In an age
in which many here in the
I was recently able
to spend some
time in the field with one of those scientists, the Australian
MacKay. Although John now fervently defends the truth of Scripture,
not always the case. For those of you who may not be familiar with John
let me say he did not begin his life as a creationist. When he was
his family attended neither church nor Sunday school. At that time, the
John always loved
found study easy and particularly enjoyed evolution as it was obvious
to him by
mid high school that if man was just an animal then John MacKay could
he liked. Towards the end of his high school years one of his advanced
texts – a first-year university biology text contained a chapter that
to prove that there was no God, while asserting that what the Bible
myth and fable. However, instead of discouraging John from reading the
those comments made him curious. As the result he began to read the
over the next few years compared the Biblical record with what he was
seeing in the rocks and living creatures. It became obvious to him that
show creatures do produce their own kind just as Genesis says God made
do. The facts agreed with the Bible, not
Now I realize that many Christians, who have been intimidated by dogmatic claims of evolution, are curious as to what John MacKay saw that convinced him that the Bible is right, and evolution is wrong. I will attempt to answer that question, but to avoid putting words in John’s mouth, let me summarize in my own words what you might discover if you came from a background similar to John’s, and began to read the Bible for the first time.
Opening the Bible to the first chapter of Genesis, you would find that the words, “Let the waters under heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear,” tell us that the rocks came into existence under water (Genesis 1:9). Since all of the continents rest on granite, and granite can only form in the presence of water, that statement better agrees with the facts than the claim that the earth began as a molten mass. Furthermore, such a rapid movement of water from the land should have produced massive sedimentary deposits that do not contain fossils, or show any evidence of exposure to air over long periods of time, and that is exactly what we find. [See John’s DVD, “Genesis Geology.]
The Bible also says that living things (both plants and animals) reproduce after their own “kind”. That clearly contradicts what evolutionists are teaching. However, those statements are scientific statements, because they can be tested to determine if they are true or false. Therefore, a scientific approach to those statements would be to evaluate them in the light of available data, not to dismiss them without a hearing.
If you would then take the scientific approach, and compare the Bible’s claim that all living things reproduce after their “kind” with the actual findings of science (as opposed to evolutionary assertions) it would be obvious that what the Bible says is exactly what we see in nature. Not only has evolution (defined as one kind of animal changing into another) never been observed, there is no real evidence that it has ever happened. [The word translated “kind” in our English Bible is translated “genus” in the Latin Bible.]
Now I know that evolutionists claim to have proof of evolution. However, when we examine those claims, all they have really proved is that organisms do have a limited capacity for change, change which amounts to nothing more than variation within a kind. That is the sort of change evident in the differences between various breeds of dogs, or cows etc. Although all dogs are still dogs, and all cows are still cows, the evolutionists then make an assumption that is not supported by any fact at all. They assume that if small changes can take place in a short period of time, large changes can take place in a longer period of time. There is no proof that that is true. It has never been observed! It is nothing more than wild conjecture! Furthermore, it contradicts the evidence.
For one thing, changes brought about by selective breeding never produce something new, something that was not previously present in the DNA. On the contrary, selective breeding simply brings recessive characteristics to the fore by breeding out unwanted characteristics. And, because selective breeding breeds out unwanted characteristics it achieves change through a loss of genetic information.
Furthermore, the struggle to
survive can never produce something new,
because whatever survives the struggle has to be there before the
takes place. For example, prickly pear cactus grows wild in
If you look at the fossil record to see if it supports evolution, you find that it proves just the opposite. Over forty percent of the fossilized life forms are not extinct. In the rocks we find fossilized frogs, dragonflies, jellyfish, lizards, leopards, plants, rhinos, fish etc. And the reason we can recognize them when we find them in the rocks is because they have not changed. Apart from a few minor differences, they are virtually identical to the ones alive today. That fact alone proves that they are not evolving. [See John’s DVD, “The World of Living Fossils”.]
Reading a bit further in the book of Genesis, you would find that it describes a worldwide flood. Now every geologist knows that sedimentary rocks, rocks that were laid down by water, cover much of the world. Moreover, it is common knowledge that most of those rocks contain fossils. That all agrees with what the Bible says about a worldwide flood. Furthermore, such a flood would have laid down those layers in a relatively short period of time. However, the evolutionists generally ridicule anyone who believes the Biblical account, and dogmatically assert that all those rock layers were laid down slowly over millions of years. Therefore, here again, we need to look at the facts.
If you actually examine the rocks, you find abundant evidence that they were laid down quickly, not slowly over millions of years. For one thing, many of the plants preserved in the rocks still have their leaves intact. That could never have happened if they were buried slowly for the leaves would have withered and fallen off, and the plants would have rotted. Furthermore, the leaves had to be buried deep enough to make it impossible for the worms to reach them. We also find fossil fish buried in the act of swallowing another fish, animals buried in the act of giving birth, and jellyfish buried before they could decompose (which takes only a day).
Another thing to consider is the thousands [perhaps millions] of fossil tree trunks that extend vertically, often through multiple layers of rock. When you examine these fossil trees you will find that the roots have been broken off. They were uprooted by floodwaters that had to have covered millions of square miles. Then as the broken off roots began to absorb water, they sank bottom end first, and were buried in the sediment. Furthermore, we know that they had to be buried quickly, not slowly over millions of years, because if the rock layers were formed slowly, the trees would have rotted away long before they were covered.
That brings us to a big question. If the layers of rock were formed quickly, what reason is there to believe that the world is millions of years old? The answer of course, is that there is no reason to believe the world is millions of years old. In fact, there is no reason to believe that the world is any older than the Bible says it is!
At this point some of you are undoubtedly asking yourself. What about radiometric dating methods? Don’t they prove the rocks are old? And, the answer to those questions is a resounding NO! They prove nothing of the sort. The public has simply been sold bill of goods. All of the dates that scientists come up with when they use those methods rest on a number of assumptions. If those assumptions are wrong the dates are wrong. And, there is good evidence that those dates are wrong.
All of the radiometric dating methods base their dates on the length of time that it takes one radioactive element to break down into a daughter element through radioactive decay. For example: One method attempts to date rocks by the length of time it takes uranium to break down into lead, another measures the breakdown of potassium to argon, and a third the breakdown of rubidium to strontium. However, all of the methods in use [and there are more than the three mentioned] assume that none of the daughter elements (lead, argon, strontium) were in the rock to begin with. That assumption is false! And, we know it is false because whenever more than one method is used to date the same rocks, the dates do not agree. In fact, the dates are so far apart, that they cannot possibly be accurate!
When the Diabase sill (which is at the
bottom of the
In truth, about one hundred and fifty methods for dating the earth have been proposed. However, most of them are never mentioned because they give dates that are not compatible with the dates currently being set forth by evolutionists. Moreover, some of those methods yield dates that are in full accord with the Bible. For example: The amount of salt in the world’s oceans is increasing at a measurable rate. When that rate is used to date the earth, it tells us that if no salt was in the oceans to begin with, it would have taken sixty-thousand years for salt to reach the levels we see today. Of course, if there was salt in the oceans to begin with, the earth could be much younger. Likewise, when radioactive elements decay they produce helium as a by-product. Because the helium atom is so small it escapes from the rocks at a measurable rate. When that rate is used as a dating method, we find that the levels of helium in the rocks (including crystals) indicate an age of about six thousand years.
Furthermore, tests on different parts of the same rock often yield different dates, and tests on rocks of known age – such as lava flows – often yield dates tens of thousands of times older than the known age of the rocks.
This brings us to carbon-14. Carbon-14 is formed in the upper atmosphere as cosmic radiation bombards nitrogen atoms. That carbon-14 then quickly combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which is utilized by plants. When those plants are eaten it ends up in animals and humans as it moves up the food chain.
However, since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay as soon as it is formed. Therefore, because the carbon dioxide that contains carbon-14 is only a small percentage of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, attempts have been made to date organic remains on the basis of how much carbon-14 remains in them. Nevertheless, this dating method rests on a number of faulty assumptions.
For example: For carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. However, we know that they have not remained constant, because all of the carbon contained in coal and oil was once in the atmosphere. Moreover, at the time it was in the atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 would have been much lower. Likewise, we know that the earth’s magnetic field was stronger in the past, and that would have made the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 even lower. Both of those changes would cause plants that grew in the past to date much older than they actually are.
Carbon-14 dating is only accurate for dating things less than four thousand years old, and even then there are problems. For example: A living mollusk was dated by carbon-14 at two thousand years old. Likewise, a forest that was buried by lava just two hundred years ago was dated by carbon-14 at over twelve hundred years old. Therefore, to quote Dr. Jean K. Lightner, “In the end, the view that the earth is somewhere around 6,000 years old is a very reasonable view.” [“Creation Matters”, May/June 2011.]
Men originally began to think that the rocks were old because they looked old, not because they had any valid evidence that they were old. Then, when Charles Darwin came up with his “theory” of evolution, he needed those long ages to make his “theory” credible. Because evolution has never been observed, he had to claim that it happens too slowly to be observed. So, on the basis of pure conjecture (not fact) Darwin and his followers decided how long evolution must have taken, and dated the rocks accordingly. You can call that science if you want to, but I call it fraud.
“Hasn’t God made the wisdom of this world foolish?”