by Jannie

Evolution (Darwinism): science or fantasy?



If phrases in this paper such as “truth” are frowned upon, please make allowance for the irony in such annoyance when considering possible conceit and self-righteousness of a highly learned reader. The rest of what are found on this website address that issue. The content of this paper, however, is aimed simply at unveiling some twisted half- truths, even a few outright wicked lies and hence will not be – as a presentation – an ostentatious work of pure academic literary perfection. Likewise, an opinion of some readers that might perhaps think “There are no absolutes” would be poignant, to say the least. (The very statement [“There are no absolutes”] is an absolute, yet only if absolutely true! If there are no absolutes, laws – legally and those found to be in fact governing in nature – would all be senseless; as would principles, morals, guidelines and advice – clearly absurd and irrational).
This author is not a trained scientist but loves subjects and its applications such as physics, different fields of engineering, material science, and so on; even philosophy and logic. Not being officially qualified as a scientist, however, does not necessarily diminish an ability to identify questionable “facts” propagated from resolute attempts to discredit a book such as The Bible [As the Word of God]. It is fair to point out that both sides of people involved in debate are at times guilty of prejudice and information bias.

It is for example plain wrong for “Christians” ashamed of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, to hypothesize that God could have used a process such as evolution to create [mankind]; for God never gave that option in His word.  The Bible unequivocally teaches that (i) God in the beginning [of our time] made man[kind] to His image (Genesis 1:26-28); (ii) Jesus reiterated this in Matthew 19:4; and (iii) it is explicitly mentioned ten times in five verses (Gen 1:11,12,21,24,25), that God made every living creature to its kind to reproduce only to its kind.  This then, is also what we have observed in our recorded [observed] history thus far.  Furthermore, (iv) if man developed through random order it implies we are still changing into some other form [kind] and this would not be man created to God’s image.  We would also not have any special [created] significance (purpose) in this universe and we would not have a need for a Savior.  In fact, God would then have made the biggest blunder to have gone to the extent of Jn 3:16, even at that time.  This is in fact what we will examine in this modest non-academic paper – the cards on the table will show what is at the crux of this debate.

The credibility of the Bible is addressed in the papers “The Bible” and “Apparent Controversies in The Bible” on www.gospel-truth.co.za.

This paper is an honest attempt to eradicate bias and reveal [re-visit] some truth on this subject. This paper will therefore question the dubious practice of drawing conclusions as fact with no, little or distorted evidence; i.e. the misuse of words such as “scientific fact” when at most dealing with a hypothesis.  So, please don’t be exasperated by adjectives used in this paper while propagating evolution (Darwinism) as unrequited  scientific fact.  Read this paper in its entirety to its end, and then reconsider the possibility of indoctrination by people wanting to merely refute The Bible with more art and imagination than science in its true empirical sense.  What harm can it do to continue reading?

Please note as well that a journalist’s report on a scientist’s hypothesis or theory is not necessarily a true scientific confirmation. Also, consider the stimuli that might coerce “confirmers” to a particular point of view. A perception of rejection easily leads one to rebellion that can hide behind [false] “reason”.

For a real scientific and more technical expounding, consider reading http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati and www.true.origin.com. In the meanwhile the information following put forward the perceptions, acceptance of facts and convictions of this author on Darwanism.

Merit for Enlightenment
Wikipedia tells us that “The Enlightenment (“Age of Reason” redirects here), known in French as the Siècle des Lumières (Century of Enlightenment) and in German as the Aufklärung, was a philosophical movement which dominated the world of ideas in Europe in the 18th century. The principal goals of Enlightenment thinkers were liberty, progress, reason, tolerance, fraternity, and ending the abuses of the church and state. In France, the central doctrines of the Lumières were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to the principle of absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by increasing empiricism, scientific rigor, and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxy.” (As for as the Roman Catholic faith, refer to this author’s paper entitled “Church part 2”).


This author believes that religion with its abuses is indeed wrong. Note however, that religion is yet mere externalism (rituals, ceremonies, tradition, monologues posed as prayer [with little or no real result], and liturgical man-made rules) brought about by religious prognosticators in the search for higher meaning but often shamefully for plain manipulation and extortion – ironically, still with its uncertainty of salvation and an afterlife. Observe that there is only one faith that is radically different [opposite] than all the rest, namely Christianity. Note also that Christianity is not immune to religious misuse and false dogma! The papers “Church” and “The Gospel” and “Who is Jesus Christ” on www.gospel-truth.co.za address this sorry issue of religion and falsity as well. Reason dictates, though, that if the one Truth in faith is longed for, one should start by examining this unique distinguished faith and then progress to find Truth. Only one faith believes God, the Creator, has come to us and has given us an assurance of salvation and life: Christianity. www.gospel-truth.co.za is a good starting point to examine this faith in Jesus Christ.


This paper endeavor also, to show that some propositions of science are in fact yet another form of religion. Science can be misused just as religion is misused. Both have components of faith involved.


The overwhelming complexity in this universe makes it understandable that intelligent people seek an understanding of how this could all come about. Could it happen on its own or was there a pre-intelligence?  Can anything begin to exist ex-nihilo on its own? Interestingly, the word “universe” means “one spoken sentence”, and equally interesting is the fact that the oldest literature (and we’ll later see the most constant and most credible!) in the world starts with an account, “In the beginning… and God said…”

As touched on in “The introduction” to this website, is this actually about apparent despondent people seeking either (a) an outright alternative faith or (b) seek a compromise that would save them their embarrassment of having a faith that is “un-scientific”. It can be called an informal fallacy (where the form may be valid yet unsound because one or more premises are wrong).  Reading this paper to its end in its entirety will soon reveal that (b) is rather ironically applicable to (a)! Mainly because many wrongly think [consider, suspect] that God and His Word is not fact but myth. Instead of acknowledging God [Jesus Christ] they look at people instead that sadly misrepresents God [The way, Truth, Life] and so in bitterness fail to identify the real problem: self-righteousness! They are probably also, as a result, blaming God for what He has not done… We find therefore, apparently two categories of Darwinists, namely atheists, and people like Jews acknowledging God’s existence, but without an accurate knowledge of Jesus Christ; as the apostle Paul observed in Romans 10:1-3 (Ampl) – “Bretheren, (with all) my heart’s desire and good will [for Israel], I long and pray that they may be saved. I bear them witness that they have a [certain] zeal and enthusiasm for God, but it is not enlightened and according to [correct and vital] knowledge. For being ignorant of the righteousness that God ascribes [which makes one acceptable to Him in word, thought, and deed] and seeking to establish a righteousness (a means of salvation) of their own, they did not obey or submit themselves to God’s righteousness.” Please also contemplate the rest of what is discussed on this website.

If this paper is seriously read to its end in its entirety, it will become clear that science is one thing, and Darwinism – the faith in evolution (see the definitions below) – is quite something else.  Darwinism misuses science just as false Christians and the religious misrepresents a perfect God.  Both are a faith.  However, Jesus Christ was (is) fact and true and observable, unlike the change of one kind into another that has nowhere been observed, neither could it be replicated.  (Read this paper further for revelations of hoaxes presented by evolutionists as fact, also the paper “Who is Jesus Christ” on this website). The only way to believe evolution is to add a fantastical long period of fictitious time, using wild assumptions with pre-conceived ideas in mind, and then make a “finding” based on these unproven assumptions.  This will be qualified further on in this short paper, so kindly read on.

Meaning [usage] of words and terminology
This does not claim to be a perfect etymological expounding. It might even be guilty of catachresis and malapropisms, but is an honest attempt simply to point out the obvious that seems to be overlooked.
General observations:

1. “Claiming to be wise, they become fools [professing to be smart they make simpletons of themselves” – Romans 1:22, Amplified Bible]. The truth of God is often seen to be exchanged for hollow attempts at insightful reasoning such as pseudo-intellectualism and “political correctness” – all merely self-righteous play-acting in a conceited false moral and ethical supremacy.
2. An old cliché, but touché: treating the symptoms instead of addressing the cause, is unidentified.
3. The meanings of some words have changed, often even contradicting the original meaning under the guise of “expanding” the meaning to keep up with “modern times”. Examples are:
3.1. Apocalypse. (Expanded on in the paper “Rapture raptured”)
3.2. Gay (Expanded on in the paper “Homosexuality”)
3.3. Replenish (Expanded on in the paper “The gap theory”)
3.4. Science. This is what we’ll look at more closely in this paper.


The meaning of the word science
Science according to Wikipedia, is from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”. This describes a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations but now also, the predictions about the universe. Observe here that this might not be tested or even testable. In an older and closely related meaning, “science” also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. However, it seems to have implied that for something to be real science, or truly scientific, it basically still has to be observable [fact] and that these observable results have to be repeatable through experiments [to be real]. If we venture into overlapping areas of classical philosophy, we find that the words “science” and “philosophy of nature” were sometimes used interchangeably. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called “natural science”) was considered a separate branch of philosophy.


In modern usage, “science” most often merely refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton’s laws of motion.. And over the course of the 19th century, the word “science” became increasingly associated with rather the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term “scientist” was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought other types of knowledge.


“Scientific method” (noun) according to the Oxford dictionary, implies a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Let’s then proceed with this paper, to examine some of these observations, measurements, [lack of] experiments and formulation and testing of the natural scientists – claiming what had happened over millions of years ago – shall we?

We realize of course, that a word such as “science” offers more weight and credibility.  Naturally then, it would be the obvious choice to coerce masses into accepting these assumptions, ideas and hypotheses.

 Voodoo science ≠ science; and assumptions ≠ observations

The statement “Only the fittest – or strongest – survive(d)” is an assumption, not fact.  A bone cannot tell beyond any reasonable doubt that a particular animal “survived” (?!) because it was the fittest or most brave, or even the most suitable [fit].  There could very well have been plain luck involved – how would we know for a fact?  This has to be an assumption based on a pre-conceived idea.  Normally, one would expect a fitter animal to flee more successfully than a less fit one, or that a brave animal could deter a predator more successfully.  Yet, this is an assumption simply because we are considering bones of animals long dead (unobserved).  For instance, the following scenarios cannot – scientifically – be ruled out:

·         The fittest animals of a group were in front and got trapped in, for example, quicksand or a landslide (or similar catastrophe such as a poisonous gas), leaving the less fit and less dominant animals that were in the back of the group to survive that pitfall.

·         The bravest in a group took on predators that destroyed them, leaving the less brave that fled, or hid, to survive longer in that group.  One can now start arguing whether the “less brave” were more cunning (intelligent); but this will miss the point here.

It is also rather fantastic to suspect a more fit plant of being aware of animals in such a way that the plant then decides to develop a device to hook onto animals so that it can distribute its seed. These plants must then have had knowledge of better places for their seed to germinate, migration routes of animals, and a myriad of other data of which the very least, the intellect and ability to reason that it needs such method. It must also have had the ability to alter itself, best of all, in a short enough time to make it “fittest” to survive. The same goes for the ideas such as finches that essentially altered the shape of their beaks because their food ended up in hard to reach places. One would think that those finches could rather have made an easier or more pragmatic plan, especially since starvation would dictate a speedy alteration!

Annoyance at such simplification of the evolutionist’s claims – as in the previous paragraph – is probably merely a discomfiture for such ridiculous reasoning. Just acknowledge that “intelligence” often attempts to mask emotion, especially an ironic rebellion towards this very God in question. Therefore, it is equally annoying for “creationists” to be misquoted by die-hard evolutionists that in conceit try to scoff at those who choose to believe that there rather must have been an intelligent design and thus a Creator, and so deem it ridiculous to assert that photosynthesis or an eye or a brain, let alone a spirit and soul, can develop accidentally [really meaningless] by itself from nothing, as if evolutionists have the unassailable answers as “scientific” fact. Let’s face it; we are talking about people that desperately wanted an alternative for The Bible opposed to those who choose to believe The Bible [unaltered]. This is discussed later on p 11/30, starting with the so-called geological column.

The simple fact is that an assumption is not equal to an observation, and that evolutionists liberally and unscientifically propagate their assumptions to be scientific deductions.  Science is defined by the Oxford dictionary as basically, The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment”. Any sober and careful observer will spot the obvious in the widespread findings of evolutionists, namely that they regularly and repeatedly state as fact what could not be observed – nor repeated through experiment – and adamantly call it scientific fact!  The same is done with the known methods to determine age.  This is discussed further on in this paper.  No, assumptions like that have to be believed, making it more a faith [a belief-system; a religion], than science. Such people misuse the word science just as the religious misuse the name of God and hence make false representations of Him.  Papers such as “The Gospel” and “Who is Jesus Christ” expand on this.

Reading this paper to its end will show evolution to be a religion that treats fiction as fact in a desperate, but futile, attempt to get rid of God and our accountability to Him.  Any notion of a threat vanishes once it dawns on us that God is Love.  To grasp how God has been misrepresented by mere men, consider the other papers such as “The will”, “The Gospel”, and so on.

Assuming that [evolutionist] scientists are truly the superior intelligent people, the ostensibly lesser Christian is perceivably astounded by an apparent lack of logic in the evolutionist’s thought-processes.  (Bear in mind that many professing “Christians” today do not follow – or understand – the teachings of Jesus Christ either due to confusion caused by power-hungry humans in religious man-made organizations that manipulate and capitalize on fear, lust and greed!).  A true Christian accept that a Creator would be the Source of all Life, logic, intelligence, creativity, wisdom, peace, love, the universe, and so on, with His specific design and purpose and then only [for] the good; for the bad [in us] are due to our mistrust in that Perfect Creator’s sovereignty…  It takes less faith to believe and follow a Creator that created, for example, mature functioning creatures, organisms, materials and mechanisms; than to try and make sense of a random-order evolutionary process that magically appeared out of nowhere and that gives no special place, importance or permanence to a human being. (Do you, at this point, “instinctively”, want to “fight or flee”?  Is this “mechanism” your intelligent proof that you once, millions of years ago, were a chimpanzee or even a piece of slime? So, you could not have been designed with some similar traits than lesser animals, and with a higher meaning and purpose?  Why love and reason, why the choice?  Perhaps then, if you eat like a pig, does it prove you must have been one at some stage very long ago? Can it be that you are indoctrinated and blindly, with pre-conceived ideas, merely following people hating God [Love]?)  It is a great difficulty for the true Christian to fathom how the following can be rationalized with fantastic theories nowhere observed except in the reasoning of a blinded, conceited mind:

1.      If no intelligence existed [yet] nor anything known to man, how can the origin of everything have been an explosion? (a) What exploded? (b) Why? (c) How? (d) How can an explosion produce our astonishing complexity and any laws that govern these systems with no design of any kind???  (e) We frown upon a theory that insinuates that a law [constant] in nature could develop randomly on its own accord [by definition against its own rule]; yet start to govern something else consistently.

2.      If we have not been created, we have no responsibility to a creator; neither would mankind have any need for a saviour.  It would not make sense. The book teaching this would then also be a lie, a fabrication.  It is notable that the evolutionist’s “bible” have artists’ depictions [only] for all the major “scientific” base assumptions, such as one solid “geological column” and museum exhibitions fraught with imagination… and that the Bible, when studied honestly and sensibly, is supreme in its logic and consistency with unparalleled compliancy to all modern scholastic requirements for credibility.  Even a global flood is an absolutely plausible explanation and fits in perfectly with physical evidence across the globe and a story told in the most extraordinary Book…

3.      How can any morality be propagated or expected if the source where this was first recorded is denied? The other papers by this author on gospel-truth.co.za expand on this.

Most people, when they discover that they’ve been misled with something that they had based their entire belief system on, react with what they think is anger.  This emotion is probably just a mixture of fear and embarrassment.  But don’t despair – this is our opportunity to prove our sober maturity and honesty and logical reasoning… so let’s cut to the chase and look at this more observant and wisely, shall we?

In this website you have an author who is not a scientist but a plain and normal Christian.  If you want to read the probably definitive website debunking evolution, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism and uniformitarianism, do yourself a favour and peruse www.trueorigin.org.  Be honest and scientific [empirical] and get credible facts from real scientists.  Be fair and read this short paper to the end.

Many will be shocked to discover what really motivates humanism, racism, abortion, uniformitarianism, etc.  Note that all these philosophies share a common belief-system that (a) some [races] are more superior to others (because they are more evolved) and (b) have a notion that some [more so, like an unborn child] are worth little/less because we have all merely randomly evolved from – in plain language – slime or a molten rock-soup.  Or you might believe the Biblical account of creation as fact like David did in Psalm 139.  So, let’s look at this rationally and see which theory is most likely to be a colossal hoax.  Don’t be too quick to make assumptions yet – please read on and examine this more closely and let’s be truthful.  (The skeptic “Christian” can at this juncture perhaps contemplate and carefully consider Rom 1:17-22; 1 Cor 3:12-21; Gal 1:6-12; Mt 7:18-23).


Cheap shot

The moment evidence of manipulation [misuse] of science is pointed out, the evolutionist (or hybrid-“Christian” buying into human death prior to Adam, and millions of years for earth), often resort to a statement that in effect blames the creationist of ignorance in using the “straw man-argument” of wrong and over-simplified arguments that ignores their more complicated and sophisticated arguments.  What makes this a shame to prove their far-fetched ideas as science [fact] is that a true and concise statement is not a “straw man argument!  Using long and fancy words and complicated mathematics will not change the fact that assumptions had to be used to arrive at the published answers of their pre-conceived ideas.  No matter how complicated, a basic truth must still stand in its most basic form.  We find thus, basically, two options:

  1. Nothing exploded and accidentally formed everything over millions of years.
  2. God created everything we know and is the only giver of Life.

Propaganda is effective because people tend to ironically believe the biggest lie that has been repeated the most. In 2000 a Nobel Prize was awarded to Kruger and Dunning for their report entitled, “How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments”.  Wikipedia says, “It was about the cognitive bias of competence by way of illusionary superiority.  It derives from the inability of low-ability persons to recognise their own ineptitude.” This basically only addresses those who are too stupid to know how stupid they are; but the same principle holds for the self-righteousness the Bible addresses (See the papers “The Bible”, “Apparent Controversies in The Bible”, even “The Gospel”).

So there is a satirical truth in the joke of a gullible visitor to a game reserve that was told that elephants occasionally hide up certain big trees in that region.  At departure, when the visitor said to the game ranger that they nowhere saw an elephant hiding up a tree, the ranger replied “It’s because they’re really, really good at it!”  Less outrageous but more engaging can be a wildly inaccurate statement that sounds conceivable because it is hard to refute.  For example, to tell a gullible person (children) that the inside of a fruit is completely colourless until the moment it is exposed to light (cut open).  This then gives them an activity that could keep them busy for a long time, wasting a lot of fruit, to prove you wrong.  Such is the case of hypothesis used by many an evolutionist/Darwinist. See the paper “Black holes” on this website.


Let’s start this discussion by letting an evolutionist appraise Darwinism for us in his own words.

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior palaeontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.  So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anti-creationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major paper showing how Dr Patterson was ‘misquoted’. This accusation still appears occasionally in anti-creationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?

He went on to say: ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of palaeontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

To say this confession is quoted out of context is unlikely to be anything but insolent desperation of incorrigible, inveterate, stuck-in-the-mud (ptp) Darwinists.

Note. This author is not against science, biology, or geology.  There are some wonderful, essential and useful knowledge and information contained in these fields.  Read through this whole little paper with an open and honest mind and decide for yourself.  We’ll soon see that evolution is not science, and vice versa. This author loves science, but detests the false pretense of a religion that misuses science and by manipulating science, poses as a pure science in itself.  At the crux of evolution and its millions of fictional years, is the adamant mission to refute the Bible.  Please read this paper in its entirety to the end..


Consider and remember that for something to be real science, or scientific, it basically has to be observable [fact] and that these observable results have to be repeatable through experiments. It should of course not be manipulated in any way, shape or form to find answer(s) you wanted to prove pre-conceived!

Assumptions then, by nature, cannot be classified as science – certainly not unless the original idea, postulate or hypotheses can be proven by observation and also be repeated with the same result.  For example, if you pick up a bone in the field, is it impossible to scientifically know [determine] whether this specific bone has led to an entirely new species simply because it is uncertain whether that particular being that this bone belonged to, delivered any young.  To collect a wider selection is in fact making the deduction more complex.  Wild assumptions become necessary to make some theories plausible.  How can you know for a fact that this particular creature had babies? The real fact is that genes in any species have all existed previously and is nowhere observed to have “evolved”.

We have to at this juncture, clarify our concept/perception/definition of the word “evolution”. There are at least the following six meanings of the word/idea called “evolution”.  The honest observer will have to admit that there is no proof that any one kind [can] develop into another kind. But let’s examine this.

Evolution can be defined as:

1. Cosmic-evolution.  This tries to explain the origin of time, space and matter with a “big-bang” theory.  How does nothing explode anyway – before coming into existence? The problem here is that the laws of thermodynamics and logic alone defy this possibility.  It is discussed further on in this paper.  Also, how can an explosion (divergent instability) revert to convergent stability and an organisation of new life forms?  Long periods of time make this less likely not more likely.

Bear in mind that a creation implies a happening in an instant and that a long period of time is by definition not necessary and that an explosion would be plain un-scientific for a creation. The instant this creation took place would then, with it, create relativity, time and space as well. This means that heavenly bodies could instantly have been placed [created] at vast distances apart that would at the current [subsequent, since its creation] speed of travel (for light, for instance), take millions of years; yet, at the instant of creation, it was instantly so far apart. Current rates do therefore not exclude the fact that the [cosmic] creation could have been made so vast – at an instant – that we today cannot grasp – applying current rates – how it could come into existence, except by a supernatural Creator that leaves this evidence to us, namely that the current rates have not applied [not existed yet] at the moment it was created. This would perfectly illustrate this Creator’s infinite greatness [superiority, ability] above ours, would it not? Surely this God would be worthy of our praise and admiration? But, alas, clever [created] beings want to rather opt for reasoning such a wonderful God out of His own creation – a tragic shame.

2. Chemical-evolution. This claims that hydrogen and some helium were formed first.  This again assumes a pre-existence of material.  Anyway, how could the other elements then develop from hydrogen??  How could stars have “fused” past iron??

3. Stellar and planetary-evolution. No proof beyond any reasonable doubt can be shown for a star forming. There are many theories, ideas and assumptions but no un-refuted scientific proof.  This is expanded on somewhat as is necessary later in this short paper.

4. Organic-evolution.  The origin of life from non-living things simply cannot be proved. Again a pre-existence must be assumed.  It seems one just cannot get past a creation for things to originate.

5. Macro-evolution.  The changing of one kind into another – no proof of this exists anywhere.

6. Micro-evolution.  Variation/adaptations within the same kind.  Now this has been observed. Observe here that these changes have always shown a loss of information and not a gain in such a way that one kind can develop into another kind.  For example, can an animal in deep and dark places lose eyes and develop other heightened senses but will still be of the same kind.  A beetle can lose its wings on an isolated and windy island (not to blow away into the ocean) but will not grow wings and become birds.  Within a kind there can be changes, adaptations and variations yes, but not to change into another kind.  It is much more plausible that kinds were created by a Creator according to its kind – as recorded in Genesis 1.  Closer investigation will show this to be the most logical and acceptable answer to all the many questions that arise from what we can see.


Note that numbers 1 through 5 above are all part of a religion [a belief-system] called evolution [Darwinism] not science; and that only number 6 above has anything to do with actual science.

If nature’s laws cannot change, how on earth could they have developed by themselves?  There must have existed a pre-intelligence.  The laws of thermodynamics[1] alone rules out that life will develop on its own, and given an incredible amount of fictional time (time/space that could not have existed prior to being created – it cannot form on its own!) makes it less likely.  Creation cannot be ruled out of this creation!

Make a decent study of this.  A reliable test for defining a kind is that it cannot transmutate.  Animals [kinds] do not normally attract other kinds sexually (variation in chemicals, organs, etc.  Even a horse + a donkey = mule, but mules cannot reproduce).  Mutations lead to loss of DNA information.  Mere reshuffling of genes cannot produce new [added] information.  Only the Word of God as recorded in the Bible (Old Jewish Hebrew text) first recorded this fact: God made everything according to its kind.  Variations/adaptations occur often within kinds in nature but never kinds changing into completely other kinds! For example can various kinds of dogs have developed from one common ancestor such as a wolf but no dogs that became birds or any other kind has been observed anywhere.  The evolutionist tries to get past this irrefutable fact by adding millions and millions of fictional years in a fantastic theory to attempt an eventual possibility that is absurd.

Another example would be the clocks [methods, indicators] by which it is attempted to determine age.  Let’s look at two of them, shall we?  Credit here to Jonathan Grey, on www.archeologyanswers.com for the following information on dating methods.

  1. Radiometric dating. Here the following is used as indicators:

(a)    Uranium into lead

(b)   Potassium into argon

(c)    Rubidium into strontium

The idea is that, when molten rock cools and solidifies, any radio-active parent element is supposed to decay to daughter elements at a known rate and that the amount of each in a rock will then give an indication of the age of that rock.  Well, this is only true with the following assumptions:

1.1.The rate of decay must have been constant.

1.2.None of the daughter element must have been present when the rock solidified.

1.3.No parent or daughter elements were added or leached out of that rock over time.

Bear in mind that unstable, soluble minerals in rocks cannot withstand erosion and leaching for even a few years and thus makes any clock based on their presence useless.

  1. Carbon dating.  This was introduced by Dr. Libby in 1949.  It has since been proved sufficiently embarrassing to exclude any confidence in this method to try and date great periods of time.


This test is used to determine how long ago something died and is based on the radio-active decay rate in organic matter because every living thing absorbs cosmic radio-active carbon -14 from the atmosphere.  At death the intake begins to disintegrate.  The remaining C-14 is then used to calculate how long ago the organism died.


For this test to be valid the following assumptions are required:

2.1. The amount of cosmic radiation must have remained constant at all time and at all places

2.2. The sample tested has not been contaminated by any microbes or bacteria at any stage

2.3. There was no exchange with the outside world.

The honest observer here will immediately spot the obvious. It depends on too many assumptions and that science per se cannot deal effectively (absolutely) with the past due to assumptions that are not irrefutable! Let’s look at results that are being withheld from the casual reader of these so-called scientific findings, shall we? Then ask yourself why it is not published widely and why so selectively?

There are so many unknown factors to consider. And these are not appreciated by many scientists who use the method itself. Science cannot deal with the past absolutely while unsubstantiated assumptions [as opposed to irrefutable, factual, observable deductions] are required. . Consequently, there is no current test available that can give you a scientifically guaranteed date for the past. All we can do is use the methods about which we can make assumptions that are reasonable.  So when you’re told a certain date has been proved, you’re hearing someone who either doesn’t’ understand the scientific test, or who (hopefully not) is lying to you.  Sometimes dates obtained from 2 or more radiometric methods agree. Doesn’t this prove the accuracy of radiometric dating?  In view of the rarity of such agreements, it may well be that such are fortuitous coincidences. Be clear on this: there is no large body of concordant data, but there is a massive body of discordant data.  As one authority admits: “Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists.” (W.D. Stansfield, Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution. New York: Macmillan and Co., 1977, pp.82,84) When dating recent creatures and artefacts, radiometric dating methods have been known to be accurate in certain cases. But don’t bet your life on it.


Unreliability of ages given – examples


  • Living mollusc shells showed ages of 1,010 to 2,300 years, as though they had been dead for that time! (M.L. Keith and G.M. Anderson, Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, “ Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results With Mollusc Shells”, Science, vol.141, 16 August, 1963, pp.634- 635) 152
  • “The apparent radiocarbon age of a Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615± 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.” (Wakefield Dort, Jnr., Department of Geology, The University of Kansas, “Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land” , Antarctic Journal (Washington), vol.6, September-October, 1971, p.211)
  • Carbon-14 tests on some snails which were still alive showed that they ‘died’ 27,000 years ago. (Dr. Alan C. Riggs – formerly of the U.S. Geological Survey, now on the staff of the University of Washington, Seattle, “Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells From Southern Nevada Springs”, Science, vol.224, 6 April, 1984, p.58)
  • A critical analysis of the available lead data shows ages obtained which extend millions of years into the future! (R. Matthews, Ex Nihilo, Queensland, Australia, vol.5, no.1, 1982, p.41) According to isotopic ratios for common lead found in rocks, many of our rocks should not exist, but will only come into being far into the future. (Faul, Nuclear Geology. New York: Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1954; Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars. McGraw- Hill, 1966. R. Russel and R. Farquhar, Lead Isotopes in Geology. New York: Interscience Publishing, 1960) Geologists discard such date results. Perhaps it is the method that should be discarded?
  • In 1966, a hand-crafted tool made of caribou bone (found in the Yukon, Canada) was carbon dated at 25,000 to 32,000 years. However, in 1986, tissues of the bone were protein-tested and the date obtained was just over 2,000 years of age. (Joel W. Grossman, 1987Brittanica Book of the Year. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1987, pp.143- 144, art.: Archaeology)
  • The same piece of basalt rock from Nigeria gave ages (by different methods) from 2 to 750 million years. (Nature Physical Science, vol.232, 19 July, 1971, pp.60-61).
  • In eight separate tests, scientists dated samples of rock – and arrived at ages of 160 million to 3 billion years. These specimens, from Kaupelehu, Hualalai Volcano, Hawaii, were later found to have formed in a lava flow only 168 years earlier, in 1801. (Science, vol.162, p.265. Journal of Geophysical Research, vol.73, p.4601. American Journal of Science, vol.262, p.154)
  • A skeleton from California was estimated at 70,000 years old (by a technique called a partic acid racemization). (World Archaeology, vol.7, 1975, p.160) In 1981 this age was revised to 8,300 to 9,000 years (by uranium dating). (Science, vol.213, 28 August, 1981, p.1003) In 1983 samples 153 of the same skeleton were dated at 3,500 to 5,000 years (by radiocarbon dating). (Science, vol.220, 17 June, 1983, p.1271)
  • Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox in Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, was dated at 24,000 years; hair from a hind limb of the same animal was dated at 7,200 years. The hind leg dated 15 380 Rcy (radio carbon years) while its skin dated 21 300 Rcy.  Poor creature. What a long, slow death it must have suffered!  Similar results were found on the Vilosovitch Mammoth where one part tested 29 500 years and another on the same animal 44 000 years.
  • Human remains found deep in the delta deposit near New Orleans, Louisiana, were dated at 57,000 years – but when wood from the gun whale of a Kentucky flatboat was found deeper, the 57,000 years shrank to 200 or less.
  • Pottery in the Nile mud was publicised to be 30,000 years old – until it was proved to be a piece of Roman pottery of recent date.
  • In New Zealand, volcanic material with “ages” ranging from 145,000 to 465,000 years overlies destroyed trees with a radiocarbon age of only 225 years.
  • On June 30, 1908, a colossal and mysterious explosion took place at Tunguska, in Siberia. Objects at the epicentre of the explosion have been carbon dated. Nicola Jones, writing in New Scientist, noted but otherwise avoided the fact that the concentration of carbon 14 at the epicentre is so high that radiometric dating places the Tunguska Event in the future! (N. Jones, “Did Blast From Below Destroy Tunguska?”, New Scientist, p. 14, September 7, 2002)


Oh, how fascinating! And countless more examples could be given. Something is wrong – drastically wrong. This kind of evidence should be enough to discredit the system. It suggests that our dating systems may be in error… but the prognosticators of evolution can’t have that!


Discordant ages not publicised


Most published dates are from discordant data. More significantly, most discordant data are never published at all. So what dates get published in reputable scientific journals?  Note – And it’ s Richard L. Mauger, Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina, speaking: “ In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.” (Richard L. Mauger – associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, “K-Ar Ages of Biotites From Tuffs in Eocene Rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado”,  contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol.15- 1, 1977, p.37).  “Whatever the figures arrived at by the dating tests, they are weeded out before publication in scientific journals, if they do not accord with the preconceived dates assigned to the evolutionary geological column”. (E.H. Andrews (Professor of Materials, University of London, and Head of the Department of Materials at Queen Mary College), in book, God, Science and Evolution” )… Wow!  And this is still published in “scientific” publications?


These are just some of the men involved who are admitting it is a hoax. Do your own – real – research.


The Geological column

James Hutton (1726 – 1796) made a startling statement in his “Theory of The Earth”, p.19 (1795) that, “… the earth is much older than what most people thought…”.  Many people today might be surprised to know that up to the early 1800’s most people believed the Bible and its creation account and the flood that happened about 2 345 to 2 349 BC.  Then the age of “anti-monarchy” followed with revolution upon revolution and a drive towards a new form of government called democracy (where the majority is supposed to determine right from wrong).  James Hutton propagated the principle of uniformitarianism that states that the earth processes occurring today are similar to those that occurred in the past and that this was very, very slow.  He inferred that they always had the same rate of change and so hypothesized that it took much, much longer than a few thousand years to form layers of rock.  He rejected the possibility of one cataclysmic event such as a global flood, the deluge the Bible clearly states.  Hutton seemed to have initiated the idea that his idea was the key to the past rather than the Bible. A new Bible?

Enter Sir Charles Lyell in the early 1800’s, the Scottish lawyer and geologist well known to hate the Bible. This lawyer then proceeded to write “Principles of Geology” in 1830. He referred to himself when he writes on p.302, “Men of superior talent who thought for themselves, and were not blinded by authority (the Bible)…” and further stated that his goal was to “free the science from Moses…”Life letters and journals, published by John Murray, 1881. This Sir Lyell then teamed up with some like-minded geologists of his time and came up with the idea that layers of dirt should be aged according to the fossils found in it.  Voila! The geological column was born and this was to become the evolutionists Bible. Observe here that there are layers of rock on this planet but that in fact a single column like this exist nowhere on earth.  If you find this origin of this bogus column (in any one location on earth) difficult to accept, see what the following scientists had to say about this in a fairly recent Earth Science, 1989, P 326: “…If there were a column of sediments continually deposited since the formation of the earth the entire history of the planet could be reconstructed.  Unfortunately no such column exists.  Where sediments are missing, a break in the sedimentary record occurs.  Breaks result in gaps in the record that may range from a few years to hundreds of millions of years.  Breaks in the sedimentary record are called unconformities…”

In Biology p. 385,  A Beka Books, we read, “… if there were such a column in one location it would have to be 100 miles thick…”  Note that there are no erosion marks consistent with millions of years between any such rock layers that can justify such separation.  Instead, they are stacked like pancakes.  A flood of Biblical proportions in Noah’s time would perfectly explain this phenomena, so why the obstinate refusal to acknowledge this possibility?  Even a small child can mix dirt with water in a jar and see how it rather quickly settles automatically in layers.  It is called hydrological sorting.  Now think carefully about this.

About 85 % of the earth’s land surface does not have even three geological periods appearing in ‘correct’ consecutive order.  It becomes an overall exercise of gigantean special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geological periods”. – Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist, “The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column” CRSQ vol. 18, no. 1, June 1981, pp. 46-71.

And this fabricated “geological column” changed peoples’ world view away from the Bible?

“Index fossils”?

Limestone appears in all columns throughout this supposed geological column.  How then, can the limestone be identified as say, from the so-called Jurassic period dated 100 million years and also of the 600 million year Cambrian period, seeing that it is still limestone? The answer then is, by the “index fossils”!

A Trilobite is cited as a good index fossil to date rocks 500-600 million years old.  How do they then explain a human footprint that smashed a trilobite? William Meister of Kearns, Utah, 1968 and verified by Dr. H.H. Doelling of Utah’s Geological Survey.  How also, could this be the first creature to evolve and feature the most complex eyes?  Isopods are very closely related and still alive today.

Graptolites are proposed as index fossils for rocks 410 million years old. (The example is the NY State fossil).  Problem is, they were found alive in the South Pacific in 1993 and they are still alive today.

Lobe-finned fish are sited to index “Devonian” rock that is 325-410 million years old.  How can this be if Coelacanth (a lobe-finned fish) still swims around the Comoros and Mozambique today?  It never seems to even enter the evolutionist’s mind that the whole “geological column” is not a reality.  Amazing.

Following, an example of two parts of Scripture that were to be ridiculed first and then rejected for the new theory of antimonarchists (how to age the world) to get a foothold:


2 Peter 3:1-7 says in 65-68 A.D.:Beloved, I now write this second letter to you, in which I stir up your pure mind by reminder to remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of the Lord and Savior by us, the apostles.  First, knowing this, that there will come in the last days scoffers walking according to their own lusts and saying, Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.  For this is hidden from them by their willing it, that the heavens were of old, and the earth out of the water, and through water, being held together by the Word of God, through which the world that then was, being flooded by water, perished. But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men”.


1 Peter 2:17 wrote in about 63 AD: “Honor all. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king”.


They wanted to get rid of their king and could do without contrasts like this in God’s Word. Note also how scoffers at the Word of God are called knowingly ignorant in some translations while they think themselves clever. See here Romans 1:18-22 if you want to smile.


Circular reasoning


We find the following amazingly dull statements in the Glenco Biology textbook (1994):

  • On page 306, “… Date rocks by fossils…”
  • On page 307, “… Date fossils by rock….”


Says J.E. O’Rourke, American Journal of Science, 1976, 276:51, “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks… the geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results...”


On p.53 in the same journal, on the subject of “Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy” O’Rourke says, “…On using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales”. They continue to say, “The rocks date the fossils but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.  Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists…”  Wow, great “science”, huh?


Another says, “Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which really is archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils” – Ager, Derek V., “Fossil Frustrations”, New Scientist, vol. 100 (Nov 10, 1983, p.425).


The reader will hopefully know and realise that the geological column has nothing to do with other means of determining age, such as uranium into lead, potassium into argon, rubidium into strontium, uranium 238, -235, carbon dating or any other method than the circular “geologic position”. This “geological Column” is actually yet another huge embarrassment to the evolutionist and the true scientist quoting it.

Charles Darwin (12.02.1809 – 19.04.1882) at age 22 was fresh out of school to be a preacher, set sail on H.M.S. Beagle in 1831 to collect some specimens for some scientists in England.  Darwin took books with to read on his five year voyage.  Amongst these was Charles Lyell’s newly published book “Principles of Geology” with its fictional strata column and circular reasoning.  Darwin progressively started scoffing at the Bible and in a letter to Russell Wallace wrote, “Disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but at last complete.  The rate was so slow that I felt no distress”. (Published in 1868 “The World’s Greatest Letters”).

When Charles Darwin reached the Galapagos Islands, he counted 14 variations of finches and came to the conclusion that they might have had a common ancestor. Brilliant Charles, was it perhaps a… bird?  Even just still a… finch? Darwin then, in his book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, p. 170, writes “It is truly a wonderful fact… that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should all be related to each other...”  Wow! So a bird is related to a banana? What Darwin observed was micro-evolution (see p. 2 above in this paper), that is, variations in the same kind yet he makes his wild and grossly inaccurate summations.  What is a ‘kind’? Why, Genesis chapter one in the Bible states ten times that a kind brings forth [offspring] after its kind – this is observable still today.  The opposite, where one kind supposedly changes randomly into another [any other] kind has never been observed anywhere and no proof exists for it neither can proof ever exist for it.  Just by the way, the saying (by Charles Darwin) that it’s a matter of ‘survival of the fittest’ is actually called tautology- it is in reality a lame, empty and meaningless statement – it should perhaps rather say, ‘often the luckiest survive’.  You cannot know for a fact who survived and why, can you?

Darwin is later on record that he said that the smallest building block is a cell, and if anyone would prove that assumption wrong that he would be refuted.  Well, why in this world do his followers still persist? Another humiliation for him was that, despite not being an embryologist, dreaming up the phony proof for evolution with falsified sketches of how, for example, the human “foetus” loses its ancient gill-slits and tail in the “evolving” process of development prior to birth.  This is known today to be absolute nonsense.  Yet, strangely, his publications prevail in textbooks and in the minds of die-hards.  Why?

Dinosaur dating


Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the U.S.A. used uranium dating on wood in rocks of a dinosaur stratum – and they obtained ages of only thousands of years. We don’t hear about such things, do we? As for the carbon-14 theory, it has drawn so much criticism in recent years that few archaeologists accept its results, and never accept the C-14 “age” when it contradicts historical dates.


Dinosaur bones were found with red blood cells inside.  How can a scientist immediately draw the conclusion that the blood is 65 million years old?  It was up to then universally accepted that blood will not survive in nature more than 10 000 years outside a living organism.  This is not a sign of healthy or lateral reasoning to not cast any reasonable doubt on what obviously is a dubious dating system.


Dinosaurs and the Bible

It is often asked how dinosaurs can be tied in with the Biblical events and its history of man and God’s dealings with man (actually, with the self-righteousness of man as expanded on in the papers such as “The gospel”, “The Covenant and the Law” and so on). Mostly the intent with this question has to do with attempts at discrediting the Bible. But please refer to the paper “The Bible”, if you will, to see how feeble this doubt on the Bible actually is. There is no book remotely comparable to the Bible as God’s Word!

Contemplate Gen 1:25-31 and 2:19,20 where Adam was said to [have seen and] name the prominent animals (unlikely micro organisms).  Bear in mind Jn 1:1-4; Col 1:16-17 (also verses 11-20).  Now note Job 35:16 and read chapter 35 from verse 1 again, taking special note of what was pointed out from verse 2 onwards. Compare this with Jn 1:1-4; Rom 1:18-22 and Phil 3:9. In Job 36 Elihu continues in the spirit of what we were given in 2 Tim 3:16-17, and points out man’s self-righteousness and haughtiness while in shameful ignorance. In chapters 37 and 38 Elihu continues and point out the magnificence of Almighty God in the infinity of His creation both small and big; even the constellation of the Great Bear (perhaps from its migration through the heavens – Arcturus) in verse 32. The emphasis, however, were on the big things on earth such as the oceans and the immense power observed in nature created by God (probably because they had no microscopes or telescopes!)  Note, also, that earth is not our “mother”!  Do read Job 38-39 and Ps 139 (especially verse 14)…

Naturally then, in Job 40-41, can we expect Elihu to point to some of the most impressive – and big – animals God had made. So we read of two mentioned especially, namely a behemoth (Job 40:15-24) and a leviathan (Job 41:1-10). Of great significance here, is to bear in mind that the accounts given in Job, according to many scholars, is dated pre-flood. Also that Noah had contact with many original people pre-flood.

From the genealogy of Jesus in appendix A in “Who is Jesus Christ”, we can easily deduct the following:
• Noah was born 2 949 B.C. (600 years before the flood, Gen 7:6; the flood was about 2 349 B.C.)
• Adam died at 930 (Gen 5:5); merely 121 years before Noah’s birth and 721 years before the flood.
• Noah himself therefore, is very plausible to have had firsthand knowledge of the first animals created only about 1 651 years before the flood and about 1 051 years before Noah was born
• Noah also probably had personally met some of Adam & Eve’s children and grandchildren! Hence, even Asaph gives a glimpse of apparent general knowledge still in his time post-flood in Ps 74:14 (see vv 12-18).
Reading Acts 7 (vv 51-52), it is therefore not difficult to see how even crucial information had gone lost due to the “kill the messenger-syndrome” of hard-headed self-righteous unbelievers; not only in the deafening silence of the approximate 430 years between Malachi and the momentous point in Acts 7:55-60 (explained in “Rapture raptured” p.4/24), but tragically still today. Even in architecture “modern” man is dumbfounded at a loss of construction techniques and knowledge used fairly recently and has become spiritually dwarfed in terms of an accurate knowledge of God, especially in Jesus Christ, and show thus  little or none of the powerful results we ought to (Mt 10:8; Rom 15:17-19; Heb 2:8; 11:28-40)…

We’ll briefly consider the behemoth and leviathan next.

(i) The behemoth. (בּהמות, behêmôth, H930), sadly translated as hippopotamus by scribes who seemed to have lost the original knowledge and had not yet had findings of skeletons later re-named by “modern” man.  The name behemoth is a plural of בּהמה, (behêmâh, H929) which is an unused root (probably meaning to be mute); but properly a dumb beast; especially any large quadruped or animal (often collectively): a beast and some singular of Egyptian derivation: a type of water ox that is sadly – and totally unnecessary – translated as a hippopotamus or Nile horse. This translation from the original manuscripts were obviously at fault and completely unnecessary because behemoth and leviathan is what is mentioned and still remain in Bibles such as the KJV. Some points that cast a shadow on the translations to known “modern” [non-extinct] animals in some Bibles are due to the following reasons: –
• A hippopotamus does not have visible muscle and “sinews of his belly”, nor “ribs like bars of iron”, nor “tendons in his thighs twisted like a rope” (Job 40:16-18).
• A hippopotamus does not have a tail like a cedar [tree] (40:17).
• A hippopotamus can be swept away by a river such as the Jordan in flood, yet this behemoth was said to be “confident and does not tremble when the Jordan is violent and overflows” (40:23).
This behemoth could very well rather have been something like a brontosaurus, especially if one thinks of the description of size and its tail. (More about the conditions pre- and post flood and extinct animals are discussed in the paper entitled “The Flood”).

(ii) The leviathan. (לויתן, livyâthân, H3882), is a wreathed animal, that is, a serpent (especially the crocodile or some other large sea monster); figuratively the constellation of the dragon; also as a symbol of Babylon. The interesting fact here is that a skeleton of a 40 ft crocodile has been uncovered in the Sahara desert. (Note that we don’t call it “pre-historic” like they do nor agree to their claim of it being 112 million years old). This find was named a Sarcosuchus. Feel free to Google this or “super croc”. Incidentally, in the mountains of central Antarctica, in 1968, an American expedition came upon the jaw bone of a crocodile-like amphibian (called a labyrinthodont), as well as skeletons of other animals – creatures that could have survived only in a warm to hot climate. Similar finds were made again in 1986.

The bottom line here is that The Bible should not be taken lightly just because The Bible is not a botanical or other scientific index to species; but about man’s self-righteousness vs God’s righteousness and His only salvation plan in Jesus Christ. Ironically this very arrogance of “modern man” is what is addressed in The Bible. This is expanded on in papers such as “The Bible” and “Apparent controversies in The Bible” and “The Gospel”.


Petrified trees


Coal mines across the world (Alabama, Colville, France, etc.) have petrified trees vertically penetrating at least two layers of coal separated by a layer of rock.  Petrified trees appear elsewhere that penetrate several layers of rock or stand upright in (today) clear air and is widespread in their thousands.  As wood (a) cannot petrify unless protected from oxygen and (b) is unlikely to have grown with the rocks (?) over millions – or even tens of thousands – of years, the much more viable possibility is that these processes happened rather suddenly during/just after a massive flood. The numerous upside-down trees penetrating different rock layers that the “geological column” separate by millions of years, is of course a nightmare for the evolutionist.  Today, in Washington State, Spirit Lake by Mt. St. Helens have an estimated 20 000 trees that was washed from a different location (than the lake today) and have numerous trees standing upright in sediments already 15 feet deep.  Looking at it without the knowledge of the recent eruption, it would give the impression of a [petrified] forest that had been there all along.  It also seems that species of trees (with similar properties) tend to settle in the same areas.


There is an example of a petrified bird that is giving birth, a dog petrified in a tree, a petrified cowboy boot with a piece of foot inside and quite a number of examples of wood that petrified quickly.  Things can evidently petrify rather quickly.  The reader can research these finds and facts for him/herself.



Why do scientists still use such dating?


Robert E. Lee writes: “The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in

Carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates… Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a gross discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs is called insignificant, when it has been the  basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence? “Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates appear to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what look like precise calendar years, figures seem somehow better… ‘Absolute’ dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments.’… “… the accepted dates are actually selected dates. “ This whole damn thing is nothing but 13th-century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.’ ” (Robert E. Lee, “ Radiocarbon: Ages in Error” Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.19-3, 1981, pp.9-29) It should be noted that this man speaks as an evolutionist.


Most date readings are discarded


Another authority concedes: “If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does

not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote, and if it is completely ‘out of date, we just drop it.” (T. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson -Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively, University of Uppsala, Sweden, “C14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology,” in radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, Ingrid U. Olsson – ed., Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, and John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1970, p.35)

Let it be stressed that discordant results are the rule and not the exception.


An honest admission


Although some scientists using carbon-14 dating will propose dates extending back 50,000 years and even further, Dr. George Howe acknowledges that “the men who know the limits of the method, the men who run the tests, would report that they cannot date with accuracy beyond 3,000 years.” George Howe, Carbon 14 and Other Radio-Active Dating Methods, p.11) He states that Geochron Laboratories will return samples to clients if they give a date above 3,000 years, with comments that they are above the age that can be accurately dated.


Why are “old” dates sought?


Most people are not aware that the very existence of long geological ages is based on the assumption of evolution. A magic wand is needed to make it “work”. That magic wand is “billions of years”.

If the earth is only thousands of years old, then there is obviously no time for the slow evolutionary process to have occurred. The alternative, Creation, makes many people quite uncomfortable.


So to say that human remains at least a million years old have been found, has become a habit.  But, the millions of years for man soon apparently ‘evolved’ to hundreds of thousands of years and today evolved to – for evolutionists – even more to about fifty thousand years.  What accuracy and certainty!  The truth is that the average anthropologist has no more knowledge of the actual date than the street pedlar.


Most “clocks” give a young age


Remember. Dating methods do NOT prove the earth to be old. In an original paper in Science, Patterson, Tilton and Ingham advised great CAUTION in accepting the actuality of the dating of 4.5 billion years. In fact, they were quite sceptical. (C. Patterson, G. Tilton and M. Inghram, Science, vol.121, 1955, p.69) Dr. D. Russell Humphreys, a physicist working for the prestigious Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and a winner of several scientific awards, makes this illuminating comment: “I estimate that there are probably several hundred processes that one could use to get an idea of the age of the earth. Only a few dozen, at most, of these processes seem to give you billions of years. The other 90 percent of those processes give you ages much less than billions of years. So it seems like it would be good science to go with the flow of the 90 percent of the data, and use as a working hypothesis that the earth really is young and then try to find explanations for the other 10 percent of the data.  That whole process seems to be a much more scientific approach than the one that is taken by evolutionists. Basically, they concentrate on the 10 percent of the data, and that’s the data you’ve always heard about.” (“ Creation in the Physics Lab.” -Interview with Dr. D. Russell Humphries, by Dr. Carl Wieland, Creation Ex Nihilo, vol.15, no.3, June-August, 1993, p.23). Totally different methods give consistent indications that the earth is less than 20,000 years old. Only a few of the “clocks” yield a conclusion of billions of years. These few are LOUDLY PUBLICISED to support the popular theory of uniformism (for evolution). This information is scientifically known – but generally not publicised. It is time to ask: WHY IS THIS HIDDEN FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC? A cover-up is in full swing.


The reader can now visit Jonathan Grey’s website, www.archeolologyanswers.com and read his book entitled “The killing of paradise planet” for a startling and poignant discussion on the Biblical Flood as well as other examples of reliable dating clocks that all point to an earth less than 10 000 years old.


There are just too many clocks [indications] pointing to an earth that cannot be more than 10 000 years old.  For scientific papers, peruse www.trueorigin.org.  In the meanwhile for a layman’s cryptic notes, consider (1) how do you suppose could laws in nature “evolve” to exist?  Think about it! (2). The earth’s magnetism is said to have decreased by 10% in the past 150 years…  you realize of course that this alone would (a) radically effect the C14 test (the magnetic field effects the amount of radiation that enters the earth’s atmosphere). C-14 can anyway not measure more than 30 000 years yet due to the equilibrium between C12/14 that has not been achieved on earth yet; and (b) the percentage alone insinuates a very young earth even with fluctuations in this field (there is no proof for “reversals”). (3) Planets like Jupiter and Mars is still losing heat that makes millions of years highly improbable. (4) Saturn’s rings would not have been there still after millions of years due its instability and movement away from Jupiter. (5) Comets lose their tails in less than 10 000 years, so why do you see none without tails or new comets?  You realize of course that Oort’s cloud is not observable (a theory, an idea and not science). (6) The reducing rotational speed of the earth (hence “leap” adjustments in timekeeping) is no problem when you believe the earth is about 6 000 years old, as opposed to millions of years that would imply a world spinning so fast for so long that the centrifugal force would probably have sent everything on the surface flying into space. (7) The moon that is moving away from earth, would be no problem about 6 000 years ago, whereas millions of years would have the moon skimming the surface of the earth – imagine the tides and gravitational pull, and all the other immense problems with this scenario! (8) The amount of salt in the sea fits in more with about 4 500 years (post-flood) than millions (even tens of thousands) of years due to the continuous flowing of mineral salts into the oceans and the distillation effect of [only] water evaporating from the oceans. (9) Likewise the amount of Helium in our atmosphere indicates less than 10 000 years. (10) If stars die within 30 000 years, why only about 300 super nova’s (would be explainable by a system less than 10 000 years old not billions of years).  (11)  There is no conclusive proof of any star being born.  There is probably some ‘dust’ that cleared/past and revealed a star, but no conclusive evidence for formation.  If I look through binoculars and see dust and then a car appearing in sight from behind the dust – is this proof that the car had just been “born” behind/from that dust cloud?  Is there irrefutable proof that that dust was even caused by that car or could it have been caused by wind from elsewhere? If I really want to be plain stupid I would, if I think I saw an explosion, deduct that it was a new car being born. Get the point? (12) Prevailing wind patterns in North Africa causes desertification.  Scientists that have studied the Sahara for years calculate it is about 4 000 years old. These same, and other, scientists say that the Sahara is the oldest desert on earth.  Would this not explain a flood around 41/2 thousand years ago (after the flood subsided) rather than millions or billions of years? (13) Oil pressure is typically 20 000 psi and greater than the rock in which it is contained.  In more than 10 000 years this overburden must surely have cracked, especially if millions of years are at stake? Interestingly, oil could be manufactured in laboratories in a very short time.  See “How fast oil can form” by Andrew Snelling 1990, Creation Ex nihilo, 12 (2) 30; impact # 155 and also “Converting organic waste to oil” by Hadden R. Appel, US Dept. Of Interior, Bureau of mines, 1971 for oil made in 20 minutes. Similar results were obtained in Western Australia and Texas – Bras Lemley Discover vol. 24 no. 5 (May 2003). (14) Textbooks say it takes “billions of years” for a red star to turn into a white star, yet Sirius was described by Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2 000 B.C. as red, as did Ciro in 50 B.C., as did Seneca who described Sirius as being redder than mars.  Ptolemy listed Sirius as one of six red stars in 150 A.D. Today it is a white star-binary.  It was observed to take about 2 000 years only. (15) The earth’s population was determined to be one billion in the 1810 A.D. census.  Credible estimates guess the world population in the time of Jesus’ ministry at around a quarter billion.  Taken all known factors into account (disasters, average population growths, etc) and projecting this rate back, brings us to a very plausible scenario of eight people at about 2 349 B.C. (the year of the Biblical Flood). Anyway, MUCH more reasonable than the 3 million years nonsense that evolutionists suggest! If Darwinists were right in that we have been on earth for 3 million years we should have had about 150 000 people per square inch at present. (Note how some evolutionists have casually dropped their time-span for human existence to 50 000 years. Is this range of accuracy credible?). And just by the way, the earth is not “over-populated” [overall]!  Have you seen the Karoo, Texas, central Australia?… If you live in a crowded place and moan about it – move!  The point is that people such as Jacques Cousteau reckoned that “In order to stabilize world populations we must eliminate 350 000 people a day” – Demanding Accountability, United Nations Development Fund for Woman, 1994 p. 84-85.  Ted Turner (CNN) said, “A total world population of 250 to 300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal”.  This, no surprise, contradicts God in Gen 1:28.  And you still think evolution is not a dangerous religion?  You think its science?

It is much easier to accept a Creator created everything at once because He is an Almighty Creator, than to try and suggest that nothing exploded and then formed everything.  If you add “energy” to something, that receptor has to be complex already to use that energy in a constructive way (as in chloroform and an established process of photosynthesis) – or do you suppose that the bomb on Hiroshima added energy and formed a city?

Be very careful to make the ignorant and shallow statement [accusation] that the Bible is a normal book written by [dumb] men.  Be sincere when claiming to find truth and seriously consider the papers by this author entitled “The Bible”, “Apparent controversies in the Bible”, and “The Four Gospels”.  Remember that Truth is not what any man can choose [to be true] but can only be accepted or rejected as it is.  Also consider examples such as the knowledge to build a vessel [Noah’s ark] that could withstand forces and waves unthinkable to even the “modern man” must have been imparted supernaturally. Read more about this in Jonathan Grey’s website, www.archeolologyanswers.com and read his book entitled “The killing of paradise planet” that gives us a very plausible and vivid picture of what really might have happened in that flood.  Be brave and read it.

The literate and learned scientific people are familiar with utilising words.  Some are compound words, such as “universe’, that is compiled of “uni-“ (that means “one”); and “verse” (that means “a spoken sentence”).  Now do yourself a favour, and consider Gen 1:1.  Note how very soon you read “… And God said…”

Programs on the world’s “discovery” programs, talk like parrots after atheists who stubbornly rejects the one Book that is infinitely more credible than any other “scientific” work/paper/book – and this, ironically, measured according to the academic world’s own system of accreditation! See the paper “The Bible” in www.gospel-truth.co.za for a brief discussion on the credibility of The Bible as the indisputable Word of God the Creator. There is no other Book like it, nor can there be.  Dare to study it seriously.  Even just reading it with this author on www.gospel-truth.co.za  might be insightful and helpful.

A few mere cryptic observations quoted by a layman to perhaps tickle the reader’s interest – the convincing proper scientific explanations are on www.trueorigin.org –: (a) Time is against “evolution” as it is propagated by Darwinists, not for it! An explosion is basically divergent instability, which means that particles will be further removed from each other and become less organized with time, not the other way around. It absolutely amazes the logical mind how evolutionists keep talking of “fusion” and “crashing into each other” when they refer to particles that have exploded by the same source at the same time!! (Particles are flying away from each other at the same rate and crash, even eventually forms new life-forms?? Wow!).  Give “Creationists” the same amount of thought and time, and you’ll be amazed how logical and easily the so-called evolutionist “scientists” are refuted.  “Science” implies that their observations can be repeated by experiments… and you were once what?…  (b) How is it that all these evolutionist “scientists” ignore the Bible (Noah’s) flood of about 2 349 BC? It perfectly explains the great faults, canyons, sediments, etc.  (c) Observe how “Christians” allow non-believers to make an unproven assumption and then argue with them around these false theories!…  Who says there was an explosion?  What exploded, if nothing existed then?  With what energy?  God needs no explosion to create – He spoke [speaks] things into existence [sound]… God gave us His creation account; rather apply 2 Cor 10:5; and Heb 12:2.  Contemplate Ps 118:8 if you will.  An explosion cannot explain John 1:1-4 nor Colossians 1:16-20; but this type of desperation to reason God out of His creation is referred to in Jeremiah 51:17-19; Romans 1:18-22 and so on.

So let’s try this on a smaller scale.  A scrap yard explodes.  When the dust settles, we see the result: a perfectly serviceable B 747-400, ready to fly, with humans inside, manning and operating it expertly. Too silly and far-fetched?  OK then, let’s add a few million years… now can it be possible? Is it scientific?…

The paper “Gap Theory” might also prove enlightening. An excerpt from “Myths, legends, lies” reads:

‘…Nothing can create itself ex-nihilo, because it would need to exist before it came into existence.  “Quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential, not “nothing”!  Without a cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it is a universe.  The universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence because it would not have any properties until it actually came into existence. Relativity shows time is linked to matter and space, thus time must have started with matter and space in the beginning of the universe.  Since God is the Creator of the universe [time, matter, space], is it not difficult to see that He has no beginning.  In around 740 BC Isaiah recorded a clear enough indication that the earth is round (Is 40:22) and the laws of thermodynamics (Is 51:6).  If Gen 15:5 states that there are countless stars, while about 1 200 are visible, and Ptolemy in AD 150 dogmatically stated that the number of stars was exactly 1 056; the supernatural knowledge of those old writers – apart from amazing fulfilled prophecies – must account for something

The theory of evolution teaches that human beings came from primordial forms to evolve as biological entities with a gradual increase in intellectual ability.  Those who subscribe to this theory are at a loss to explain the Source of Life and light and the creation of darkness and water; and of the spiritual realm that was recorded as part of the very first man (Rom 5:12); or for that matter, design.  And that was plausibly 6 000 years ago (see the appendix in the paper entitled “Who is Jesus Christ?” by the author for a plausible derivation).  They do not accept man has a spirit, given by a Creator, so they think that man functions as his own god [morality, destiny].  Disagreeing then often resorts to violence and manipulation to resolve differences.  The result is mental, spiritual, familial, and social disruption and degradation. They ignore the Biblical flood as the obvious [recorded] explanation of all the large scale erosion and sedimentary deposits strewn around the globe.  It is extremely dull to buy into their belief of unbelief posing as science.

The evolutionist believes that development is only due to [as a result of] need and is then at a loss to explain satisfactorily why a human would develop this ability [tendency, desire] to worship a [higher being] and have religion.  If we use only about 10% brain capacity today, why was the 90% developed for?  How? Interestingly, have it been discovered that humans seem to have at least 100 000 times the capacity [neurological] to deal with the unseen than with the tactile! Sounds like a spiritual side, does it not?  Without design? The reader should find the paper by this author called “Body, Soul and Spirit” enlightening. Humans obviously have a spiritual side that animals don’t possess.  Nowhere are animals observed to even remotely worship or practice religion.  Why is this need there in us?  Read the Bible, and try Jesus Christ’s words in John 2:18-21 and Paul’s reminder in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20.  It is expanded on a little under the heading ‘Body’ in the paper “Body, Soul and Spirit of man”…  Your spirit is God-conscious and your soul is self-conscious.

Dubious archaeological finds.  After ­Charles Darwin published his revolutionary “On the Origin of Species” in 1859, scientists scrambled to find fossil evidence of extinct human ancestors. They sought these so-called “missing links” to fill in the gaps on the fictitious timeline of human evolution. When archaeologist Charles Dawson unearthed what he thought was a missing link in 1910, what he really found was one of the biggest hoaxes in history.

The discovery was the Piltdown man, pieces of a skull and jaw with molars located in the Piltdown quarry in Sussex, England. Dawson brought his discovery to prominent palaeontologist Arthur Smith Woodward, who touted its authenticity to his dying day.

Although the discovery gained world renown, the lie behind Piltdown man slowly and steadily unravelled. In the ensuing decades, other major discoveries suggested Piltdown man didn’t fit in the story of human evolution. By the 1950s, tests revealed that the skull was only 600 years old and the jaw came from an orang-utan. Some knowledgeable person apparently manipulated these pieces, including filing down and staining the teeth. The scientific world had been duped. So who was behind the fraud? Many suspects have surfaced, including Dawson himself. Today, most signs point to Martin A. C. Hinton, a museum volunteer at the time of the discovery. A trunk bearing his initials contained bones that were stained in exactly the same way the Piltdown fossils were. Perhaps he was out to embarrass his boss, Arthur Smith Woodward, who refused to give him a weekly salary.

Likewise has the anthropological studies of presumed primitive man debunked the hoaxes such as The Peking man (based on teeth only); the Java man (a hoax); the Nebraska man (this swindle was used in a court case to get creationism out of schools and evolution in.  It later came to light that this was actually based incorrectly on a pigs tooth); the Neanderthal man is now widely recognized as large “homosapiens”.  These museum pieces have been formed from a few bones only and are fraught with error and imagination, not science.  Why is it still there posing as fact?  It is high time that these bogus displays are removed from our museums.

Junk DNA?  There is incomplete data, but just because scientists thought only 3% of total genome was functional, they assumed the rest was “junk DNA” – just because they failed to observe [acknowledge] any more. More recent studies have found significance in 50% or more of DNA.  It takes a lot of arrogance to trust your own ideas [assumptions, ignorance] more than God (Mk 12:24).  Contemplating 2 Cor 5:17;1 Pet 1:18; Jn 3:3, we may say that the unknown part of our DNA could very well be the spiritual part that God can re-write when we submit to Him as our Source…  This would mean obedience and trust in His Word; and a [social] suffering when we keep following Him (not Moses, or other man, or their institutions).  This would change our inner desire and really be the only effective permanent change that will show consistently good and positive results.

The primary axiom of biological evolution, based on random mutation within the genome, assumes selection of beneficial mutants to evolve to higher biological states.  This belies the fact that mutations have been proven to be almost uniformly deleterious [“neutral”], i.e. not beneficial.  A few beneficial mutations observed to be helpful have resulted in less information in the genome, never more information, and are a sign of deleteriation.  Mutual mutations, which are astronomically high in number, have a deleterious effect on the genome.   Also, if we are supposed to have never lost information but only “improve” as we evolve and if we come from “simple” bacteria; why then can we not swim as fast [any more]?  “Simple” bacteria can typically move through their surrounds that would equate to a man swimming 120 kph in peanut butter!  No, we have to see that NO scientific evidence exists of any kind developing into another – again, refer here to 1 Cor 15:38,39; Gen 1:11,21,24,2526-28…  if you will.

Morality originates only from God.  The Bible’s civilizing influence is undeniable.  The Word of God stopped practices such as blood drinking, cannibalism, and inspired the noblest literature, music and art.  Only the Word of God [and what originates from it] uplifts man[kind].  See Who was first – make an honest study and see what single Book has verbatim unparalleled credibility…

Instructions [information] for specifying the complex organization of living things is not in the molecules themselves (as with a crystal), but is imposed from outside.  The Source of intelligence infinitely exceeds our intelligence.  The first law of thermodynamics states that the amount of mass energy in the universe is constant (i.e. nothing can form or end by itself in a closed system [universe]?…).  The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of energy in the universe available for work is running down, or entropy (measure of disorder or decrease in usable energy) is increasing to its maximum.  Thus evolution is opposed by its own “scientific” definition.  Of course evolutionists try to deny their erroneous reasoning and belief”.  The huge timescale of the evolutionist is based on an imaginary “geological column” that nowhere exists in reality as it is printed in Charles Lyell’s book.  The circular reasoning with the supposed “index fossils” has long been proved to be fictional and incorrect.  Why is it still taught as science? Why?

Other ridiculous statements on record by evolutionists


  1. Smaller is simpler.  Life, they say, basically evolved from primordial single cell simple life forms. “Simple life forms”?  This while one mecum is more complex than the space shuttle? So a computer micro chip is less complex than a big box because it is so small?  Just because you cannot see at first glance any complexity and thus are yet clueless as to the design that has gone into that small object, does not make it simple, does it?  And why do evolutionists always later deny that they have said exactly this or revert to attempts to justify themselves with semantics? Funny how dinosaurs were much bigger than animals today while things are supposed to go from small to big?  Equally funny how we have skeletons of giant humans all across the globe while the Bible mentioned this fact rather early already (Genesis 6:4, “There were giants on the earth in those days…”) with no mention of dwarfs and pigmies like we see in more recent times…


  1. DNA (molecular biology) proves evolution. DNA is short for deoxyribonucleic acid. Two chains of four chemical bases (abbreviated A, T, C and G) make up DNA and act as a cell’s recipe book to make proteins. The particular sequence of a DNA chain – meaning the precise order of the four chemical bases – determines what protein will be made. This is so far the most complex molecule known.  The average human body has in excess of 50 trillion cells.  The total DNA of these cells fit into two tablespoons. If you stretched out these strings of DNA they would probably reach to the moon and back five million times!  DNA codes typed out in this same font on this page would fill books that would fill the Grand Canyon forty times over.  The code in a single chromosome is more complex and holds more information than all the computer programs ever written by mankind combined.  It’s like a software program but infinitely more complex than anything designed by man.  Yet it is a living organism… and some say it evolved randomly on its own??…


  1. Similarity in DNA proves man is related to chimpanzees or orang-utans.  The observation here was that man and chimps apparently have 98.6 %commonality in DNA.  First, a basic fact: a similar code does not mean the function is similar!  Dr. Barney Maddox, a leading genetic genome researcher said, concerning these “little” genetic differences, “The genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees is about 1.6 %. It doesn’t sound like much but calculated out is a gap of at least 48 000 000 nucleotides, and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatal to any animal. There is thus no possibility of change from one of these into another”.  Surprised? Why?

This reasoning could perhaps also be explained by the following example:  Say you have built a store and a house using the same building materials on a farm in Cape Town.  An expert from Pretoria then arrives some years later and deduct that the store evolved into the house [literally, physically gradually changed into the house over a long period of time], and give as proof the large percentage of similar building materials, also the similarity in appearance compared to the vehicles, implements and other shapes on the farm. You say this is ridiculous? Think honestly about it and you should realize that this exactly the evolutionist’s type of reasoning.  Why would you be adamant to continue talking blindly after such people?  The point to remember is that long periods of time are only necessary to make evolution “work” [in the mind] and has absolutely no place in the Christian’s faith!!!  (Rom 5:11-12; this is expanded on in other papers such as “The Gospel”).


All English books are printed using the 26 letters of our alphabet.  What does this prove?  It is a gross error in reasoning to assume that this proves that all books are the same and serve the same purpose or have evolved into each other.  No, what this proves is rather that the same Designer [God the Creator] used the same code to create proteins and different kinds of creatures!  You can of course also – like many an evolutionist have often done – place them in a certain [randomly visually pleasing] order and claim to “prove” how they had evolved.  Don’t obstinately say this is not so – do your own research and check it out!  Hear what the famous evolutionist Simpson George Gayland admitted when he declared in “Evolutionary determinism and the Fossil Record” vol. 71 (Oct. 1950) p. 264, that “… many examples such as the evolution of the modern horse and sabre-toothed tiger can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic…”  Is this fancy language for “we lied”?  Be real!  This so-called proof of how a horse has supposedly evolved was refuted in 1950 already and Harvard University and museums world-wide still have it displayed?  Why?  Some of the embarrassing problems with this horse-theory are that (a) it was made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from the same location. (b) “Modern” horses are found in layers with and lower than “ancient” horses – Kruzhilin, Yu, and V. Ovchanov, “A horse from the dinosaur epoch?” Moskovskaya Prava (“Moscow Truth”) trans. A James Melnick )Feb 05 1984).


Fossils of “modern horse species” equus nevadensis and equus occidentalis have been discovered in the same layer as Eohippus – a clear indication that the “modern horse” and its so-called ancestor lived at the same time… as a matter of fact, they seem to have been buried together by the same cataclysmic event – could it be the Flood the Bible mentions? The hard evidence for any transition of any kind into another is nowhere to be found but as sketches and artists’ illustrations in evolutionist’s propaganda. Palaeontologists have no convincing phylogenies or sequences of organisms demonstrating major evolutionary change [one kind into another].  The Hyrax (a small rabbit-like animal) is still alive and well today in Turkey and East Africa and not related to the horse at all, as evolutionists want their followers to believe.  The museum in Tulsa Arizona has eventually removed their evolution exhibit in 1995 after the evening news broadcasted the above facts.  At first they of course “had no funds” to remove the display but around 2 000 parents in that town had enough of this nonsense…  What do you want your child to be bombarded with?


  1. 4.      The Colorado River carved the Grand Canyon over millions of years. (a)Most rivers that merge do so in the same direction at angles less than 90̊. The barbed canyon right next to that ‘entry point’ is puzzling evolutionists, but is perfectly explainable by the hydrological flow when a huge amount of water suddenly overflows a high point and as it subsides, swirls back swiftly into the basin where the water mass used to be. (b) Rivers are known to flow downhill, not uphill.  (c) The Colorado River enters the Grand Canyon at about 2 800 ft above sea level.  From here the ground rises to reach its highest point at the snowline (the Kaibab uplift) further on at about 8 500 ft above sea level. Question:  How did this river carve uphill through the terrain?  Was it possible because it had millions and millions of years?  Or was the snowline in the Grand Canyon an overflow (wash-out) point that acted as a spillway for enormous masses of water that was temporary trapped as part of the aftermath of a global flood?  Satellite photographs shows strong evidence that the Canyon probably is where a breach of a giant lake occurred that formed by water that dammed up on a colossal scale as the floodwaters subsided.  This must have happened rather suddenly and quickly, not over millions of years.  Again, don’t assume that today’s rate of flow has been constant and don’t blindly apply the false ‘geological column’ criteria.


  1. 5.      Year rings. Rings or layers of dark ice are still being referred to as ‘year-rings’ in some scientific textbooks and journals (those that have changed their story since, will find that the Bible has not changed its story –ever.  See Exodus 3:14,15; Job 38-41 and Hebrews 13:8 and bow your head). In 1990 an American entrepreneur had a WW II P38 dug up in Greenland that was part of the ‘Lost Squadron’ of 1942.  They had to melt a hole down to the aircraft to retrieve it in parts.  (a) They counted many hundreds of ‘rings’ and concluded that they obviously rather represent cycles of extreme variations in temperature than years.  (b) The ice was 263 feet thick on top of this P38.  This means that in 48 years the ice averaged 5.5 ft of build-up per year. The 10 000 ft thick ice there would then roughly indicate 1 824 years.  If we consider an increasing compression with weight at greater depths, 4 400 years or so (since the flood) is no problem, while the 135 000 years the evolutionists suggest it took for this same amount of ice to accrue seems highly unrealistic.  They were clearly, once again, wrong with their assumptions.  In similar fashion all observable facts contradict the evolutionist’s desperate and phoney attempts to discredit the Word of God.


The unparalleled credibility of the Bible as a Book

What is the Bible?  What is its origin?  How reliable is it? Is it inspired by God? These questions are answered in the paper “The Bible”, under the heading with these very questions.  Contemplate also the paper “Apparent controversies in the Bible” by the same author on this website.

What makes the Bible so hated and so special in all the world?  The reason stems from the history and the contents of the Bible, and the fact that it is self-proclaimed to be inspired by God.  If this is true, then it implies it is the final authority of the Creator to His creation.  This, many do not like to hear, because they soon discover how wrong they are on moral issues such as abortion, homosexuality, and Who Jesus Christ really is and who He is not.  People [nations, religions] generally just don’t like being wrong.

Remember here that confusion is a state of mind.  This means you cannot trust your mind – or by implication, the mind of another human trying to sell his ideas – you can only trust the Word of God [Who made/designed your mind].  So let us first look at this issue of inspiration and the significance of the Bible.

Note here that many people claiming to be Christians, do not [yet] believe the gospel of Jesus Christ!  The paper entitled “The Gospel” by the same author explains and prove this convincingly.  Most religious institutions is still a far cry from the Body of Christ [is not His Church, His Body, His Zion, His Bride].  You will also note that the Book of Revelation begins by stating it is the revelation of Jesus Christ… He, in the Spirit, took John back a little while, and then showed him “what would soon happen”.   In other words, what Jesus Christ had accomplished on His cross, having paid for with His Blood (12:11; 15:8; 16:17 with Jn 19:30).  His work is a finished, accomplished work.  We have to believe Him that He succeeded.  There is only one Lamb of God Who was offered once for all on His cross at Golgotha.  It has happened, it is done!

Charles Wesley, McDowell, in Evidence that demands a verdict, 1990:178), says, “The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God.  However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying “Thus says the Lord”; it was not written by bad men because they would not write so honestly or about the good while condemning sin and unbelief, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration”.

But more concretely, surely over 60 000 ancient manuscripts must attest for something!  In 170 AD Irenaeus cited 23 of the 27 N.T. books, omitting only Philemon, James, 2 Peter and 3 John.  The Muratorian fragment, written about the same time, attests to the widespread use of all of the N.T. books except Hebrews, James, 1 Peter and 2 Peter.  However, other church fathers had already cited those omitted books in various writings defending against Gnostic doctrines.  The Codex Barococcio from 206 A.D. includes 64 of the 66 books of today’s Bible (Esther and Revelation were omitted), but they had already been declared as inspired Scripture by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and the Muratorian Canon.  In 230 AD, Origen declared that all Christians acknowledged as Scripture the four Gospels, Acts, the epistles of Paul, 1 peter, 1 John and Revelation.  In 367 AD, Athanasius formally circulated the Easter Letter that listed all 27 books as canonical.  The Synod of Hippo (393 AD) and the third Synod of Carthage (397 AD) also recognized these 27 books as canonical.  In addition, during this time, the highly influential church fathers, Jerome (340-420 AD) and Augustine (354-430 AD) published their lists of 27 books completing the N.T.

Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations.  The primary difference between today’s Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).   Hermeneutics is the study of Scripture interpretation, known by scholars.

The absolute reliability of the manuscripts from which today’s Bibles are translated, has significant evidence in its favor.  There are more than 14 000 existing Old Testament manuscripts and fragments copied throughout the Middle East, Mediterranean and European regions that agree dramatically with each other.  In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the OT, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC.  The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered in the 1940’s and 50’s, also provide phenomenal evidence for the reliability of the ancient transmission of Jewish Scriptures before the arrival of Jesus Christ.  A single error would require the immediate destruction of the entire text, sometimes apparently even the death of careless scribes.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation, in contrast, contradict numerous original texts in its contextual meaning.

The honest and serious scholar will therefore soon discover that the Bible is one, progressive, unfolding, revelation of God; and that this revelation is Jesus Christ as Lord and His gift to us – His Holy Sprit indwelling permanently those that follow [believe] Him.  We then become new creations (2 Cor 5:16-21) to His image, we then reveal to be a spirit (re-born, 1 Cor 15:45-49, God -conscious) with a soul (self-conscious intellect, emotion, will) inside a body (physical).  If not re-born [spiritually] you are still only like a beast.  A beast is Bible language for a creature with a soul (mind, intellect, emotion, will) and a body that is all self-centred, but is not spiritual [Spirit is all God-conscious, living according to what His Spirit teaches, guides].

Jesus attests to the inspiration (Theopneustos means “God breathed out”) of the O.T. and His fulfillment of both the prophets and the law (ex. Mt 5:17,18; Lk 24:44; Jn 5:39).  When Jesus refers to the law of Moses, the prophets and the Psalms, He is referring to the three-part division of the Tanakh[2].

The manuscript evidence for the NT is also dramatic, with over 5 300 known copies of fragments in the original Greek, nearly 800 of which were copied before 1 000 AD.  Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the autographs (original manuscripts) and our earliest existing copies being a remarkable short 60 years.  This manuscript evidence far surpasses the manuscript reliability of other ancient writings that we trust as authentic every day.  Look at these comparisons:  Julius Caesar’s “The Gallic Wars” (10 manuscripts remain, with the earliest dating to 1 000 years after the original autograph); Pliny the Younger’s “History” (7 manuscripts, 750 years elapsed); Thucydides’ “History” ( 8 manuscripts, 1 300 years elapsed); Herodotus’ “History” (8 manuscripts, 1 300 years elapsed); Sophocles (193 manuscripts, 1 400 years); Euripides (9 manuscripts, 1 500 years); and Aristotle (49 scripts, 1 400 yrs).

Homer’s “Iliad”, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, has 643 copies of manuscript support.  In those copies, there are 764 disputed lines of text, as compared to 40 lines in all the NT manuscripts[3].  In fact, many people are unaware that each of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays (written in the 1 600’s) have gaps in the surviving manuscripts, forcing scholars to “fill in the blanks”.  This pales into textual comparison to the over 5 300 copies and fragments of the NT that assure us nothing has been lost.  In fact, all of the NT except 11 verses can be reconstructed from the writings of the early church fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

The Bible [not books such as the “Jehovah’s Witnesses” NWT that contradicts the Bible] clearly defines itself as the communication of God to His creation, through OT men known as prophets.  This communication defines His being, Himself, to His created.  Also His plan [idea] with us and how men, throughout history, have missed it through their own unbelief [distrust, offense] in His Word.  So He sent His unique Son [Word] to legally enter the natural realm to represent man and demonstrate how man should be with His Spirit inside of us.  The first part of the Bible refer to this Messiah, then how He came and paid on His cross with His blood on behalf of all, once for all; and then in the last part, His teachings, revelations of what Jesus had accomplished in the Spiritual realm with that exchange on His cross (Is 53; Col 2; Rev 5:12; 7:14,17; 12:11; 13:8; 21:23,27), and examples of a new dispensation.  God as a Father could so be understood to remain to be God, while sending a special Son to be the sole expression of Himself [Lord of lords, King of kings] here on earth with His Holy Spirit inside a human body.  God is Spirit [invisible], so He is seeking those who worship Him in Spirit and in Truth (Jn 4:24; 8:32,36; 20:22).  The Bible is very clear that Jesus will return as He left – in a visible, physical body (Jn 21:1-14; Lk 24; Mt 28; Acts 1:11; 1 Cor 15:12-22).  No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11).  Consider Jesus Christ crucified (1 Cor 1:23-2:2; Is 53 and 1 Pet 2:24).  The OT has a covenant; the NT a Testament (that’s why Jesus had to be buried – Heb 7; Heb 9).  Righteousness does not come out of you, it has come to you in Jesus Christ (Phil 3:9; 2 Cor 5:21).

Man might have flaws, but God imputes His righteousness to believers in the finished work of Jesus Christ.


From the paper “ABC Myths, Legends, Lies”, the following note on Gen 36:22:  There were no cavemen!  The Horites in Gen 36:21 is similar to a Hebrew word for “cave” but is not the same! (H2752 חרי chôrı̂y sounds similar but is not the same as H2356 or H2352; Horites or Horims are not reference to a “cave dweller” or “troglodyte”; neither a “Chorite” or “aboriginal Idumaean”!  H2356 חר    חור chôr  chôr is a cavity, socket, den: – cave, hole; the same as H2352 חר    חוּר chûr  chûr from an unused root probably meaning to bore; the crevice of a serpent; the cell of a prison: – hole).  The term Horite was thus incorrectly interpreted as “cave dweller”.  Later archeological discoveries have shown that the Horites are not to be explained as “cave dwellers”, but are to be identified with an important group in the near East in patriarchal times (J.P. Free, Archeology and Bible History).. In fact, neither The Bible nor archeology has any proof of aboriginal “cavemen”.  Cities of great antiquity have been unearthed with ever-increasing evidence that “when civilization appears it is already fully grown”, and “pre-Semitic culture springs into view ready-made” (Hall, History of the Near East)



Evolution is a belief-system as is Christianity.  However, the two is diametrically opposed and can never be reconciled or co-exist in one saving faith.  Evolution makes the following claims incompatible with true Christianity:

  1. Evolution discredits [rejects] the Bible as the infallible word of God (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21)
  2. Reject [deny] God as the Creator (Gen 1:1; Mt 19:4; Jn 1:1-4; Col 1:15-20; 2 Pet 3:3-7; Heb 1:10; etc)
  3. Renders useless – in the evolutionist’s mind – any accountability towards God (Ps 24; 53…)
  4. Reject the deity of Jesus Christ [reject the Trinity] because (a) a saviour is superfluous, (b) Jesus is accused of being a liar (Mt 19:4; Jn 1:1-4,12-14; 3:16; 14:6,23-26; Eph 2:13-22; Phil 2:6-11; etc.)
  5. God [the Father, Creator] is also made a liar? (Gen 1:27-28; 2:7; Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:22-23; Heb 6:17-20; Rom 3:3-6; Jer 8:9-13; 1:12; Is 55:6-11; 1 Cor 1:18-2:2; Titus 1:2-3; et al) – Remember 2 Tim 3:15-17!
  6. If Genesis is false, then the rest is also false.  The whole Bible is one unfolding progressive revelation and this revelation is an eternal Spiritual [higher than animals or plants] Life in a relationship with God (Jn 4:24) through Jesus Christ.  The OT is filled with more than 3 600 odd prophesies regarding the [then] coming Messiah – all fulfilled in and by Jesus Christ – not some “modern” professor or guru or scientist.  Only He could be/make a legit representation of man and God at the same time and pay for all our sin [rebellion towards, disbelief in God as our Creator].

Now as far as the Word of God as the Creator is concerned, to only “believe” what you [can] see, is not “believe”.  Here we are talking about a Superior Intellect and a sovereign Person, not science that humans try to define according to their abilities and limitations. Seeing is accepting what you did not believe!  Likewise, is understand not believing: Faith is accepting unreservedly what you [can] not understand!  Faith [believe] is the assurance (the confirmation, the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof [substance] of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].  So, hope without faith is not hope but mere “wishful thinking”.  To try and only “believe” what you [can] understand, is foolish – just think here about your senses [not fully explainable by any man], and wind, and gravity [we see and can predict the effect, but cannot explain it], [unseen] electricity and radio or TV signals.  Just as you cannot receive these signals without a receiver [and see it without a display screen], just so do you need [a spirit] FAITH to “see” the Truth that will set you free.  The word “fool” [in the Bible], is seldom used to describe the feeble minded, idiot or moron.  Rather, it always has within the meaning of a rebel, especially against God and His laws of decency, order, justice; a rebel against the Holy Spirit of God. All morals were first recorded in the Word of God as God-given.  The Bible is the world’s oldest and most translated – not altered – and most sold Book.  A fool, then, is skeptic [distrust and fear reflects unbelief and sin] about God and resists Him, ironically with a God-given ability to choose.  This characteristic brings forth a mystic search, like a void, a hole that only Jesus Christ can fill.  Because only Jesus revealed God perfectly to us [so we could see His true nature and character], and represented us perfectly to God.  A fool, therefore has the characteristic of rebelliousness, is sensual [spiritually blinded], unwise [in the Creator’s ways], missing the essence of the gospel and has a distorted view without revelation [from God].  Jesus [God in human flesh] only makes sense when you believe that there was no human death before Adam and that human death is a result of that sin of rebellion and that therefore a last/second Adam was necessary as the only way to save us (Rom 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:10-45).  In this belief [Christianity] no part of evolution can ever have the slightest hint of a place.  No real Christian can tolerate the slightest contradiction to what our Lord and Savior, our God-Friend Jesus Christ said as recorded accurately in Scriptures such as John 1:1-4; 8:44; 14:6; 16:9; Mark 13:19; see also Genesis 1:1; Ephesians 3:9 and Hebrews 1:10… Please READ these Scriptures and think about it!

Still, the evolutionist believes that the entire universe burst into something from absolutely nothing millions and millions of years ago (in time and with material and energy that never existed up to then) and as it got bigger and more complex it filled itself with stuff from absolutely nowhere…  How fantastic!

The world can only produce information-knowledge, while God gives revelation-knowledge.  Enlightening to note that “logic” stems from “Logos”.  Jesus Christ [the Light for the world] is described in His Book, the Bible, as eternal, having existed prior to His coming to earth as the Logos, the intelligence, which gave birth to everything that is and Who also became the expression, the Word.  Why are people searching for the truth?  What is the truth?  What if that Truth is a Person?  What if love is a heavenly Father’s (Creator’s) expression of Himself through a human made to His image (by Him)?   A magnificently complex created man[kind] searching for his origin that he really relates to?  What if these millions of “saved” people are not lying about knowing Him?  That would make you accountable to Him, not so?  Maybe this is what unbelief in God is all about: a very futile [frustrating, self-destructing] attempt to reason God away, thinking your accountability will vanish by ignoring Him.  Perhaps this is just all about that rebellion against your Creator the Bible is talking about.  It is called SIN.  Sin is disobedience, rebellion, unbelief toward God, the One Who created you and I.  We both are accountable to Him: He is Jesus Christ.



The Bible has proven to be the most reliable reference to archaeologists too, seeking initial clues as to the finds or where to search for finds.  This Bible refers to a beginning of this creation.  Since the early 1800’s, and since Charles Lyell’s “Geological Column” and Charles Darwin’s “Origen of Species” (with all the refuted nonsense therein) has caused an unbridgeable chasm between the meaning of “the beginning” that the Bible – the Creator of this creation – is talking about and “the beginning” as defined by people on their own mission to “prove” the Bible [God] wrong.  One can hardly attempt a more futile and foolhardy thing than this.  There can be no conciliation between these two opposites in any way, shape or form because the credibility of Jesus Christ is at stake [in your mind].  Jesus Christ referred to the Book of Genesis at least 25 times in Scripture and the NT has around 200 referrals to the creation account.

If you still wonder what this beginning was, then again hear Jesus in Mt 19:4; Mk 10:6 and think about Heb 1:10; and Col 1:16a to name a few.  Other papers by this author expand on this; try contemplating the paper “Who is Jesus Christ” for a start (carefully reading to the end).

Evolution is a belief-system that cannot give you value because you supposedly accidentally developed by chance from lifeless stuff and then animals, you determine what is wrong and right yourself, is your own god and is supposed to be still changing to a different life form.  On the other hand, if the Source of Intelligence and Love – God the Creator – has designed you and made you to have a meaningful relationship with Him with authority [anointing] in Christ, you’ll discover a whole new purpose and sense in life and a very special place and identity in this place called earth and in fact the whole universe.  You were created through a magnificent specific process by which you could be born without God manipulating your ascendants and allowing a free choice.  This is discussed further in the paper entitled “The Will”.

You can exercise your God-given free will now and decide what you want your children to believe and who they should follow – Darwin or Jesus Christ?  Consider first Scriptures like Philippians 2:9-11 and John 14:6 (John 3:3,15-21).

Then see your commission in Mt 10:8; 28:18.  Now try and be a real follower of Jesus Christ… After what He did – and still does (1 Jn 2) – for us; we can perhaps better heed and understand Mt 10:32-33…  This is explained in other papers by this author, such as “Apparent controversies in the Bible”.

The author will not continue this discussion in this paper in order to avoid unnecessary repetitions on www.gospel-truth.co.za.  It is also reasonable to think that anyone should be able to accept overwhelming evidence for the obvious.  Please consider the first paragraph in this paper again and then contemplate the other papers by this author such as “Worldly philosophies versus the Word of God” as well.  There should by now be at the very least, to the serious and honest reader that used to believe [in] fantastical long periods and old age for earth – based on evolution – a very real and grave question over that wicked, distorted belief-system called evolution [Darwinism].

Thank you for reading this and may you be blessed in Jesus Name.

Peace to you.




The Bible (Holy Spirit – God the Creator)

Jonathan Grey, www.archeologyanswers.com

Dr. Kent Hovind, and his DVD’s on Creation versus Evolution

The reader may want to refer also to other creationist websites such as  www.answersingenesis.com.

An excellent website on this subject is www.trueorigin.org and especially http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati.  IF you then still want to read other opinions, go to www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html. It is entitled Debunking Evolution: problems between the theory and reality; the false science of evolution.


This Discussion on evolution concludes with these quotes:

The Mind of the Evolutionist
Contemporary evolutionary thinking maintains that smaller island mammals will rapidly grow larger towards the optimal size, while bigger animals will rapidly shrink… Evolutionists call this Optimal Body Size Theory, or OST.  A member of a research team was interviewed about their study that looked at a theoretical optimum body size towards which mammals are expected to grow, on both island communities and on the mainland… There is a tendency to believe that big animals become very small on islands, and small animals become very big, due to limited resources or lack of competition.  I’ve shown that this is just not true, at least not as a general rule…”  Incorporating large data sets that compared body sizes on various islands and on mainland communities, Dr. Meiri and his colleagues found no such tendency for bizarrely-sized animals to develop on islands.  “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet.  This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.”  Dr. Meiri attributes our widely held misperceptions about ‘dragons and dwarfs’ to the fact that people tend to notice the extremes more if they are found on islands.  “Darwin’s fascination with the Galapagos island chain… is just one example. I think it’s purely a psychological bias”.  Dr. Meiri concludes.  “It’s just magical thinking.  Nothing more. “– ‘Magical Thinking’ About Islands an Illusion?  Biologist Refutes Conventional Thinking on Evolution. July 8, 2010. Science Daily, online news release.

We found no support for any of the predictions of the optimal size theory… The concept of a single optimal body size is not supported by the data that were thought most likely to show it… It is remarkable that this theory fails to apply under the circumstances which best match its predictions (on islands)”. Raia, Pasquale, Francesco Carotenuto, Shai Meiri. 2010. One size does not fit all: no evidence for an optimal body size on islands. Global Ecology and Biogeography, Vol. 19, pp. 475-484.

Sorry, but we just have to repeat this famous quote:  ‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’ – Dr Colin Patterson, senior palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History; and went on to say: ‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’

Evolutionists claim to rely only on natural forces, but natural forces cannot design and build new laws to produce new plants and animals.  So they add magical thinking as the conviction in the evolutionist mind.

Zombie science

Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice.  In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status.”

To say “that the theory is phoney, and always was phoney, and this is why it so singularly fails to predict reality is regarded as simplistic, crass, merely a sign of lack of sophistication.  And anyway, there are… the reputations of numerous scientists who are now successful and powerful on the back of the phoney theory, and who by now control the peer review process (including allocation of grants, publications and jobs) so there is a powerful disincentive against upsetting the apple cart.”

Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. Zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda.  Zombie science is deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally.  It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion.  Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science.”  Charlton, Bruce G. 2008. Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Medical Hypotheses, Vol. 71, pp. 327-329.

“Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers.  This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there”. — David Coppedge Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003.

Again, this author strongly suggests that you peruse http://creation.com/dr-jonathan-d-sarfati and www.trueorigin.org. for debunking the hoax evolution once for all.

Go in peace.


[1] Thermodynamics is the study of energy, the conversion of energy between various forms and the ability of energy to do work. Initially, three laws of thermodynamics were posited. There seems to be a fourth, called the Zeroth Law, because Laws 1, 2, and 3 were spoken for. C.P. Snow, the British scientist and author has offered up an easy and funny way to remember the Three Laws. He says they can be translated as: (1) you cannot win (you can’t get something for nothing because matter and energy are conserved. (2) You cannot break even (you cannot return to the same energy state because entropy always increases (3) you cannot get out of the game (because absolute zero is not attainable). So, what do these laws really say and why are they important? In simple terms, the Laws dictate the requirements for heat and work. They were generated during the 19th century as the industrial revolution took hold and grew. Physicists became involved with studying the flow of heat from machines as well as the chemical changes that accompanied the actual work. They were interested in gaining maximum efficiency. In other words, they wanted to create a perpetual motion machine, or one that could run off its own heat it created during the process of work, so it could do more work, create more heat and …you get the point. With the First Law, we learn that matter/energy can neither appear on its own nor be destroyed. It can apparently change form, as in solid to liquid to gas to plasma and back again, but the amount of matter/energy in the system (the universe) stays constant. The Second Law says that while the quantity of matter/energy remains the same, the quality deteriorates over time. The Second Law basically says that the universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining (is unlikely to get more complex on its own?). The scientists say that the universe is constantly expanding, as predicated by the Second Law, the Law of Entropy. They conclude that the universe is finite. We could also conclude that the universe had a specific beginning, the moment of “Zero Entropy” What does this mean? How about Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…”?!… Hebrews 11:3 says, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible”. John 1:1-4 states, “In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.  He was present originally with God.  All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.  In Him was life, and the Life was the Light of men” (This was the Light that was present before the sun – Gen 1:3.  This Word became flesh full of grace and Truth (Jn 1:14).  2 Corinthians 4:6 says “For God Who said, Let Light shine out of darkness, has shone in our hearts so as [to beam forth] the Light for the illumination of the knowledge of the majesty and glory of God [as it is manifest in the Person and is revealed] in the face of Jesus Christ (the Messiah).  Now hear Colossians 1:12-20, “Giving thanks to the Father, Who has qualified and made us fit to share the portion which is the inheritance (hence a NEW TESTAMENT – Heb 9:16-18) of the saints (God’s followers) in the Light. The Father has delivered and drawn us to Himself out of the control and dominion of darkness and has transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in Whom we have our redemption through His blood [which means] the forgiveness of our sins.  He is the exact likeness of the unseen God [the visible presentation of the invisible Spirit]; He is the Firstborn of all creation.  For it is in Him that all things were created, in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, whether thrones, dominions, rulers, or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him and in and for Him.  And he Himself existed before all things, and in Him all things consist (cohere, are held together).  He is the Head of His body, the church; seeing He is the Beginning, the Firstborn from among the dead, so that He alone in everything and in every respect might occupy the chief place [stand fist and preeminent, i.e. is the one and only Lord (“maximum authority”)]. For it has pleased the Father that all divine fullness (the sum total of the divine perfection, powers, and attributes) should dwell in Him permanently. And God purposed that through (by the service, the intervention of) Him [the Son] all things should be completely reconciled back to Himself, whether on earth or in heaven, as through Him, [the Father] made peace by means of the blood of His cross”…  Amen?

[2] Tanakh is an acrostic using the first letters of the words which compile the three sections of the OT. Ta = Torah, Na = Nebi’im (prophets), and Kh = K’tubim (writings).  The books in the Tanakh are the same as in the Protestant OT, arranged in different order.  The Torah is the first 5 books of Moses, the prophets consists of the former and later prophets and the writings begins with Psalms and ends with 2 chronicles.

[3] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General introduction to the Bible, Moody, Chicago, revised and expanded 1986, p. 367