Evolution or Creation (Young or Old Earth) Part 2

The Age of the Earth: Thousands vs. Billions of Years
Prediction: The earth will be demonstrated to be billions of years old: If the earth is less than 3 billion years old, there would not be enough time for biological evolution to occur.	Prediction: The earth will be discovered to be relatively young (e.g. more than 6,000 years, but less than 100,000,000). (Note: Intelligent Design thinking does not require a young earth, but the Young Earth/Cataclysm model, by definition, does.)
Astrophysical Dating: Light from distant objects in the universe suggests 10,000,000,000 light years as a possible age (and consequent size) for the expansion of the known universe from the Big Bang. The same light suggests that some of these distant objects contain chemical elements such as carbon, iron and uranium requiring multiple billions of years under current theory for these elements to form in second-generation stars. Thus, these second generation galaxies would require more than 16,000,000,000 years to mature and allow the light to reach the earth. By that time, the sun would have burned out and gone cold. The reality is that no one really knows how big the universe is, or from what distance light might really come, or even whether the speed of light has always been constant. Today, most science textbooks state that the solar system including the earth is 4.6 billion years old. There is no evidence for this arbitrary age. The likely reason for science to propose this age is that it allows enough time for evolution to happen. As to the universe, the age printed in textbooks has doubled every twenty years over the last 140 years. In the late 1920’s it was estimated that the universe was only 2,000,000,000 years old. While at the time of Darwin half a billion years was accepted. Now, with the observations of the Hubble telescope, some are proposing 16,000,000,000 years or more. (Therefore 2 billion, plus or minus 14 billion years, or 16 billion plus or minus 14 billion!) These disparate ages indicate a lack of precision in the measuring processes. Coupling these disparities with contradictory measurements from other dating systems caused one well known Darwinian astronomer to state: “There is no evidence based solely on solar observations that the Sun is 4.5-5.0 x 109 years old. I suspect that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. However, given some new and unexpected results to the contrary, and some time for frantic recalculation and theoretical readjustment, I suspect that we could live with Bishop Ussher’s value for the age of the earth and sun. I don’t think we have much in the way of observational evidence in astronomy to conflict with that. Solar physics now looks to paleontology for data on solar chronology.” From a speech by John Eddy at an astronomy conference Quoted by Kazmann in Geotimes 1978. The theory that the sun is fueled by fusion, burning hydrogen into helium, has some experimental support. This allows for the possibility, but does not prove that the sun is billions of years old. Predictions stated that the sun would give off neutrinos as a by-product of the fusion process. The quantities of neutrinos measured on the earth coming from the sun, however, are fewer than predicted to produce the sun’s temperature. Another theory originally proposed by Sir Isaac Newton is that the sun is heated by friction through gravitational collapse. This theory, too, has experimental support since measurements over several hundred years have indicated a slow reduction in the diameter of the sun. Sir Isaac Newton’s theory has been discarded only because it does not allow for the sun to be billions of years old, thus making evolution impossible. One explanation for the missing neutrinos is that the sun is young and that its energy is produced from a combination of both nuclear fusion and heat caused by gravitational collapse. If heat from the sun is caused by a combination of these two processes, then the sun is not billions of years old. Besides the question about how long the sun has been burning, there are a number of other astrophysical phenomena, which give maximum ages for the universe and the solar system that are much lower then the often-quoted 4.6 billion years. Some examples: *Spiral galaxy arms cannot continue to maintain form after billions of years. Spiral galaxies, therefore, appear to be too young for evolutionary timescales. *Venus, Uranus & Pluto spin backwards. Gravity would not allow this to happen for billions of years. *In the Solar System, at least 8 moons rotate backwards in a reverse spin from what would be predicted from the laws of physics. This reverse spin implies a designed, relatively young universe. There is no current naturalistic explanation for a reverse spin. *Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, & Neptune each have moons orbiting in opposite directions. Physical laws cannot explain how reverse orbits originated, nor can they explain how these orbits would be maintained for billions of years. Gravity should have caused the orbiting moons to slow each other down. Evolutionary time frames would have required that the moons crash into the mother planets a long time ago. *The moon’s interior is still hot. There seems to be no other explanation for the fact that the interior of the moon is still hot except that it appears not to have cooled off yet! It must therefore be very young! *The earth’s interior is still hot! So are a number of the other planets. These planets are thus still cooling off. There is no other hypothetical explanation for heat in the interior of the planets unless the solar system is not billions of years old! *The moon is moving away from the earth at measurable rates. Assuming a 4.6 billion year old earth, it should have escaped the earth’s orbit several billion years ago. There is no explanation as to how the Earth, or any other of the planets captured their moons into orbit. Nor is their any accepted scientific solution for the Sun to have captured the planets. *The earth’s magnetic field has decayed by 6% in the last 150 years. Some scientists have proposed a maximum age of 20,000 years using a geometric decay profile for the magnetic field.

Go To Part 3

Read more...

The Facts about the Religion of Evolution

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

Aldous Huxley, wrote Brave New World (1932)

"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."

Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

"‘Biologists would clearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got, he'd surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”

(Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London, 1981, p. 43)

"Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally."
In other words, evolution = religion. That is, people (not God) set whatever rules they want. In practice, this usually becomes ‘might makes right’, including the tyranny of the majority.

Creation Ex Nihilo 22(4):23, Sepember–November 2000

‘I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it’s been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has.’

Malcolm Muggeridge, well-known British journalist and philosopher—Pascal Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

I am just pointing out the facts. Evolution is a theory in trouble. It is dominated by atheists which validate each others claim based on their biases and not the facts. My point here is that there are many people who are experts in their fields who do not believe or have doubts about the theory of evolution. If you really look at the absurdity of evolution, you will have to come away from it troubled.

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint—and Mr [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it—the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
‘… Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.’

Michael Ruse was professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph, Canada (recently moved to Florida), He was the leading anti-creationist philosopher whose (flawed) arguments seemed to convince the biased judge to rule against the Arkansas ‘balanced treatment’ (of creation and evolution in schools) bill in 1981/2. At the trial, he and the other the anti-creationists loftily dismissed the claim that evolution was an anti-god religion.
‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’
Provine, W.B., Origins Research 16(1), p.9, 1994.

If you don't like what evolution teaches, you might want to consider looking at other possibilities. I realize that some of you think I am crazy for not believing in evolution. You might think that I don't know what I am talking about. That is why I am creating this post so you are aware that I am not the only one that doesn't believe in this theory. Like I said before, creationist are religious, and so are the people who believe in evolution. I am not saying that science is religion. There is some serious valid sciences that isn't religious. However, the so called science concerning origin of life or the universe is a religious concept if it involves God or no God. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the Big Bang and that makes you just as religious as a Creationist. So don't fool yourself if you are an atheist thinking that your scientific views should dominate over the theory of Creationism. Creationism can develop theories just like evolutionist. Our theories involve a Creator because we know that complexity requires intelligence.

Read more...

Arguments for Evolution

What I am referring to as evolution is the belief in no God and that life started at the Big Bang and evolved into what we are today. I realize that evolutionist like to separate the views of the evolution of man and the Big Bang, but most evolutionist also believe in the Big Bang and the whole entire view point is what I will be addressing here.

Quote from evolutionist:
"And you cite..... what now? I have read several essays by scientists about evolution. Adaptation and natural selection have been observed, and from there it's simply a matter of time to reach speciation. Which, for that matter, has also been observed. While the fossil record is incomplete, some transitional forms have been located, and assuming that the holes are due to the rarity of fossilization is just as valid as assuming that the missing transitional forms don't exist."

This is from the talkorigins.org website. Creationist do believe in adaptation.

Creationist believe in a creator because life does not come into existence by chance (this has never been observed in science). Creationist believe in a creator which has been believed as long as man has been on the earth. Evolution has not been a widely accepted view point until Darwin.
Lets discuss some of the primary arguments for evolution (See my next posts for rebuttals):

1) Evolutionist believe in the Big Bang (Unless you are someone like Hugh Ross who doesn't truly believe in the Bible so they adapt the Bible with evolution): This theory believes that intelligence comes from non-intelligence, that the earth is billions of years old and that over billions of years we evolved by random chance and random mutations into what we are today.

2) Evolutionist believe in macro-evolution which means that we evolved from a completely different Kind.

3) Evolutionist believe that the earth is billions of years old. (So do other people who adapt the Bible to evolutionist theories)

4) Evolutionist do not believe in a world wide flood caused by God, but other forms of natural disasters such as the ice age.

"Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Read more...

Radioactive Dating, Carbon Dating and the Age of Earth

Many people have a serious misconception concerning dating methods. When I took an Astronomy class in college the teacher, who has a PHD in Astronomy, asked a question on how old the students thought the age of the earth was. I already knew what she was going to say which was somewhere in the billions of years. I raised my hand and said that some scientist believe that the earth is young. She started asking me questions and one of the questions was, "What about carbon 14 dating?" That is along the lines of common misconceptions even among scientists.

Carbon 14 can't be used to date the universe or the earth at all. If it is going to date anything, it can only date it up to about 50,000 years. Another misconception that people have is that carbon 14 can date anything. Carbon 14 can only date something that at one time was living.

For C-14 dating the conditions are:

1. The material to be dated must be organic
2. The organism to be tested must have gotten its C-14 from the atmosphere
3. The sample has remained chemically and physically a closed system since its emplacement.
4. That we know what the atmospheric concentration of C-14 was when the
organism lived.

Radioactive dating is the method that was used to date the age of the earth.

Evolutionist make many assumptions when it comes to radioactive dating. They assume that lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium. They assume that the amount can be accurately estimated. They also assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. They assume that no outside factors altered the normal ratio in the material. Even after 10,000 years, you should assume that something might have altered the material in the object that is being tested. They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant.

The evolutionist claim that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The scientists jump to huge assumptions to support their far fetch theory and it seems that many people just don't want to question them. The evolutionist want to look at Christians as being lunatics, but the only difference between the evolutionist and the Christian is that Christians worship a Creator, and the evolutionist worships science.

"The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (conclusion to second edition).

Read more...

Creation Resources

Some people are confused on what my blog is about. People, multiple times, have gotten mad when I reference a website with information that supports my position. Let me make it clear that I am not a full time scientists. This blog is my opinion. My purpose with my blog is to give people some counter information to the Evolutionary propaganda that is all over the scientific community and the media. This blog is primarily for those people who are on the edge and want to know where to get more information on the Creationist Movement. I realize that the Atheist who worship science will never change their opinion no matter what, but I am pointing out that there is a lot of science that is objective and is derived from people's opinion. One person posted on my blog and said that anybody can throw crap on the Internet so I shouldn't be referencing the Internet as my source. That is true. There is a lot of crap on the Internet just like TrueOrigins and other Athiestic websites. My primary goal is to present the other view point for those of you who have never taken the time to understand Creationism. I don't believe that Evolutionist are objectively peer reviewing their work. I think that their Atheistic opinions and already Evolutionary foundation has influenced all of their scientific findings which causes them to present false information.

I also understand that Creationism can't be tested. I also believe that the majority of Evolutionary theory can't be tested as well. So both theories require some faith.

I am not a scientists. However, there are many scientists who do believe in Creationism. So if you are looking to really understand the Creationist movement and why so many scientists are abandoning the theory of Evolution, you should visit some of the Creationist sites or read some of their books. I have attached a Creationist resource for those of you looking to understand the truth.


Creationist Resource

Read more...

Homologous Elements: One big happy family? Part 18

Homologous Elements: One big happy family?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: Homologous elements will point to relationships and lineage among classes of organisms.	Prediction: Homologous elements will be discontinuous appearing in unrelatable classes of species.
Many studies have shown potential relationships among and across species. Whether these relationships are inherited or the reflection of design is disputed. The genome studies of DNA show a high correlation between phyla suggesting hereditary or designed relationships. For example some have suggested that homologous elements between two supposed close relatives chimpanzees and humans in the DNA code might be as high as 98%. If the human gene code has 3 billion nucleotides in sequence than a 2% difference indicates 60 million items of information modifications to the code. How many generations of evolution would this much change imply? Based upon common characteristics, all mammals are supposed to be related. No sequence of inherited characteristics, however, has been described scientifically in detail. There have only been proposed grand sequences without any evidence. For example some evolutionists have proposed that hippos are predecessors to whales. Darwin suggested swimming bears could have evolved into whales. Carl Sagan helped develop a mural for National Geographic where mammals became whales. Yet, there is no described sequence with realistic discrete intermediary steps from one to another. There are many examples of discontinuous design elements found in unrelatable species. Here are four examples of mammals with relatable design elements found in peers. There are no satisfactory presupposed common ancestors. For these species similarities are more easily used as criteria for classification and support the argument for design rather than the theory for common descent: Several marsupial species that keep their new-born in a pouch, and suckle their young in their belly have look-alike placental mammals including: the wolf, the flying squirrel, cats, ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice. Bats fly like birds, and have radar like dolphins. The duckbilled platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young (like mammals); it lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening for elimination, mating and birth, and has claws and a shoulder girdle (like most reptiles); it can detect electrical currents, both AC & DC (like some fish) and has a bill like a duck (a bird). Furthermore, it has webbed forefeet like an otter; a flat tail like a beaver and the male can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Are these complex abilities by design, or are they the result of hundreds of thousands of discrete positive mutations from a totally unknown series of ancestors? The panda has many structures similar to bears and other structures similar to raccoons such that evolutionary biologists are perplexed about classifying it between the two categories.

Note: Some atheistic evolutionist are still trying to compare Creationist to people who believed in the Flat Earth view. Comments like this just shows the complete ignorance and stupidity of these atheist. If Creationism was this unscientific, then there wouldn't be any famous scientists who would believe it, which there are. You should do your research before making stupid statements like this. I would prefer to stick with the scientific facts, and not ignorant comments.
Go To Part 19

Read more...

Haeckel’s Pictures: Do embryos rehearse evolutionary stages? Part 17

Haeckel’s Pictures: Do embryos rehearse evolutionary stages?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: The stages of evolution will be confirmed in embryonic stages of complex organisms such as mammals.	Prediction: Any supposed similarity between embryonic stages and evolution will be found to be superficial.
This idea, which is often displayed in science textbooks has since been modified by evolutionary scientists. The man who originally proposed this idea, Ernst Haeckel, purposely falsified his drawings to improve the acceptance of his theory. Since that time further study has indicated that there are similarities in stages of embryo development that could be interpreted in evolutionary terms. However, embryo development clearly does not rehearse evolutionary stages.

Read more...

First Life: Where did it come from? Part 16

First Life: Where did it come from?
The Naturalistic Evolutionary Model:	An Intelligent Design - Young Earth/Cataclysm Model:
Prediction: Complex pre-biotic compounds and highly complex organic molecular structures will naturally and randomly occur from inorganic compounds. These combinations will show the potentiality of self-replication.	Prediction: Organic structures will defy experimental and descriptive attempts to define paths from inorganic compounds; these will not occur naturally.
Under experimentally controlled laboratory conditions chemical mixtures have been shown to form sub-organic particles including certain amino acids (the sub-elements of proteins, which, in turn, are the building blocks to life). The most famous of these experiments are the Miller-Urey experiments of the1950’s. However, the controlled chemical environments used in these intelligently designed experiments are not believed to have existed on the earth at any stage in its history. Had the amino acids that were formed in these experiments not been separated from the mix, then they would have been destroyed by the continued application of electrical charges that had helped them form in the first place. The presence of oxygen in these experiments, an element now believed to have been present in the original earth’s atmosphere, would have ruined any positive results by oxidation or explosion. One evolutionary scientist estimated that the random possibility of forming one particular protein from a soup containing all of the necessary amino acids was 1 in 10200 . If all the atoms of the earth including it’s atmosphere were to react at least once every second for a billion years, there would be far less then 1070 reactions. Therefore to randomly form only one protein is impossible. How would nature accidentally form the 300 to 600 discrete proteins needed to form the first hypothetical cell in the same pre-biotic “soup” even if the “soup” had the advantage of having all of the 20 or more amino acids in the abundant and proportional quantities needed to form these proteins? The elements formed in these and similar experiments are as far away from writing the genetic code for the simplest proposed life forms as random words in alphabet soup are from writing the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the thousands of chemical elements in real cells were present in some “soup”, these would chemically react with each other and eliminate any possibility of forming a cell. The bonding affinities anticipated among chemical elements, which would allow cell structures to naturally form in hypothetical “soups”, have been contradicted by experiment. For example, some evolutionary scientists were disappointed to find that the pre-biotic compounds that might have formed in a warm volcanic pool actually bonded to the mud and were therefore not able to create the simplest of elements that could in turn have served as building blocks for biological compounds. It is beyond all reason to think that chance processes could produce a membrane-encased, self-reproducing, energy synthesizing, metabolizing, living cell. There is no evidence that any stable states exist between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells…the fantastic jump in complexity could not have happened even if the entire universe had been filled with proteins. (paraphrased from Brown In the Beginning p.12.) Biogenesis has defied explanation to the degree that some well-reputed evolutionists (including Dawkins) have proposed that first life was seeded on earth by extraterrestrials. This only begs the question of the origin of these extraterrestrials, not to mention their ability to travel across space and time…

Read more...

The Big Bang Fact or Fiction

George Wald, an evolutionist, states, "When it comes to the origin of life, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation. There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved one hundred years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion, that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance!" ("The Origin of Life," Scientific American, 191:48. May 1954).

(H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, May 1980, pg.138).
H.S. Lipson who was quoted as saying that the Evidence indicating Intelligent Design is abundant and overwhelming. He went on to say that evolutionists have zealously sought evidence to validate their theory and nothing has yet to stand up under the close scrutiny of an in depth scientific evaluation.

People have been persuaded to think that evolution is a fact, and there isn't any evidence against evolution. One atheist asked me (in another post) why so many scientist believe in evolution. My answer is this, "Because the evolutionist ran a good campaign". The evolutionist have been successful in influencing the media and our educational institutions by convincing people that science has proven everything. People constantly use the term, "it is scientific", and therefore it must be true. The fact is that evolution has so many holes in it that the atheist are embarrassed. However, this is the only theory they have so they keep believing it.

Some of the problems with the big bang:
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

1) The element abundance predictions used in the Big Bang require too many adjustable paramters to make them work.

2) The universe has too much large scale structure to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

3) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

You can read more at the above website.

Read more...

Another Evolutionary Embarrassment Part 5

Here is another evolutionary embarrassment. The Evolutionists have found fossils for Crayfish that they have dated to be about 135 million years old. They later found fossils near Utah where they have dated the fossils to be around 220 million years old. Both of these fossil examples resemble in body structure the same as their modern descendants. This destroys the theory that crayfish evolved from lobsters. The fact is that these Crayfish didn't evolve at all. The next question I would ask is, "Did anything evolve?"

Go To Part 6

Read more...

Evolution or Creation Using Current Scientific Evidence Part 1

Again in my Ida Evolution post, I keep getting attacked by the Atheist who do not agree with me. Apparently they have no arguments but attacks. The last person said that he doesn't have respect for me because I said Isaac Newton was a Creationist. The fact is that the theory of Evolution existed before Darwin and my point is that Isaac Newton was a scientist and believed in God. However, I also continously mention that there are many scientists today that reject the theory of evolution. It seems that many Atheist are unable to analyze the facts to logically debate the subject intelligently so they start attacking me.

The fact is that many people have been brainwashed by the theory of evolution quoting information without every analyzing the facts. Even when I give a counter argument, most evolutionist (that aren't scientists) ignore what I said and continue with their nonfactual arguments. I am going to now present to you a look at the evidence for evolution written and compiled by my brother Andy Dias.

I would encourage you to analyze this information intelligently and hold your comments to the facts and not your feelings. It seems to me that Evolutionist are basing their opinion on how they feel, and not the actual scientific evidence.

What is the debate:

Evolution	Intelligent Design+Young/Earth/Cataclysm
Is the paradigm of evolution a solid explanation for the origin of natural phenomena?	Is there evidence that nature is so fine-tuned that a designer must be recognized? Is there evidence for a “young” earth whose surface was completely eroded in a cataclysmic flood?

Pre Notes:
The Paradigm of Evolution must be distinguished from the theory of evolution. The Paradigm of Evolution goes well beyond the so called origin of the species and attempts to explain the existence of nature. It should be stated that Intelligent Design and Young Earth/Cataclysm theories are not the same. The Intelligent Design (ID) community simply holds that the complexity of nature implies or even requires design. The term Creator is seldom used by these scientists in their presentations due, in part, to the bias of the Evolution crowd against theistic arguments. On the other hand, scientists who hold to a Young Earth/Cataclysm model would embrace much of what the ID community holds, but they would not avoid the use of the term Creator. They further hold that the earth is relatively young (some would say as young as five to six thousand years since it was created) and that there was a cataclysmic flood early in the history of the world. For simplicity, I have combined these two theories taking the more extreme position that the universe was both designed and that the earth is young having suffered a great and universal flood.

The references in these arguments are not fully documented. In many cases they are out of date, but the arguments still hold. In truth, the more that man learns about the complexity of nature, the less likely evolution appears.

Go To Part 2

Read more...