A New Rock CD: Fossil Phobia 10/10/99


JESUS CHRIST believed in creation. He should have, He was the Creator. Genesis 1: 1 says, “In the beginning God created…” The word translated “God” is ELOHIM. It is plural; thus reference is made to the Trinity.

Then it is recorded: “Let Us make man in Our likeness…” (Genesis 1: 26). Again the plural is used.

The concept of the Trinity is a mystery. How could God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit be one? The principle of the Trinity is seen throughout creation. If you add: 1 + 1 + 1 = 3. This suggests a triad in which there are three separate components.

However, 1 X 1 X 1 = 1 reveals a trinity. This reveals a continuum in which each component is coexistent with the other.

The Trinity called into existence a space-mass-time universe which is itself a tri-unity. Neither space, mass nor time can have a meaningful existence without the other two.

The Hebrew text uses the word BERESHITH which is translated “In the beginning…” The Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew used the same word found in John 1: 1, EN ARCHE, and translated “In the beginning.”

The Greek literally means “Before time began to begin…” Time itself was a part of creation.

John 1: 1 continues, “Before time began to begin was the Word (LOGOS) and the Word was God…” Before there was anything there was God.

Prior to the creation of the universe not even space existed.1

The creation of the universe not only brought into existence time into which it flows, but also time into which it expands. Thus, the presence of the energy and matter of the universe not only causes the existence of time, but also of space.

Advocates of evolution postulate all the matter of the universe was compacted into the size of a pea held together by enormous gravity. An explosion sent these particles through what is now our universe, expanding and cooling to form our universe.

A legitimate question is: “Who planted the pea?” Scientists have a model that carries them back in time and space to the nano-second of creation and that pea but they have no answer to the question of where space, mass, and time came from.

Evolution is not a scientific theory or hypothesis. The term “the theory of evolution” is used but in a precise sense the expression is incorrect. That is true because it can’t be tested. A valid scientific hypothesis must be capable of being formulated experimentally in such a way that the experimental results can either be confirmed or rejected.

The first letter in the Hebrew Bible pictures the impossibility of proving anything before or about creation. It is the character “beth.” It is shaped somewhat like a square “C” facing backwards. Hebrew reads from right to left. The closed side of the “beth” is the first letter in the Bible. All that is before it is a closed issue. All ahead is open for exploration.

Two evolutionary scientists have in all honesty said, “Our theory of evolution has become … one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. It is thus “outside of empirical science … No one can think of ways in which to test it … (Evolutionary ideas) have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.”2

These noted scientists are simply saying there is no way to formulate experimentally the concept of evolution. It is a philosophy, not a science. Objective scientists acknowledge this.

Their statement also reveals the reality that most people believe in evolution because most people believe in evolution.

Surely in this mass called the universe there must be some indication when it and time began. How old is the planet Earth? Two distinct schools of thought exist. Evolutionists say it is one to six billion years old. Proponents have principles they state to validate this claim. They need an old earth model if there is to be any substance at all to the concept of evolution.

Creationists point to scientific facts indicating Earth is between 10,000 and 20,000 years old. Let’s explore some of the fingerprints on Earth to try to find its age.

There is a CD rock record, that is, Cambrian Data record of fossils that encourages the idea of a Creator.

Evolutionists say life began in simple a form and all life emerged from this one source. If that is true there must be fossil evidence to show transitional forms of life. That is, if man came from the monkeys there must be an intermediate specimen of this monkey/man. That is not only true of monkey and man but of all life.

Often the term “missing link” is used. There is no single missing link. Every transitional link is missing. If any such transitional form lived surely there must be some records in the fossils.

Layers of the Earth are given various geological ages based on the fossils in the strata. Likewise fossils are given ages based on which layer of Earth they are in. It is a bootstring effect. Each dates the other.

The layer containing the earliest fossils is known as the Cambrian layer. The Cambrian rocks, which almost always lie just above the barren Precambrian rocks, contain examples of every major kind (phyla) of animal found in the world today. An amazing thing about these fossil ancestors is they are just as complex as their modern relatives. Of the 13 phyla there are fossils of all thirteen. There are over 455 species. Many of them are far better developed than the current descendants. Do you suppose that is why the term descendant is used?

Here are principles that refute evolution. The first fossils are in many instances complex and compound.

Many species are giant ancestors of current varieties such as the 27 inch pill bug.

Instead of primitive types a considerable number of those living today are found.

The first fossil remains are in most instances identical to those of today.

The evolutionist answers that the answer must be in the Precambrian strata. Looking there, one finds no fossil remains. To cover this evolutionists say:

All life was destroyed by metamorphism of the rocks in which they occurred.

In reality only 90% of the Precambrian strata contained metamorphosis rock. The other 10% should contain some fossils but doesn’t.

The evolutionist says life only existed in those areas where metamorphism occurred.

In reality there were widespread unmetamorphosised areas which were accessible to ocean life and thus should have had fossils.

The evolutionist says the oceans were too acid for calcium shells and thus no trace. There is no evidence that the oceans were acid. Every indication is the opposite was true. However, if it had been, there could have been siliceous and chitinous skeletons.

Charles Darwin said, “To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer … The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”3

Darwin further posed this worthy question: “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensible fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?”4 Good question, Charles!

An example in many school texts that is suppose to illustrate evolution relates to fossil remains of what are considered by some to have been horses. Sketches are shown depicting the reputed progression of the horse. The first is of Hyracotherium (Eohippus), a dog-sized “horse” with four toes on the front feet, moving to a three-toed variety, and ending with a one-toed Equus.

According to the theory of evolution the progression should take place over a period of time beginning with the four-toed variety and moving to the one-toed horse of today.

Again, as with all alleged evolution, there are no fossil remains of transitional stages of this development.

The biggest challenge to the theory of “horse” evolution comes from paleontology. If the “horse” fossils are an example of evolution the fossils should be dated in order of progression with the four-toed variety coming first and moving to the one-toed. The problem is that the one-toed, Thoatherium, became extinct in the Miocene epoch before the three-toed Macrauchenia made his appearance in the Pliocene period.5

A complete series of horse fossils is not found in any one place in the world arranged in rock strata in proper evolutionary order from bottom to top. Actually the three so-called fossil horse series actually appears to be three groups of genera. Yet, because the appearance seems to support evolution, this disproved example still exists in modern texts.6

In John Day County, Oregon, the three-toed variety is found with the one-toed variety and thus shown to be contemporaries, not links, in the evolutionary chain.7

Several genera lived simultaneously. Some are now classified as mutant variants of the originally created horse. There is absolutely no evidence that the popular evolutionary textbook presentation proves evolution across family boundaries, but only within the family.8

The genus “Eohippus” is placed at the base of this evolutionary tree. The name means “dawn horse.” The question is, was Eohippus a horse? He was unlike modern horses in morphology and habitat. While Eohippus does not resemble modern horses in any way, it does have striking similarities to other animals leading some to conclude “Eohippus is so primitive that it is not much more definitely equid (a horse) than tapirid, or rhinocerotid, etc.”9 This leads many scientists to believe Eohippus is more closely related to the tapir or rhinoceros than to the horse.

This classic case for evolution is without merit. Evidence more nearly confirms the concept of creation.

Since Darwin wrote, a great deal of fossil hunting has gone on. The record is basically the same today. Two given to evolutionary philosophy, Stephen Jay Gould and Steven Stanley, reached the following conclusion regarding potential gradual change in species.

“The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

  1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their
    tenure on earth. They appeal in the fossil record looking
    pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological
    change is usually limited and in directionless.
    [“Stasis” the consistent absence of fundamental directional
    change — is positively documented.]
  2. Sudden appearances. In any local area, a species does not
    arise gradually by steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all
    at once and ‘fully formed.'” (Ibid. p. 50.)

Darwin contended, and Neo-Darwin proponents insist, that the process called “natural selection” brought about evolutionary change in life resulting in the development of homo sapiens. Natural selection is also called “survival of the fittest.”

Steven M. Stanley, an ardent evolutionist, observed the absence of transitional fossils in the Cambrian layer and marveled over the “explosion” of a great variety of highly complex creatures including 32 orders of mammals. He concluded, “Gradual evolutionary change by natural selection operates so slowly within established species that it cannot account for the major features of evolution.”

It is believed by hardcore evolutionists that this happened in approximately 1 to 6 billion years. Stanley and others with such integrity note it would take billions of times longer and no records allot such time.10

Gerald L. Schroeder studied the matter and concluded: “Explanation of the early part of the fossil record points us, inescapably, to forces not indigenous to nature as we experience it today… No one can prove that Divine inspiration was the source of the immediate appearance of life on the young earth or that the abrupt changes in the environmental conditions, which we see in retrospect directed life’s journey to produce animals in the shape of man, were directed by the Creator. What we can say is that the fossil record definitely does not show a journey ruled by chance, or prove an unhindered march in the survival of the fit.”11

The second law of thermodynamics simply stated means in any energy transfer or change, although the total amount of energy remains unchanged, the amount of usefulness and availability that the energy possesses is always decreased. This is also known as entropy. This means the natural tendency of all change is to create a greater degree of disorder or randomness. This means the over-all direction of change of a biological “kind” would be deteriorative rather than developmental.

When the second law of thermodynamics is applied to the principle of evolution it simply means it can’t be. Evidences are that instead of evolution we have had devolution.

Examples of this are previous superior species such as mammoths, the cave bears, sabretooth tigers, giant bison, the dinosaurs, the giant beavers, cockroaches, rhinos, and even giant human beings.

The fossil remains refute evolution and support instead devolution.12

World-famous paleontologist, Dr. Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History, unreservedly said, “The pattern that we were told to find for the last one hundred and twenty years does not exist.”13

There is now overwhelming strong evidence, both statistically and paleontologically, that life could not have been started on Earth by a series of random chemical reactions. Today’s best mathematical estimates state that there simply was not enough time for random reactions to get life going as fast as the fossil record shows that it did.14

From where then did all of this space/mass/time come?

The answer, “In the beginning God created…”

1 Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides, part 2, chapter 13.
2 Evolutionary History and Population Biology, Paul Ehrlich and L.C. Birch, “Nature” Vol. 214 (1976), p 352.
3 The Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin, The New American Library of World Literature, Inc., New York, New York, 1859, pp. 309, 310.
4 Darwin on Trial, Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Ill. 1991, p. 46.
5 Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, Duane T. Gish, Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, Calif. 1991, pp. 82, 83.
6 The Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter, Robert E. Kofahl, Beta Books, San Diego, Calif. 1972, pp. 66, 67.
7 The Material Basis for Evolution, R.B. Goldschmidt, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1940, p. 17.
8 The Bible and Modern Science, Henry M. Morris, Moody Press, 1968, pp. 46, 47.
9 Evolution, Stephen Wright, 36: 440, 1982
10 A Theory of Evolution Above the Species Level, “Proceedings National Academy of Science,” Steven M. Stanley, Vol. 72, p. 646.
11 Genesis and the Big Bang, Gerald L. Schroeder, Bantam Books, New York, 1992, pp. 145, 146.
12 The Twilight of Evolution, Henry M. Morris, Baker Book House, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1963, pp. 44, 45.
13 “The Michelson-Morley Experiment,” “American Journal of Physics, 32, John Shankland, 1964, p. 16.
14 Genesis and the Big Bang, Gerald L. Schroeder, Bantam Books, New York, 1990, p. 25.