historical evidence of any mental evolution of the human race. Even in the days when people lived in caves, mankind was created in the image of God, and shows every evidence of being just as intelligent as modern man.

Evolution: Winning a Defensive Battle

Things have Changed...
Evolution has changed through the years. Back in Darwin’s time, it was thought that macro evolution took place far too slowly to actually see it happen. Darwin originally thought that the little changes we see happening in micro evolution could slowly build up, and over time, cause macro evolution. Unfortunately, this would mean that intermediate links between species would have existed for generations before they were fully evolved into one of the species we see today. Darwin assumed that as people began to dig for fossils, they would find tons of these “links”. Read the words of Dr David Raup, an expert on the fossil record. “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded… ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in north America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.” This lack of intermediate links has driven scientists to create new scenarios.

Neo-Darwinism
The first evolutionary spin-off was Neo-Darwinism. Since we now know that there are limitations on how much change micro evolution can cause to a creature, (see “Micro Evolution Vs. Marco Evolution”), evolutionists had to think up a way for creatures to evolve that had no limitations. Their answer was mutation. The primary assumption in Neo-Darwinism is that mutations can increase the amount of information on a DNA strand, resulting in more complicated species. Although we have never seen this happen, Neo-Darwinists insist that, if given enough time, these increases in information would happen. Since we know that mutations often result in dramatic changes between parent and offspring, neo-Darwinists also believed that their explanation allowed for less intermediate links.

Punctuated equilibrium
The latest theory is really just a new version of neo-Darwinism. It is called Punctuated Equilibrium. As more and more research is done, evolutionists have to deal with the ever growing problem of “missing links”. So few have been found that evolutionists now believe that there is no need to find intermediate links to support their ideas. Instead, there were supposedly periods of time when toxic chemicals and radiation caused massive amounts of mutation. Then, when the radiation and chemicals subsided, whatever creatures were lucky enough to survive with beneficial mutations would live for millions of years without any serious change. Eventually this process would repeat itself, and leave no trace of the evolution that occurred. The problem is that this idea still depends on the fact that mutations can change a creature in a beneficial way, (which is impossible, especially when caused by toxic chemicals and radiation). However, most people accept that it explains the lack of intermediate links in the fossil record.

Excuses, Excuses!
It seems like evolutionists are not able to go out and find evidence to support their ideas, instead, they go out and find evidence that contradicts their ideas, so they continue to modify them. But, if macro evolution has become so void of factual evidence that scientists have to cook up wild stories to try and explain away the lack of evidence, why is it given so much credibility in the scientific community? Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory conceived out of a total lack of evidence, that’s all it has going for it! If there is a lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record, then wouldn’t it be logical to think that maybe evolution didn’t happen? But most scientists won’t recognize this possibility. Science is the pursuit of knowledge, and if our researchers are dismissing knowledge in order to hang onto a 200 year old hypothesis, then they can no longer be called scientists, and cannot be considered credible.

DNA

The Explanation At Last
I have noticed, in some of our posts, that DNA has been mentioned in connection with evolution, (or against it,) but hasn't been properly explained yet. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) is a nucleic acid found in the cells of all living organisms and some viruses. This Nucleic acid acts as a storage device containing the codes to life, or the amino acids to create life with. DNA is composed of strings made of sugars and phosphates wrapped around each other with 'rungs' of units called nucleotides, creating a shape known as a double helix. The double helix runs in long strands wrapped tightly around itself in a linear unit called a chromosome. There are four different types of nucleotides, Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine, and Thymine. These are grouped into two sets, Adenine and Guanine, and Cytosine and Thymine. Thes are the only possible pairs of nucleotides. So Adenine can't pair with Thymine, and Cytosine doesn't mathc up with Guanine. These pairs then are arranged in various orders determining your eye, hair, or skin color. When somthing evolves, it's a mutation in the DNA itself that causes the creature to have different characteristics. Mutations can be caused by ultraviolet light, radiation, some viruses, or by the organism itself in cellular process such as hyper mutation. I won't go into those processes now, but it is an incredibly complex subject that I will post about later. I have barely scratched the surface here, but you can already see DNA is too complex to have been created by random chance. The first cell created by random chance would have to create its own DNA and proteins, get the cellular sturcture built, and it would have to get it right the first time. If it got it wrong the cell would quickly die. If there is no creator, nobody cna see it die and say something like, "Will maybe if I build it this way it will work better." And these cells can't evolve and make themselves better because they die before the second generation can even be born. Evolutionist say it takes millions of years for something to evolve, not two generations. This is all proof that life was carefully designed and created just a carefully.

Laws That Defy Evolution

Prepare to Defend Your Faith!
Evolution is often thought to be beyond question, and many believe it to be a scientific fact that evolution did produce all life on earth. It might surprise you know that there are multiple scientific laws that fly in the face of macro evolution. As you defend your faith, it will be helpful to know these laws, and to explain them to the opposition. Because in order to be a viable theory, evolution should be consistent with well established laws, and as you will read in this post, it is not.

Biogenesis
In the middle ages, scientists observed that rats and flies were found in the greatest intensity around piles of decaying garbage. Given this fact, they proposed that garbage produced rats and flies! This idea was taken for a fact for hundreds of years. You may have heard of it, its called Spontaneous Generation. Eventually a man named Louis Pasteur rid science of this idiocy, and the Law of Biogenesis was formed. This law says that life only comes from life. Nowhere in known history has this law been broken, which makes sense, considering the complexity of even a single cell. With Macro Evolution, we have regressed back to the middle ages. Only what once was a pile of garbage is now a warm pond, or volcanic vents at the bottom of the sea. The problem is that even in ideal conditions, the odds of forming a single protein, (one of hundreds necessary to life), are so ridiculous, they could never happen given hundreds of trillions of years, let alone a wimpy 6 billion! There is no scientific appeal to Spontaneous Generation beyond the desire to remove God from science, and society.

The First Law of Thermodynamics
It is a proven fact that in any isolated system, energy cannot be created, or destroyed. Imagine a marble rolling up and down the sides of a bowl. At the top of the bowl the marble possesses a certain amount of potential energy, (or potential motion). Gravity acts on the marble and causes it to roll down the side of the bowl. At this point, the marble is losing its potential energy, and gaining kinetic energy, (energy in motion). But once the ball starts rolling up the opposite side of the bowl, it starts losing its speed, (kinetic energy) and gaining potential energy for its next run. Now, you may have caught a problem with this picture. Anyone knows that a marble rolling around in a bowl will eventually stop. This, however, does not mean that energy has been lost. Instead, friction between both the marble and the bowl, and the marble and the air, has taken the marble’s energy and transformed it into heat. So, in the First Law of Thermodynamics, we see that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only change form. So, contrary to evolution, the universe could not have been created by a natural process. We know that time, and energy, and matter could not have existed forever, and we also know that natural processes, (like the big bang) cannot create these things, so we are left with one option; to recognize God as the creator of our universe.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics
As I mentioned above, the energy in any system is never created or destroyed, but changes form. It turns out that there is a trend in the way that energy changes form. And this is addressed by our next law. The Second law of thermodynamics says that all potential energy in the universe is slowly changing into non-recoverable, heat energy. So, although we are not losing energy, the useful energy we have is changing into useless heat by processes like friction, and nuclear fusion. Think about it this way. Our petroleum deposits, (which have the potential to cause kinetic energy) are rapidly diminishing, and as we burn this fuel, our engines produce heat, and motion. Even the motion our cars produce is eventually stopped by friction, and this friction produces heat. This heat radiates into space, and is useless. This poses a huge threat to macro evolution’s timeline. Because the older the universe becomes, the more useless heat energy it accumulates, and the less useful energy, (like fuels, or motion) it has left. Our universe shows very little useless energy, and fuel, and motion everywhere. This proves that the universe had a beginning, and shows that that beginning was too recent to defeat the odds of Spontaneous Generation.

They Point to a Creator
As I look back on this post, it becomes apparent how interconnected these laws are. If Macro Evolution were viable, it would be just as interconnected with other corresponding laws. Instead, our scientific laws show how ridiculous the hypothesis of Macro Evolution is, and they point unquestionably, to a supernatural creator.

Micro Vs. Macro Evolution

Totally Different Things
There are two different types of evolution, one is micro evolution, the other, macro evolution. They both rely on the fact that creatures have the ability to change. This change can hinder them, or help them become better suited for their environment. The main difference between the two types of evolution is the way that the change takes place, and the amount of change that is able to take place.

Micro Evolution
According to this theory, changes are caused by existing DNA being combined in different ways as a result of cross breeding. This allows plants and animals to adapt each generation to fit their environment as it changes. Of course, these changes are limited, although creatures are able to develop certain characteristics, they will never have the information in their DNA to turn into a different type of creature. The offspring of two dogs will always be a dog since there was no information contributed concerning another creature. The few, and not so common, changes that are not pre-programed into the DNA of a creature are mutations, there have never been any that have caused a gain of information.

Macro Evolution
This hypothesis relies on beneficial mutations, which, over time change a creature into a more advanced type of creature. Although there are examples of mutations, they have never caused a increase in information, and without more complicated genes, a creature would never evolve into a more complicated animal. Instead, almost all mutations, (with the exception of frame shifts) cause a loss of information, any significant losses are almost always deadly. One of my favorite books sums up mutations perfectly. It shows a cartoon of a man, sitting back in his arm chair, chucking rocks at his TV and saying something like, “maybe this next rock will mutate this analog TV into a wide-screen, HD TV”. We all know how ridiculous this is. But if you think a TV is a delicate, complex piece of equipment, try studying the DNA for a day or so. What are the usual outcomes of mutations? Experiments done on fruit flies exposed to radiation over the course of many generations have yielded fruit flies with wrinkled wings, no wings, blind eyes, and other hindrances that would work against natural selection. Out of all the fruit flies, not one was found with a mutation that made it more fit to survive in any way, or make it classified as a different species.

My Conspiracy Theory
Many people get confused over the two different types of evolution. Evolution scientists often take advantage of people because of this. They will find an excellent example of micro evolution, and then tell you that it is the type of evolution that could over time transform a creature into a different type of creature. The truth is, It's not! Micro evolution is outward change; it never produces new DNA, it just combines DNA in different ways. Macro evolution is upward change; it depends on mutations having the ability to produce new, and better DNA. But no matter how far outward you go, you will never go up. in fact, the only vertical change that has been proven to happen is downward change, because mutations can cause a loss of information. We see this in dog breeding, we now have dogs like the poodle who are so different, they are virtually a different type of animal all together. this is not evidence for macro evolution, but rather against it, the poodle has lost information through destructive mutations throughout its genealogy that have rendered it less able to survive, (I knew there was something wrong with those animals). The funny thing is, scientists should know all this stuff. why would they then tell us that we are observing small amounts of macro evolution when they know we are only observing micro evolution? Its because they are pushing an agenda; that science can explain everything without the need of supernatural intervention. And these agendas are what make scientists overlook the problems in their theory, and make evolution into a "blind faith" oriented religion.

Intelligent Design in Schools

Don’t Get the Wrong Impression
Most people are under the impression that Intelligent design is nothing more than Christianity under a new name. And everyone knows that Christianity is no more than a delusional religion about God, for emotionally crippled people who would rather feel good, than get real and be rational. With this perspective it is no wonder intelligent design is not allowed in schools. Why would people want to harm their children’s intellect over some irrational belief in God? People tend to get rather defensive when people like me talk about intelligent design in schools, but what I want to do is clarify exactly what intelligent design is, and how I want it taught in schools.

Presuppositions
Intelligent design is not a religion, it is a scientific hypothesis. The reason most people associate it with religion is because, in order to be valid, me must assume that God exists. But is it not equally religious to assume that God does not exist? The point is, both Intelligent Design, and Macro Evolution are based on presuppositions. But this alone does not make either of them less credible. Every day, we must assume, for instance, that matter exists, and that what we see is not a delusion. We must presuppose that language and numbers are adequate to explain our universe. And we must also presuppose whether or not the existence of God is possible. Both presuppositions are equally viable by themselves. You cannot prove if God exists, or does not exist. What we can do however, is see which presupposition seems to fit the scientific evidence the best. For instance, although we cannot prove that matter exists, we can observe the consistency of physical laws, and can realize that the best explanation for this consistency is not illusions, but physical substance, governed by mathematical laws. In the same way, intelligent design is a theory that starts with the presupposition that God could exist. If you observe the universe with an open mind, I think you will find that this is the most reasonable presupposition.

Observation
As you already know, the hypothesis of intelligent design starts with a presupposition. The next step is observation, and our primary observation is the complexity of the universe. I don’t have time to go into detail about the hundreds of complex things that make up our universe. Life for instance, is so complex that we cannot even begin to understand the complex chemical reactions and processes that make it work. But the point is, these things are so complex, that we must find some way to explain this complexity. Our second observation are the geological features that indicate a huge catastrophic event. And a third observation would be the Age of the earth, (which 80% of tests show to be under 10,000 years). The most popular Hypothesis is that macro evolution caused the complexity by a roundabout way involving very gradual change and natural processes. But in forming our hypothesis we take into account that macro evolution has failed in its attempt to explain the universe. And that leads us to the third step, hypothesis.

Hypothesis
Our scientific hypothesis is that a supernatural force intervened with nature, and caused the complexity and organization we see in the universe today. Also, we believe that a worldwide flood caused the geological formations that we observe. This explains the complexity and beauty of our universe, as well as why the earth tests to be young, while showing geological features that would take millions of years to form normally. In fact, my personal hypothesis, as well as many other creationists, and because these events fit so perfectly with the Bible, is that the Biblical creation story, as well as the flood story, and all other stories, are legitimate, and should be taken seriously, just like any other history book. So the next step is to ask the question, “is there any evidence to support this idea”. Since both the creation event, and the flood cannot be repeated, we must rely on a method in which we predict what evidence these events would leave behind, and then go out, and see if the evidence is there.
Theory
I don’t have nearly enough time to go into all the predictions that intelligent design makes, or explain all the ways that the evidence supports these predictions. That is a topic for another post. The reality is, there is no evidence out there that can’t be explained with Intelligent Design, and in fact, a huge amount of evidence supports it. And an even larger amount of evidence shows that macro evolution is so close to impossible, that it is not even worth consideration. Once again, the rest of the posts on this blog will discuss this in greater detail. Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory, but it is questionable whether or not macro evolution still is. Science has changed so much from when Darwin visited the Galapagos Islands, and his theory is simply being torn apart. So why is Intelligent Design treated with such scorn in the scientific community? I think it’s because in our present culture, most people have the presupposition that God does not exist, and there is a bad “blind faith” stereotype for people who think God does exist. If you get rid of the stereotype, and give the existence of God a chance in your mind, Intelligent Design suddenly makes sense. But because most scientists are stuck with the idea that so called, “religion” is not for scientists, they don’t give it a chance. And of course, the general public believes whatever scientists say without question.

What is Being Taught?
Today students are taught macro evolution as if it were fact. When students question evolution they are often ridiculed by classmates and teachers alike. Here’s the story of a 4th grader who stood up under this persecution. “Apparently at lunch some of the kids started trying to make him believe evolution (note that this is a 4th grade class) by teasing him about believing creation. His science teacher also joined in this by trying to “prove” evolution and by e-mailing some random biology professor to tell him this. From what I gathered, the teacher at one point told him that, from all the information she had provided him, he “has to believe” evolution. Now for the good news: The kid stood strong on the Word of God. He didn’t compromise and didn’t flinch under the persecution.” This kid was obviously too young to be able to defend his position. This is an example of a teacher taking advantage of a student by superior knowledge and vocabulary. In these situations, students are forced to believe what their teachers tell them unquestioningly. Evolutionary textbooks are full of out of date information, and often go just deep enough into subjects to make them seem like evidence for evolution without discussing the glaring problems with the hypothesis. One example would be the chart that shows horse evolution. this chart arranges the horses from smallest to largest, but bypasses the fact that the horses are found together in the same rock strata, and show no indications of gradual change except in size.What

Should Be Taught?
Intelligent design is more than valid enough to be taught in schools. I have no problem with macro evolution being taught in schools. But it should be taught as the failing theory it is, not like a law. I think it should be taught alongside creation as the naturalistic hypothesis Vs. the supernatural hypothesis, that way students can compare the two side by side, and see which one is really backed by the evidence. Teachers and curriculums should not take sides like they do now, and should recognize the scientific validity of intelligent design. Another problem that needs to be corrected is the out of date, or false information found in text books. I don’t want to teach “religion” in a public school, all I want is for a scientific theory, (and one that I believe is more valid than the evolutionary theory), to be studied in schools as at least an equal to evolution. Ultimately, if schools would give intelligent design a thought, I think everyone would see how well it fits the evidence, and how science makes so much more sense when it’s put into perspective with a supernatural creator. Until our schools allow both theories to be taught honestly for what they are, we are actually violating the true meaning of the first amendment. By this I mean that the state is endorsing one religious idea, (that God does not exist) while preventing discussion of Intelligent Design, (which is no more religious than macro evolution) in schools, by supporting, or denying the validity of the theory that is based on its respective faith assumption. The purpose of the first amendment was never meant to keep “faith assumptions”, (or what is more commonly called religion, or church) out of the government, it was designed to keep the government from controlling, or endorsing one over another. And this is exactly what I see happening all over America.

Genetics

False Claims
Genetics is perhaps the field with the closest tie to evolutionary science. In Darwin’s time, scientists had no idea what DNA was, or how traits were passed down from parent to offspring. Darwin called this phenomenon, “inheritance”. Since the discovery of Genetics, evolutionary scientists have tried desperately to prove that macro evolution can take place through mutations to the genetic code. I’m not trying to discredit their work, I think they have made some incredible discoveries. However, they constantly claim that their discoveries are proving intelligent design to be wrong, and instead, showing that macro evolution can, (and is) happening. This post shows how what they are saying is false.

Define “Beneficial”
First of all, we will determine what macro evolution requires in order to work. Some would say “beneficial mutations” are all that would be needed. This is only true if you define “beneficial” correctly. If you define beneficial as giving an organism a capability it never had before, your statement would be false. If you defined beneficial as adding new DNA to the genetic code, you would also be wrong. And if you defined it as making a creature more fit to survive in its present conditions, you would also be wrong. What would really be required for macro evolution would be mutations that cause brand new DNA to be formed, resulting in increased complexity, and a function or feature that would ensure the survival of the mutated creature. This is kind of a combination of all three incorrect statements, and although we have observed some types of beneficial mutations, we have never observed one that would truly drive evolution forward.

Bacteria
The primary way evolutionary scientists have been trying to prove evolution through genetics is through mutations in bacteria. This is because bacteria can reproduce every 20 minutes, and colonies of bacteria can number in the billions, increasing the likelihood of one bacteria evolving a mutation. Because of this, in a few years we can observe mutations that would take millions of years in other animals. Because of the popularity of bacteria, (and for lack of sufficient time) I will concentrate this post on falsehoods about the evolution of bacteria. There are actually some technical complications with this method because of the way bacteria are more prone to mutations and such, but assuming that bacteria evolution is the same as macroscopic evolution, (evolution of larger animals), we still do not see the type of beneficial mutations needed to drive evolution. And it is doubtful that we ever will.

The Nylon Eater
One of the most popular so called example of a beneficial mutation comes from a bacteria in Japan that has developed the ability to feed on nylon waste. This “Nylon Bug” is the product of a frame shift, a drastic type of mutation that can change a huge section of DNA with the addition or subtraction of just one nucleotide. Here’s how it works, the ability to metabolize nylon comes from a new enzyme that the mutated DNA tells the nylon bug to produce. This enzyme is only 2% of the efficiency of the regular enzyme, but never the less, it gives the bacterium a new ability. The DNA that represents this enzyme is divided into sections of three nucleotides. Each three nucleotides (called “codons”) represent one type of amino acid in the enzyme. Like this, GCT TTA TAC CGT… You get the point. Now a frame shift happens when a single enzyme is inserted into one of these codons, and pushes a nucleotide into the next codon. For instance, if I inserted a “T” into the beginning of my last example, it would become, TGC TTT ATA CCG T. as you can see, this is a huge difference, and this is why evolutionists are so excited. They do admit that almost all frame shifts result in nonsensical random DNA codons that are very harmful, and for this I give them credit. But I would like to point out some disappointing facts about this type of mutation that evolutionary devotees don’t ever mention. First, although they claim that this is evidence that mutations can create new DNA, all the DNA except a few random nucleotides used to create the nylon bug was already there in the first place. The DNA was just arranged differently. As a result, information was not added to the bacteria, the information only changed form. The “new” information was just hiding under a different arrangement the whole time. As a result, scientists correctly speculate that this mutation could have occurred several times in the past, but since nylon did not exist before 1935, the mutation would have been fatal if it had occurred. But in order to evolve, creatures would need to evolve huge amounts of new DNA, it would not work to simply rearrange old DNA. Second, this mutation is actually not beneficial to the bacteria. The new nylon metabolizing enzyme gives the bacteria a new “economic niche” but if the “niche” is not reliable, it causes no advantage. In the case of the nylon bug, its new found ability replaces the ability to metabolize carbohydrates, so now it can only digest nylon, which is a manmade substance. And as I stated above, this new enzyme is only 2% of the efficiency of its predecessor. So really, this mutation is more harmful than helpful, and does not produce a more complex bacteria.

Pathogens
Pathogenic Bacteria are also used to combat intelligent design and push forward the evolutionary agenda. Pathogenic bacteria are the types that make you sick. In fact, any bacterium that lives by being harmful to other creatures is a pathogen. In case you were wondering, most bacteria are beneficial; it is only a relative few that are pathogenic. These few get quite a lot of attention, because no one wants another pandemic. And because news about bacteria evolving resistance to certain antibiotics is so common, it is a common myth that these bacteria are showing beneficial mutations in action. But these mutations have always been caused by a loss of information; this is not macro evolution, but bacteria that become more and more simple, harmful, and dependent on their hosts. This also explains why pathogens exist from the Christian perspective. God made the earth perfect, so we believe that pathogens were not in God’s original creation, instead they are a result of the same mutations we see today gradually “devolving” God’s original beneficial bacteria into pathogenic bacteria. Instead of seeing increasing complexity in bacteria, (which we would most definitely observe if evolution happened), we see that mutations from God’s original plan produce harmful, crippled, and disgusting bacteria that would, (at the rate they are generating) be much more common, and might have killed all living creatures by now if they truly did evolve.

The Geological Column

Does it support, or defy evolution?
Evolution is firmly rooted in the fossil record. One of the greatest triumphs of early evolutionists was to dig down through rock layers and find that the fossils got simpler and simpler as you got lower and lower. This, coupled with geological gradualism, indicated a gradual ascent of complexity needed to prove evolution happened. But this is not the only evidence left in the fossil record. In this post I will cover five different arias of the fossil record that pose huge problems with the hypothesis of macro evolution, and instead show evidence for the biblical record of a worldwide flood. But first I want to give another explanation for the simple to complex arrangement of fossils in rock layers using the world-wide flood model instead of evolution.

Survival of the Fastest
What would happen if you flooded a hilly square mile of the earth filled with clams, elephants, fish, goats, chickens, alligators, horses, worms, cows, plants, and humans, in 100 feet of water, and waited until every living thing sunk to the ground? Suppose further that every 2 hours anything that was at the bottom of the flood would be covered in sediment. What would you find in these layers? Logically, the first creatures you would find would be the worms, plant, sand clams, followed by more plants, and some unsuspecting fish that got caught in the sediment. Next might be alligators, then chickens, cows, goats, elephants, horses, and eventually humans. This would occur because the smarter and faster animals would find higher ground and survive the longest, while the more “simple” or slow animals, or the animals that live at lowest altitudes, (such as fish) would be the first to die and be covered in sediment. Trees and other plants would naturally float, but eventually get water logged and sink to the bottom throughout the flood. This is what I like to call “Survival of the Fastest”, and it happens often in more localized catastrophes. So the orientation of the fossils; from “simplest” to most “complex” is not conclusive proof for either the hypothesis of macro evolution, or the hypothesis of intelligent design. Unlike leading evolutionist would like you to believe, it can be explained either way

The Geological Column part 2

Fossil Graveyards
One aspect of the fossil record that is difficult for geological gradualism to explain are the hundreds of fossil graveyards found across the earth. Fossil graveyards are layers of rock that contain thousands of fossils, sometimes fossils of animals from completely different climates, all together in a jumbled up heap. This is exactly what creationists expect to find, because we believe in a worldwide flood that would have caused currents to pick up dead animals in massive amounts, then set them down and cover them with sediments. Evolutionists however, would have to believe that animals from all over the world gathered together and then somehow got covered instantly in a local flood, or landslide, or something like that. But overall the hardest fact to explain would be animals from completely different climates, which as we know, could not live together, being found in one place.

The Geological Column part 3

Unchanged Species
Fossils also give evidence that the species of animals alive today have not changed since their ancestors were frozen in time when they were fossilized. For example, ants found in fossilized tree sap, (called amber), are exactly the same as their relatives that are still alive today. So, given this evidence, it would seem like either the fossils were not formed long enough ago for evolution to have changed certain species, or not even a hint of macro evolution occurred in these species for millions of years. Of course, in some cases we do find creatures that are not alive today. This is not often interpreted as evidence for evolution, even by devout evolutionists, because most extinct species are considered mosaic animals. Mosaic means that the animals are too different from each other to show a transition like we would expect from evolution. So, instead of saying that the animals are the ancestors of modern species, they are widely accepted to simply be extinct, isolated species. This is neither evidence for creation, nor evolution, because both would expect species to eventually go extinct. I will grant that a few fossils have been found from animals that can be fitted into an evolutionary lineage. Evolutionists take this as conclusive evidence for their hypothesis. But I would like to use an analogy to explain the faultiness of this mindset.

“The Evolution of Cars”
Let’s say I wanted to prove that cars evolved. To do this I decided to walk out to the local junkyard, and dig around for a few hours. Let’s say I pull out a wagon wheel, and figuring it is as simple an ancestor as I can find, I decide that the wagon wheel is a distant relative of modern cars. Moving along, I find a rubber tire, followed by a horseless carriage, then a model T, a family car, a SUV, and finally a shiny red sports car. I would have made a pretty convincing case to the public if they didn’t know that cars can’t reproduce. The problem is that when I went to the junkyard, I was already convinced that cars evolved. Instead, if I went to the junkyard with an open mind, I might have arrived at the right conclusion; that each vehicle was designed individually, but the same basic designs, (such as the wheel) were used multiple times by the designer because they worked well. In the end, if we knew that macro evolution is a scientific probability, then interpreting the supposed links we see today as evidence for macro evolution would be plausible, just like if cars could reproduce, the hypothesis I mentioned above would be plausible. However, because of the extreme improbability of macro evolution, I think intelligent design is a much more valid way to interpret these “links”.

The Geological Column part 4

Missing Links
Of course the most famous problem evolutionists have encountered in fossils is the extreme lack of links between supposed ancestors, and their modern offspring. Evolution scientists have claimed to find quite a few ape-men that they claimed was conclusive proof for macro evolution. The problem is every one of these supposed links have been proved to be a true man, a true ape, or a hoax. In one case, the supposed missing link was nothing more than a pig tooth! The genealogy of the modern horse is said to be the most complete and impressive set of links that scientists have found to date. In textbooks the four supposed ancestors of the horse are show in a convincing pattern; from smallest to largest. But there is a catch; you see although they transition smoothly from smallest to largest, the rest of their anatomy is not at all a smooth transition. Instead, the number of ribs, for instance, varies from 15 to 19 with no discernible pattern. The number of toes also ranges from three to none in no discernible pattern. It seems like scientists are more concerned with making their research convincing to the gullible public than they are with accuracy and consistency. You know, we do see animals that can be sorted and categorized to look like they evolved. But if macro evolution was true, we should expect millions of fossils showing very gradual change, instead we see large gaps in the evolutionary tree that have no excuse not to be filled.

Punctuated Equilibrium
Scientists have tried to come up with excuses though, because the latest model of macro evolution, (punctuated equilibrium), claims to virtually eliminate the need for transitionary forms. The ironic thing is that this idea is based on a complete lack of evidence. Scientists must believe punctuated equilibrium to be true because it is the only way to preserve their theory. Punctuated equilibrium is the idea that evolution takes place very rapidly, but with long periods of waiting in between. This would allow minimum transitionary species and generations of fully formed species to leave fossils in between. Scientists are still speculating on what could cause such periodic, and rapid change. Sunspots, Radiation, Chemicals, no one knows for sure, but one thing is similar in all cases, they expect hazardous conditions to improve life. They reason that even though the majority of mutations would kill the creatures, a few would survive and come away with beneficial mutations. This is all pure speculation, and is in my mind way harder to believe then creation.

The Geological Column part 5

Preservation
Fossils all around the world and in every rock layer indicate that they were buried by massive amounts of water. For instance; jelly fish have no hard features, this makes them almost impossible to fossilize. The fact that we have found jelly fish in anywhere is a miracle from the evolutionary perspective. If a jelly fish dies on a beach, or floats around lifeless in the ocean, it will decompose in a matter of days! The best way to explain fossilized jelly fish is that they were buried almost instantly in a huge flood. Also, scientists have found soft dinosaur flesh preserved in glaciers this too is a miracle from the evolutionary perspective. How long do you think flesh could be preserved in ice? 10,000 years maybe, but even a million years is a hundred times longer than that! Even the shear number of fossils found all over the world indicates one huge cataclysmic event, not millions of years of geological gradualism. In addition, we have found soft dinosaur flesh, along with mammoths, and even fruit trees in glaciers. This indicates that dinosaurs were alive not too long ago, (as opposed to millions of years ago).

The Geological Column part 6

Timeline Issues
Fossils also interfere with the evolutionary timeline taught in schools. Take for example the coelacanth this fish was previously thought to be extinct since about 70 million years ago. But in 1938 fishermen pulled one in of the coast Madagascar, and since then over 30 specimens have been found. So how did scientists figure out that the coelacanth went extinct 70 million years ago? Well, coelacanth fossils are found in abundance in rock layers supposedly older than 70 million years, but not in the rock layers above. Since we know that coelacanths are still alive, we must assume that coelacanths avoided being fossilized for 70 million years. Considering the multitude of fossils found in lower layers, the odds of this feat are ridiculous. Another timeline issue is that of the genealogy of the horse. Although textbooks make it clear that this genealogy is conclusive evidence for evolution, the fossils of the different horses are not found in the correct order in the geological column. Instead, the supposedly more primitive horse relatives are often found above, or in the same layer as the more “modern” horse. In fact, in some places, the fossils of horse-like animals are found in reverse order.

Man and Dinosaur
Fossils also show man and dinosaur lived at the same time. Footprints of dinosaurs walking in the same mud as man, and even human footprints inside dinosaur footprints have been found preserved in rock. I was recently at a museum in Texas where hundreds of dinosaur footprints have been found preserved in soft stone. Our tour guide was telling us about how the dinosaurs that left these fossils died millions of years before people. When my brother Noah asked about the human footprints found beside dinosaurs in other places, our tour guide responded, “Well, they THINK they have found human footprints, but you can believe whatever you want”. Of course, she never questioned the fact that the fossil footprints at her museum were genuine. The reason she was hesitant to believe the human footprints were real was that it went against macro evolution, not because the footprints were overly suspect. In one case, I know that extensive testing was done on one human footprint, found in the same sedimentary rock as a dinosaur. Scientists tested the density of the rock, and found that the depression was made by pressure identical to what a human foot would do in mud, and could not be achieved by carving tools.

Is God Scientific?

Beyond Nature
“It is obvious we cannot examine God in a test tube or test him by the usual scientific methodology. Furthermore, we can say with equal emphasis that it is not possible to prove napoleon by the scientific method. The reason lies in the nature of history itself, and the limitations of the scientific method. In order for something to be proved by the scientific method, it must be repeatable…” (Know Why You Believe by Paul E. Little) You know, so many people today classify God as something totally separate from science. In a way, his supernatural nature defies science. But is this really a reason to question his existence? Science has limitations, it can only relate to measurable, repeatable, material things. God is none of these things. But if God really does exist, why wouldn’t we put science into perspective with God? Perhaps God himself isn’t provable by science, (He isn’t exactly from our universe, or confined by it’s laws) but since he created our universe, he would have drastic effects on all branches of science.

Cause and Effect
A good example of this comes from the law of cause and effect. The law of cause and effect basically says that nothing ever (EVER) happens without a cause. This applies to everything in our universe, and even our universe itself. Ok, so let’s say you fall off a cliff. (This seams to be my favorite illustration… ok, I’m not very creative) let’s say the cause of this effect was a brake failure. The brake failure is a cause, but also an effect of a clumsy mechanic. The mechanics clumsiness is the effect of staying awake till 4:00 in the morning three nights in a row. And the Cause of this… Let’s just say that this could go on for days! Eventually you would have to arrive at something called an “Uncaused Cause”. Now, In our universe, an uncaused cause is a scientific impossibility. Never the less, we know that there was one somewhere down the line. So how do scientists explain this uncaused cause? There are only three ways to explain this. (1) The uncaused cause was not from our universe, or confined by its laws. This is the general definition of “God” don’t you think? (2) the law of cause and effect is false, (this goes against reasoning, and hundreds of years of science). (3) Time has existed forever, thus eliminating the need for an uncaused cause. But there are several problems with explanation #3, which point to an uncaused cause.

Time
Imagine a timeline pointing in two directions
< --------O------- >
the present time is marked by the “O”. Time spans in each direction infinitely. Here’s the problem, If time has existed infinitely, how did we ever arrive at the present time? Let me explain. Lets say you went back in time to the beginning of eternity. When would you arrive? The answer of course is never. But what if you started an eternity ago and headed toward our present time. When would you get there? Never. This strongly suggests that it is impossible for time to exist infinitely. Even Stephen Hawking said, "Time itself must have had a beginning". So this disproves the idea that no un-caused cause was needed due to infinite time. In fact, Time in itself is evidence for a God. We cannot create, reverse, stop, or destroy time in any way. Only an infinite power could have set in motion such a unique and almost unexplainable dimension.

Fibonacci Numbers
Another evidence for God is found in every corner of the universe. Fibonacci numbers are found in spiraling galaxies, flowers, the human hand, musical notes, tree trunks, sea shells, and thousands of other natural designs. Fibonacci numbers are a sequence of numbers starting at zero, and then one, and adding the last two numbers of the sequence to get the next. 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144… So what is so special about these numbers? They happen to be very beautiful when incorporated into design. In fact, artists use them in a variety of ways to create stunningly beautiful masterpieces like the Mona Lisa. So are Fibonacci numbers just chance? And why do we have such a strange attraction to them? The best explanation would be that the ultimate artist who created our universe liked the way they looked, and used them multiple times throughout his creation. This isn’t rocket science, but it makes sense.

Personal Challenge
Although we cannot prove scientifically that God exists, or prove that he created our universe, God fills in an empty hole in science that makes everything make sense. To anyone who scoffs at people who believe in God, and think we need to directly prove that there is a God before our schools can teach intelligent design, I want to challenge you to commit to your own expectations and prove scientifically that there is not a God. Just because something can’t be seen, repeated, or tested in a laboratory, does not mean it doesn’t exist.

Freaks of Evolution Part 6

The Tasmanian Wolf

This incredible example of convergent evolution has been extinct since around 1936. Despite its name, the Tasmanian wolf isn’t a dog at all. It is actually a marsupial! That’s right; It has a pouch, and is closely “related” to the kangaroo. Some people say it hopped like one on occasion, but this is un-confirmed. So how in the world did a dog get a pouch? Or otherwise, how did a kangaroo evolve into a perfect dog impersonator? Scientists are still puzzled. They claim that the similarity is the result of marsupials filling in the vacant position of dogs (who weren’t around yet) in the Australian eco-system.

Problem
Unfortunately, there are any number of designs for animals that I’m sure could have roughly the same effect as a canine on an eco-system. Not only that, every eco-system is different, making it even less possible that natural selection could have fine-tuned a perfect dog look-alike. So really we have to rely on blind chance to magically create two extremely similar species with different DNA and internal anatomy. I don’t think so. Another case of convergent evolution, and another stike against to the entire hypothesis of evolution.

Evolution Today

A lot has changed in 200 years...
Do you realize how far the study of science has come in the last century? It was only 105 years ago, that flight was discovered by the Write brothers. The first controlled nuclear chain reaction was 66 years ago. The first time a man walked on the moon was only 39 years ago! If our understanding of science has changed so much in the past century, why should we still believe, unquestioningly, in the ideas of a man born 200 years ago? Much less in a man with no scientific notability except a bachelors degree in medicine! I hope you’re surprised to find that most people do. In fact, much of our tax money is used to support his ideas, and make students question the existence of God in our public schools. Of course, I’m talking about macro evolution.

A quote you won't hear in class
Charles Darwin seemed to realize that as science advanced, his ideas might be proven wrong. He even said, “What is true in my book will survive, and that which is error will be blown away as chaff.” So, has evolution been confirmed over the years, or “blown away”. I hope that by the time you are done reading this website, you will be better informed in the truth. Evolution cannot compete with modern science. The only reason that people think evolution is viable is that everyone else does, and if they question evolution they will be ridiculed and called a "Creationist". Here is one example of a way that modern science has brought problems in Charles Darwin’s Ideas to light. Also, read the other posts on this website, to get an even better idea of the types of problems evolution now faces.

Structural Homology
As Charles Darwin studied different species, he discovered a trend in the skeletal structure of vastly different creatures. For instance, if you would examine the bones in the forearm of a bat, porpoise, bird, and human, you would find that they are quite similar. They all have a Humerus in their upper arm, and two bones, (one called a radius, the other an ulna) in its lower arm. And, like the human hand, they have carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges in the hand. In fact, with the exception of the bird, they all have five digits! Of course, the bones have each been adapted to suit each creatures needs, for instance, (a bats digits are longer than its lower arm). Darwin saw this, and decided it was clear evidence that all these creatures all came from the same ancestor. In his day, this was a valid observation. However, back in Darwin’s time, no one knew how traits were passed from parent, to offspring. Genetics is a fairly new field.

What they wish we never learned
So what’s the problem? Well, now that we know how DNA works, we can look at the chromosomes that contain the DNA that tells an animal what types of bones to grow. If structural homology is the result of common ancestry, then the DNA that tells these creatures what types of bones to make should also be similar. However, no two DNA strands resemble each other at all! Impossible? Yes, unless you’re talking about intelligent design. The only one who could build similar structures out of completely different DNA sequences is God. After all, He wrote the genetic code. I personally think he used the same forearm design multiple times because it worked well. As to the genetic side of structural homology, I think god used totally different DNA sequences so that no one could discredit him for his awesome creation.

Micro, Not Macro
This is just one example of how multiple branches of science contradict macro evolution. There are so many out there I will never be able to write about all of them. You know, I don’t think Charles Darwin was that bad of a guy. He was a careful researcher, and he realized that his ideas were not all going to be scientifically valid forever. If scientists today were as open minded as Charles Darwin, I guarantee, we would be hearing a very different message in our public schools. Although Darwin's work with micro evolution contributed greatly to the science of biology, he took his ideas too far, and tried to explain all of life with macro evolution. I think Darwin has a place in the classroom for his work with micro evolution and natural selection, but lets be fair and say macro evolution is being taught like a law, when in reality it is flawed, and is less scientifically noteworthy than intelligent design.

Freaks of Evolution Part 5

The Bombardier Beetle

This is one of my favorite examples of the falsehood of evolution. The bombardier beetle has a defense system that is somewhat like a cross between tear gas and an M-14! It stores enzymes in one body chamber, and hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones (some rather harmless compounds), in another body chamber. When the bombardier beetle feels threatened, it mixes these enzymes with the other compounds (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones), inside it's body. The resulting spray of benzoquinones from the end of the abdomen, explodes at an amazing 212 degrees Fahrenheit. The mixture is pumped through twin rotating rear nozzles that resemble a B-17's gun turret!

Since these chemicals are so explosive when mixed, they must be kept completely separate, or the beetle would explode. That is why there are two bodily chambers that store them separately. If these chemicals were combined upon formation, they most certainly would explode. These chemicals are mixed, right before the exit from the firing chamber, in such a way that they will not explode inside the beetle, scientists still do not understand how this is accomplished. However, this makes the mixture useless against predators. That's why there is another chemical factory that produces the catalyst necessary to start the explosion. This requires an asbestos-lined firing chamber. The explosion is then directed toward the offender with such precision that it requires a very complex nervous system and a brain that is able to make quick decisions to be able to tell what is an enemy and what is not. Furthermore, the explosion is let out like a machine gun, in lots of little blasts instead of one large one. This is to avoid the thrust through the air required by Newton's Third Law: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

If we were to consider the possibility of the bombardier beetle having evolved, we would run into the problem of the irreducibly complex defense system that this beetle possesses. In order for this complex system to have evolved, every part of this defense system must have evolved at exactly the same time. The beetle must have all parts of its defense system present and fully functional or the bug would blow up! If the individual parts did not evolve simultaneously, predators would be quite surprised to see their prey explode before their eyes! This is yet another example of "irreducible complexity". This is so complex that scientists still cannot explain how, in a step-by-step method, this incredible machine works. I think that anybody could look at the bombardier beetle and see that it points to God's intelligent design. I am always amazed at the wonders of God's creation. Especially when I look at the bombardier beetle!

Freaks of Evolution Part 4

The Squid
The squid is an example of what is called “convergent evolution”. Although the squid is not at all similar to humans, (at least, most humans) the squid’s eye is almost exactly like our own. Humans have some of the best eyesight in the world. For an incredible wonder of optical engineering like the human eye to evolve once by random chance is so close to impossible that it is not worth mentioning. But to assume that the human eye evolved seperatly in both human and squid really pushes it over the edge.

Evolving an Eye
The eye is a hard feature to explain with evolution because so many different things have to be working perfectly before it can do its owner any good at all. Evolution depends on random mutations causing creatures to gain advantages over their competitors. This ensures that they would be the most likely to live, and pass on their mutations to their offspring. But what is the advantage of having an eye that can’t see yet? It would take generations upon generations, (according to evolutionists) to build up enough beneficial mutations to create a working eye. And all these generations would have no advantage to ensure their survival.

Perfecting an Eye
Now suppose you already had a functioning eye, (like the supposed ancestor of the squid would have had). What would it take to mutate this primitive eye into an eye resembling a human? Well, according to macro evolutionists, it would be like throwing the most complex, expensive camera off a cliff, running to the bottom, and finding that your camera has mutated into a better camera. Even a simple eye is more complex than any camera. And mutations are like throwing something off a cliff, extremely destructive! As I said above, every part of the eye must be working perfectly for the eye to function. This includes the Iris, Pupil, Dilator and Sphincter muscles, Lacrimal gland, Lacrimal sac, Eye muscles, Cornea, Lens, Conjunctiva, Retina Choroid, Sclera, Ciliary body, Vitreous humor, Macula Lutea, Fovea, Optic nerve, And rods and cones. A slight mutation to any of these could cause the entire eye to fail. Now assuming you threw two completely different cameras off a cliff. Even if they both mutated into a better camera you would never expect them to turn into the same type of camera would you? But according to macro evolutionists that is exactly what happened with the squid and human.

Carbon 14

A Useful Mistake
Macro Evolutionists are very fond of throwing around large numbers. When they find a fossil, they often run tests on it to try to find it’s age. One of the most popular tests among macro evolutionists is carbon 14 dating, (along with Potassium Argon, and Uranium Lead). Carbon 14 is an unstable element. This means that, once created, it will start to break down into what is called its “daughter element”. Since carbon 14 is found basically everywhere, and is decaying at a known rate, scientists assume they can determine the age of a fossil by guessing how much carbon 14 the animal contained when fossilized, and measuring the amount it contains now. At first, this seems like a viable way to measure age, but let’s look further into the implications and see what we find…

Half Life
As I said above, carbon 14 is decaying at a know rate. This rate is called a “half life”. A half life is the amount of time it takes for half of any amount of an element to break down into its daughter element. The half life of carbon 14 happens to be around 5,730 years. So, if you locked 12 ounces of carbon 14 in a air-tight case, and came back in 5,730 years, only about 6 ounces would remain. Just to clarify, the case must be airtight, or else more carbon 14 could seep in and contaminate the experiment. Back to the point, if you came back in another 5,730 years, only 3 ounces would remain. In this way, the amount would continue to be cut in half until virtually none was left. Now imagine you left the case full of carbon 14 alone for a few million years. so little carbon 14 would be left by then that it would be impossible to measure accurately. Wait a second! Haven’t scientists been using carbon 14 to tell us the ages of supposed “million year old” fossils? Yes they have. Are you beginning to see the problem? In fact, if an object is presumed to be over 50,000 years, most C14 labs won’t bother with it. Why? Because the reading would be meaningless. Only objects less than 3,000 years old can be dated with reasonable accuracy

Assumptions
The information you just read would probably make a few macro evolutionists pretty red in the cheeks. They have been tossing around “millions of years” for so long that they no longer even think twice about the scientific authority that they are abusing. Worse yet, carbon 14 dating of any kind must start with some pretty questionable fundamental assumptions.

1. The saturation of carbon 14 in our atmosphere has always been the same. We know this isn’t true because C14 has been forming faster than it has been decaying.

2. Carbon 14 is formed in the same amount all over the world. Since C14 is formed in the earth’s upper atmosphere as the result of cosmic radiation (and since the sun hits some parts of the earth harder than others), this is possible, but not likely.

3. the amount of carbon 14 found in specimens is the same worldwide. Organisms get their C14 from sources like the air they breathe, the water they swim in, and the food they eat. With this many factors, it is not possible for all creatures to have exactly the same amount of C14.

4. Ancient specimens have not been contaminated by new C14. As I said earlier, if a case full of C14 is not airtight, new C14 will contaminate it. The rocks surrounding fossils provide an airtight barrier so that no new C14 is gained, but contaminations are possible during testing.

5. Normal radioactive decay is the only way C14 is lost. We know that heat causes specimens to lose C14 faster than normal, so fossils in volcanic rock often date to be millions of years older than they are. Since lots of fossils are found in volcanic rock, and there are other things that interfere with C14 decay, this assumption is all but false.

With so many assumptions in C14 dating, there is really no room for error. When I realized how many things could go wrong with C14 dating, I thought it was a wonder they even used it at all!

Results
The problems with C14 dating have had serious consequences. Living mollusks have tested to be 2,300 years old. Mortar from an 800 year old castle tested to be 7,370 years old. Fresh seal skins dated to be 1,300 years old. So why use C14? I think macro evolutionists are fond of the way C14 tends to make things appear older. The mistakes of C14 dating have turned out to be useful to scientists who want the public to believe in millions of years. It turns out that evolutionists don’t know all the dates they would like us to believe they do. It’s all just a show.