Following are a number of arguments why the Theory of Evolution (and that's all it is) cannot be correct, and why Creation has to be correct. More extensive evidence, largely ignored or brushed over by most of the agnostic scientific community, is contained in the excellent book In the Beginning by Walter T. Brown. More on that later. Let's first look at:
The Male - Female Problem
The simplest and most compelling argument for Creation is the male/female pairing issue.
Abstract: If an animal mates with another animal not of its exact species, the result will be a sterile creature (e.g. a horse mating with a donkey produces a sterile mule). If animals of a given species mate and produce an abnormal offspring (i.e. a mutant), it also is sterile. Therefore, how could the macro evolutionary process advance? How could a "mutant" (i.e. advances in form) reproduce? It would first have to be fertile itself. It would have to find a sexually compatible mate who was also fertile during its relatively miniscule life span on the overall evolutionary time scale. Thirdly, their offspring would also have to be fertile and be able to continue the advance. So if single celled animals formed in the primordial soup and they were asexual (not have either male or female characteristics, but reproducing by themselves, how would they advance to a hermaphroditic state (having both male and female sexual organs) and then to the higher orders of animals which almost always have distinct male and female reproductive organs? All in-between states are sterile.
The Details: Evolution can only explain asexual or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic reproduction. Yet we have tens of thousands of the higher orders of species with perfectly matched sexually sets of males and females. And any deviations from a normal union and offspring is sterile (not capable of reproduction). Why? How could evolutionary processes possibly explain what we see all around us today?
In short, the theory of evolution states that lower life evolved over eons into higher life forms. Many lower life forms (generally single cells or plants) are asexual, which is what one would expect if the theory of evolution had any validity. If the evolutionary process was to continue however, we would expect the continuation of asexual characteristics or possibly hermaphroditic characteristics (i.e. having both sets of sexual reproductive organs). Moreover, an evolving hermaphroditic creature should be able to self-fertilize itself. Without asexual characteristics or self-fertilizing hermaphroditic characteristics, how possibly could a mutant entity reproduce? The chance of such a mutant finding an exact complementary mate within its lifespan would be extremely remote given the infrequency of mutations, and especially fertile mutations.
Yet scientific observation reveals that of all the hermaphroditic creatures, only the flatworm is self-fertilizing. Moreover, there are no (or a statistically insignificant number of) creatures that we might suppose or rationalize as evolving. Given the eons of time for evolution to take place,we should expect to see many creatures at all stages of the evolutionary process. But we don't see any missing links to speak of, or creatures in transition. (Once in a while some "scientist" will speculate and publish some "finding" which is generally discarded later)
When we find a mutant in the higher level creatures, it is nearly always sterile. Furthermore, the offspring of cross specie types are always sterile (such as the mule, an offspring of a horse and donkey or the offspring of one type of dolphin mating with another type of dolphin.).
Again, how can possibly sterile creatures reproduce and continue the evolutionary process? They can't!!!
The answer to the male-female problem is pretty obvious. Genesis 5:2 states: "He (God) created them male and female and blessed them."
Creation's Tiny Mysteries
The second most compelling evidence for instantaneous creation pertains to the spherical halos caused by the decay of a radioactive core. These halos are found by the trillions in all Precambrian granites, the foundation stones of the earth's crust. More particularly they are found in biotite, the mica portion of the granite.
As a radioactive particle decays, it progresses through a well know set of elements and isotopes, emitting Beta or Alpha particles of given MeV (Million electron Volts). When alpha particles are emitted by a radioactive speck in a given substrate or material, the alpha particles "run out of energy" a certain distance away from the core and leave a "damage" sphere or ring (when cross-sectioned). See illustrations below. By measuring the diameter of the damaged ring, and also noting the various rings around a core, its fairly straightforward to determine what the exact center core particle was to begin with.
it is easily possible to accurately determine what the composition was of the original radioactive material encased in the substrate.
Following are some illustrations of Polonium halos and photographs of actual cross-sections of halos of those isotopes.
Adapted from Creation's Tiny Mysteries by Robert V.
Gentry. Published by Earth Science Associates, Knoxville, TN.
Robert Gentry, a government laboratory researcher discovered that many halos were caused by original (not secondary) particles of Polonium 210 (210Po), Polonium 214 and Polonium 218.
The half-lives of the Polonium isotopes are as follows:
The radioactivity of these cores are of course long extinct.
Now here's the kicker. How could the Precambrian granites, which scientists state formed over millions of years, possibly contains evidence that would have taken only a few minutes to disappear?
Gentry wondered too, and published his findings in some of the leading scientific journals, hoping there might be some adequate response. But there wasn't. The most common approach of the scientific community was to ignore the evidence and many journals refused to publish his work. There never was a satisfactory answer.
There are only two ways that the phenomena of having a 3-minute half-life particle entrapped in granite could have occurred.
The first option can only have come about through instantaneous creation. The second at some later event (such as the Fall of Adam) at which time the death causing process of radioactivity on earth may have begun.
The first option seems the more reasonable of the two. God spoke and the land (granites included) instantly formed. God left His fingerprint inside these foundation stones and left evidence that will stand forever.
For an excellent and full dissertation on these halos, get Robert Gentry's excellent book, Creation's Tiny Mysteries published by Earth Sciences Associates, Knoxville, Tennessee.
Evidence for a Young Universe
Following is a list of natural phenomena, adapted from an article entitled Evidence for a Young Universe, by D. Russell Humphreys of the Creation Science Fellowship of New Mexico, P.O. Box 10550, Albuquerque, NM 87184.
Current evolutionary science states that our galaxy is around 10 billion years old and our solar system over 5 billion years old. However, most scientific evidence (90% according to Humphreys) indicates an earth age much less than that, thereby lending support to the Biblical account of Creation. It should be noted that the time periods or ages given below are maximum possible ages and could be considerably less. All quotations and emphasis are found in the original article.
And there is much more evidence for a young earth and instant creation as well as a worldwide flood.
The truthfulness of the Genesis account is being verified by the rediscovery of Noah's Ark, the Red Sea crossing site, and the real Mt. Sinai in Arabia. If these "previously held fables" have been proven accurate, then it lends credence to the Genesis account of Creation as well.
For additional information, evidence, graphs and photographs of Noah's Ark, see the Surprising Discoveries section of this website.
Probably the best source of scientific evidence for Creation is the book, In the Beginning by Walter T. Brown. Brown does an excellent job of collating all the evidence from multiple researchers (including Gentry and Humphreys) and presenting it an a concise fashion. Brown also has an excellent theory, revealed in a chapter called the Fountains of the Deep on the process of the worldwide Flood.
The book may be picked up or ordered through a local Christian bookstore, or ordered directly from the:
You may also view much of the book online.
Don't forget to bookmark this bibleplus.org site before you go, or add it
to your favorites.
One commonly used argument against the Creation week as detailed in Genesis is that the sun and moon were created on day four. This was after the creation of plant life on day three. How could the plants survive without sunlight?
Having an engineering background with a logical perspective, I don't really have any problem accepting the Creation week account as reported in Genesis. God is the source of light and life (see John 1:4). Light was created on day one (see Gen. 1:3). The sun is incidental to God's light and while modern man sees the sun as the source of life, it is not -- God is!
Revelation indicates that when God dwells in the New Jerusalem, the sun and moon are not necessary to produce light.
Secondly, since God had created the world from water (2 Peter 3:5, 6), separating the water into the sea and a protective cover over the sky (Gen. 1:6-8), this would have produced a very controlled greenhouse. Subsequently, there would have been minimal climatic changes from season to season prior to the flood. Ron Wyatt's analysis of the petrified wood of the ark formation (see the Surprising Discoveries section) indicated that the wood lacked growth rings. Growth rings are caused by rapid growth during warm wet periods (spring and summer) and slow growth during cold or dry periods (fall and winter). Again this supports that the world was like a controlled greenhouse. Given the heat holding ability of water, there is no reason, why vegetation could not survive one 24-hour day, from day three of Creation to day four when the sun and moon were created. Certainly even now, plants do not die when they don't get the sun for one day, let alone in the presence of God, the source of life.
The upper expanse providing the protective cover collapsed during the Flood, combining its waters with those that "God had placed in storehouses" during the creation process. These were released in the fountains or springs of the deep (see Gen. 7:11, 8:2, Prov. 8:28). The immense amount of water released, upon forming into seas or vaporizing after the flood, primed the hydrodynamic cycle and rain became a common occurrence. With the protective expanse gone, seasons became more pronounced, thus producing the subsequent growth rings found in trees today.
One intriguing theory posed regarding this protective expanse is that this "water blanket" would have been able to absorb the majority of high energy particles caused by solar radiation. (This idea was first proposed to me by Dr. Griffith Thomas). It is these high energy particles that are responsible for the formation of radioactive Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. All living entities, plant or animal life absorb C-14 while they are living, either directly or by eating other plant or animal life. After the plant or animal dies, the C-14 ingested continues to radioactively decay. Scientists commonly measure the age of an object by how much C-14 is still in the fossil. The claim is made that greater the amount of C-14, the more recently the object lived.
However, organisms living prior to the flood would have absorbed little or no C-14 during their lives since there was little or no C-14 in the air that they breathed. Thus using current C-14 dating methods, preflood organisms would give the appearance of dating in the order of "millions" or "billions" of years old. Even the petrified wood from the Noah's Ark rediscovery mentioned earlier dated (using C-14 methods) in the 100s of thousands of years old. Yet we know that this took place less than 5,000 years ago!
After this expanse collapsed, C-14 would have begun forming immediately in the atmosphere. However, it would have taken some time for the C-14 levels to stabilize to where the rate of C-14 formation equaled the rate of C-14 disintegration, i.e. reached an equilibrium point.
After the Flood and during the time that the C-14 levels in the atmosphere were reaching equilibrium, living objects would take in less C-14 than their modern counterparts for the same time period. Thus using the C-14 method on the fossils of these animals would date them in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years old.
Fossils of animals dying after the C-14 level had reached equilibrium would be dated fairly accurately using current methods.
Thus in light of the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood, it is not reasonable to accept the dating methods generally used by evolutionary scientists for dates prior to and for several hundred years after the Flood. And the student of Scripture has a much surer footing on the Word of God than the theories of man.
With regards to an apparent stratification of various life forms, it is also possible that the dinosaurs and "more primitive" creatures could have sank or been buried in reverse proportion to their buoyancy, i.e. denser life forms, such as reptiles and amphibians sank before less dense mammalian life forms. Alternatively, as the fountains of the deep broke open and etched the crack through which they exploded wider and wider, the copious water movement and movement of soils could have "sloshed" back and forth over certain areas, leaving stratified sediment. This might explain the general stratification of various life forms in sedimentary rocks, but it does not exclude the possibility that a horse and dinosaur could be buried together by some other means. Footprints of horses and people have been discovered next to those of dinosaurs. Evolutionary scientists have a hard time explaining this evidence.