Scientific Evidences for Creatio

Document Sample
Scientific Evidences for Creatio Powered By Docstoc
					                                  Scientific Evidences for Creation

          A good or plausible scientific theory should never consistently violate well established scientific
laws if it has any hope of being developed into a natural scientific law itself. One does not chain a set of
heavy lead weights around themselves and jump off a high cliff just because they have a theory that they
can flap their arms fast enough to defy the law of gravity and keep themselves from becoming part of a new
crater at the bottom of the cliff, like Wylie coyote. Yet Evolutionists seem to repeatedly dive off a similar
intellectual cliff by defying two basic laws of science and countless laws of reason, while claiming their
precious theory is a fact, in a fashion that reminds one of the lemmings that head straight out to the sea and
drowned themselves. Listed below are a few of the scientific facts that demonstrate the intellectual
bankruptcy of the evolutionary theory.

1.   The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that everything is going from a state of order (greater
     organization and useable energy) to a state of disorder (less organization and useable energy). Things
     are winding down, being used up, decaying and dying. Einstein stated that this law was the easiest to
     observe and the most probable of all the scientific laws. This established law, which demonstrates
     that everything is ultimately heading (downward) into chaos, directly refutes the theory of (upward)
     evolution, which claims that everything is evolving to a more organized state. Time does not make
     things more organized or better, it wears them out. It is very ironic then that time would be the
     mystical champion of the Darwinian Evolutionist.

2.   A law of biology, the biogenetic law, states that in the sphere of life, living things arise only from
     other living things. The belief in spontaneous generation, that life can spring forth form non-living
     matter, was thoroughly disproved, in separate experiments, long ago by Francisco Reddy and Louis
     Pasteur. Yet Evolutionists today still believe that we derived from a cosmic explosion of non-living
     matter. If it was not so serious an issue, the big bang theory would be quite laughable. All of the
     beautiful design and vast amount of ordered information we see in the universe today, supposedly
     resulted from a fiery explosion?!? This is more absurd than believing that the house we live in was the
     result of some simultaneous, combined explosions of a brick factory and a saw mill. Future
     generations may well look back on our current generation and laugh at us for being so gullible and see
     us as far less intelligent than the generations preceding us which believed that the world was flat,
     simply because we have no excuse, due to the vast amount of knowledge available to us today.

3.   Only 100% left handed amino acids are found in the proteins of living organisms. Yet the natural
     laws that we can observe of chemistry and physics consistently produce a 50/50 mixture of left and
     right handed amino acids. Just one right handed amino acid in the chain and the protein is rendered
     useless for life. If all we ever observe in nature is a random mixture of right and left hand amino acids
     that exclusively form non-living material, then how can any reasonable person believe that life springs
     forth out of non-life? It can only be by pure blind faith in the impossible, against all reasonable
     thought and observable science! Yet, these same people claim that anyone is a religious bigot and an
     idiot who sees that observable science better matches the theory of purposeful design.

         By the way, the 50/50 mix of amino acids is even true of Stanley Miller‟s famous laboratory
     experiment that produced amino acids in a specially controlled setting that had all the elements that
     were assumed by evolutionists to be present in the beginning, non-living material (the evolutionary
     primordial soup). The zealous, yet willfully ignorant, media instantly proclaimed that Miller had
     produced life in the laboratory from non-living matter with just a spark of electricity. To Miller‟s
     credit, he never made such a claim.

4.   Only 100% right handed sugars are found in living organisms. Yet the natural laws of chemistry and
     physics consistently produce a 50/50 mixture of left and right handed sugars. The same reasoning
     applies to the sugars as it did to the amino acids.

                                      The Three Great Catch-22‟s of Evolution

5.   Oxygen had to be absent in the evolutionary primordial soup, as it would have destroyed the formation
     of amino acids necessary to make life. Yet oxygen‟s presence is essential for the protection and
     support of life. Miller deliberately kept oxygen out of his controlled experiment, well aware that any
     introduction of O2, in the experimental chamber would cause oxidation and no amino acids of any type
     would have been produced.

6.   Heat is the energy imperative to the formation of amino acids, but heat destroys any amino acids
     that might possibly develop. Once again, Miller „cheated‟ and formed a trap for the developing
     material before it would return to the heat source and be dissolved. So man‟s best efforts to produce
     life from non-life, even by introducing intelligence into the equation, through specially controlled and
     monitored, hi-tech laboratory conditions, has failed miserably, despite continued claims to the

7.   Proteins are necessary to make DNA, but the DNA contains all the necessary information to form the
     proteins. This is like having a tape cassette that contains all the instructions on how to build a tape
     player, but not having a tape player available to listen with. Thus, both proteins and DNA had to exist
     simultaneously at the same time, a statistical impossibility.

                                                 What Are The Odds?

8. Boyle‟s law of probability states that any event with a greater than 1 in 10200 chance of happening is
an absolute impossibility because the odds are just too astronomical. Even Stephen J. Gould of Harvard
and Carl Sagan, two ceaseless champions for the evolutionary belief, have admitted that the odds of our
existence by pure random chance are 1 in 102,000,000, that‟s one over ten with two million zeros behind it, or
impossible to the 10,000th power! There is just too much order, information and design for chance to have
a chance.

  Let‟s illustrate this a little more on the cellular level. One of the building blocks of a cell is protein,
which is made up of several amino acids. Proteins are usually a complex chain of several hundred amino
acids. With a relatively simple protein molecule having a chain of 100 amino acids, the probability for one
specific type of protein to be formed by chance would be 1 in 10130. To help us further understand the
enormity of the odds, scientists have calculated that the greatest number of events that could ever have
happened in the entire universe throughout its entire history, is only 1 in 10110. This figure was determined
with the evolutionary belief that the universe is several billions of years old, thus stretching the odds as
high as possible! So, in other words, it would be impossible for even one „simple‟ protein to form by
chance! When one considers that even the „simplest‟ cell contains several thousand different kinds of
proteins, and many billions of each kind, plus all kinds of DNA, RNA and other highly complex
molecules, along with many complex structures, arranged in a phenomenally complex system, the
intelligent mind has to recognize that this much design, forcefully, implies a Designer or Creator. To be
aware of this information and ignore or deny its obvious meaning is nothing less than willful and shameful

   The obvious intelligent design of everything in our entire universe, which completely rules out chance,
had led many evolutionists to search for greater intelligent life, i.e. Carl Sagan‟s multimillion tax dollar
supported S.E.T.I. program, the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. Even if this were true, it would

only beg the question. For who created the E.T.‟s? Life is just too complex, even on the so-called
„simplest‟ levels for there to be anything other than a Creator over all things.

    All of these examples so far have demonstrated the absolute scientific impossibility of evolution from
non-life. This is where the debate should begin and end for the origin of life, as creation and evolution
are the only two real possibilities for our origin and the demise of one automatically yields support for the
other. The aforementioned evidence clearly indicates that we have a Designer/Creator, whether we like is
or not. All other so-called proofs for evolution are obvious misinterpretations of the evidence since there
is no foundation for it. But because so many remain obstinate and/or wish to mix the theories of evolution
and creation together, we will examine more evidence. The following will deal with several
misrepresentations of evidence, false evidences and wrong thinking about this issue.

    Surely, you have heard that evolution is a fact? It‟s taught that way in our school textbooks and
classrooms, our museums, and our national parks, the media, Disney World exhibits, many Hollywood
movies, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Whether we realize it or not, from the cradle to the grave we are being
bombarded by this mythological philosophy on a daily basis, one way or another. People have begun to
believe that evolution is the only real answer because the creation model of science has been belittled and
ridiculed as religious nonsense and has deliberately been refused to be given an equal opportunity for
consideration in the public forum. If scientific evidences for creation were presented and displayed along
with the evolutionary ideas, few people, if any, would believe in evolution. There is evidence that those
who control the mainstream information resources understand this and will do much to continue the
„evolution only‟ barrage on the public. Too bad they have conveniently forgotten the words that Clarence
Darrow, one of their own, who stated in the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, „it is the worst form of bigotry to
only present one view”.

  Science is a useful tool, yet is it a very limited tool. Science is only what we can observe with our five
senses in the present. Yet it can demonstrate helpful information to lead us to an objective conclusion.

  Both the evolution and creation theories are based on faith, because no human was there in the
beginning to observe our origin and record the event. Therefore, despite the rhetoric to the contrary,
evolution is really a philosophical religion.

                                 Theistic Evolution-The Great Mix-up

    Many desire to merge the two views in what is known as theistic evolution; God started life at some
stage and then it evolved from there. Philosophically and scientifically, this is like mixing gasoline and
water it becomes useless for drinking or for your car‟s engine. Interestingly enough though, from the
philosophical view point, it is often the atheistic Evolutionist who points out to the theistic Creationist that
it is inconsistent and even hypocritical to attempt to merge the two views together. They demonstrate that
if Genesis is not true history, but instead only mythology, then man‟s sin is not the cause for death and
suffering in the world today, its just the way things have always been for millions of years. So this would
mean that the need for a redeemer, as was promised just after the fall to the man and woman in the garden,
to remove the curse that sin brought, would be mythical as well. In fact, the reason we wear clothes, the
concept of one man for one woman in marriage, why man is sinful and the world currently in its fallen,
messed-up state, etc., all have their foundation in Genesis. So if it‟s all only a big fairy tail and not real
history, then why not make up our own rules for our current generation and do whatever we please! This is
precisely the philosophical and cultural battle that we see raging in our midst today. The evolutionists and
historical revisionists are working overtime to cram their subjective religious philosophy down our throats,
all the while labeling those who would objectively, rationally and reasonably defend actual evidential
proofs of science, history and even fulfilled prophecy, as nothing but a bunch of ignorant religious bigots.

   But now let‟s look at the scientific evidences that make it impossible for anyone to logically blend God
and evolution together. What Darwin didn‟t know in his day, but scientists of today now know, is that
information on the genetic level is so vast and complicated that the impossibility of one specie evolving
into another species can easily be demonstrated. Each individual specie‟s, DNA is so complex and unique

that geneticists are now stating that it would never even be feasible for one specie to evolve into another,
no matter how much time you would wish to introduce into the equation. This destroys the newest fable,
as well, punctuated equilibrium, which postulates that millions of positive instantaneous mutations
change one specie into another, without the long transitional processes. Also, this enormous variation in
the DNA pattern between species is the reason why we don‟t see dogs and cats interbreeding. It‟s like a
flea standing on top of MT. Everest and attempting to leap all the way to the planet Pluto. Even if we gave
the flea no time limitations, say eternity, and combined that with an infinite number of tries, the flea would
never have any real chance of making it. In other words, the odds of a flea‟s chance on Pluto are much
greater than 1 in 10 to the 200th power.

   The idea of progressive evolution through effort has been abandoned by all good scientists today, i.e. the
giraffe‟s neck growing longer as it kept reaching for higher foliage to eat. For the giraffe‟s neck really had
to be that way from the beginning, because it is so unique and complex that it could never have evolved.,
So even a so-called mutant, super flea would never make it to Pluto. Nor would the fleas punctuate into an
astronaut with rocket boosters in his rear end.

    This brings us to the next point about mutations. Some evolutionists have lead the public to believe
that it was through a series of positive, rewarding mutations that all of life today as we know it was able to
somehow evolve out of the primordial soup, once the first „simple‟ life form had miraculously sprung to
life from non-living matter. Again, genetics totally refutes this as utter nonsense. It would take
multimillions of simultaneous positive mutations, happening all at exactly the same time, to even begin to
have a hope for this to occur, which is an absolute statistical impossibility. But that‟s not the half of it!
Most all mutations are harmful, a few neutral and on a very rare occasion they‟re positive. Out of all the
numerous mutations observed in mankind over the years, none have proven to be positive or a genuine
form of upward evolution.

   Additionally, evolutionists conveniently fail to mention that natural selection would select out or prevent
both positive and negative mutations. For example, a lizard „developing‟ its forelimbs into wings would be
severely disadvantaged and selected out of the process with its awkward and non-beneficial limbs, just as
the lizard which „developed‟ wings on its hind limbs would be.

   Another quick point should be made about the natural selection of the existing gene pools. Evolutionists
like to point to the DDT resistant mosquito as an example of evolution. When, in fact, this is just the
mosquitoes, with the genetic resistance to DDT in their gene pool surviving and producing offspring with
the same genetic resistance they had. The truth is that through this process some of the information and
the adaptability within the gene pool that could have offered protection in other harmful environments is
now lost to that particular mosquito population, thus making them more vulnerable, not stronger, to
extinction in the future when their environment changes again. So, once again, the reality is the exact
opposite of what the Evolutionists claim it to be.

   What about the billions of years from the big bang until now? You know the myth, a fiery explosion,
matter hurling in all directions and then slooooowly, over billions of years, some of this matter cooled
down and solidified to produce the floating rock called Earth that we now inhabit. Yet, a recent discovery
of polonium 218 radio-halos fixed in granite, with the absence of uranium, which can produce
polonium, tell us that the foundation rocks on this planet were formed in less than two hours, not over
billions of years! This is true because polonium has a half life of three minutes, decaying very rapidly.
With no uranium present to produce the polonium and the halos still present in the foundational granite
rock, it can only mean one thing; the granite cooled very rapidly fixing the halos before they could
disappear, thus the Earth was created extremely quick and not during some lengthy cosmic fairy tale.

Contrary to what most of us have been taught, or perhaps brainwashed would be a better term here, the
fossil record backs up what the geneticists have discovered. Textbooks, professors and even museums
have taken great liberal and artistic license to conjure up images and pictures of evolved transitional forms
that never truly existed. We would normally refer to this as fraud in the real world.

  First, let‟s discuss how we get a fossil. The fossilized object must have been buried rapidly to exclude
the natural decaying processes. This often takes place through some catastrophic event. The reason we
don‟t see millions of buffalo fossils in the North American plains is that they were exposed to the natural
elements of decay.

  Three quarters of the earth is covered by sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rocks are formed through water
action laying down sediment, often through turbidity currents. This is where we find the vast majority of
the fossil record. Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water all over the earth,
usually in a catastrophic manner. By the way, this is what we would expect to find had there been a global

  Most of us have seen Huxley‟s concocted evolving horse scale in our textbooks and many museums. Yet
most of those who still cling to evolution consider it an embarrassment, as many of the animals on the scale
have been found buried in the exact same layer together. If they were buried together, then they lived
together, not many years apart and changing from one into the other over time. Yet this concept of horse
evolution is still being presented to many as true science from the fossil record. In every case, whether its
fish supposedly changing into amphibians, lizards into bird, cows into whales, or the favorite one, monkeys
into humans, all of them can be demonstrated to be completely false from the real evidence of the fossil

   The arguments for evolution, as we are about to see, are nothing more than a straw man dressed in a fine
silk suit. It has many „expert‟ tailors that extol the quality of the suit, who chide us saying, “Would we
waste our finely crafted silk suit on something that was merely a straw man”? In other words, we are the
„recognized‟ authorities, only a fool would dare to question us. Well, let‟s look at what all these self-
proclaimed masters of eternal understanding and knowledge have been telling over the years

   Exposing the deception and nonsense of the ape to man myth is not a difficult thing, when one knows the
real evidence behind such claims. It might be of interest to note that the first two to be mentioned were
used as prime „evidence‟ for „proof‟ of evolution in the Scopes Monkey Trial, Piltdown Man and Nebraska
Man. The sad reality is that this highly publicized trial with its false proofs turned many in this world to a
strong belief in evolution as a fact.

  Piltdown Man turned out to be an absolute forgery. A human skull had been deliberately patched
together with an orangutan jaw bone. The teeth had been filed down to make them look more human. It
fooled some of the best scientists for 35 years, only because they so wanted to believe that it was true.

   Nebraska Man and the entire imagined community of the Nebraska Ape-Man, was derived from a
single tooth. Incredible imagination, from pitifully small bits of material is called „evidence‟ and often
used by Evolutionists to sell their pseudo-science to unsuspecting audiences. It was no huge surprise to the
thinking and informed scientists, when later that single tooth turned out to belong to an extinct pig. This is
a case where the pig made a monkey out of the Evolutionists.

  Ramapithecus, developed from a fragment of a jaw and several teeth, was stated to be one of our
ancestors. Now over 40 nearly complete specimens have been unearthed and Dr. Pilbeam admits that
ramapithecus is only an orangutan.

   Pithecanthropecus (Homo) Erectus or Javaman was fraudulently concocted from a gibbon scull
fragment and a human leg bone. Do we see a pattern here?

   Australopithecus (Lucy) is one of the latest fabrications of mankind‟s “missing links”. The big news
about Lucy was stated to be that because of the knee joint and pelvis she walked upright, “much like you
and me today”. Today we have pigmy chimps that walk upright too. Does that mean they are related to the
Evolutionists? Perhaps, but it really doesn‟t prove it. First, the knee joint was dug up over a mile away and
200 feet deeper than the rest of the bones. That seems to be quite a willful stretch to put bones together and
make them fit for a desired effect. Second, Dr. Charles Oxnard had done a thorough computer analysis of
the pelvis and knee joint and concluded that the claims for the upright position are unfounded. Finally, not

unlike ramapithecus, many other specimens have now been found and Lucy is now considered to be an
extinct ape unrelated to man or chimp. Australopithecus means southern, ape, by the way.

   It should be pointed out that the scientist who makes a „big discovery‟ will always be granted fame and
generous funding. So it‟s often the story teller with the best imagination who gets their face plastered on
Time and Newsweek, while the more honest scientists must be content with an occasional publication in
the scientific journals, obscured from most of the public eye.

   Neanderthal Man consists of several rather complete skeletons, most of which look like modern man.
But a few have a rather stooped over and brutish appearance to them. Scientists from Johns Hopkins
University X-rayed these stooped over specimens and found that they had been diseased with a vitamin D
deficient rickets and arthritis. Perhaps, you might have seen one of these ancient specimens down at the
local nursing home. Could this mean that we are all devolving into Neanderthals? Philosophically and
socially, there might be a gain of truth hidden in that one.

   In conclusion, apes have been found and man has been found, but never an ape-man. Man has always
been man from his first appearance on Earth, and ape has been ape. In fact, that is precisely what the fossil
record resoundingly demonstrates, abrupt appearance of each individual species and no transitions of
any kind. Both human and ape fossils have been found mixed together throughout many of the geologic
strata. Even more damaging to the evolutionary belief is the fact that human fossils have been found
further down in the strata than ape fossils. In Glen Rose, Texas, there is human, saber-tooth tiger,
dinosaur, and trilobite fossils all buried in the same strata! Again, if they were buried together, they
lived together!

  No one should be disturbed by the „latest‟ discoveries of another one of our so-called „missing links‟.
Mainly because genetics says it never happened and also because, in time, the fraudulent assertion will be
exposed like all the others before it.

   One last zinger to mention before we move on from the fossil record, Have you ever wondered why
you‟ve never seen a chart for the evolution of plant life? It‟s because out of the millions upon millions of
fossils that have been discovered, not a single hint, even for the very imaginative, of any real change has
taken place in the plant kingdom. Plants have always been the same from the day they showed up. If
evolution were true, we would see myriads of transitional forms and “mixed” species in both the plant
and animal kingdoms. But, in truth, we see none.

                                              Dating Methods

   What most people do not know is that out of the more than 100 dating methods available to scientists
today, less than 10% are used because they are the ones that can yield long periods of time for the existence
of things. The other 90% of the dating methods consistently establish relatively young ages for the material
tested. Therefore, since the vast majority does not fit with the evolutionary assumption of millions and
billions of years, the Evolutionists just ignore them. Hardly a scientific attitude! Unfortunately, this is only
the beginning of their problematic behavior and thinking, it gets worse.

   Three major assumptions (unknowns) are made by the evolutionists when they date things. For those
who understand math, we can‟t have “xyz” as unknowns and expect to come up with a real value in our
answer, unless we have actual numbers or known constants to plug into our formula. Only one unknown in
the equation is acceptable to be able to find a real, concrete tangible answer. The guesses made by
evolutionists are subtly disguised as if they were real known values and thus, part of the equation. Even
though they know that their presumptions are faulty based on other recognized variables that affect the
material they are dating.

   First, they assume the original amount of parent material being measured, when there is no way to know
for certain. This directly relates to their second presupposition, that no daughter material was present in the
beginning, as well. Third, they postulate that the decay rate has been constant with no outside interferences

that could influence it to change. Let‟s look at whether these assumptions are valid based on scientific
observation and at an example or two of material that has been dated by these selective methods to see if
they are reliable.

   Scientists understand that when rocks are formed they most always have both parent and daughter
material in them, i.e. volcanic rocks that are formed with both, potassium, the parent, and argon, the
daughter in them. This would automatically give the illusion of the rocks being older than they really are,
as the argon present at formation would be interpreted as past decayed material.

   Scientists recognize that outside influences affect the decay rate, such as cosmic radiation, as well as, the
amount of what remains of the parent material to be dated, such as the washing out of salts from the
material by water. So, when parent potassium salts are washed out of the sample it will appear much older,
as well. For instance, volcanic rocks in Hawaii from the 1800 and 1801 eruptions were dated by some of
these discriminating techniques that can yield longer periods of time. The dates achieved ranged from a
couple of million to three billion years old. This wide range of variance and obvious inaccuracy of dates
on rocks that we know are less than 200 years old should clearly demonstrate that such dating methods
cannot be trusted nor should they be presented as „scientific fact‟ to the trusting public.

  Yet, even worse than all of this, because of the above mentioned problems, if you bring in a rock to be
dated, you must first tell those who are doing the testing at what level or approximate time period the rock
came from, according to Charles Lyell‟s concocted geologic scale, which he adapted from James Hutton‟s
philosophy of „uniformitarianism‟, or they won‟t even date it. Once they have a target range to shoot for,
they will continually tweak their instruments until they get a number that matches the range of the assumed
time period on the mythological geologic scale. Dates that do not match the intended target are discarded.
Just imagine what would happen if N.A.S.A conducted their scientific business in such a manipulative and
dishonest manner, no rockets would have ever made it off the launch pad!

   The real reason that they uses such a subjective and unscientific method for dating is based on the fact
that their whole philosophy is rooted in illogical circular reasoning; the „stage of evolution‟ or sequence
of the fossils determines geologic age of the rocks and the geologic age of the rocks determines the
sequence of the fossils. One supposedly proves the other, yet neither assumption proves anything.

   The carbon-14 dating method‟s problems are really no different. The theory assumes that carbon-14 is in
equilibrium in the atmosphere (it breaks down at the same rate that it is being produced). Yet, calculations
show that carbon-14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating. Also, it is known
that some plants absorb C-14 at a much lower rate than the assumed normal rate, which would give the
result of a longer period of time since that object had ceased to live than was actually true. The C-14
method allows for contamination here, fractionation there and calibration whenever possible. There are
gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates (only about 50%) are
actually „selected‟ dates.

 To demonstrate the problems with radiocarbon dating let‟s look at a few examples, out of thousands that
could be sighted. A living clam‟s shell was dated to be 2,300 years old and a freshly slaughtered seal was
dated to be 1,300 years old, while a dried seal‟s carcass was found to be 4,600 years old. So the next time
you hear some ludicrous report that some caveman‟s remains were discovered and have been found to be
25,000 to 30,000 years old, don‟t swallow the bait.

                             Evidences from the Earth and the Cosmos

  There are many such evidences that strongly indicate a young earth, but since numerous books have
already have been written revealing these facts, only a few examples will be mentioned here.

   The earth’s magnetic field - The earth functions like a giant magnet creating a magnetic field around it.
It is know that the strength of this magnetic field is in rapid decay; by 50% every 1,400 years. If we follow
the strict uniformitarian thinking, the earth turns out to be quite young, as only 8,000 years ago the strength
of the earth‟s magnetic field would equal that of a magnetic star. If you think that it‟s hard to get out of be
in the morning now or that you have been having a little trouble being over weight, imagine what it would
be like with all that extra force pulling you down toward the center of the earth‟s core. The truth is that life
as we know it could not exist under such conditions.

  In addition to this, the earth‟s rotation slows down about one second per year. If the earth‟s age was even
close to the billions of years that evolutionists suggest, it would have literally ripped itself apart due to its
breakneck rate of rotation. And can you imagine what the centrifugal force would have done to any life
that was supposedly evolving back then. If you can‟t, then a simple experiment is in order. Put your
favorite roach in a test tube and spin it in a centrifuge at 2000 rpm‟s for only ten minutes. It can be
guaranteed that you will not have a living, functional roach when you are done.

  The decay of short-period comets -These comets will break apart and cease to exist in 10,000 years or
less. Yet evolutionists claimed that all the cosmos had its beginning from the big bang several billion years
ago. To try and account for this obvious discrepancy, they now claim, without a shred of proof, that there
is some unseen mystical comet incubator spitting out new comets periodically and this, in their eyes,
explains away their problem. They can believe in fairy tales and science fiction all they wish, but they have
no right to pass off this type of shameless nonsense as factual science.

  The formation of river deltas - River deltas, as measured all over the world, only come to around 5,000
years in age, which, interestingly enough is about the time when the global flood was to have transpired,
based on an accurate historical record called the Bible.

  The efflux of oil from traps by fluid pressure - The oil in the ground is usually contained under high
pressure that if given somewhere between the time limit of 10,000 to 100,000 years, the pressure would
have all dissipated and be long gone. But the many oil fields of today, that haven‟t been played out by
man, still contain vast amounts of pressure that should not be there if long periods of time are true.

  The sun’s nearness to the earth - The sun shrinks at a rate of five feet per second. At this rate, going
back a million years in time, the sun would have been so close to the earth that no life could have existed
on this planet at all. Yet, evolutionists claim that man started his evolution two million years ago and
dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago, etc.

 Meteoric dust - This dust collects on the earth at a constant and measurable rate. But when
measurements are taken of the total amount, an age is determined to be around 10,000 to 15,000 years for
how long the earth has been here collecting it.

  Helium gas - Helium is given off through radioactive decay and it cannot escape the earth‟s atmosphere.
Additionally, the sun infuses even more helium into our atmosphere, which should yield an atmosphere
thoroughly saturated with helium, if the earth has been here for 4.5 billion years. Actual measurements are
at about one millionth of what evolutionists claim it should be.

  So much more could be said to demonstrate the faulty thinking of the evolutionary theory, but the truth is
that enough has been exposed to convince an honest intellect that a Designer/Creator made this world and
everything in it. This it not so amazing when we see that this is what the accurate and reliable historical
record of the Bible has told us all along. This logically dictates that we are accountable to this Creator of
ours and this is the real reason in the hearts of sinful men there springs forth the rebellious, willful rejection
of what is so obviously true.

  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who
suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them;
for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His external
power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that

they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give
thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing
to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form
of corruptible man and of bird and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (Romans 1:18-23)
   Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their
own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all
continues just as it was from the beginning of creation” (theistic evolution). For when they maintain this,
it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out
of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But
the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the Day of Judgment and
destruction of ungodly men. (2 Peter 3:3-7)

Terry Johnson

Web Master Comments:

 The research and documentation were solely written and contributed by one of our fellow Christian
Ministers, Terry Johnson. Thanks Terry for all your hard work and hours of dedication to our Lord and
Savior Jesus Christ. We are happy to have you as a special guest minister and are grateful for the vital
information you provided to our online audience. May the Lord bless you my friend!

 I pray that the Lord reveals his truth to all who read the documentation our friend Terry provided us with,
to share with you all. Thanks for your undivided attention and for the time you have taken to read the
proceeding information, God Bless you for it.

Please feel free to request any information about Terry‟s Ministry or our own by writing us

or visit us on our online website

Thanks again for visiting Ruby Two‟s-days!

In Christ,
Joe A Cantu

Shared By: